Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[Noomi]

Hey Joe, have you noticed that Kosh isn't answering any questions?

 

[JoeB131]

Well put. But let's even go a step further.

What if your child has hemophilia, but your employer is a Jehovah's Witness who is against blood transfusions?

Well damn, your child can just suffer and die, or you can pay for that transfusion yourself because I ain't going against what my Jehovah preaches!

Predictable and boring!

Got anything else?

I don't know, are you actually going to address the point.

your child needs a very expensive blood transfusion to live, one you cannot possibly afford and the hospital won't do without payment. then you find out your boss is a Jehovah's Witness and specifically tailored the insurance policy to not cover them.

How is this good in any universe? But it is now possible under the logic of the Hobby Lobby decision.

Screw science and medicine, my Imaginary Friend in the Sky says it's bad.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey Joe, have you noticed that Kosh isn't answering any questions?

I've never seen Kosh answer a question, not once, ever.

I don't think he understands the concept of a message board.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Joe, have you noticed that Kosh isn't answering any questions?

I've never seen Kosh answer a question, not once, ever.

I don't think he understands the concept of a message board.

Well, that's because you're a "far left Obama drone".

Yeah, I know it ads nothing to the conversation, but it's annoying like a mosquito and it bumps his post count.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yup, we're back in the Dark Ages again (According to the Left) because they lost the right to trounce all over everyone's religious beliefs.

Guess it's back to leeches and blood-letting.


Well, at least we aren't supporting Sharia Law yet. Not yet. Stay tuned.

So let me get this straight.

You are okay with people overruling medical professionals as long as it's based on YOUR ancient book of superstitions, but not THEIR ancient book of superstitions?

Businesses don't have religious beliefs. You guys want to have it both ways. You want to legal protections of incorporation (people can't personally sue the Greens for what Hobby Lobby does, such as selling lead-based toys from China), but then you want to grant them individual rights?

Businesses can grant their employees anything they want to include, like personal days and sick days. You get to decide if what the employer offers meets your personal needs or work some place else that does, it's really just that simple. If a business is run and founded by individuals who follow after a particular belief, like Chic-Fil-A, they can choose to run that company in a manner they choose without being forced by a government who wishes to trump the owners values with ones of their own. As long as we have Freedom, and Freedom of religion as per the First Amendment ... it will continue to be that way. Sorry if your big bully tyrant government doesn't fit in with the United States Constitution, but we have given our Federal government more power than our Constitution and Founders originally intended.

 

[Coyote]

What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Dear [MENTION=19170]Coyote[/MENTION]
by keeping health care and insurance decisions private,
and out of govt hands to dictate to businesses/individuals,
all these scenarios can be prevented.

the whole premise of govt mandating insurance requirements
when these are personal health care decisions is FLAWED at the start.

in court, the lawyers have to stick to arguments they can prove
and cite references for, so they pick what they can argue legalistically.

The whole bill is argued as govt overreaching in its authority to regulate.
and what you list are more examples of the problems that can go wrong.

This is WHY conservatives and Constitutionalists have been arguing to
keep health care decisions private and local to the people; and not
drag federal govt into more and more regulations that cannot police every single case.

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Dear [MENTION=19170]Coyote[/MENTION]
by keeping health care and insurance decisions private,
and out of govt hands to dictate to businesses/individuals,
all these scenarios can be prevented.

the whole premise of govt mandating insurance requirements
when these are personal health care decisions is FLAWED at the start.

in court, the lawyers have to stick to arguments they can prove
and cite references for, so they pick what they can argue legalistically.

The whole bill is argued as govt overreaching in its authority to regulate.
and what you list are more examples of the problems that can go wrong.

This is WHY conservatives and Constitutionalists have been arguing to
keep health care decisions private and local to the people; and not
drag federal govt into more and more regulations that cannot police every single case.

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

You can always treat an individual's health care plan like auto insurance, simply allow that person to purchase the type of coverage they want and carry it with them from employer to employer - separate from (and out of the hands of) that business. Just purchase the plans on your own and leave the business participation to be the provider of your health care out. This way you don't have to worry about what the employer believes, and you can take your health care plan everywhere you go and never be without it. Problem solved.

 

[Plasmaball]

Does your obamacare cover crises counseling?

ill have to look.....are you having a moment buttercup? need to talk to someone?

I like you much better when you're sweet. Well, I'm having a wonderful day. Are you going to celebrate Independence Day?

ill be working...i dont mind.. Its double time and a half...

 

[Silhouette]

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

Perhaps a case could be made that HIV/AIDS treatment is too prohibitively expensive for any employer to afford. An HIV/AIDS patient will typically cost about $500,000 before they die their untimely and horrible death. Gay men make up about around 75-80% of all new HIV cases.

HIV is a disease directly linked to homosexual behavior. Using the anus as an artificial vagina [closeted heterosexuality?] is deadly behavior. The colon evolved to resorb large dissolved particles and fluids as a means of surviving drought and famine. It is the body's recycling organ. Ergo it allows for otherwise screened or flushed substances as with vaginal sex, to quickly absorb directly into the bloodstream. Depositing HIV infected semen or blood into the anus and colon is like injecting straight into the bloodstream. Whereas the vagina evolved to flush out constantly as a safety device against infections from STDs. It's not 100% effective but it is much much more effective at that chore than the colon which essentially puts out a welcome mat for anything passing through, in or out..

So the behavior of anal sex which is endemic to gay men, though others foolishly practice it too, is a behavior that just about any employer should be able to object to as a prospective employee. And it gets worse from there.

I actually had a friend who had to work with a very promiscuous gay guy. The establishment thought it would be cutesy to add him to the staff to appeal to that "certain segment" of the community. His already frail body began obviously wasting away more and more....as he called in sick five times more often than any other employee...or had to go see his "special doctor" who was following "a condition he had". The rest of the employees were scared to death of using the same bathroom as he had. They kept cases of disinfectant around the shared toilet and finaly abandoned the main bathroom altogether and shared a broom-closet bathroom together unbeknownst to him.

Imagine the lawsuit against a company for knowingly hiring a gay guy who looks obvious for HIV? [It would be bad enough just a healthy looking gay guy for their terrible prognosis on contracting HIV as it is]. And lets say all the employees have to share a bathroom. Let's say the HIV-turning-AIDS gay guy has boughts of diarrhea or issues of anal leakage so common among gay men. And let's say one of the gals who works with him and has to use the same bathroom has razor rash on her legs...blood exposure to HIV infected blood, semen or fecal material laced with those substances? And lets say that woman comes down with HIV and wants to sue the company?

Could be some fodder for an attorney to take up at some point?

 

[gallantwarrior]

What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Dear [MENTION=19170]Coyote[/MENTION]
by keeping health care and insurance decisions private,
and out of govt hands to dictate to businesses/individuals,
all these scenarios can be prevented.

the whole premise of govt mandating insurance requirements
when these are personal health care decisions is FLAWED at the start.

in court, the lawyers have to stick to arguments they can prove
and cite references for, so they pick what they can argue legalistically.

The whole bill is argued as govt overreaching in its authority to regulate.
and what you list are more examples of the problems that can go wrong.

This is WHY conservatives and Constitutionalists have been arguing to
keep health care decisions private and local to the people; and not
drag federal govt into more and more regulations that cannot police every single case.

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

I'm guessing you're not OK with government inserting itself between a consumer and companies providing health insurance, then?

 

[Care4all]

What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Dear @Coyote
by keeping health care and insurance decisions private,
and out of govt hands to dictate to businesses/individuals,
all these scenarios can be prevented.

the whole premise of govt mandating insurance requirements
when these are personal health care decisions is FLAWED at the start.

in court, the lawyers have to stick to arguments they can prove
and cite references for, so they pick what they can argue legalistically.

The whole bill is argued as govt overreaching in its authority to regulate.
and what you list are more examples of the problems that can go wrong.

This is WHY conservatives and Constitutionalists have been arguing to
keep health care decisions private and local to the people; and not
drag federal govt into more and more regulations that cannot police every single case.

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

Yep, the ONLY reason employers can deduct health care costs for their employees from their taxes, IS BECAUSE by a law, it IS considered the salary, (c0mpensation) of their employee.

 

[Coyote]

Dear [MENTION=19170]Coyote[/MENTION]
by keeping health care and insurance decisions private,
and out of govt hands to dictate to businesses/individuals,
all these scenarios can be prevented.

the whole premise of govt mandating insurance requirements
when these are personal health care decisions is FLAWED at the start.

in court, the lawyers have to stick to arguments they can prove
and cite references for, so they pick what they can argue legalistically.

The whole bill is argued as govt overreaching in its authority to regulate.
and what you list are more examples of the problems that can go wrong.

This is WHY conservatives and Constitutionalists have been arguing to
keep health care decisions private and local to the people; and not
drag federal govt into more and more regulations that cannot police every single case.

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

You can always treat an individual's health care plan like auto insurance, simply allow that person to purchase the type of coverage they want and carry it with them from employer to employer - separate from (and out of the hands of) that business. Just purchase the plans on your own and leave the business participation to be the provider of your health care out. This way you don't have to worry about what the employer believes, and you can take your health care plan everywhere you go and never be without it. Problem solved.

Except for cost...

 

[Silhouette]

You can always treat an individual's health care plan like auto insurance, simply allow that person to purchase the type of coverage they want and carry it with them from employer to employer - separate from (and out of the hands of) that business. Just purchase the plans on your own and leave the business participation to be the provider of your health care out. This way you don't have to worry about what the employer believes, and you can take your health care plan everywhere you go and never be without it. Problem solved.

Except for cost...

The growing HIV epidemic among young boys and young men ages 13-24 [I thought the population was fixed?] engaging in the homosexual fad will be a deal-breaker in just 10-20 years. Each HIV/AIDS patient costs about $500,000 by the time these young men die. That's going to be unsustainable. We as a nation had better brace ourselves for yet another consequence of promoting a behavior "as race" and as a common value to youngsters with impressionable, spongey minds..

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, the ONLY reason employers can deduct health care costs for their employees from their taxes, IS BECAUSE by a law, it IS considered the salary, (c0mpensation) of their employee.

Yes and imagine if that outlay was suddenly relieved from all businesses, the money and jobs that one act would INSTANTLY pump back into the economy.

The "trickle up" economics would result in an unbelievable new surge in wealth for this nations very rich. And longterm promise for that wealth growing well into the future from a newly-strengthened and crucially-reinforced American economy.. Not to mention what private people having to pay the equivalent of a second mortgage would do to help increase consumption once that outlay was relieved monthly from their burden..

 

[ducks102]

by ruling business should be to discriminate on anything based on their religion.


How is this different from saying anyone who is black can't healthcare because being blacks getting healthcare is a sin in my religion

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

You can always treat an individual's health care plan like auto insurance, simply allow that person to purchase the type of coverage they want and carry it with them from employer to employer - separate from (and out of the hands of) that business. Just purchase the plans on your own and leave the business participation to be the provider of your health care out. This way you don't have to worry about what the employer believes, and you can take your health care plan everywhere you go and never be without it. Problem solved.

Except for cost...

Well I don't know many guys in need of an OBGYN, neither do women require prostate cancer screenings. Of course if you want to carry every health screening plan under the sun, I would agree with you. That's the problem with OBAMACARE, Cadillac coverage plans that's more than you will ever need. Let's try being "realistic" about the coverage you need. Start with a very basic health plan, any additional levels of coverage you want to include for your health care needs you pay extra for that level of coverage. I'm sure if everyone had to contribute some form of out-of-pocket costs, we wouldn't find so many unnecessary ER visits from individuals who feel their scheduled doctor appointment was really too much of an inconvenience for them (for example).

 

[buckeye45_73]

A national corporate chain doesn't have to pay their employees a decent wage or health benefits.

Great ruling, Supreme Court! You've made morons happy.

yeah who wants that freedom stuff....we should have harry reid and nancy pelosi plan our whole lives for us

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, five old men just told the women of America that their employers can dictate what they do with their Lady Parts.

This is a great day for Conservatives.

It tells working women what is in store for them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

No they told Americans that employers and government have no business in their examination rooms. Nice fail though.

Not even close. The employer can now veto a doctor on the best course of treatment if the employer's Imaginary Sky Pixie thinks a certain birth control is like abortion because they don't understand the science.

And oddly, no one with a vagina on the court actually subscribed to that logic for some reason.

If I wasn't laughing so hard after reading this piece of whit opinion I would have to neg you for criminal stupidity.

Let me make a prediction, Obama will write an EO giving closely held corporations the same out he gave to non profits. They will need to file a form stating their objections to the mandate, and what it is they refuse to cover. This will then trigger a clause that causes the insurance companies to cover these contraception methods.

The best part is that you will end up looking like the complete idiot you are because employers won't be the ones telling their employees what they can't have, it will be the government. You will then float along in your delusional bubble that all is right with the world because the government is in charge of all your decisions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Well put. But let's even go a step further.

What if your child has hemophilia, but your employer is a Jehovah's Witness who is against blood transfusions?

The decision specifically said it doesn't cover blood transfusions, but thanks for proving you still jump in and say stupid shit before you actually inform yourself of the relevant facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Show where Hobby Lobby is against someone using BC Pills for medical needs?

They don't support the use of the pill.

Where the fuck did you get that idea, idiot?