Right. But this is a Supreme Court case. Please explain the constitutional principle that would allow the SC to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, but would prevent them from, for example, saying that a firm owned by a religious person who believed in the subordination of women from refusing to promote women? For that matter, as I understand it the only approved method of birth control for Catholics is the rhythm method. Suppose a devout RC owned a company and refused to pay for ALL forms of birth control? Until you give a more full explanation, it looks like you're supporting the HL position because it seems "reasonable" to you. But religion, pretty much by definition (and I say this as a Christian), isn't reasonable. You can't have the Supreme Court picking and choosing which religious principles are OK. It has to be based on some higher principle. (I'll let the lawyers here chime in with the definitions of "undue burden" and "community standards" and the like.)
We as a society have decided to link health care with employment. The employer is nothing more than an administration conduit. The employer has no health care delivery responsibilities. The employer has no role in determining what care is appropriate in any medical situation. It is improper for any of the employees business supervisors to even know what health care an employee is receiving. Either we write plans in such a way as to ensure individual privacy or we de-link health care from employment. All of the people wh support HL should be thrilled to go to single payer and save HL's management the butt hurt of knowing the horrible atrocities their paperwork conduit role makes safe and possible. And by the way, for the last time, these arent abortion drugs, no matter how many times how many people weep that they are.
Strictly speaking, why should it only be religions? I'm an atheist... don't I HAVE any rights? Well, I'm not a yank, am I, but y'know what I mean
No, I meant it earnestly. The last generation of people who understand nothing about science and claim religious freedom to abuse women and children is going to die eventually.
Eventually, yes, but I don't think it will be as soon as you hope, with the crap going on in charter / voucher schools. Lots of kids are being taught outright lies and being kept completely ignorant about real science. The internet sure doesn't help.
Are 3rd trimester abortions legal outside rape, womens health danger legal under federal law? I assume he means mandate coverage for 3rd trimester abortions (in case of rape or mothers danger of dying).
They could sell the company and live of the profits from the sell. Or they could say fvck that evil Obama and we will just close shop and fire all out employees, that will teach him.
Well, that raises a very interesting question, doesn't it... and it relates to the matter RS mentioned about whether they're genuine or not. Y'see, if you think about it, if they ARE genuine, then they WILL close down their company rather than agree to fund 'baby-killers'. So, let's see if they do if it goes against them, eh? I'm waiting with keen anticipation to see their response but, tbh, I probably WON'T be holding my breath
Well that is because you underestimate their perhaps genuine care about their employees, they probably know their employees have families to feed and the Christian thing to do (in their mind) would be to make sure their employees do not get hurt. I doubt the HL owners are evil mofos. So no they would not close shop, they would do what is best for their beliefs and what is best for their employees.
Pffft! Like hundreds of years in the future people who watch 'Fox News' will STILL be able to spell 'Fox News'. Do me a favour!
WWFS?* http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/21/3428902/dolan-hobby-lobby-birth-control/ What Would Francis Say?
I dont see Timothy Daltons claim to attention. Also, Why do ad agencies like Heritage get amicus curiae briefs accepted and read at all? Can the Big Soccer community expect the same reception? How does the Court hear some sponsored opinion but not others?