Big Supreme Court decision Monday

[Cool Beans]

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge 5-4 decision

Also

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Monday that public sector unions cannot collect fees from home health care workers who don't want to be part of a union.

[Jim in CT]

Yep. On one hand, a relief. On the other hand, scary to me that 4 Supreme Court justices think it's of for the feds to force you to be complicit in somehting which violates your religious beliefs.

The Court has not been kind to Obama for the last week.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yep. On one hand, a relief. On the other hand, scary to me that 4 Supreme Court justices think it's of for the feds to force you to be complicit in somehting which violates your religious beliefs.

The Court has not been kind to Obama for the last week.

Poor Obozo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[eelskimmer]

It is my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object
to paying for contraception for its employees--only for
those (next morning pills) that can cause abortion.
This is a different story than women reproduction rights.
But you won't hear it on the drive-by media.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by eelskimmer

It is my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object
to paying for contraception for its employees--only for
those (next morning pills) that can cause abortion.
This is a different story than women reproduction rights.
But you won't hear it on the drive-by media.

You are correct. I believe that Obamacare mandates that employers provide 28 forms of contraception, and HL agreed to 24 o fthem. The 4 they objected to, all take effect afterthe egg has been fertilized.

You are also corrct about the media. An honest attempt at reporting this would be to say that HL was saved from being forced to pay for, what they consider to be, abortions. What most of the media will do, is hold this up as evidence of the phony, conservative, "war on women"...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are correct. I believe that Obamacare mandates that employers provide 28 forms of contraception, and HL agreed to 24 o fthem. The 4 they objected to, all take effect afterthe egg has been fertilized.

You are also corrct about the media. An honest attempt at reporting this would be to say that HL was saved from being forced to pay for, what they consider to be, abortions. What most of the media will do, is hold this up as evidence of the phony, conservative, "war on women"...

I read what Eelskimmer stated on lots of sites this morning. Here was one on the NY Times front page today.

"The health care law and related regulations require many employers to provide female workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception. The companies objected to some of the methods, saying they are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. Providing insurance coverage for those forms of contraception would, the companies said, make them complicit in the practice.

The companies said they had no objection to other forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery"

Another from the Hartford Courant

"One of the two cases was brought by arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd, which is owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their children, who are evangelical Christians. The other case was brought by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn, Mennonites who own Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp in Pennsylvania.

None of the companies that have objected are publicly traded companies. Hobby Lobby has around 13,000 full-time employees while Conestoga Wood has 950.

The decision will affect similar cases brought by employers around the country. There are 49 cases in total, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Religious institutions are already exempt from the requirement.

The company owners involved in litigation around the country do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some, including Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd's Plan B morning-after pill, and ella, made by the Watson Pharma unit of Actavis PLC."

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Poor Obozo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

I don't think it's his name he has a problem with . His comment is about the way he runs the Presidency . Just an educated guess on my part
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

Why don't you do all of us a favor and drive your Prius off a cliff.
If you're happy with this clown is doing to this country, good luck to you !

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Why don't you do all of us a favor and drive your Prius off a cliff.
If you're happy with this clown is doing to this country, good luck to you !

Did the relative who didn't vote the way you wanted ever get the anal cancer you wished upon him? I think you called the President a POS in the same post.

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have. It must suck to be so miserable.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have.

Paul, this sentence strikes me as one of the most interesting ones I've read by you. Obviously, I know little to nothing about you except for the sentences you post on the forum. This one is loaded with, on the one hand, the powerful positive influence of God, or a God, in directing your life to a better end; and, on the other hand, the judgment that straying from, or denying, that God's influence results in the negativity of hate.

Now, I don't know if your God demands that you counter hate with love, and if in your judgment of, and commiseration with, Raider Ronnie's presumed hate, you do counter it with love. Your brief statement doesn't imply that . . . but it might be there, merely not expressed. Interesting as that might be, what is more interesting to me is how you translate this implied relationship with God into your political persuasions.

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I don't know, and am curious, if your relationship with your God is religious in form (organized into routine commandments and rituals), or religious in nature (a personal, spiritual, belief in a being or force beyond our ability to conceive).

In either case, is your belief subservient to the "will" of the State--does the State have the supreme power to bend your belief to its "will"? Or does your belief supersede that fictitious "will"? If it's the former, I'd suggest that your belief is an insignificant whim, and probably not worth inserting into a judgment of Raider Ronnie, or anybody else.

If it is the latter, is it important enough to you to protect it from the dictatorial power of the State to narrow your ability to live by that belief? And do you think that same protection should be given to others?

[Raider Ronnie]

1st off the relative is a complete looser that I'm embarrassed to be related to.
2 kids both school drop outs.
1 working in DD, the other working in a tire shop.
Both kids have kids out of wedlock, both living (leaching) in the parents house basements, being boyfriend or girlfriend.
Great futures they have and all too eager to be on the handout train.
2nd, Barack Husein Obama IS A PIECE OF #^&#^&#^&#^& !
3Rd, Your #^&#^&#^&#^&ing right I'm full of hate.
Hate what this country is doing to my kids future that I've busted my ass to make better for them than I had, as most every prior generation of my family had done since coming over from Italy.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Did the relative who didn't vote the way you wanted ever get the anal cancer you wished upon him? I think you called the President a POS in the same post.

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have. It must suck to be so miserable.