"Obamacare"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

[Cartierfor3]

It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.

It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.

I get it, government imposition: ok. Hobby Lobby imposition: not ok.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.

It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.

Employment is not a constitutional right. If they don't want to work there, they don't have to work there. You keep ignoring this very simple fact.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.

It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.

Employment is not a constitutional right. If they don't want to work there, they don't have to work there. You keep ignoring this very simple fact.

Selling crafts to old women is not a constitutional right. If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to follow the law, they don't have to remain open.

[Dugout DickStone]

So do they really require coverage for viagra?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

This actually happened.

"Well, as the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you is, he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far ... is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses," said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
 
"We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court. And that's why we--primarily, because he is concerned about the impact it could have on the health of those women."

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.

It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.

Employment is not a constitutional right. If they don't want to work there, they don't have to work there. You keep ignoring this very simple fact.

Selling crafts to old women is not a constitutional right. If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to follow the law, they don't have to remain open.

Ok, so that's the system you want to live in, huh? Force owners to close up shop rather than comply with laws that violate their religious beliefs? I think you need to take a time out, get some air, maybe sleep on this, and try to understand just how idiotic you sound.

[Cartierfor3]

The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.

Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want. 

[ChiComCat]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

For all KSU Wildcats bitching that employment is not a constitutional right, even Alito mentioned that the government has a role in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.  Alito just thinks this does not significantly effect that, which I disagree with when a vast majority of companies could be considered "closely held."

[Cartierfor3]

Guys, I hate how the pit divides us. One of the things I like about GE is knowing that some of you IRL friends have different beliefs and ideas than I do. Its refreshing. Sorry I jumped in this one and started arguing, I don't like arguing politics and shouldn't. Its not helpful to anyone really. If anyone needs me I'll be in the Royals/WC threads

[Dugout DickStone]

I never thought old, white men would talk this much about women's birth control.

[michigancat]

Guys, I hate how the pit divides us. One of the things I like about GE is knowing that some of you IRL friends have different beliefs and ideas than I do. Its refreshing. Sorry I jumped in this one and started arguing, I don't like arguing politics and shouldn't. Its not helpful to anyone really. If anyone needs me I'll be in the Royals/WC threads

I like your opinions here even if I disagree sometimes.

[nicname]

The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.

Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.

[nicname]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment.

The owner doesn't have to run his/ her business.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.

Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.

I guess I just don't understand how an employee's decision to use their insurance policy for birth control has any impact whatsoever on the the people who own Hobby Lobby's religious right to not use the birth control themselves. They are paying for the birth control no more directly by offering insurance that covers it than they would be if an employee used their salary to go purchase birth control. The only difference is that the birth control comes at a higher cost to the employee. The employer doesn't even save money on the coverage. This is just a way for an employer to punish its employees for not having the same religious beliefs.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment.

The owner doesn't have to run his/ her business.

Correct, you're the second dumbass to make that point, so I'll ask the question again: is that the system you want to live in? As between an employee who can simply find another job or an employer who can cease to due business (and lay a whole bunch of people off in the process), you opt for the latter, huh? Interesting.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.

Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.

I guess I just don't understand how an employee's decision to use their insurance policy for birth control has any impact whatsoever on the the people who own Hobby Lobby's religious right to not use the birth control themselves. They are paying for the birth control no more directly by offering insurance that covers it than they would be if an employee used their salary to go purchase birth control. The only difference is that the birth control comes at a higher cost to the employee. The employer doesn't even save money on the coverage. This is just a way for an employer to punish its employees for not having the same religious beliefs.

You've made this argument before, and I've explained why it's stupid, but you keep making it. Wages are fungible. Do you know what that means? It means you can use wages to pay for just about anything, and the employer cannot possibly control how that money is spent. An employee could spend it on hookers, or blow, or birth control, or any number of other things an employer finds morally objectionable, but the employer has no control over it (unless the employer finds out about it, in which case he/she can fire the employee).

Health insurance, on the other hand, is not fungible. It is a defined benefit. The employer knows exactly what he/she is providing. So, if an employer finds birth control morally objectionable, the employer has the choice as to whether to provide it. Then the employee has the choice as to whether to work there. See how this works? Choice! It's a great thing! Why are libtards so anti-choice all of a sudden?

[nicname]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment.

The owner doesn't have to run his/ her business.

Correct, you're the second dumbass to make that point, so I'll ask the question again: is that the system you want to live in? As between an employee who can simply find another job or an employer who can cease to due business (and lay a whole bunch of people off in the process), you opt for the latter, huh? Interesting.

You shouldn't make assumptions about what I think. I don't think employers should have to provide health insurance at all FWIW.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.

Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.

I guess I just don't understand how an employee's decision to use their insurance policy for birth control has any impact whatsoever on the the people who own Hobby Lobby's religious right to not use the birth control themselves. They are paying for the birth control no more directly by offering insurance that covers it than they would be if an employee used their salary to go purchase birth control. The only difference is that the birth control comes at a higher cost to the employee. The employer doesn't even save money on the coverage. This is just a way for an employer to punish its employees for not having the same religious beliefs.

You've made this argument before, and I've explained why it's stupid, but you keep making it. Wages are fungible. Do you know what that means? It means you can use wages to pay for just about anything, and the employer cannot possibly control how that money is spent. An employee could spend it on hookers, or blow, or birth control, or any number of other things an employer finds morally objectionable, but the employer has no control over it (unless the employer finds out about it, in which case he/she can fire the employee).

Health insurance, on the other hand, is not fungible. It is a defined benefit. The employer knows exactly what he/she is providing. So, if an employer finds birth control morally objectionable, the employer has the choice as to whether to provide it.

My insurance covers mammograms. Does that mean that my employer is paying for me to go get a mammogram?

[ChiComCat]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.

So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.

So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?

I would be fine with that. I would be fine with Hobby Lobby making all employees where cross jewelry, too. It's trying to reach out and dictate what their employees do when they are not at work that bothers me.

[nicname]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.

So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?

I would.

[michigancat]

What if a company has a religious objection vaccinations for children*? (*female only)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.

You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.

The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.

The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs.  That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.

No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.

So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?

I'd be fine with that. I wouldn't work there.