Justices: Can't Make Employers Cover ...

Justices: Can't Make Employers Cover Contraception

There are 341 comments on the National Public Radio story from Jun 30, 2014, titled Justices: Can't Make Employers Cover Contraception. In it, National Public Radio reports that:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Public Radio.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#173 Jul 4, 2014
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a whacked out sicko right winger who believes that owning slaves is just find and dandy. This is the right wing packed supreme court setting another precedent that corporations do not have to obey any laws. They are above the law and can use any excuse, no matter how ridiculous to void the law.
So you tell me why you believe those who work, should not have any of the fruit of their labor? What is so scary about the middle class that you have to have it destroyed?
that is le jimbo you are talking to...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#174 Jul 4, 2014
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a whacked out sicko right winger who believes that owning slaves is just find and dandy. This is the right wing packed supreme court setting another precedent that corporations do not have to obey any laws. They are above the law and can use any excuse, no matter how ridiculous to void the law.
So you tell me why you believe those who work, should not have any of the fruit of their labor? What is so scary about the middle class that you have to have it destroyed?
funny you should say such a thing, aren't you usually looking to take other people's money to subsidize your failed life?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#175 Jul 4, 2014
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a whacked out sicko right winger who believes that owning slaves is just find and dandy. This is the right wing packed supreme court setting another precedent that corporations do not have to obey any laws. They are above the law and can use any excuse, no matter how ridiculous to void the law.
So you tell me why you believe those who work, should not have any of the fruit of their labor? What is so scary about the middle class that you have to have it destroyed?
A ruling that employers don't have to adhere to a mandate that violates their religious beliefs is denying anybody the fruits of their labor? Slavery?

If American citizens, by law, are required to purchase something they can't afford, can barely afford or simply do not want is not denying somebody the fruits of their labor, I don't know what is.

Government should govern, not take over industry or dictate the benefits they deem necessary to provide their employees. If the SC allowed this ridiculous issue to pass, then what's stopping government from forcing employers to provide ten weeks of vacation to each of their employees? Or perhaps force them to pay for the rental insurance of their employees, house insurance or car insurance?

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#176 Jul 5, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL..that might be the dumbest, most disingenuous bit of idiocy you've ever posted. Talk about projection...:)
Well moron, you prove yourself to have an IQ of -12. Prove me wrong or save your attacks. They are meaningless.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#177 Jul 5, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that I'm saying that people like you, and corporations like Hobby Lobby, SHOULDN'T GET TO DECIDE what medications women need based on religion, don't you?
Oh, no, apparently you don't.
Because you'd also know that some women also take the Pill for reasons OTHER than birth control - regulation of periods, sometimes in relation to other conditions, that sort of thing.
Abortion pills are not medication, as your spin is trying to prove. The ruling has nothing to do with the pill. The employees of Hobby Lobby still get 16 of the 20 pills on the list. Your dumb lies just show your desperation you know.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#178 Jul 5, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>that is le jimbo you are talking to...
My, bringing your old names out of the closet are we. Funny lil bot.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#179 Jul 5, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
A ruling that employers don't have to adhere to a mandate that violates their religious beliefs is denying anybody the fruits of their labor? Slavery?
If American citizens, by law, are required to purchase something they can't afford, can barely afford or simply do not want is not denying somebody the fruits of their labor, I don't know what is.
Government should govern, not take over industry or dictate the benefits they deem necessary to provide their employees. If the SC allowed this ridiculous issue to pass, then what's stopping government from forcing employers to provide ten weeks of vacation to each of their employees? Or perhaps force them to pay for the rental insurance of their employees, house insurance or car insurance?
Since Woodtick no longer has standing, he's bringing out one of the other names used.........you might say, bring them out of the closet also.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#180 Jul 5, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Abortion pills are not medication, as your spin is trying to prove. The ruling has nothing to do with the pill. The employees of Hobby Lobby still get 16 of the 20 pills on the list. Your dumb lies just show your desperation you know.
so james should employers be able to opt out of providing ocverage for the following based on religious beliefs
But of course this ruling opens pandora's box. Employers are now rfree to not pay for insurance coverage that pays for
vaccines
blood transfusions
any kind of medical treatment other than prayer
medical treatment for addiction
medical treatment for anything related to obesity (Glutony is after all 1 of the 7 deadly sins)
high blood pressure related to eating red meat
medical treatment for allegric reactions to eating shellfish
medical treatment for Trichinosis

It is oly a matter of time before some parents sue school districts for mandating their children be vaccinated. can't wait to see the results of that, as we are already seeing mild outbreaks of whooping cough.

and let's look at the basics, the SCOTUS has ruled hat people should be able to opt out of obeying laws of the land, in this case the ACA, based on religious beliefs. So anyone can opt out of any law based on their religious beliefs....
polygamy should then be legal
so should adults marrying children
Islamic fundamentalist business owners should be able to refuse service to women, who are unaccompanied by a male relative
members of white aryan supremist religions should be able to refuse serevice to anyone who isn't white

where does it all end?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#182 Jul 5, 2014
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a whacked out sicko right winger who believes that owning slaves is just find and dandy. This is the right wing packed supreme court setting another precedent that corporations do not have to obey any laws. They are above the law and can use any excuse, no matter how ridiculous to void the law.
So you tell me why you believe those who work, should not have any of the fruit of their labor? What is so scary about the middle class that you have to have it destroyed?
You do know one of the most importan abolitionist was a whacked out fundementalist extremist name John Brown. dont you. Why dont you go look him up if you dont know who he is.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#183 Jul 5, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
And we need to boycott crapholes like Hobby Lobby.
Yes we can support businesses - or not.

Hobby folly will not be supported by our family.
Responsibility

Petaluma, CA

#184 Jul 5, 2014
“It would be ironic if the Supreme Court eventually holds that in order to protect religious freedom we need single- payer healthcare,”

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh ...

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#185 Jul 5, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
This doesn't even take into account a couple of the more obvious arguments against Hobby Lobby:
First, that they DO allow their insurance to pay for OTHER FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL. So claiming a religious objection to birth control is obviously hypocritical and mendacious on their part.
Second, that there are NO prohibitions of either birth control OR ABORTION in the Christian faith as stated in its Holy Bible or as part of its long history. These objections are, in fact, a RECENT article of "belief" on the part of a few extremist Xian groups only. Other Xians don't believe as they do. Therefore, their "religious" objections are not legitimate on religious grounds, either.

First I dont see how it is hypocritical if I religion allows some forms of birth control and not other. is it hypocritical that a jew can eat a steak but not bacon? I may not understand some one else Religion , but unlike Liberals I will respect them and NOT try to force my belief on them.
And as far as they being recent belief, lets look at the other company involved..
For those who dont know there was two companies involved in this law suit, the other being Conestoga wood products. Conestoga wood products is own by a pair of Mennonite brothers, and the Mennonites have kept to the same beliefs for over 400 years. And just because other Christian dont believe the same way Mennonites do does not make their views illegitmate. I for one would say the Mennonites are closer to what Christian should be like then most so caalled Mainstream Liberal Churches.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#186 Jul 5, 2014
Fact remains, your birth control is not your bosses business. Which is why he/she should not have to pay for it.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#187 Jul 5, 2014
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
so james should employers be able to opt out of providing ocverage for the following based on religious beliefs
But of course this ruling opens pandora's box. Employers are now rfree to not pay for insurance coverage that pays for
vaccines
blood transfusions
any kind of medical treatment other than prayer
medical treatment for addiction
medical treatment for anything related to obesity (Glutony is after all 1 of the 7 deadly sins)
high blood pressure related to eating red meat
medical treatment for allegric reactions to eating shellfish
medical treatment for Trichinosis
It is oly a matter of time before some parents sue school districts for mandating their children be vaccinated. can't wait to see the results of that, as we are already seeing mild outbreaks of whooping cough.
and let's look at the basics, the SCOTUS has ruled hat people should be able to opt out of obeying laws of the land, in this case the ACA, based on religious beliefs. So anyone can opt out of any law based on their religious beliefs....
polygamy should then be legal
so should adults marrying children
Islamic fundamentalist business owners should be able to refuse service to women, who are unaccompanied by a male relative
members of white aryan supremist religions should be able to refuse serevice to anyone who isn't white
where does it all end?
Hate to tell you this but Christian Scientist been extempt from getting vaccine for over a 100 years. And so far it has not been a problem.
Ihttp://www.historyofvaccines. org/content/articles/cultural- perspectives-vaccination
Funny how History shows when you Respect peoples faith and belief there hardly any problem. Its when you try to opress people because of their faith( Like liberals tried to do here) that problem occur.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#188 Jul 5, 2014
Might point out the Court and Congress have been granting Religious extemption to Laws for over a hundred years.
For example
The Amish dont have to pay Social security taxes.
Jehovah Witnesses dont have to salute the Flag or swear oaths
Christian Scientist are not required to get Vacccines.
And Pacifist are not required to serve in the armed forces.
So should we require Quakers and other Pacifist to serve in the Armed forces?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#189 Jul 5, 2014
californio wrote:
Might point out the Court and Congress have been granting Religious extemption to Laws for over a hundred years.
For example
The Amish dont have to pay Social security taxes.
Jehovah Witnesses dont have to salute the Flag or swear oaths
Christian Scientist are not required to get Vacccines.
And Pacifist are not required to serve in the armed forces.
So should we require Quakers and other Pacifist to serve in the Armed forces?
And if I remember correctly, the Amish and Quakers are exempt from Commie Care because of their religious beliefs.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#190 Jul 5, 2014
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we can support businesses - or not.
Hobby folly will not be supported by our family.
I'm sure your family didn't support Chick-Fil-A either, and look how that turned out. LOL!
Bonsai

Carmel, IN

#191 Jul 5, 2014
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a whacked out sicko right winger who believes that owning slaves is just find and dandy. This is the right wing packed supreme court setting another precedent that corporations do not have to obey any laws. They are above the law and can use any excuse, no matter how ridiculous to void the law.
So you tell me why you believe those who work, should not have any of the fruit of their labor? What is so scary about the middle class that you have to have it destroyed?
Quit projecting.....you're the whacko who wants to own slaves....the taxpayer. You want to enslave those who own businesses......those who toil and sacrifice to make ends meet so that one day they could have a successful business. You want to dictate to these hard working entrepreneurs the kinds of freebies they are to provide. People already get paid for their labors...what are you talking about? Oh wait, commie scum dictators want their slaves of business to give their slaves of big govt more perks in order to keep them on their thrones. The middle class are the very people who are being destroyed. They are losing their insurance policies so they can pay more for less coverage. They lose their doctors and end up with shitty ones. They are losing their businesses to the IRS. They are closing their doors to go over seas. They are merging and downsizing. They are firing. They can't grow which makes a stagnate economy.

Most businesses are run by the middle class. Opportunities for anyone to get ahead was through starting a business. Today, those doors are mostly closed which does help the liberal elite to enslave the citizens. You have been brainwashed into believing Republicans are those behind the mega corporation when republicans are a friend to the middle class.....the foundation of America.....the hard working risk takers.

The liberal media has gradually brainwashed the ignorant masses to actually believe what you are saying. I never thought it was possible to see so many ignorant folks who WANT to be enslaved by big govt.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#192 Jul 5, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure your family didn't support Chick-Fil-A either, and look how that turned out. LOL!
yes,. how did that turn out? a teeny blip on the radar...and still the majority of people support gay marriage and accepting gays as a normal, natural part of humanity...

so it would seem the supporters of that idiotic publicity stunt are the ones that will be called by their rightful names by history..and their children...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#193 Jul 5, 2014
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Since Woodtick no longer has standing, he's bringing out one of the other names used.........you might say, bring them out of the closet also.
i have never poed under any name but this one

just because i busted you using bonsai as a moniker..

so all your posts about your family and that under that name were bullshit also...

but then all you ever post is bullshit, whcih i prove time and time again...

i proved your lies on the other thread time and time again..

gettting old, jimmy....you have never won a single battle with me have you? time to give up. you are just not smart enough..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,418,550
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min District 1 222,433
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 28 min Abe 239,383
News Harry Reid calls mother of Benghazi victim 'cra... 32 min slick willie expl... 32
News Hillary Clinton keeps losing. So how come she's... 53 min oki 144
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr Actual Science 35,574
News Trump Time Capsule #81: 'What the Hell Do You H... 3 hr INFIDEL 52
More from around the web