This is obviously not going to go over well with the Obama Administration. What's everyone's take on this? Is this the beginning to the end of the ACA? If it ends up leading to a dismissal of the individual and corporate mandate of the ACA, will it fall apart on its own?
As a privately held (as opposed to publicly) corporation, sure they have a right not to finance anything that goes against the owners beliefs....of course, everybody else has a right not to work or shop at that corporation......and I am just waiting for the 1st pregnant non-xtian employee to sue them for either an abortion or 18 years of support
As a privately held (as opposed to publicly) corporation, sure they have a right not to finance anything that goes against the owners beliefs....of course, everybody else has a right not to work or shop at that corporation......and I am just waiting for the 1st pregnant non-xtian employee to sue them for either an abortion or 18 years of support
Is this the beginning to the end of the ACA? If it ends up leading to a dismissal of the individual and corporate mandate of the ACA, will it fall apart on its own?
No. Comrade Obama will not stand for this. Neither will the other communists people who support dear leader.
"But now, because if this, I can't get birth control right? There'll be armed guards at the CVS checking my insurance card to make sure my insurance covers birth control. If not, it's illegal for me to buy birth control now right?" Sorry, had to. It reflects some of the comments I've been seeing from other sites.
As a privately held (as opposed to publicly) corporation, sure they have a right not to finance anything that goes against the owners beliefs....of course, everybody else has a right not to work or shop at that corporation......and I am just waiting for the 1st pregnant non-xtian employee to sue them for either an abortion or 18 years of support
To be clear, Hobby Lobby did not oppose paying for contraceptives. They opposed paying for abortafacients.
Its going to be interesting to see how the LA Times spins the Hobby Lobby decision. Usually if theirs something they don't agree with they just don't report it or have a small article on page 17 but this is too big. These guys are professional writers and its amazing how they can take a news story thats a disaster to them and somehow make it favorable to them.
I'm wondering about the Public Employees Unions cant force people to pay dues decision also. Is this just in Illinois or all over the US?
[This message has been edited by V8 Vega (edited 06-30-2014).]
Originally posted by Wichita: Another case decision that is big. Court ruled that non-members of public sector unions are not required to pay union dues.
Not exactly. This was not public sector I think. It involved health care workers. Specifically, family members who took off work/quit working to care for family instead of 'warehousing' them in care facilities. True that the 'specific to the case' family members received government payment for part/all of the care. I guess unions have infiltrated government care "warehouses" and have unionized the privilege to work at a such facility. The gall they have to require anybody getting government funds be required to join a union, . Moronic is that government (which is supposed to protect us) employees need a union to protect themselves from the government.
Sounds like companies need to become Christian Scientists.... that way they can say they don't believe in any form of medical aid and they don't have to provide health care coverage.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 06-30-2014).]
Cliffw, the people in this case are qualified nurses and the like who come into your house to assist with family members health needs so you can go work or as in the case with my wife, she had someone coming 3 days a week to bandage up the wound from her surgery back in March. Apparently, one of the more "Progressive" groups, the SEIU(I hope I got that right) was sticking them for union dues.
I went home for lunch today and had to hear my wife rant on about the "stupid white conservative male" judges on the SCOTUS. She's listened to enough of the media shows insisting that this means that birth control will now be illegal. I had to do some research on this to find out exactly what the case was all about. The family who owns Hobby Lobby has deep religious convictions and apposes abortion. The ACA mandates that they go against their faith and provide and pay for coverage to their employees to provide the morning after pill, IUD's, and abortions. Turns out, despite what some of the news programs are telling people, the case was not about all forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby will still cover condoms and birth control pills and even sterilization. Now I just have to find a way to tell the wife before she continues to bite my head off for being a man.
Sounds like companies need to become Christian Scientists.... that way they can say they don't believe in any form of medical aid and they don't have to provide health care coverage.
Yup, looks like it is unraveling.
But, a lot of damage is already done and most of the cronies have received their pay offs. So as I said years ago now the dumascraps can say they tried and their ignorant followers can buy that line of horse crap too.
Hmmm... corporations are now "alive"... they can even have their own religion. Interesting.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
Yup, looks like it is unraveling.
But, a lot of damage is already done and most of the cronies have received their pay offs. So as I said years ago now the dumascraps can say they tried and their ignorant followers can buy that line of horse crap too.
If corporations have free speech rights as persons they certainly are alive.
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:
Sounds like companies need to become Christian Scientists.... that way they can say they don't believe in any form of medical aid and they don't have to provide health care coverage.
Except as provided under a contract for union employees, they don't have to provide medical coverage anyway, whatever the corporate religion.
"Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA," she wrote. "The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities."
Hmmm... corporations are now "alive"... they can even have their own religion. Interesting.
Actually, they always have been. A corporation is an entity not unlike a trust.
I am going to go out on a limb and say you do not approve.
Should be interesting to watch the discrimination cases start to come in. Just like you may not discriminate based on religion you also may not discriminate for a lack of. I see this as a way to help stop governments propensity to pick winners through social engineering where they in fact pick winners, punish others and bribe for support.
Nope, corporations are getting more and more personal rights (rights historically only available to individuals). Not what I would want, but a lot of wealthy people will be happy with their new found freedom. Heck, maybe they will go out and buy themselves a few politicians to celebrate!
Originally posted by J-Holland: Cliffw, the people in this case are qualified nurses and the like who come into your house to assist with family members health needs so you can go work ...
Pam Harris, the lead plaintiff in the landmark Harris v. Quinn case, in which the high court ruled people who care for loved ones in their home can't be compelled to join the Service Employees International Union, said the ruling was a victory for her son Josh, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder.
"It means no third party intrusion, it means that there's not going to be a union contract inserted between my son and I, there's not going to be union rules and regulations dictating how I can provide the care that Josh needs," she said.
I think though you are correct, as ...
quote
The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union.
I think the court should have gone further and wiped out forced union participation to get a job. As spoke about in this article ...
quote
And yet the majority did not issue the sweeping decision that had the potential to devastate organized labor at large. Anti-union interests, including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which represented the Harris plaintiffs, had hoped the court would apply its decision on agency fees to all public sector workers in the U.S., essentially overturning an earlier Supreme Court case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
With far-reaching implications for an already embattled labor movement, such a ruling would have instituted a kind of right-to-work principle on the public sector, giving workers throughout the country the ability to opt out of supporting the union.
I don't see how the above reasoning ...
quote
The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union.
..., the right of freedom of assembly, does not apply to all.
Hmmm... corporations are now "alive"... they can even have their own religion. Interesting.
Not alive, but they are a self-sustaining autonomous entity that will ( can ) outlast any of its creators.. So it needs various things, such as property rights, to exist.
Is it written somewhere that once a company becomes incorporated the founder loses control of how they wish to run it? For one are they forced to provide health insurance at all?
The court was VERY careful to not extend beyond this... but it sets a precedence... and the Democrat Union Machine is in tears right now as a result of what will likely be a ton of court cases at the district courts.
I'm wandering how that will effect harley davidson in york. They have workers now that they call casual. They make l think like $18 an hour and get no benefits BUT have to pay union dues. They get nothing in return from the union except the right to have a job. All unions.. money grubbing scum bags. ....
quote
Originally posted by Wichita:
Another case decision that is big. Court ruled that non-members of public sector unions are not required to pay union dues.
Before, you HAD to pay the extortion union fees regardless if you were a member or not.
I went home for lunch today and had to hear my wife rant on about the "stupid white conservative male" judges on the SCOTUS. She's listened to enough of the media shows insisting that this means that birth control will now be illegal. I had to do some research on this to find out exactly what the case was all about. The family who owns Hobby Lobby has deep religious convictions and apposes abortion. The ACA mandates that they go against their faith and provide and pay for coverage to their employees to provide the morning after pill, IUD's, and abortions. Turns out, despite what some of the news programs are telling people, the case was not about all forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby will still cover condoms and birth control pills and even sterilization. Now I just have to find a way to tell the wife before she continues to bite my head off for being a man.
Cliffw, the people in this case are qualified nurses and the like who come into your house to assist with family members health needs so you can go work or as in the case with my wife, she had someone coming 3 days a week to bandage up the wound from her surgery back in March. Apparently, one of the more "Progressive" groups, the SEIU(I hope I got that right) was sticking them for union dues.
It went even further than that. They were also pulling dues from family members who stayed home to take care of a family member. It was something that was done in Michigan too under the Granholm administration. It died after she left office. It is a way of paying off the unions for getting the Democrats in office. Those being force to pay had no say in it and generally got nothing out of it.
I went home for lunch today and had to hear my wife rant on about the "stupid white conservative male" judges on the SCOTUS. She's listened to enough of the media shows insisting that this means that birth control will now be illegal. I had to do some research on this to find out exactly what the case was all about. The family who owns Hobby Lobby has deep religious convictions and apposes abortion. The ACA mandates that they go against their faith and provide and pay for coverage to their employees to provide the morning after pill, IUD's, and abortions. Turns out, despite what some of the news programs are telling people, the case was not about all forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby will still cover condoms and birth control pills and even sterilization. Now I just have to find a way to tell the wife before she continues to bite my head off for being a man.
Thanks for that. It warrants repeating as the left, I'm guessing anti-Christian(?) are coming down hard on this one for some reason.
My favorite argument so far is "This is a vote against women's rights." Yea, Because it's all about keeping women in the kitchen.
Brad
Of course most of the media is leaving out the point that they were offering birth control to their employees. The problem was O-care was going beyond what they felt comfortable with. ( like the day after pill... ).
Makes it harder to bash them for it when you know the truth.....
( ya, like he said above.. oops.. )
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-30-2014).]
COOL, a little common sense. Birth control and baby murder is not and never will be "health care" it is and always will be social engineering.
I happen to disagree that its a baby. But i also disagree with the government forcing a private company to provide something they dont believe in ( within reason of course, as this could be taken to far: 'we dont believe in lights, or bathrooms'... The market should decide if its an acceptable practice, not the government.
I think I'm going to go to Hobby Lobby tomorrow and buy something...
I'm not. But i wont stop going either.. Business as usual for me.
And this is from a person that thinks religion is an intellectual cop out. But as long as they dont force it on me as a customer, all i care is if they provide the products i want at a price i expect. They are free to believe whatever they like.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 06-30-2014).]
I'm not. But i wont stop going either.. Business as usual for me.
And this is from a person that thinks religion is an intellectual cop out. But as long as they dont force it on me as a customer, all i care is if they provide the products i want at a price i expect. They are free to believe whatever they like.
But wait! They're not providing everything free to their employees. You have to stop shopping there so you can force them to close and stick it to the man. Power to the people..................who would end up unemployed soon as a result..................But at least your voice was heard.........in between the Young & Restless and Price Is Right.
Sorry, had to. It reflects some of the comments I've been seeing from other sites. 
. Moronic is that government (which is supposed to protect us) employees need a union to protect themselves from the government.
Because it's all about keeping women in the kitchen. 
