Page 11 of 13 First ... 78910111213 Last
  1. #111
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #112
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Sotomayor and Kagen are suggesting Hobby Lobby simply drop insurance for employees and pay the tax penalty.
    This case has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with single-payer


    The great thing about The Art of War by Sun Tzu is that it trains your mind to get into the decision cycle of your adversary. This is one of the problems the GOP –and indeed conservatives –have as we do ideological battle against liberal progressive socialists.

    Exhibit A is the Hobby Lobby case being presented before the US Supreme Court. On its surface, the case is about religious freedom and a government seeking to impose its will regarding the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. Isn’t it just amazing how the only way liberal progressives can enact their “policies” is by force and coercion? Do this or else.

    Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties have sued the federal government over the requirement that businesses provide health insurance plans covering contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs.

    What right does the federal government have to tell a private sector company it MUST provide something — or else face a financial penalty? President Obama and his socialist acolytes are swimming in dangerous waters. It starts here, but where does it end? Tyranny, that’s where.

    Here’s what the liberals really want. As reported by CNSNews.com http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penn...enalty-and-let

    “During oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday which focused on whether the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act violates the free exercise of religion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan suggested employers who have moral objections to birth control simply shouldn’t provide health care coverage for their employees, saying “Isn’t there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than — than the cost of health insurance at all?”
    In layman’s terms, what these two female liberal Justices were saying was, bend to our will or pay the tax — what type of choices are those for a private sector business? And it has nothing to do with “the law of the land.” Just last night Obama and his cronies delayed, changed, altered (yet again) the sign-up deadline, just another one of the many waivers, exemptions, and delays. Obamacare is no longer a law, it is a moving target, an edict commanded from on high.

    The true end state of liberal progressives is a single payer system. That’s why Kagan and Sotomayor prefer Hobby Lobby drop its people from insurance coverage and force them onto the government exchanges. As well, the monumental fines that the government would impose — millions of dollars — could prove deadly for the business. The employers at Hobby Lobby want to provide quality healthcare coverage to their employees — but not against their convictions and faith beliefs. Have we come full circle in America where we now punish those who possess a Judeo-Christian faith?

    The exchange between Justice Kagan and Paul Clement, representing the plaintiffs, is telling.

    “Those employers could choose not to give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax,” Sotomayor said. Clement said Hobby Lobby would pay more than $500 million per year in penalties, but Kagan disagreed. “There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all. And in that case Hobby Lobby would pay $2,000 per employee, which is less than Hobby Lobby probably pays to provide insurance to its employees,” Kagan said. “So there is a choice here. It’s not even a penalty in the language of the statute. It’s a payment or a tax. There’s a choice.” Kagan went on to say that other U.S. businesses are “voluntarily” dropping their health insurance coverage for employees.
    It’s clear that Justice Kagan prefers employees get dumped from their employer-based healthcare plans and forced into coverage by Obamacare – and that is how you boost your numbers.

    Everything about Obamacare is focused on the goal of creating an American single-payer health system — government run. Obama’s dream is to destroy the private sector insurance industry, just as Dodd-Frank is wreaking havoc on the financial industry (a case where we should have just reinstated the Glass-Steagall Act).

    Kagan, who as far as I know has never run a business, displays the arrogance of officialdom warned by Marcus Tulius Cicero. She resides high upon her perch and feels she has the power to make the decisions on what is economically best for a company.

    Isn’t it funny how it was during the progressive administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that tying healthcare to a job first emerged. Now the liberal progressives want to scrap that and just make everyone subject to government healthcare.

    Obama and his former Solicitor General Kagan are offering America and our businesses false choices. It’s not the government’s place to force measures that violate the fundamental right of the individual to freedom of religion and its exercise thereof. What the progressives are seeking to do is actually establish a religion of their own: post-modern liberalism.

    The Hobby Lobby case shouldn’t even be a case. Someone should have thrown this out. If the decision goes against Hobby Lobby, there are some very dark days ahead for America.

    Lastly, to my fellow Christians, this is what happens when you fail to make a stand, do not exercise your right to vote, and remain politically disengaged. As Plato quipped, “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” In this case, the penalty is not just the monetary fine but the ever-increasing infringement on your rights by liberal secular progressives.

    http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/hobby-...sD7VffO62Wl.99
    http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/hobby-...scotus-judges/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #113
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    "Liberals on Hobby Lobby: Corporations can't exercise personal values."
    "Liberals on Mozilla: Corporations should exercise personal values."

    -Rep. Steve Stockman, R-TX

    The Truth Behind Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s Demise
    By Steve Tobak / ValleyBeat Published April 07, 2014

    If nothing else, the success of Mozilla’s popular web browser, Firefox, stands as a monument to the ideals behind open source software: that Internet development should foster openness, inclusiveness, and collaboration.

    According to Mozilla’s Manifesto, its developers believe that “openness, innovation, and opportunity” and a “community-based approach” are keys to creating “world-class open source software” that ensures the Internet “benefits everyone.”

    As the man who created JavaScript for Netscape Navigator, Brendan Eich was so committed to those principles that, when parent AOL shuttered Netscape’s browser unit, he cofounded a nonprofit organization to embody them, the Mozilla Foundation. I seriously doubt if Eich envisioned there might come a day when those very ideals would bring about his demise.

    Now that he’s essentially been forced out of his own company after running the show for less than two weeks, I wonder how Eich feels about the double-edged sword that Internet transparency without boundaries and a social collective that behaves like a lynch mob can wield.

    In case you didn’t know, Eich donated $1,000 to back Proposition 8, a 2008 referendum to amend California’s constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Although the amendment passed by a slim margin, an appeal’s court later struck it down.

    Meanwhile, the L.A. Times published an entire searchable database of donors supporting and opposing the ban, which is apparently legal. And even though there are over 100,000 names on the 2,000-page list, in 2012, someone apparently searched for and outed Eich. Who and for what purpose, your guess is as good as mine.

    That created a bit of an uproar in the Twitterverse until it dawned on everyone that this guy created and fostered one of the most successful open, collaborative, and inclusive organizations in the history of tech. Whatever his personal views on same-sex marriage, they never influenced his behavior, not one iota.

    The social media mob quieted down until, about a year and a half later, Mozilla’s board named Eich – then CTO – to take over as chief executive. That’s when the firestorm resumed with a passion. Some employees revolted and openly called for him to step down. A dating site called for a boycott of Firefox. And the way some in the media grilled Eich – hounding him to publicly recant his opposition to gay marriage and throwing around words like racist – you’d think the guy wanted to bring back Jim Crow laws or something.

    Funny thing is, fanatical activists never see the hypocrisy in their own actions. Politically correct zealots that march to the diversity drumbeat are only inclusive of those who agree with their own groupthink. They’re only interested in being collaborative within their own hive collective.

    Never mind that Eich helped to create the hive and its culture. Once he was tainted with the stench of a different viewpoint – an unaccepted viewpoint – the hive turned on him and brutally attacked him as an outsider. Just 10 days after taking the reins as CEO, Eich made what was probably the most difficult decision of his career and quit the company he loved. I really feel for the guy. But hard as I’ve tried to find a villain in this story, there simply isn’t one to be found.

    The problem is with Mozilla: its utopian ideology, the naivety of its founders, and the lynch mob mentality of the politically correct, social collective they helped to create. The sad truth is that Eich’s demise was by his own hand. And I think that, some day, he’ll come to realize that.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/technolog...-eichs-demise/

    Pro-Life Business owners: If you don't like the causes we support, you can still work here, but you don't have to. You may have to pay for your own contraceptives.

    Liberals: If you support causes we don't like, you won't have a job at all, other than menial labor, and certainly no position of leadership.

    So... who is enlightened in the above scenario?
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 04-08-2014 at 04:51 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #114
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    ObamaCare vs. religion: Why Media Research Center has filed suit against the government
    By L. Brent Bozell III · Published May 23, 2014

    In its attempt to broaden the notion of a “right to health care,” the Obama administration has shrunk our rights to practice our religion. In requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, the government has trampled on people who believe artificial contraception to be wrong as a matter of morality and ethics.

    The Media Research Center has filed a lawsuit against the federal government, challenging the HHS mandate. This lawsuit is about religious freedom and the conscience rights of individuals to operate their enterprises free from government coercion, reprisal, or punishment.

    The ObamaCare mandate destroys the ability of free people to practice their faith in their everyday lives and forces them to either reject their faith or face crippling government-imposed fines and punishment; in our case over $4.5 million dollars per year. We do not stop being religious, moral people the moment we walk out of our houses of worship.

    The Media Research Center contends that under ACA rules it has self-certified as a religious organization and is therefore exempt from the mandate. The MRC is the first organization that has asked the court to affirm its self-certification.

    For nearly three decades, the MRC has been the nation’s premier defender of pro-life views and Judeo-Christian values from attacks by the liberal media. We believe abortion, whether through the actions of an abortionist or a drug, is the taking of innocent human life. Under the First Amendment, the MRC and its employees have the right to practice and abide by their faith in their everyday lives, including in the operations of their mission-oriented non-profit organization.

    Should an employee of the organization choose to avail himself to these products, it is his right. The MRC, however, has the right not to have to pay for those products.

    The ACA explicitly allows exemptions for non-profits that self-certify that they “hold themselves out as religious organizations.” The law is vague, so the MRC is asking the court declare that the MRC qualifies.

    Should the court disagree and hold that the MRC is not an “eligible organization,” then we believe that the ACA violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution as the “eligible organization” determination would require the government to determine who is “religious enough” to qualify for an exemption. Determining who is “religious enough” is an unconstitutional entanglement in questions of religious doctrine and organization.

    Critics might insist that most American Christians, indeed most Catholics, don’t practice this doctrine against artificial contraception. In reply, my father L. Brent Bozell Jr. said it well almost fifty years ago, in 1966, as the world demanded the Vatican surrender to modern ideologies:

    “The world deems the Church mad to have hitched its whole moral authority to this wretched piece of intransigence. Millions of Catholics and near Catholics and apostate Catholics over the years have felt the same way: if only the Church would give ground on this one, the rest would be easy to take. But this wretched piece of intransigence is the key to the mighty mystery of sex, which unlocks the door to the even more awesome mystery of life, which in turn reveals the reality of the supernatural. If the Church does not own this key, it does not own any keys at all.”

    That is what Catholics believe. Most non-Catholics, following other predicates, arrive at the same point: Life is sacred and to facilitate its termination is to sin against God himself.

    That’s why the HHS mandate isn’t just an ideological policy to placate the cultural Left. It is an assault on a theological belief in the sanctity of a natural life and death. As an employer of faith, I cannot be complicit in providing and promoting contraception, abortion, or sterilization services.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-suit-against/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #115
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Hobby Lobby Is Only The Second Most Important Decision The Supreme Court Will Hand Down On Monday

    By Ian Millhiser June 29, 2014 at 9:00 am

    From the day the justices agreed to decide whether employers with religious objections to birth control can refuse to follow a federal rule requiring employer-provided health plans to cover contraception, a broad array of Court watchers have treated the Hobby Lobby litigation as the single most important issue facing the justices this term. Indeed, based on the sheer volume of pieces ThinkProgress has published discussing Hobby Lobby, this site has probably given this impression as well.

    Hobby Lobby is a major case, with tremendous implications for whether religious conservatives must obey the same rules that apply to the rest of society, but there is another case pending before the Court that has even greater implications for what kind of nation America will become. On Monday, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down two cases, Hobby Lobby and a lesser-known case called Harris v. Quinn. Of the two, more is actually at stake in Harris than in Hobby Lobby.

    Defunding Labor

    Harris arises from a group of home-based aides for Medicaid patients in Illinois, a majority of whom voted to unionize. When a majority of a workforce, but not every single worker, votes to be represented by a union, the union is still required to represent the interests of the non-union workers. That means all workers must be treated equally at the bargaining table — a union cannot entice workers into joining the union by bargaining for one set of wages for union members and another, lower set of wages for non-members.

    By any reasonable objective measure, the union struck a very good deal for Illinois’ home health aides. Before the union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement, the aides’ wages were just $7.00 an hour. Now they are $11.65 an hour, and they are scheduled to increase to $13.00 per hour in December. Nevertheless, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRWLDF), an anti-union litigation shop, found a handful of home health aides who object to this arrangement. Those objectors are now the plaintiffs in Harris.

    Specifically, these plaintiffs object to a provision in the collective bargaining agreement requiring non-members to pay what is known as “agency fees” or “fair-share payments” in order to reimburse the union for the costs of bargaining on their behalf. Bargaining on behalf of hundreds or thousands of workers can be an expensive task. It often requires bargaining agents with a sophisticated understanding of an employer’s finances, and lawyers who can trace out the full consequences of every contract provision under discussion. If non-union members can enjoy the benefits of belonging to a unionized workplace — according to one study, unionization raises wages by about 12 percent on average — then they will get something for nothing while their co-workers who join the union will bear the costs.

    If the Supreme Court complies with NRWLDF’s request to halt the non-union members’ fair-share payments, there will be little incentive for most workers to reimburse the union for the costs of collective bargaining — after all, why pay for higher wages when you can get them for free? Indeed, such a decision could set off a death spiral endangering the unions themselves. If non-members can suddenly stop paying agency fees, then unions will have to raise dues on their members in order to cover these losses. But, if unions raise their dues, more members will decide to drop out rather than pay the increased fees. Which will force even higher dues. Which will cause more members to drop out. Which will force even higher dues. The loss of agency fees potentially presents an existential threat to the union in Harris and to public sector unions across the country.

    A Rule Without Limit

    NRWLDF’s legal argument is, to put it kindly, not a model of clarity. But understanding three concepts can help make it clearer.

    First, the First Amendment’s free speech protections are generally understood to be a two-sided coin. Government can neither prohibit someone from speaking their mind nor force someone to say something they disagree with. This is why, for example, public school students cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they object to doing so.

    Second, the First Amendment also protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” NRWLDF argues that this right is also a two-sided coin, that it also prohibits arrangements that lead to someone petitioning the government on their behalf if they object to this petition. Alternatively, they also claim that the agency fees create a kind of “mandatory association” that also violates the First Amendment.

    Third, NRWLDF claims that, because the union in Harris is bargaining with a government agency regarding what sort of wages will be paid out by a government program, the union is effectively petitioning the government for a redress of grievances on behalf of the home health aides in Illinois. Requiring non-union members to pay agency fees, according to NRWLDF, is the same thing as requiring them to sign onto a petition that they disagree with — even if the costs of those agency fees comes out of higher wages that the plaintiffs never would have received in the first place if it wasn’t for the union.

    If you are confused by this argument, don’t worry. So was Justice Antonin Scalia. As Scalia pointed out at oral arguments, there are few logical limits on the NRWLDF’s argument if the Court decides to go down this rabbit hole.

    “Suppose you have a policeman,” Scalia asked the attorney from NRWLDF, “who is dissatisfied with his wages. So he makes an appointment with the [] police commissioner, and he goes in and grouses about his wages. He does this, you know, 10 or 11 times. And the commissioner finally is fed up and tells his secretary [] I don’t want to see this man again. Has he violated the Constitution?”

    The anti-union attorney responded, “no,” but under the logic of his legal argument, the correct answer is “yes.” As Scalia went on to explain, a police commissioner who slams his door on a cop seeking higher wages has “prevented a petition for a redress of grievances” no less than if he had slammed the door on a group of 10 policemen seeking higher wages, or, for that matter, on a union of policemen seeking a wage increase. If a government employee asking for higher wages constitutes a petition for redress of grievances under the First Amendment, then there is no principled distinction between a union collectively making a request from a government employer and an individual making the exact same request. Every single time a supervisor tells a government worker that she does not have time to talk about the worker’s grievances, she risks violating the First Amendment.

    Later in the oral argument, Scalia raised another problem with NRWLDF’s argument. Though the anti-union attorneys dressed this case up as a violation of the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” Scalia said that Harris is really just a run-of-the-mill free speech case — the anti-union employees “are being required to support speech that they don’t agree with.”
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #116
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    A Return To The Dark Ages

    If the Court ultimately embraces Scalia’s suggestion that bargaining over wages or working conditions is a form of First Amendment-protected free speech, then this has stunning implications for nearly every single worker in the country. When a worker is hired to do a job, they typically have a conversation with their boss about the terms of the employment. The two individuals bargain over wages, benefits, job expectations and similar arrangements.

    Yet, the law also places important limits on this negotiation. Because the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, an employer is not allowed to negotiate with most employees to pay them only $5 per hour. A federal law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) places similar limits on what kind of employee benefits an employer can offer to their employees. The birth control rules at issue in Hobby Lobby also place limits on what kind of bargaining may take place between an employer and an employee. An employer may wish to offer their employee a health plan that does not cover birth control, but under these rules they cannot.

    Indeed, all of these laws can be framed as a form of compelled speech. The minimum wage compels an employer who wants to say “I will pay you $5 an hour” to instead say “I will pay you $7.25 an hour.” ERISA and the federal birth control rules prevent an employer from saying that they will provide their employees with a certain kinds of employee benefit packages. Speech is an essential element of any contract negotiation — as every first-year law student learns early in their legal education, a contract requires an offer and an acceptance. But if every single contract negotiation becomes a First Amendment-protected activity, then government regulation of the workplace becomes virtually impossible.

    This danger was not lost on Justice Stephen Breyer, who noted near the end of oral argument in Harris that “we have some experience” with the Court trying to limit the scope of federal labor law “in the 1930s.”

    Breyer’s reference to this decade was almost certainly an allusion to the Lochner Era, when the Supreme Court struck down minimum wage laws, laws protecting union rights, and laws preventing employers from overworking their employees. The case that set these events in motion, the Court’s 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York held that a so-called “liberty of contract” placed strict limits on the government’s ability to regulate the workplace. Lochner was overruled in 1937.

    There are some academic distinctions between Lochner and the kind of regime that could emerge from an expansive decision in Harris. Lochner relied on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while Harris is a First Amendment case. But it’s not clear that these distinctions matter. If the Court actually holds that contract negotiations are governed by the First Amendment, then Breyer is right to fear a return to something much like the early 1930s.


    Hobby Lobby v. Harris

    This brings us back to Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby’s brief asks the Court for a truly expansive religious liberty regime — all laws that a religious person objects to, according to Hobby Lobby, must survive “the most demanding test known to constitutional law,” before they can be enforced against that person. If the Supreme Court goes this far, it is likely that a religious business owner will step forward claiming that they object to following federal labor law on religious grounds. Indeed, several lawsuits have made similar claims in the past.

    But there is a logical limit on how far employers could push Hobby Lobby to undermine workers’ rights in the workplace, even if the Court does issue a sweeping decision on Monday. As the federal appeals court that heard Hobby Lobby explained, an employer may only make a religious liberty claim if it is rooted in a “sincere” religious belief. It’s hard to imagine how, say, Walmart would convince a court that it had suddenly converted to a faith that objects to paying the minimum wage.

    The First Amendment’s free speech protections, by contrast, apply to religious and non-religious alike. And, as the Court recently reminded us in Citizens United v. FEC, for First Amendment purposes, corporations are people.

    There is reason to believe that unions will have a very bad day on Monday once the Court hands down its Harris decision. As a general rule, the justices try to spread work evenly among themselves and, because of this, SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein has pioneered the art of predicting which justice will author a particular decision by examining who has not yet written a case that was argued in a particular month. Harris was argued in January:



    If Justice Samuel Alito — the hole in this chart — does indeed have the writing assignment in Harris, then that is almost certainly a bad thing for unions. Alito authored an opinion in 2012 that strongly suggests that agency fees paid to public sector unions are unconstitutional. An even more important question, however, is whether the Court will rally behind Justice Scalia’s suggestion that contract negotiations may be a form of First Amendment-protected speech. Should they do so, then Justice Breyer’s allusion to the 1930s could prove prescient

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...arris-preview/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #117
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts


    Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby in landmark religious freedom case
    Posted at 10:21 am on June 30, 2014

    Initial reports say that the Supreme Court has sided with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties in their religious freedom case against the Obama administration.

    SCOTUSblog ✔ @SCOTUSblog

    Under the Hobby Lobby decision, the government can pay for the coverage itself so that women receive it.

    9:19 AM - 30 Jun 2014


    http://twitchy.com/2014/06/30/suprem...-freedom-case/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #118
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Justices: Can't make employers cover contraception
    June 30, 2014 9:20 AM CDT By MARK SHERMAN


    WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

    The justices' 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

    Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

    Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election. On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court's four liberal justices dissented.

    The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations, like the Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores, that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

    Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.

    He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

    Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

    The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

    In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said.

    The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government's supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.

    The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

    Nearly 50 businesses have sued over covering contraceptives. , like those involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. Other companies object to paying for any form of birth control.

    There are separate lawsuits challenging the contraception provision from religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges and charities.

    A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

    It is unclear how many women potentially are affected by the high court ruling. Hobby Lobby is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

    Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

    The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets.

    http://www.wafb.com/story/25903955/j...ampaign=buffer
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #119

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,400
    Thanks
    849
    Thanked 444 Times in 312 Posts
    companies should have rights and not be dictated to by the federal government. we have so many laws that go against companies that it has stiffled and destroyed some companies so that they can no longer do business here. we used to be a self sustaining country

  11. #120
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    "Tolerant Liberals"
    Left-wingers want to ‘burn down’ Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS win


    ==> http://twitchy.com/2014/06/30/fuk-yo...er-scotus-win/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #121
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    This was Sandra Fluke’s take on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Hobby Lobby case that was announced earlier today:

    Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke

    Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control. #HobbyLobby #NotMyBossBusiness

    Bob Owens @bob_owens

    @SandraFluke It simply isn't possible for you to be ethical or honest, is it?

    9:31 AM - 30 Jun 2014
    Really?

    Dana Loesch led off schooling of the fact-challenged Fluke:

    Dana Loesch ✔ @DLoesch

    You also know too that Hobby Lobby already voluntarily pays for pill, right @SandraFluke ?

    9:57 AM - 30 Jun 2014
    Reminder: Hobby Lobby already provides insurance that covers 16 types of contraceptives. http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...0/newhampshire


    Fluke’s “ironic” use of the #NotMyBossBusiness hashtag was spotted:

    RightGirlNYC @RightGirlNYC

    The delicious irony in that statement and hashtag. You don't see it do you?.@SandraFluke

    9:28 AM - 30 Jun 2014
    Julia Porterfield @JK_Porterfield

    @SandraFluke If it's not your bosses business, stop asking him to pay for it.

    9:34 AM - 30 Jun 2014
    Denise Russell @DRussell76

    @SandraFluke @EWErickson And now it's NOT your bosses business. You should be happy.

    9:31 AM - 30 Jun 2014
    http://twitchy.com/2014/06/30/cluele...obby-decision/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in