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

[koshergrl]

So what is it used to treat?

Endometriosis, to name one example.

Except it is not a birth control

It is a specific hormonal treatment.

Not a birth control pill.

Lol...don't get all specific and stuff, they're talking about "real world" definitions...like wiki..

Oh wait..wiki defines birth control as methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy.....

The very term "birth control" defines what the hormones are being used for. You don't prescribe "birth control" for endometriosis. You prescribe hormones...the same hormones which are given as birth control.

But vagifold and swallow like to be spanked like the little squealers they are....this substitutes for real S&M for them...

 

[Mojo2]

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.

I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.

This site's focus is examples of creeping sharia in America.

Creeping Sharia | the Islamization of America

Mojo2, give us something with a factual and historical narrative not propaganda.

You don't get to invalidate a source that reports the news from other sources until or unless you can prove this source makes a habit of posting inaccurate or unreliable information.

And you can't dismiss this source until or unless you prove the info cited is mostly FALSE propaganda.

Your silly little dodge won't work.

 

[Sallow]

oh, I get it - only people on the government handouts have civil rights. Those who work for a living, give work to others and pay taxes so the bums can survive on the taxpayer's handouts - THOSE people do not have any civil rights.

well, maybe that's your utopian dream, but we are not there yet.

No..you don't get it and quite obviously.

There is a huge difference between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for Profit" religious organization. This case seeks to break that barrier.

It is a very dangerous barrier to break.

it has absolutely no relation to profit - AT ALL>

Government can not violate the employer's First Amendment right. Period.

And I am appalled that you are not in support of the employer covering the fat women's tummy slimming by liposuction - this is a real RIGHT

and a medical emergency - for some

Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.

 

[Vox]

Do you think Hobby Lobby is really going to care if given a special dispensation allowing them to deny coverage?

government violation of the first Amendment right of the employer supersedes your definition of what you would like to be covered or not.

Insurance coverage by employer usually does not provide liposuction and cosmetic procedures - which are much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever be.

I have never seen you, leftards, jumping from your pants on that matter.

You're entitled to your own opinions, as fucked as they may be, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

Birth control is medical treatment, just like viagra and knee replacements are medical treatment. If your argument requires the denial of fact, your argument fails. Period.

neither are you.

Birth control is NOT medical treatment as is not considered as such anywhere in the world.

It is not covered in single payer systems - get used to it

 

[boedicca]

Where does the first amendment say that people who work for or own corporations are exempt?

 

[koshergrl]

No..you don't get it and quite obviously.

There is a huge difference between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for Profit" religious organization. This case seeks to break that barrier.

It is a very dangerous barrier to break.

it has absolutely no relation to profit - AT ALL>

Government can not violate the employer's First Amendment right. Period.

And I am appalled that you are not in support of the employer covering the fat women's tummy slimming by liposuction - this is a real RIGHT

and a medical emergency - for some

Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.

No it's not, you loon. You obviously don't have any better understanding of what constitutes a theocracy than you do of what birth control is.

Go back to school.

 

[Vox]

No..you don't get it and quite obviously.

There is a huge difference between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for Profit" religious organization. This case seeks to break that barrier.

It is a very dangerous barrier to break.

it has absolutely no relation to profit - AT ALL>

Government can not violate the employer's First Amendment right. Period.

And I am appalled that you are not in support of the employer covering the fat women's tummy slimming by liposuction - this is a real RIGHT

and a medical emergency - for some

Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.

No, it does not.

I want my red wine be covered by my employer - and my red wine is much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever imagine to be - because consumption of red wine prevents cardiovascular disease and it also prevents the whole list of gynecological cancers.
Where is my red wine paid by my employer?

 

[Sallow]

Endometriosis, to name one example.

Except it is not a birth control

It is a specific hormonal treatment.

Not a birth control pill.

Lol...don't get all specific and stuff, they're talking about "real world" definitions...like wiki..

Oh wait..wiki defines birth control as methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy.....

The very term "birth control" defines what the hormones are being used for. You don't prescribe "birth control" for endometriosis. You prescribe hormones...the same hormones which are given as birth control.

But vagifold and swallow like to be spanked like the little squealers they are....this substitutes for real S&M for them...

Please.

The second I lower my standards to let a crack ho like you give me a gummer and a swallow..is the day I have to turn in my hot dude card.

And that's not today.

This ain't your realm of expertise.

It's quite obvious you are in above your tiny little head.

Go bake a pie or something.

The law is a little to complex for you.

 

[Sallow]

it has absolutely no relation to profit - AT ALL>

Government can not violate the employer's First Amendment right. Period.

And I am appalled that you are not in support of the employer covering the fat women's tummy slimming by liposuction - this is a real RIGHT

and a medical emergency - for some

Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.

No it's not, you loon. You obviously don't have any better understanding of what constitutes a theocracy than you do of what birth control is.

Go back to school.

The government giving corporate charters to religious groups is a leap toward Theocracy.

You should think about starting school.

 

[Sallow]

it has absolutely no relation to profit - AT ALL>

Government can not violate the employer's First Amendment right. Period.

And I am appalled that you are not in support of the employer covering the fat women's tummy slimming by liposuction - this is a real RIGHT

and a medical emergency - for some

Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.

No, it does not.

I want my red wine be covered by my employer - and my red wine is much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever imagine to be - because consumption of red wine prevents cardiovascular disease and it also prevents the whole list of gynecological cancers.
Where is my red wine paid by my employer?

Seriously?

Now making ridiculous arguments count as some sort of counter point?

Scalia has ALREADY said you cannot use religion as a barrier against following the law.

Let's see if he holds up to that precedent.

 

[manifold]

government violation of the first Amendment right of the employer supersedes your definition of what you would like to be covered or not.

Insurance coverage by employer usually does not provide liposuction and cosmetic procedures - which are much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever be.

I have never seen you, leftards, jumping from your pants on that matter.

You're entitled to your own opinions, as fucked as they may be, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

Birth control is medical treatment, just like viagra and knee replacements are medical treatment. If your argument requires the denial of fact, your argument fails. Period.

neither are you.

Birth control is NOT medical treatment as is not considered as such anywhere in the world.

It is not covered in single payer systems - get used to it

If you need a prescription for it, it absolutely is medical treatment.

Fact, not opinion.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start. Denmark did it. Some countries have just stopped building mosques. Stop passing sharia compliant laws. Stop making buildings sharia compliant. Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.

Ah, but you can't do that under the 1st amendment. Besides, Supreme Court would automatically gun down lol any legislation that proposes such a thing as "unconstitutional". It would never work with this government, no matter the party. Under a new government with new rules, however...

immigration quotas are executive decisions and has been done by every sane country always. Was in place in this country as well until leftardism on steroids took over.

Really? I certainly don't remember those days. Let's put it this way, the first president I really remember is the second Bush. You people are all way older than I am.

Regardless, any decision banning Islam would be viewed as "unconstitutional" by much of the nation today, being that they have to be "politically correct" and other nonsense.

 

[Peterf]

As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.

Exactly.

That great creator of wealth, the free market, is only possible if the same rules apply to all companies, public or private. Twisting, bending or manipulating regulation to try to confirm to company owners alleged 'moral' framework is a crazy idea.

 

[Sallow]

As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.

Exactly.

That great creator of wealth, the free market, is only possible if the same rules apply to all companies, public or private. Twisting, bending or manipulating regulation to try to confirm to company owners alleged 'moral' framework is a crazy idea.

 

[Vox]

Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.

No, it does not.

I want my red wine be covered by my employer - and my red wine is much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever imagine to be - because consumption of red wine prevents cardiovascular disease and it also prevents the whole list of gynecological cancers.
Where is my red wine paid by my employer?

Seriously?

Now making ridiculous arguments count as some sort of counter point?

Scalia has ALREADY said you cannot use religion as a barrier against following the law.

Let's see if he holds up to that precedent.

Yes, seriously.

For some idiotic reason you and other leftards here consider birth control to be a "medical care" which it never have been, never will be and is not at present as well.

It is a lifestyle choice. For the pleasure of sex.

drinking red wine is much more a preventive medical treatment, as it has shown in numerous studies its prophylaxis against cardiovascular problems and against gynecological cancers ( some of them).
So the lifestyle option and pleasure of drinking red wine should be mandatory coverage before anybody ever considers birth control to be a "medical care".

But it is not a political lever of control, just a beneficial pleasure, therefore it is not hyped by the left and you and others are not brainwashed constantly about something being "medical care" when it is not.

Like Goebbels taught - if a lie is repeated enough times, some will wholeheartedly believe it. And the lie about birth control being a "medical treatment" is as much a classic Goebbels lie as it possibly can ever be.

 

[Vox]

As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.

Exactly.

That great creator of wealth, the free market, is only possible if the same rules apply to all companies, public or private. Twisting, bending or manipulating regulation to try to confirm to company owners alleged 'moral' framework is a crazy idea.

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

 

[Vox]

Ah, but you can't do that under the 1st amendment. Besides, Supreme Court would automatically gun down lol any legislation that proposes such a thing as "unconstitutional". It would never work with this government, no matter the party. Under a new government with new rules, however...

immigration quotas are executive decisions and has been done by every sane country always. Was in place in this country as well until leftardism on steroids took over.

Really? I certainly don't remember those days. Let's put it this way, the first president I really remember is the second Bush. You people are all way older than I am.

Regardless, any decision banning Islam would be viewed as "unconstitutional" by much of the nation today, being that they have to be "politically correct" and other nonsense.

no, you do not, because it was started way before anyone of the board members were even planned.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/

the quota system was abolished in 1965.
however, I might have been wrong that it was done by executive branch, because the quotas were instituted by a law and were abolished by law.
Which means that reinstatement of quotas should not be considered contrary to the Constitution as it was there for 40 years ( first started in 1925)

 

[dblack]

As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.

Exactly.

That great creator of wealth, the free market, is only possible if the same rules apply to all companies, public or private. Twisting, bending or manipulating regulation to try to confirm to company owners alleged 'moral' framework is a crazy idea.

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?

 

[Vox]

You're entitled to your own opinions, as fucked as they may be, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

Birth control is medical treatment, just like viagra and knee replacements are medical treatment. If your argument requires the denial of fact, your argument fails. Period.

neither are you.

Birth control is NOT medical treatment as is not considered as such anywhere in the world.

It is not covered in single payer systems - get used to it

If you need a prescription for it, it absolutely is medical treatment.

Fact, not opinion.

Nope, it is not. you are incredibly ignorant as you think your opinion is a fact
prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment

 

[Vox]

Exactly.

That great creator of wealth, the free market, is only possible if the same rules apply to all companies, public or private. Twisting, bending or manipulating regulation to try to confirm to company owners alleged 'moral' framework is a crazy idea.

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.
Or for any wedding, for that matter - it's the Pandora's box - the government imposing what lifestyle choice of the employee the employer has to pay for.
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 of it.