And why should it be a matter for the government if somebody does not wish to hire someone based on skin color or hair color, etc. Does the government get involved when those same people choose not to want to work for someone based on skin color or hair color, etc. Is not depriving someone of your awesomeness just as discriminatory as someone choosing not to want your awesomeness? Please explain this without slavery, etc.
They also have the demographics to prove that women are more likely to need obstetrics coverage as well (I'm sure they are just making up the numbers though) but basing rates on that is somehow sexist.
Religion properly exercised will govern every aspect of ones life since the primary purpose of religion is to teach us how to interact with each other and to exercise self-control. A religion not doing that is not worth the time.
Well, Obamacare did say that insurance plans must offer birth control at no-cost and these others must be on the plan. Do you really think the Supreme Court bothered hearing a case that was literally that simple?
Well, technically the employer's customers pay for it but most rational people will agree that the employer is paying for a substantial portion of it, generally speaking.
It does not have to be tied to your employer. Before Obamacare there was no law suggesting that it be. Health insurance being tied to your job as a matter of law is a creation of Obamacare. Even under Obamacare, you are free (as in have the right) to purchase insurance independent of your employer.
Yup, the employer should have no say over the insurance that you purchase on your own with your paycheck. However, when you ask the employer to go look for an insurance carrier and negotiate a price and pay a substantial portion of that price for you, then sure, the employer does get some say in what it negotiates for. The employer doesn't pay any of the premiums for you? Then you are working for a very small company. Oh, you mean that the portion of the premium the employer pays really is your earnings? Better have them include that in your withholdings or you may have some problems come April. Oh, it isn't really part of your earnings? Glad we agree on the truth then.
Sure, why not. Other cases have established the precedent as to what a valid religious object is. You can't just say "religious objection" and get an automatic pass. You have to show that you aren't the only one with this particular objection and that you affiliate with others that also have that view and that said view predates whatever is being "forced" on you.
Actually that would be a sound decision based on the right to associate implying a right to not associate. I think it would be a bad business decision but people should be free to make those as well. After all, we have private universities still choosing to accept only one gender and private workout companies choosing to only accept one gender as members and that is still acceptable to the left-wingers, why should religion be any different?
They can still get the drug. hobby Lobby pays them and they are free to us that money or any other money they have. What they cannot do is ask Hobby Lobby to buy it for them. Ginsburg's theatrics aside, nobody is telling anyone they cannot have access to the drug. My insurance plan has all kinds of drugs listed that they will cover and mentions others that it won't. Why should these particular drugs be anymore special in the eyes of the law?
That is why they weren't arguing over how the employee exercised the benefit but whether the employer had to provide the benefit. Not the same argument at all.
Please read the comment above parent, science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5346117&cid=43755801 to read how wrong you are about Citizens United.
And then talk about ignoring the constitution by complaining that a law was intended only to help a very small subset of the citizenry and how it got all out of whack by being applied universally. Wow, just wow!
Not if that corporation was formed "as an association of like-minded people who want to pool their money to pay for political speech" This whole movement was started as a way to "repeal" the one decision that pointed out that this absolutely was a first amendment right. The right to associate is an individual liberty that can only be exercised in conjunction with others.
"newspapers and news broadcasts... newspapermen..." Now don't go getting all rational and bringing up the good parts of Citizens United, you might confuse the feeble minded.
"And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak." Maybe because the 1st Amendment guarantees far more than the right to chat with your neighbor over the fence and utilize modern equivalents to printing and passing pamphlets like was done in the run up to the American Revolution and the disseminating of the Federalist Papers in the push to have the constitution ratified? Hell, even doing the same thing as was done back then costs money.
By enjoying the comforts of the modern world that we want to enjoy in the way we want to enjoy them.. Pretty much the same as you but you may have chosen to enjoy less. For instance, France and the US shared a major heat wave a few years back and France lost a far higher percentage of the population and that was directly attributable to the difference in the amount of air-conditioning (a modern convenience) in use in France and the US. Transferring France's death rate to the US would have meant millions of US dying but the US had not only a lower percentage but a lower raw number of deaths as well. Just one example.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should it be a matter for the government if somebody does not wish to hire someone based on skin color or hair color, etc. Does the government get involved when those same people choose not to want to work for someone based on skin color or hair color, etc. Is not depriving someone of your awesomeness just as discriminatory as someone choosing not to want your awesomeness? Please explain this without slavery, etc.
They also have the demographics to prove that women are more likely to need obstetrics coverage as well (I'm sure they are just making up the numbers though) but basing rates on that is somehow sexist.
People generally have absolute control over the make and model of car they purchase/lease.
or owns a business or cares about freedom, etc.
Catholic in words but not deeds; Mathew 7 describes this situation fairly well.
Religion properly exercised will govern every aspect of ones life since the primary purpose of religion is to teach us how to interact with each other and to exercise self-control. A religion not doing that is not worth the time.
Well we aren't talking about remitting taxes to the government are we? We are talking about purchasing medical devices, etc. from other corporations.
Well, Obamacare did say that insurance plans must offer birth control at no-cost and these others must be on the plan. Do you really think the Supreme Court bothered hearing a case that was literally that simple?
Do you actually know of a plan that has viagra on the no-cost list?
Well, technically the employer's customers pay for it but most rational people will agree that the employer is paying for a substantial portion of it, generally speaking.
It does not have to be tied to your employer. Before Obamacare there was no law suggesting that it be. Health insurance being tied to your job as a matter of law is a creation of Obamacare. Even under Obamacare, you are free (as in have the right) to purchase insurance independent of your employer.
Yup, the employer should have no say over the insurance that you purchase on your own with your paycheck. However, when you ask the employer to go look for an insurance carrier and negotiate a price and pay a substantial portion of that price for you, then sure, the employer does get some say in what it negotiates for. The employer doesn't pay any of the premiums for you? Then you are working for a very small company. Oh, you mean that the portion of the premium the employer pays really is your earnings? Better have them include that in your withholdings or you may have some problems come April. Oh, it isn't really part of your earnings? Glad we agree on the truth then.
If that were true then why does federal and state laws exempt smaller businesses?
Sure, why not. Other cases have established the precedent as to what a valid religious object is. You can't just say "religious objection" and get an automatic pass. You have to show that you aren't the only one with this particular objection and that you affiliate with others that also have that view and that said view predates whatever is being "forced" on you.
Actually that would be a sound decision based on the right to associate implying a right to not associate. I think it would be a bad business decision but people should be free to make those as well. After all, we have private universities still choosing to accept only one gender and private workout companies choosing to only accept one gender as members and that is still acceptable to the left-wingers, why should religion be any different?
They can still get the drug. hobby Lobby pays them and they are free to us that money or any other money they have. What they cannot do is ask Hobby Lobby to buy it for them. Ginsburg's theatrics aside, nobody is telling anyone they cannot have access to the drug. My insurance plan has all kinds of drugs listed that they will cover and mentions others that it won't. Why should these particular drugs be anymore special in the eyes of the law?
That is why they weren't arguing over how the employee exercised the benefit but whether the employer had to provide the benefit. Not the same argument at all.
Please read the comment above parent, science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5346117&cid=43755801 to read how wrong you are about Citizens United.
And then talk about ignoring the constitution by complaining that a law was intended only to help a very small subset of the citizenry and how it got all out of whack by being applied universally. Wow, just wow!
Well, the constitution guarantees equality and it is far easier for everyone to live in a tenement than a mansion.
Not if that corporation was formed "as an association of like-minded people who want to pool their money to pay for political speech" This whole movement was started as a way to "repeal" the one decision that pointed out that this absolutely was a first amendment right. The right to associate is an individual liberty that can only be exercised in conjunction with others.
Yes, it is a speech issue because the talk is all about limiting the people who can speak and the avenues they can use to speak,
"newspapers and news broadcasts... newspapermen..." Now don't go getting all rational and bringing up the good parts of Citizens United, you might confuse the feeble minded.
"And when speech is protected by the First Amendment, so is spending money to speak." Maybe because the 1st Amendment guarantees far more than the right to chat with your neighbor over the fence and utilize modern equivalents to printing and passing pamphlets like was done in the run up to the American Revolution and the disseminating of the Federalist Papers in the push to have the constitution ratified? Hell, even doing the same thing as was done back then costs money.
By enjoying the comforts of the modern world that we want to enjoy in the way we want to enjoy them.. Pretty much the same as you but you may have chosen to enjoy less. For instance, France and the US shared a major heat wave a few years back and France lost a far higher percentage of the population and that was directly attributable to the difference in the amount of air-conditioning (a modern convenience) in use in France and the US. Transferring France's death rate to the US would have meant millions of US dying but the US had not only a lower percentage but a lower raw number of deaths as well. Just one example.
That there is nothing we can do about it because we didn't cause it.