Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[dblack]

except birth control is NOT a medical treatment and can not be forced under the medical necessity agenda

The employer can drop entire coverage if forced to do something against their will

it is pretty easy to do - and thousands already have dropped the coverage entirely.

It's a free market, you know. And the third law of Newton's physics

Agree with all of this, but then, that makes it pretty much not a first amendment concern, right?

It is a First Amendment concern if the government wants to impose the requirement to pay for something which is against employers religious beliefs.
Next thing you know it would be requirement to pay for the gay wedding of your employee.

there is no end if one considers a government pushing it's view of what the employer should do for his employees as a mandate.
might as well start with abolishing private property already - because THIS is the start to it.

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

 

[Vox]

Agree with all of this, but then, that makes it pretty much not a first amendment concern, right?

It is a First Amendment concern if the government wants to impose the requirement to pay for something which is against employers religious beliefs.
Next thing you know it would be requirement to pay for the gay wedding of your employee.

there is no end if one considers a government pushing it's view of what the employer should do for his employees as a mandate.
might as well start with abolishing private property already - because THIS is the start to it.

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

Non religious do as well. the freedom of speech is in the same Amendment and the government can not force an employer to pay for the employee porn subscription

And I agree that the right to act on ones fundamental values is much broader than religious freedoms, but it is still under the same First Amendment.

It is simply here in the dimension of the religious belief, but as I have stated above the mandate to cover pron subscription for the employee would fell into the same category - it is a lifestyle option, but that is already the freedom of speech category.

 

[dblack]

It is a First Amendment concern if the government wants to impose the requirement to pay for something which is against employers religious beliefs.
Next thing you know it would be requirement to pay for the gay wedding of your employee.

there is no end if one considers a government pushing it's view of what the employer should do for his employees as a mandate.
might as well start with abolishing private property already - because THIS is the start to it.

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

Non religious do as well. the freedom of speech is in the same Amendment and the government can not force an employer to pay for the employee porn subscription

And I agree that the right to act on ones fundamental values is much broader than religious freedoms, but it is still under the same First Amendment.

It is simply here in the dimension of the religious belief, but as I have stated above the mandate to cover pron subscription for the employee would fell into the same category - it is a lifestyle option, but that is already the freedom of speech category.

So you agree that the mandate for contraception should be abolished altogether, rather than simply giving an exemption to those with a religious objection?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?

On the face of it, I agree.

But, do we really want to allow employers to decide what medical treatment your insurance pays for? In the past, we have allowed insurance companies to dictate health care. Both are wrong and should not be ignored. And, the ACA should not allow exemptions.

Remember, being "good christians" and all, HL actually pays very little in health insurance benefits. Like WalMart, they fill their stores with shit from China, they screw over their store help with crappy pay and pay very little in the way of any benefits at all. Only the top execs get decent pay and bennies.

This is not about HL paying for birth control. This is is never about any company paying for birth control. lushbo used that asssinine excuse to get the rws all up in their usual hating so they wouldn't notice what is really happening. All the screeching lies about Sandra Fluke was the perfect smoke screen to hide behind and, amazingly, the rw's STILL believe those lies.

I can't believe people really didn't see this coming when Lord Romney made his gaffe with "corporations are people too, my friend".

Corporations don't make that determination, the people who buy the insurance do, all the corporations decide is what they will pay for. If the men that work for them want to get pap smears, they have the option of choosing a plan with different benefits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.

The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?

Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?

Nope, it can't.

educate yourself before showing your ignorance to the world.

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

Thanks for displaying your complete ignorance.

Tell me something, why do you have to base every argument you make on lies?

 

[Vox]

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

Non religious do as well. the freedom of speech is in the same Amendment and the government can not force an employer to pay for the employee porn subscription

And I agree that the right to act on ones fundamental values is much broader than religious freedoms, but it is still under the same First Amendment.

It is simply here in the dimension of the religious belief, but as I have stated above the mandate to cover pron subscription for the employee would fell into the same category - it is a lifestyle option, but that is already the freedom of speech category.

So you agree that the mandate for contraception should be abolished altogether, rather than simply giving an exemption to those with a religious objection?

yes.
I actually think the whole healthcare mandate should be abolished

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

GOOD.

Medical procedures as abortion are in direct violation of the religious beliefs and should not be forced to be paid for by an employer.

You don't like the policy of the employer - you change the job.

You folks are funny.

The whole civil rights movement was about corporations denying the right of minorities to have access to goods.

It started at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

Corporations aren't entirely private either. They are in fact, given their status by government charter and enjoy a plethora of rights and services because of it.

For profits are obligated to follow the law. Not laws they like.

They were called Jim Crow laws for a reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You folks are funny.

The whole civil rights movement was about corporations denying the right of minorities to have access to goods.

It started at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

Corporations aren't entirely private either. They are in fact, given their status by government charter and enjoy a plethora of rights and services because of it.

For profits are obligated to follow the law. Not laws they like.

It is actually ia civil right issue - for the forced employer - in validation his/her BASIC human right for the freedom of religious beliefs and not to be forced by the government to act in the violation's of his/her beliefs.

Scalia basically has already ruled on this. But given what a horrible justice he is, I can see him ruling against himself.

In any case..an entity like a "for profit" cannot force their religious views on the individuals they employ nor discriminate against people of different religions.

At present, that is the law.

Even better.

The issue was never raised before because the courts have a funny rule which prohibits anyone from challenging a law before it goes into affect, or has even been written down. This particular mandate was nothing more than a gleam in the eyes of progressives until after the ruling that rationalized Obamacare was handed down.

 

[manifold]

prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment

such as...?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Agree with all of this, but then, that makes it pretty much not a first amendment concern, right?

It is a First Amendment concern if the government wants to impose the requirement to pay for something which is against employers religious beliefs.
Next thing you know it would be requirement to pay for the gay wedding of your employee.

there is no end if one considers a government pushing it's view of what the employer should do for his employees as a mandate.
might as well start with abolishing private property already - because THIS is the start to it.

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

I have already pointed out, more than once, that all beliefs get that protection. If they didn't you wouldn't be able to stand on a street corner and declare that all religions should be outlawed, and that anyone who believes in magical sky fairies should be deported.

 

[Vox]

prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment

such as...?

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

 

[dblack]

It is a First Amendment concern if the government wants to impose the requirement to pay for something which is against employers religious beliefs.
Next thing you know it would be requirement to pay for the gay wedding of your employee.

there is no end if one considers a government pushing it's view of what the employer should do for his employees as a mandate.
might as well start with abolishing private property already - because THIS is the start to it.

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

I have already pointed out, more than once, that all beliefs get that protection. If they didn't you wouldn't be able to stand on a street corner and declare that all religions should be outlawed, and that anyone who believes in magical sky fairies should be deported.

The question is whether such a belief should be protected from overreaching laws. If your belief that insurance coverage for contraception goes against the laws of God should get such protection, then so should my belief that it's a waste of money. If not, then neither should.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't?

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.

I have already pointed out, more than once, that all beliefs get that protection. If they didn't you wouldn't be able to stand on a street corner and declare that all religions should be outlawed, and that anyone who believes in magical sky fairies should be deported.

The question is whether such a belief should be protected from overreaching laws. If your belief that insurance coverage for contraception goes against the laws of God should get such protection, then so should my belief that it's a waste of money. If not, then neither should.

That is only a question if you assume over reaching laws are valid.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?

Nope, it can't.

educate yourself before showing your ignorance to the world.

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

Ah, but what if the courts rule against Hobby Lobby? What then? I'll tell you what will happen; all those bad things you mentioned above, but reversed and against religion.

 

[dblack]

I have already pointed out, more than once, that all beliefs get that protection. If they didn't you wouldn't be able to stand on a street corner and declare that all religions should be outlawed, and that anyone who believes in magical sky fairies should be deported.

The question is whether such a belief should be protected from overreaching laws. If your belief that insurance coverage for contraception goes against the laws of God should get such protection, then so should my belief that it's a waste of money. If not, then neither should.

That is only a question if you assume over reaching laws are valid.

It's a question regardless. Care to answer it?

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Anybody care to hear a solution that does not offend people's 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion and at the same time saves this nation economically?

Repeal Obamacare.

No more worthless websites, loss of freedom, loss of money, stealing of rights, etc., etc., etc.

Funny how the best solutions are the ones right under everyone's nose, isn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The question is whether such a belief should be protected from overreaching laws. If your belief that insurance coverage for contraception goes against the laws of God should get such protection, then so should my belief that it's a waste of money. If not, then neither should.

That is only a question if you assume over reaching laws are valid.

It's a question regardless. Care to answer it?

You want me to assume that left is purple just to answer a senseless question?

 

[dblack]

Nope, it can't.

educate yourself before showing your ignorance to the world.

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

Ah, but what if the courts rule against Hobby Lobby? What then? I'll tell you what will happen; all those bad things you mentioned above, but reversed and against religion.

The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

Ah, but what if the courts rule against Hobby Lobby? What then? I'll tell you what will happen; all those bad things you mentioned above, but reversed and against religion.

The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

When are you going to learn the difference between Obama handing down an exception to the law because it helps him politically, like he did when he declared that unions are exempt from the requirements of the law last month, and the courts telling him that he cannot rewrite the Constitution simply because it is politically advantageous to him?

One of those is exactly what you claim you don't like, the government handing out favors, the other is the government being prevented from railroading people. yet, despite the fact that they are completely opposite, you have decided that they both expand the power of the government.