Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And?
People who dont work for Google dont get free bus rides and massages. So everyone who doesnt work for Google is disadvantaged on your view. You wanna pass a law?
There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.
I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?
And the court ruled that certain regulations aren't within the parameters of the law. Yet, here you are screeching about religious imposition and disadvantage. Do you even know how fucking foolish you look right now?
Did you, or did you not claim that this was imposition of religious belief on the part of HL? Yes, yes you did. Then you changed over to "disadvantage".
Come on folks.
The Govt is here to help. Yeah. Right.
The only people they seem to help are the freeloaders at other peoples expense.
HL won their case in the SC. Doubt the Dems can do anything about it.
The Dems own the ACA. They passed that little jewel all on their lonesome and I sure hope those that hate it remember that factoid come 16.
Actually, this decision is a disaster for the Republicans. Once again, they are having a "Todd Akin" moment of clueless old white men talking about women's naughty bits.
This never ends well for you guys.
Isn't the real issue at it's most basic whether religious beliefs should trump the law of the land?
Please feel free to point out where I disagree with the court ruling as to HL's right not to fund certain types of contraception.There's no requirement for employers to provide free bus rides and massages...so no one is disadvantaged if they don't get them.
I know it's difficult...I simply can't dumb it down any more than that.
Maybe if someone else here is fluent in Moran...?
Right. And there is no lawful requirement for an employer to provide something that violates his religious conscience.
Again, you prove my point. The mandate, which was a regulation from HHS was illegal based on federal law.
You can't, because I haven't.
I won't because it's the SCOTUS and they know what they're talking about.
Nevertheless, my point stands as to the disadvantage suffered by these employees because of the ruling.
Nuanced points of view are really a waste of time aren't they?
Did you, or did you not claim that this was imposition of religious belief on the part of HL? Yes, yes you did. Then you changed over to "disadvantage".
No, I don't think so.
Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.
A Senate aide told HuffPost that the bill will be introduced as soon as Tuesday night and go directly to the Senate floor as early as next week, without being considered in committee.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services," Udall said in a statement. "My common-sense proposal will keep women's private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what is best for you and your family."
MORE: Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision
Sounds good. Get it done.
Why is it that the conservatives are against contraception being provided for under healthcare plans, yet are perfectly happy in allowing Viagra?
Why is it Communists are against civil liberty? Sorry comrade, you don't get to dictate the religious views of others - deal with the horror.
deal with the horror .... deal with the Law
Isn't the real issue at it's most basic whether religious beliefs should trump the law of the land?
Please feel free to point out where I disagree with the court ruling as to HL's right not to fund certain types of contraception.Right. And there is no lawful requirement for an employer to provide something that violates his religious conscience.
Again, you prove my point. The mandate, which was a regulation from HHS was illegal based on federal law.
You can't, because I haven't.
I won't because it's the SCOTUS and they know what they're talking about.
Nevertheless, my point stands as to the disadvantage suffered by these employees because of the ruling.
Nuanced points of view are really a waste of time aren't they?
So, did the court make a ruling that this was religious imposition on the part of HL, or did they rule in favor of HL's right to religious freedom? Which is it? Do you agree with the court, who you initially claimed trumped the law of the land, or didn't they?
Come on folks.
The Govt is here to help. Yeah. Right.
The only people they seem to help are the freeloaders at other peoples expense.
HL won their case in the SC. Doubt the Dems can do anything about it.
The Dems own the ACA. They passed that little jewel all on their lonesome and I sure hope those that hate it remember that factoid come 16.
Actually, this decision is a disaster for the Republicans. Once again, they are having a "Todd Akin" moment of clueless old white men talking about women's naughty bits.
This never ends well for you guys.
Did you, or did you not claim that this was imposition of religious belief on the part of HL? Yes, yes you did. Then you changed over to "disadvantage".
No, I don't think so.
Have you found it yet?
Isn't the real issue at it's most basic whether religious beliefs should trump the law of the land?
Please feel free to point out where I disagree with the court ruling as to HL's right not to fund certain types of contraception.
You can't, because I haven't.
I won't because it's the SCOTUS and they know what they're talking about.
Nevertheless, my point stands as to the disadvantage suffered by these employees because of the ruling.
Nuanced points of view are really a waste of time aren't they?
So, did the court make a ruling that this was religious imposition on the part of HL, or did they rule in favor of HL's right to religious freedom? Which is it? Do you agree with the court, who you initially claimed trumped the law of the land, or didn't they?
They ruled that HL's rights to religious freedom trumped the law.
How is that so hard to understand?
Where on earth is that Moran interpreter?
Why is it that the conservatives are against contraception being provided for under healthcare plans, yet are perfectly happy in allowing Viagra?
Why is it Communists are against civil liberty? Sorry comrade, you don't get to dictate the religious views of others - deal with the horror.
deal with the horror .... deal with the Law
Senate Democrats are expediting legislation that would override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case and compel for-profit employers to cover the full range of contraception for their employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which is co-authored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would ban for-profit companies from refusing to cover any federally guaranteed health benefits for religious reasons, including all 20 forms of contraception detailed in the Affordable Care Act. It would preserve the contraception mandate's current exemption for churches and accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, such as certain hospitals and schools.
A Senate aide told HuffPost that the bill will be introduced as soon as Tuesday night and go directly to the Senate floor as early as next week, without being considered in committee.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision opened the door to unprecedented corporate intrusion into our private lives. Coloradans understand that women should never have to ask their bosses for a permission slip to access common forms of birth control or other critical health services," Udall said in a statement. "My common-sense proposal will keep women's private health decisions out of corporate board rooms, because your boss shouldn't be able to dictate what is best for you and your family."
MORE: Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision
Sounds good. Get it done.
Isn't the real issue at it's most basic whether religious beliefs should trump the law of the land?
Please feel free to point out where I disagree with the court ruling as to HL's right not to fund certain types of contraception.
You can't, because I haven't.
I won't because it's the SCOTUS and they know what they're talking about.
Nevertheless, my point stands as to the disadvantage suffered by these employees because of the ruling.
Nuanced points of view are really a waste of time aren't they?
So, did the court make a ruling that this was religious imposition on the part of HL, or did they rule in favor of HL's right to religious freedom? Which is it? Do you agree with the court, who you initially claimed trumped the law of the land, or didn't they?
They ruled that HL's rights to religious freedom trumped the law.
How is that so hard to understand?
Where on earth is that Moran interpreter?
Why is it that the conservatives are against contraception being provided for under healthcare plans, yet are perfectly happy in allowing Viagra?
Sounds good. Get it done.
It will go nowhere, as it is illegal legislation.
It's your fault this happened, by the way.
This thread is a freaking mind bender. Left wing whackos have gone off the deep end.
What's cracking me up thru this debate is that feminazis are demanding to be taken care of. I'm an old school feminist.
The last thing on the planet I fought for when the movement first started was to have someone else take care of me. Good grief. That's what we fought against.
We wanted equality so we could make our own way. Unreal.
