Tokkemon Posted July 2, 2014 Share #1 Posted July 2, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html Let the firestorm begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 2, 2014 Share #2 Posted July 2, 2014 The Supreme Court says we deserve free Viagra, but not free birth control. Astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traingoat Posted July 2, 2014 Share #3 Posted July 2, 2014 They supply 16 out 20 and the 4 they complained about on moral grounds the court sided with them. Its a proper decision The company is owned by a religious family and even though for profit it is run on religious principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted July 2, 2014 Author Share #4 Posted July 2, 2014 The Supreme Court says we deserve free Viagra, but not free birth control. Astounding. Not actually true but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted July 2, 2014 Share #5 Posted July 2, 2014 i think this opens up a can of worms, the Jehovah's witness(against blood tests), Scientoligists (against psychatric meds) , and christian scientists( against just going to the doctor and any treatment) can also claim objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traingoat Posted July 3, 2014 Share #6 Posted July 3, 2014 Not really as if you think how many corps for profit are predominantly owned by a religious group not that many. If you go to work for the Watchtower they are telling you up front we don't cover this and the choice is yours. If you place a hold on freedom of religion then you have freedom of worship which is another animal entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 3, 2014 Share #7 Posted July 3, 2014 Not actually true but whatever. Yes, actually true. Vasectomies and Viagra are covered, birth control is not. i think this opens up a can of worms, the Jehovah's witness(against blood tests), Scientoligists (against psychatric meds) , and christian scientists( against just going to the doctor and any treatment) can also claim objections. It does open up a can of worms. It's an immensely idiotic and sexist ruling. Not really as if you think how many corps for profit are predominantly owned by a religious group not that many. If you go to work for the Watchtower they are telling you up front we don't cover this and the choice is yours. If you place a hold on freedom of religion then you have freedom of worship which is another animal entirely. What are you saying? It's not corporations saying "we don't cover this," it's government-mandated health insurance. And what are talking about with "a hold on freedom of religion then you have freedom of worship"? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traingoat Posted July 3, 2014 Share #8 Posted July 3, 2014 What are you saying? It's not corporations saying "we don't cover this," it's government-mandated health insurance. And what are talking about with "a hold on freedom of religion then you have freedom of worship"? What? I run my business by my religious principles not what the government dictates. Religion doesn't stop at the doors of the church which is freedom of worship which the government tried and got knocked down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted July 3, 2014 Share #9 Posted July 3, 2014 No one is being denined acess to anything. Read the decisions people, it's not hard. They post them on the SCOUTS website. The owners do not need to pay for those 4 specific things, but that DOES NOT mean these women are being denied anything. You are making a jump in your reasoning that's not true. They still get those things cost free, as there are ways around the costs the government have already whipped up for religiously operated non-profits. this ruling only involves #1 Corporations that are privately owned and closely held (which means the stock is not traded publicly, you're not going to find Hobby Lobby on the NYSE), and owned by people who object on sincerely held religious ground to abortions. #2 the four items from the HHS's list the owners object to. Nothing else. This is not an attack on women as these women would see no change, no effect, at all. Mind you, half the US's working age population don't even have the health plan in question. 34 million work for companies with less that 50 employees and another 1/3rd plus have pre-existing healthcare plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted July 10, 2014 Share #10 Posted July 10, 2014 No one is being denined acess to anything. Read the decisions people, it's not hard. They post them on the SCOUTS website. The owners do not need to pay for those 4 specific things, but that DOES NOT mean these women are being denied anything. You are making a jump in your reasoning that's not true. They still get those things cost free, as there are ways around the costs the government have already whipped up for religiously operated non-profits. this ruling only involves #1 Corporations that are privately owned and closely held (which means the stock is not traded publicly, you're not going to find Hobby Lobby on the NYSE), and owned by people who object on sincerely held religious ground to abortions. #2 the four items from the HHS's list the owners object to. Nothing else. This is not an attack on women as these women would see no change, no effect, at all. Mind you, half the US's working age population don't even have the health plan in question. 34 million work for companies with less that 50 employees and another 1/3rd plus have pre-existing healthcare plans. If you come out of this only proudly exclaiming "no one is being denied anything" and totally missing that this is an issue of care being PROVIDED, I recommend you read the decision. "It's not hard. They post them on the SCOTUS website." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.