SlyPokerDog, I have not seen that particular graphic, but have heard the joke. A woman, a corporation, and a fertilized egg are in a room together. Which of the three is not a person (the woman, of course). Contraception is hardest to get for the young, the poor, the small town/rural. Any barriers make it harder. Saying you can find a place that sells it is irrelevant. Justice Ginsburg in fact was on the money when she pointed out the decision does favor some religions over others. The court specifically said religious objections to medical treatment cannot prevent coverage in health plans except for birth control. Jehovah's Witnesses are just as "sincere" in their objection to blood transfusions as Catholics to birth control; in fact, far more so, since most Catholics actually do use birth control. But only the Catholic employer can impose religious views? And no one can explain why "religious freedom" only applies to controlling what women do? Not to mention the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby paying for contraception for years without protests until it became an "Obamacare" mandate, and buying products made in China with their forced abortion policy. Eastoff was spot on. This bizarre idea that private for profit corporations have a religion and that this "religion" takes precedence over the religious views of thosuands of employees, that they can impose their "religion" on all employees and that this is "freedom" literally overturns more than 200 years of legal precedent. I was going to write about the bizarro world of the Supreme Court but that's really another thread and I do have to get some work done. That's what they pay me for. And my employer covers contraception. So I'll depart with this question for MarAzul and others who claim corporations have "religious freedom": If your boss informed you that he (I use the male term purposely) was a devout Muslim and that all men must grow beards and all women cover their hair, would you accept that your boss's religious freedom took precedence over yours?
no man, not at all. This was done in front of my mother while she was awake and alert. I the past few years I have lost several family members and have been the first to not want them to suffer. But to have some fucking ghoul try to coherence me into consenting to their program against my mothers wishes is pure bullshit. Oh and to clarify, they are only supposed to ask you once, not hammer the subject into the fucking ground.
Lol, what? They aren't saying you cannot buy contraceptives. They are saying employers don't have to provide medical coverage that covers it. My insurance doesn't cover Ny Quil. I have been successful purchasing it every time I've attempted to. Well, once I turned 18.
It is incredibly uninformed and wrong to spew that corporations are people. They are a voluntary association of people, that much is true. In one ruling by SCOTUS, the court said that corporations are Persons with respect to the 14th amendment. That is, they deserve equal treatment under the law. SCOTUS got that right, or states could discriminate against black owned businesses. Democrats and their mindless parrots get it wrong and keep repeating it. Only a fool says stuff like "corporations are people" as if there's something bad about it. Otherwise, corporations are legal vehicles to encourage investing. Without the liability limits they provide, nobody would be able to raise or pool money - the risk of losing all you own in a lawsuit because you invested $1 would be discouraging. That like minded religious folk might form a corporation is hardly surprising and is perfectly legal. If you think a woman can't afford the $9 for The Pill and there's no Walmart near enough, get off your ass and buy and deliver the pills to her yourself.
WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah. Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty. The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote: while it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!” Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.” http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-co...s-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/
Easy, I have a beard. Had the beard for many years. But then more to your point, If a Muslim made demands on me, and I can easily imagine that happening, bye bye! I don't work for that sucker. Probably don't right off the get go because I have worked with many, and we do not get along at all. I ran an International team of consultants/project leaders. which occasionally included Muslims from various countries on temporary assignment. One time after a task force of these guys completed a rather long task, I wanted to take the team to lunch and frivolity for the afternoon and so I did. As we all were leaving the one from Pakistan caught my eye, it appeared he was not coming along. I ask him if he was coming? He responded, "You don't expect me to eat with you, do you?" I could go on with many more tales, but too much typing. The ruling about Hobby lobby and Conestoga was not about corporations having a religious moral compass. On the contrary it ruled that a "Closely held Corporation" can and that sure seems logical to me. A family owned business or few owners is vastly different than GM with millions of stock holders of all faiths and no faith.
The Supreme Court clarifies. It is about ALL birth control, not just the methods Hobby Lobby (BTW, when was Hobby Lobby baptized? What church does he attend? Was he circumsized?) claims are really abortion even if they aren't: So, courts who have said corporations can ban all forms of birth control are upheld; those who said corporations cannot control employees religious and health decisions are ordered to "reconsider". Alito added that expecting Hobby Lobby to actually defend their position that birth control = abortion in the face of factual evidence to the contrary was unfair to Hobby Lobby. Because Jesus. There are currently 71 other corporate persons who are in court trying to keep sluts from getting slutty slut birth control. The include such religious congregations and a military contractor, auto repair shop, and Eden Organics. It's the sluts, stupid.
I don't use that word, too crude for me. The rest of your post seems like a rambling rant, so I have no comment.
Isn't your mocking a little fallacious? Investments in the employees 401K is not making the owners of Hobby Lobby (the me) money. It is investments that are making the employees of Hobby Lobby money or at least the goal. Shoot, a 401k is more often than not controlled by the person that owns it, the employee. You would not expect Hobby Lobby to some how prevent the employee from investing in what ever their investment advisors recommend, would you?
The employer is matching their contribution, but you make a good point about my poor choice of the word "me." I will still stand that 401k benefits for employees from the employer are benefiting off the same times of birth control that the employer doesn't want to include in health benefits.
Yes, so the employer simply does not want to pay for insurance that covers the use of a produce. Paying for and enabling the "use" of a produce is objectionable to them in their personal religious beliefs. Other people investing in the company that make the product in question is not the business of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Makes complete sense to me.
What the heck do you disagree with? Should they force the employees not to invest in these companies?
What the heck do you disagree with? Should Hobby Lobby prevent the employees from investing in these companies? Man, That would be draconian! Sorry it didn't show up for so long I thought I forgot to hit the post button.
I agree they shouldn't dictate the pension fund investments. I also believe they shouldn't dictate how an employee uses the insurance benefits they *earned*. These benefits are not "government hand-outs" or something. This is not a charity. The employees worked for those benefits and put money in the company's pocket with their labor. This is part of their compensation. You will no doubt call it "socialism", but I would like to see companies use "menu" plans for their employees. If employee "A" chooses to drop eyeglass coverage for more dental - that's fine. If they choose family planning over hearing aids or some other service, that's fine too. Leave the employer out of it!
No I won't call it Socialism. A lot of companies do it just like you say, including this one as I understand it. All but four birth control item or prescription are covered. The Constitution is quite clear that no law should be passed that interferes with Their beliefs, not yours, not mine, their beliefs. The Constitution is also very clear in that nowhere in the whole document does it mention that Health insurance is the business of Congress or the executives. So a State can and some do tell an employer what coverage he must provide. So I would say the whole affair does not comply with the Constitution. It looks as though it will get trimmed back until it is gone, then it will comply. If Obama had assessed the situation properly, he would have had someone introduce this bill as a Constitutional amendment after he had sold the idea to the American people. Pretty damn foolish simply ignore the Constitution and forge on in spite of it.
Today a group of VERY Christian ministers wrote a letter to President Obama. In light of the Hobby Lobby ruling, they said they should be able to refuse to hire gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people because our existence violates their religious freedom. Funny, not a word in the Bible about birth control. Quite a lot about loving thy neighbor and do unto others and give all that thou hast to the poor and feed the hungry and stuff like that, but Christians, so called, are totally focused on what consenting individuals do sexually.
