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.
Incorrect.
The Constitution authorizes government to indeed regulate pay and other forms of compensation:
Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined both necessary and proper by the Constitution, where wages, working conditions, and policies safeguarding consumers are appropriately implanted as a consequence of the capricious and detrimental acts of businesses who exhibit contempt for employees and consumers alike.
Blah blah blah blah. The Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby will win. ObamaCare imposes demands on them that are clear violations of their First Amendment rights.
They will win, if the Court wrongly decides the case.
What's that thing Rand Paul once said...just because 5 judges said something was constitutional, doesn't mean that it is...
...we can use that argument, correct?
Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;
shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?
So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?
Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;
shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?
12 examples of people getting fired over Facebook | WHAS11.com LouisvilleAccording to a 2009 study by Internet security firm Proofpoint, 8 percent of companies with more than 1,000 employees have fired someone for social media actions -- a figure that is double what was reported in 2008.
No, they are not.So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?
Religious freedom is not confined to churches or the home. The family that owns Hobby Lobby hold that abortion is abhorrent to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and they do not want the federal government forcing them to support or abet any form of abortion.
Sixteen of the Twenty birth control requirements of Obamacare are preventative, but the four that Hobby Lobby objects to are abortifacients.
Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;
shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?
No, they are not.So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?
Religious freedom is not confined to churches or the home. The family that owns Hobby Lobby hold that abortion is abhorrent to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and they do not want the federal government forcing them to support or abet any form of abortion.
Sixteen of the Twenty birth control requirements of Obamacare are preventative, but the four that Hobby Lobby objects to are abortifacients.
Stop lying.
When the High Court hands down its decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby in June, the nation will be all ears. At stake in this landmark case is the ability for family-owned corporations to operate their businesses in accordance with their faith and free from government coercion. Guy breaks down the false arguments advanced by the Left to distort what the case is actually about. For example, the owners of Hobby Lobby already provide 16 of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA to their employees; what they object to is the HHS mandate under Obamacare which compels them to provide the kinds of contraceptives that may induce abortions, thus ending human life.
Hobby Lobby Tea Leaves: What Happened During Today's Oral Arguments? - Daniel Doherty
You're going to have to do better than a slurp-lipped columnists from TownHall.comNo, they are not.Religious freedom is not confined to churches or the home. The family that owns Hobby Lobby hold that abortion is abhorrent to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and they do not want the federal government forcing them to support or abet any form of abortion.
Sixteen of the Twenty birth control requirements of Obamacare are preventative, but the four that Hobby Lobby objects to are abortifacients.
Stop lying.
he's not lying...
When the High Court hands down its decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby in June, the nation will be all ears. At stake in this landmark case is the ability for family-owned corporations to operate their businesses in accordance with their faith and free from government coercion. Guy breaks down the false arguments advanced by the Left to distort what the case is actually about. For example, the owners of Hobby Lobby already provide 16 of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA to their employees; what they object to is the HHS mandate under Obamacare which compels them to provide the kinds of contraceptives that may induce abortions, thus ending human life.
Hobby Lobby Tea Leaves: What Happened During Today's Oral Arguments? - Daniel Doherty
Here?s what you need to know about the Hobby Lobby caseWhat are these cases about?
It all starts with the Affordable Care Act. The law stipulates that employers need to provide health care for their employees that covers all forms of contraception at no cost. However, some for-profit corporations have insisted they should not have to pay for all of these services especially those that conflict with their beliefs.
The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." The question these cases are seeking to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993 that states the Government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." If they do, does the government have a compelling interest to override it in this instance?
Hobby Lobby officials say religious participation is optional for its 28,000 employees. "If they don't believe in God, we love them where they are," says Dianna Bradley, the company's director of chaplain services.
In 2012, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit Washington law firm, called Hobby Lobby's general counsel to inform him of the health law's contraception requirement and to ask whether the company wanted to file a suit.
Mr. Green says he was shocked to discover Hobby Lobby was in fact offering in its insurance plan some of the emergency contraceptives at issue. He called for the insurer to revoke that coverage and signed onto the lawsuit.
The Green family members signed a formal commitment to run the two chains according to Christian religious principles closing on Sunday, advertising their religious orientation, and playing religious music in the stores. The owners and their stores do not object to every part of the contraceptive mandate, but they do object to the use of any drugs or intrauterine devices that in the words of their lawyers end human life after conception.
They have estimated that, if they follow their faith and violate the mandate, they face fines of about $1.3 million a day, or almost $475 million a year. They believe that canceling their health plan to avoid obeying the mandate would put them at a competitive disadvantage with other employers. They do not believe that the government can force them to make such choices.
The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a company based in East Earl, Pennsylvania, that also has operations in other states, making wooden cabinets and wood specialty products. It has about 950 employees.
The company is owned by members of the Hahn family, who are Mennonite Christians. Their faith teaches them that it is wrong to take a human life and to prevent its creation through drugs and intrauterine devices. If the company or its owners were to violate the mandate to adhere to their beliefs, they estimate that they would face financial penalties of about $35 million a year.
At the level of their greatest potential, the two cases raise the profound cultural question of whether a private, profit-making business organized as a corporation can exercise religion and, if it can, how far that is protected from government interference. The question can arise and does, in these cases under either the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause or under a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993.
In a manner of speaking, these issues pose the question a topic of energetic debate in current American political and social discourse of whether corporations are people. The First Amendment protects the rights of the people, and the 1993 law protects the religious rights of persons. Do profit-making companies qualify as either?
Aside from whether corporations do have any religious rights, as such, the cases also raise the question whether the religious rights of their owners real people, who undeniably can act according to their faith are violated by the requirement that their companies obey the contraceptive mandate. Ordinarily, in business law, corporations are separate from their owners, but the owners in these cases resist that notion, at least so far as the owners religious views actually shape the business of their companies.
No one doubts that the owners of the two companies have sincere religious objections to some forms of birth control or that their beliefs do counsel them to avoid any role in providing those services to their employees. The companies and their owners do not have to convince the Court that that is what they believe only whether that belief controls enforcement, or not, of the mandate.
Even if RFRA does apply, the government contends, the contraception mandate does not rise to the level of being a substantial religious burden (which is required if the law is to apply) because the companies are significantly removed from an employees decision to use contraception. After all, they point out, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga do not directly provide contraception services to their workers. Instead, they offer their employees health insurance that covers a huge array of medical services, including birth control. In addition, any decision to use birth control rests with the employees, not the insurance providers or the companies.
Finally, the government argues, the mandate advances a compelling government interest because it is part of a comprehensive reform of the nations health care system, and granting the companies an exemption would deprive some Americans of important benefits provided by that reform. In this case, many women would not receive free contraceptive services, thwarting an important public health goal for the government that all women have adequate access to effective birth control. As for RFRAs requirement that the mandate be enforced in the least restrictive way possible, the government argues that any alternative to the insurance mandate would mean upending the ACAs health care model (which revolves around employment-based health insurance) and replacing it with something different, a highly impractical option, according to the government.
You're going to have to do better than a slurp-lipped columnists from TownHall.comNo, they are not.
Stop lying.
he's not lying...
When the High Court hands down its decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby in June, the nation will be all ears. At stake in this landmark case is the ability for family-owned corporations to operate their businesses in accordance with their faith and free from government coercion. Guy breaks down the false arguments advanced by the Left to distort what the case is actually about. For example, the owners of Hobby Lobby already provide 16 of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA to their employees; what they object to is the HHS mandate under Obamacare which compels them to provide the kinds of contraceptives that may induce abortions, thus ending human life.
Hobby Lobby Tea Leaves: What Happened During Today's Oral Arguments? - Daniel Doherty
Scientific consensus.
American College of Obstetricians and GynecologistS: there is a scientific distinction between a contraceptive and an abortifacient and the scientific record demonstrates that none of the FDA-approved contraceptives covered by the Mandate are abortifacients.
I'll repeat this as many times as it needs to get through.
Plan B, Ella or IUD's are NOT abortifacients.
Hobby Lobby also used to include Plan B & Ella, for years - in their health insurance coverage.
Up until they were obliged to treat their employees the same as all others in large corporations had to in their position.
And I will point out, again, that the FDA, which actually has scientists and doctors who study the issue, disagrees.
And what does the law say? It's the legal definition of abortion as it applies to medications that is relevant here, isn't it?
Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;
shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?
My point was -- people have used the bible to justify discrimination for a very, very long time. Some refuse to accept that was the case,and I really don't understand why.
Incorrect.
..[bloviating redacted]
Pompous.
It's an opinion, jackass.
It's an opinion like believing the Earth is only 6000 years old is an opinion.
So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?
Religious freedom is not confined to churches or the home. The family that owns Hobby Lobby hold that abortion is abhorrent to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and they do not want the federal government forcing them to support or abet any form of abortion.
Sixteen of the Twenty birth control requirements of Obamacare are preventative, but the four that Hobby Lobby objects to are abortifacients.
You're going to have to do better than a slurp-lipped columnists from TownHall.comNo, they are not.
Stop lying.
he's not lying...
When the High Court hands down its decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby in June, the nation will be all ears. At stake in this landmark case is the ability for family-owned corporations to operate their businesses in accordance with their faith and free from government coercion. Guy breaks down the false arguments advanced by the Left to distort what the case is actually about. For example, the owners of Hobby Lobby already provide 16 of the 20 contraceptives approved by the FDA to their employees; what they object to is the HHS mandate under Obamacare which compels them to provide the kinds of contraceptives that may induce abortions, thus ending human life.
Hobby Lobby Tea Leaves: What Happened During Today's Oral Arguments? - Daniel Doherty
Scientific consensus.
American College of Obstetricians and GynecologistS: “there is a scientific distinction between a contraceptive and an abortifacient and the scientific record demonstrates that none of the FDA-approved contraceptives covered by the Mandate are abortifacients.”
To add; Hobby Lobby covered these hormones they reject now - for years -- as part of their plan.
Up until 2012.
So what exactly is the argument that Hobby Lobby is trying to make? Its a business, not a church. What does religion have to do with employees' benefits?
Religious freedom is not confined to churches or the home. The family that owns Hobby Lobby hold that abortion is abhorrent to their sincerely held religious beliefs, and they do not want the federal government forcing them to support or abet any form of abortion.
Sixteen of the Twenty birth control requirements of Obamacare are preventative, but the four that Hobby Lobby objects to are abortifacients.
Nonsense.
Again, health insurance premiums are a form of compensation, used only by the employee at the discretion of the employee.
The requirement is both appropriate and Constitutional, as it in no way impacts the religious practices of the employer, as the employer himself is not compelled to use contraceptives in violation of his religious dogma.
You and others on the right are deceiving no one, this contrivance of religious freedom is only a façade behind which conservatives hostile to the ACA attempt to conceal their actual partisan agenda.
Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;
shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?
Ever here of at will employment or morals clauses?
