Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    Another blow to the freedom-killing disaster known as Obamacare.

    The business owners are two brothers, Francis and Philip M. Gilardi, who own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio., and challenged the mandate on religious grounds. They say the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage would force them to violate their Roman Catholic beliefs and moral values by providing contraceptives such as the morning-after pill for their employees.

    Writing for the majority, DC Court of Appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the mandate "trammels the right of free exercise_a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties_as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

    Brown said that the mandate presented a business with a "Hobson's choice: They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong."

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another blow to the freedom-killing disaster known as Obamacare.

    The business owners are two brothers, Francis and Philip M. Gilardi, who own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio., and challenged the mandate on religious grounds. They say the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage would force them to violate their Roman Catholic beliefs and moral values by providing contraceptives such as the morning-after pill for their employees.

    Writing for the majority, DC Court of Appeals Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the mandate "trammels the right of free exercise_a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties_as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

    Brown said that the mandate presented a business with a "Hobson's choice: They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong."

    [/QUOTE]

    To progressives, they are not being forced, they have a choice: comply with the random dictates of an increasingly power-hungry leader, or go out of business.

    This is the sme false choice that the progressives presented when us sane people pointed out how obamacare was forcing us to buy insurance, even if we didn't want it.

    The progressive way...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    "infringement of the employee's rights" ? So you claim all employees have a Constitutional right to have their birth control paid for by their employers?
    How absurdly stupid is that notion.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Withholding benefits is a violation of rights? You leftwingers are amazing. Everything you want but don't want to get on your own is somehow a right.

    The people that want contraceptives should just buy their own gd contraceptives. Of course that concept of providing for yourself is foreign to progressives.

    You know, I'd like to have a boat. Not too big. Maybe a 26 footer with a couple of outboards. And of course I'd like a mooring too. With some to provide a skiff or something to get me to the boat.

    That is my right because I want it and I said so. When is Obama going to get that for me??

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is absurd, really. It is not the business that is being forced to violate their religion, it is the owners - PEOPLE.

    The employees are not forced to do anything in this case. They can go find a job somewhere else if they want. They can buy contraceptives on their own, no one is stopping them from doing so. Yet the owners are being forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Clueless...complete clueless and selfish.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is absurd, really. It is not the business that is being forced to violate their religion, it is the owners - PEOPLE.

    The employees are not forced to do anything in this case. They can go find a job somewhere else if they want. They can buy contraceptives on their own, no one is stopping them from doing so. Yet the owners are being forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Clueless...complete clueless and selfish.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As was said before your remarks, employers are not allowed to dictate how an employee uses their assets. Not their money nor their health care not anything else. An employer is not allowed to impose their beliefs on their workers.

    It is actually pretty simple. I pay you. I do not get to tell you how you can and cannot spend it. Whether it is money or other benefits. As an employer, if you do not like the freedoms this country stands for you can open a business in a country with Sharia law where religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    [QUOTE]Ridiculous[/QUOTE]

    So, the Constitution is ridiculous. I see where we're going here...

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    These kinds of medieval views have no place in modern America, and even less place in public policy.

    These social retrogrades are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of America.  This country is founded on the separation of church and state, not the comingling of church and state.

    If you want to start a church, go ahead and knock yourself out with your medieval textbooks.

    If you want to sell groceries in a democracy, you can't force your caveman philosophies on your bagboys, cooks, managers and other staff without violating common labor laws.

    The year is 2013, not 1513.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 



    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is absurd, really. It is not the business that is being forced to violate their religion, it is the owners - PEOPLE.

    The employees are not forced to do anything in this case. They can go find a job somewhere else if they want. They can buy contraceptives on their own, no one is stopping them from doing so. Yet the owners are being forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Clueless...complete clueless and selfish.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As was said before your remarks, employers are not allowed to dictate how an employee uses their assets. Not their money nor their health care not anything else. An employer is not allowed to impose their beliefs on their workers.

    It is actually pretty simple. I pay you. I do not get to tell you how you can and cannot spend it. Whether it is money or other benefits. As an employer, if you do not like the freedoms this country stands for you can open a business in a country with Sharia law where religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone.

    [/QUOTE]


    An employer has a right to provide whatever salary and benefits he chooses. It is not a matter of employee rights. In this case it is not the employee's money that is being spent, it is the employer's. The employer is not telling the employee to do anything with their money.

    It is simple. The employer hires the employee with stated salary and benefits known to the employee. If the employee is an employee at will instead of under a contract, the employer can change the salary and benefits to their desire within whatever laws and regulations exist. The employee can then decide to take it or leave and find another employer that suits them.

    The case here is that the employer objects to being forced by laws and regualtions to spend their money on something that violates their religious beliefs.

    The case has nothing to do with the employee. The argument is about money before there is any transaction with the employee. There is no asset of the employee that could possibly be involved.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     the freedom-killing disaster known as Obamacare.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    blow hard?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    The owner isn't taking away any "rights".  The is about paying for those rights. There is no reasonable expectation that employers. Must pay for birth control.  That's just progressive unacheivable, like Obamacare itself.

    Employees that want birth control can go pay for it on their own, or take their labor and go to a company that offers such coverage.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is absurd, really. It is not the business that is being forced to violate their religion, it is the owners - PEOPLE.

    The employees are not forced to do anything in this case. They can go find a job somewhere else if they want. They can buy contraceptives on their own, no one is stopping them from doing so. Yet the owners are being forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Clueless...complete clueless and selfish.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As was said before your remarks, employers are not allowed to dictate how an employee uses their assets. Not their money nor their health care not anything else. An employer is not allowed to impose their beliefs on their workers.

    It is actually pretty simple. I pay you. I do not get to tell you how you can and cannot spend it. Whether it is money or other benefits. As an employer, if you do not like the freedoms this country stands for you can open a business in a country with Sharia law where religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is the employer imposing their belief on employees? Are these employees being told they cannot use birth control?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These kinds of medieval views have no place in modern America, and even less place in public policy.

    These social retrogrades are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of America.  This country is founded on the separation of church and state, not the comingling of church and state.

    If you want to start a church, go ahead and knock yourself out with your medieval textbooks.

    If you want to sell groceries in a democracy, you can't force your caveman philosophies on your bagboys, cooks, managers and other staff without violating common labor laws.

    The year is 2013, not 1513.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Seems like it is the progressives that are forcing their views on everyone else in this case.  

    and, while we are at it, you don't have the right to free stuff. That's not A "right", that's income redistribution.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

     

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is absurd, really. It is not the business that is being forced to violate their religion, it is the owners - PEOPLE.

    The employees are not forced to do anything in this case. They can go find a job somewhere else if they want. They can buy contraceptives on their own, no one is stopping them from doing so. Yet the owners are being forced by the government to violate their religious beliefs.

    Clueless...complete clueless and selfish.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As was said before your remarks, employers are not allowed to dictate how an employee uses their assets. Not their money nor their health care not anything else. An employer is not allowed to impose their beliefs on their workers.

    It is actually pretty simple. I pay you. I do not get to tell you how you can and cannot spend it. Whether it is money or other benefits. As an employer, if you do not like the freedoms this country stands for you can open a business in a country with Sharia law where religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone.

    [/QUOTE]


    An employer has a right to provide whatever salary and benefits he chooses. It is not a matter of employee rights. In this case it is not the employee's money that is being spent, it is the employer's. The employer is not telling the employee to do anything with their money.

    It is simple. The employer hires the employee with stated salary and benefits known to the employee. If the employee is an employee at will instead of under a contract, the employer can change the salary and benefits to their desire within whatever laws and regulations exist. The employee can then decide to take it or leave and find another employer that suits them.

    The case here is that the employer objects to being forced by laws and regualtions to spend their money on something that violates their religious beliefs.

    The case has nothing to do with the employee. The argument is about money before there is any transaction with the employee. There is no asset of the employee that could possibly be involved.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Quite wrong on more than one count. 

     

    Lets just take the first one: once you are piad it is YOUR money. Not the employers. The employer cant tell you how to spend it becuase it is NOT their money ANYMORE! You did the work. THey paid you. It is now your money.

    Same with benefits. WHo has ever claimed - besides your post - that the employer can tell you what doctors to use and whether you should be treated one way or another in your health care.

    To actually think that once you have EARNED - that is by fullfulling your part of the employment contract - your compensation your employer can or should have ANY say AT ALL in what you do with your compensation is ... astounding, stunning.... Your statement, your thought.. is just toooooooo lame. Truly. 

    You need to learn how CONTRACTS work. Contracts 101 for elementary school kids. THen you need lessons in free markets and capitalism. THen you could use some lessons in democracy. Are you that incredably young or that incredably ignorant.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    The owner isn't taking away any "rights".  The is about paying for those rights. There is no reasonable expectation that employers. Must pay for birth control.  That's just progressive unacheivable, like Obamacare itself.

    Employees that want birth control can go pay for it on their own, or take their labor and go to a company that offers such coverage.

    [/QUOTE]

    Employees do by putting THEIR E-A-R-N-E-D compensation to it if they want it. And it is NO business of the employer what they do with their benefits. They earned it.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    [QUOTE]So let me get this straight. Just give me a second. It's almost too funny. As a person who has chosen to not have children, does that give me the right to complain about paying the taxes required to send other peoples to school? What about people getting tax benefits for having children? That sounds a little like income redistribution.[/QUOTE]

    You get there's a difference between local governments that provide services like education and the Federal government which is supposed to be constrained by a constitution?

    Also, just because as a society we've decided that it's essential to provide an basic education for our children (which provides a direct benefit to you even if you've chosen not to have children yourself) it doesn't excuse the wholesale trampling of other peoples rights in order to buy votes or reward cronies.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These kinds of medieval views have no place in modern America, and even less place in public policy.

    These social retrogrades are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of America.  This country is founded on the separation of church and state, not the comingling of church and state.

    If you want to start a church, go ahead and knock yourself out with your medieval textbooks.

    If you want to sell groceries in a democracy, you can't force your caveman philosophies on your bagboys, cooks, managers and other staff without violating common labor laws.

    The year is 2013, not 1513.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Seems like it is the progressives that are forcing their views on everyone else in this case.  

    and, while we are at it, you don't have the right to free stuff. That's not A "right", that's income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    So let me get this straight. Just give me a second. It's almost too funny. As a person who has chosen to not have children, does that give me the right to complain about paying the taxes required to send other peoples to school? What about people getting tax benefits for having children? That sounds a little like income redistribution.

    [/QUOTE]

    You got it right. Some people are just plain old hypocrits.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]So let me get this straight. Just give me a second. It's almost too funny. As a person who has chosen to not have children, does that give me the right to complain about paying the taxes required to send other peoples to school? What about people getting tax benefits for having children? That sounds a little like income redistribution.[/QUOTE]

    You get there's a difference between local governments that provide services like education and the Federal government which is supposed to be constrained by a constitution?

    Also, just because as a society we've decided that it's essential to provide an basic education for our children (which provides a direct benefit to you even if you've chosen not to have children yourself) it doesn't excuse the wholesale trampling of other peoples rights in order to buy votes or reward cronies.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    WOw. You mean to say you want someone in yuor state capital from a different town to tell you and the peolpe of your town what to do? ANd we know that since all government is bad state government must be too.

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ridiculous.  When a religious individual operates a secular business, that business is not their religion.  This is just another reason why health insurance needs to be detached from employment. 

    For all of the shouting about infringement of the employer's religious rights, how is it that so few acknowledge that withholding such health benefits constitute their own infringement of the employee's rights in the name of a religion they may not share?

    And the employers with religious objections are already paying for birth control; every time they pay their employees no doubt some of those employees use part of their wages to cover birth control. We do not allow employers to control how employees spend their paychecks; why should we allow them to control how they spend a health insurance benefit, which is just another piece of the compensation package? 

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right. The owner of a business does not have the right to take away the rights of their employees. 

    The two previous posters do not seem to be able to discern the simple fact that employers just do not have the right to impose their own religion or their own bigotry for that matter on others, inlcuding if not especially their employees. In their undeveloped view Freedom is the right of the owner to limit the freedoms of their employees. Including forcing their employees to follow the religious dicates of the employer. As you point out there is not ilttle but actually zero consistancy, zero thought that went into those opinions. 

    If you are a church and not a business then you have a logicalm reasonable expectation of being able to impose religious values within your church (and even there one can make a case for some limitiation on extreme issues such as gential mutilation). But if you are a business you are not an ante bellum plantation owner in the south with the legal right treat employees as slaves.

    [/QUOTE]

    The owner isn't taking away any "rights".  The is about paying for those rights. There is no reasonable expectation that employers. Must pay for birth control.  That's just progressive unacheivable, like Obamacare itself.

    Employees that want birth control can go pay for it on their own, or take their labor and go to a company that offers such coverage.

    [/QUOTE]

    Employees do by putting THEIR E-A-R-N-E-D compensation to it if they want it. And it is NO business of the employer what they do with their benefits. They earned it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah, no.  

    if the exchange was a cash voucher to buy insurance, you would be right. But, it is a defined benefit.  the defined benefit is what ever the giver wants it to be.  If people want free birth control as part of their defined benefit, they are free to go somewhere that offers it, free, of course.  but, the company is under no obligation to pay for anything, morally speaking.  Morally speaking, the government does not have a right to force anybody to do anything they don't want to do. But, then again, we have Obamacare, which is doing just that.

    You have made the best case for the immorality of Obamacare that I have seen.  Thank you.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    I've changed my mind.  A contraceptive free insurance plan should be made available for those with religious objections.  

    Premiums should be made 25% more expensive than the plan that covers contraception, due to the greater risk of pregnancy.

     

     

Share