Hobby Lobby Wins!

[JustAlex]

Getting back on topic...

I CAN'T WAIT for a JW company to tell it's employees that Blood transfusions will NOT be covered in their health care because their religion is very much against that.

Or when a Scientologist company tells it's employees that anti-depressants will not be covered...

Or when ANY religious company that is against vaccines also tells it's employees that they won't cover that...

Seriously, SCOTUS opened up a can of worms...

[gsj68]

Read Justice Ginsburg's Passionate 35-Page Dissent of Hobby Lobby Decision

"Addressing the majority of her colleagues — including all but one of the six men sitting on the Supreme Court — Ginsburg wrote:

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

The justice goes on to criticize the opinion's interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that "until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'"

The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."
http://news.yahoo.com/read-justice-g...152626544.html

[tpeichel]

This wouldn't even be an issue if the Federal Government hadn't shoved Obamacare down the throats of everyone in this country.

[tpeichel]

wow....and how does any of that have anything to do with the fact that females are the only ones that have a fetus growing in their bodies and thus have the only choice in the matter?


Stop talking about babies....a fetus is not a baby.

That's right, if a woman doesn't want the fetus she alone has the CHOICE.....the male has no say because it's not his body and the fetus has no rights.

You don't like it? Too bad.

You are so poisoned by feminism. Why should a woman have any more say in the life or death of my offspring than I do? A paternity test would reveal that I am the father, yet a woman can just go ahead and kill my child without my consent?

[JustAlex]

You are so poisoned by feminism. Why should a woman have any more say in the life or death of my offspring than I do? A paternity test would reveal that I am the father, yet a woman can just go ahead and kill my child without my consent?

Here comes the big shock you probably didn't expect....I am ANTI-modern feminism.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because it's the logical and reasonable position to take.

Stop talking about "killing"....no one is killing any person....the key word here is Person.

And the reason why a woman has more say than the male is very easy....because it's HER body.

[maccards44]

I find it distasteful that your employers religious views are now being forced on YOU the employee... like... directly.
It's where you WORK, it's not who ARE. Think about where you work, what would it be like if your bosses personal religious feelings dictated what you were or weren't entitled to? Messed up.

[tpeichel]

I find it distasteful that your employers religious views are now being forced on YOU the employee... like... directly.
It's where you WORK, it's not who ARE. Think about where you work, what would it be like if your bosses personal religious feelings dictated what you were or weren't entitled to? Messed up.

You mean like the government did?

[tpeichel]

Here comes the big shock you probably didn't expect....I am ANTI-modern feminism.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because it's the logical and reasonable position to take.

Stop talking about "killing"....no one is killing any person....the key word here is Person.

Call it what you will, but the man who you have no regard for, will never hold his child in his arms, he will never see his child smile and laugh, and he will never a read a book to them. He will never teach his child how to ride a bike, throw a curve ball or color in between the lines. He will never be there for their greatest triumphs or give them a hug after a tough day. THAT is the choice you believe a woman can take away from a man. That is life!

[Wickabee]

Getting back on topic...

I CAN'T WAIT for a JW company to tell it's employees that Blood transfusions will NOT be covered in their health care because their religion is very much against that.

Or when a Scientologist company tells it's employees that anti-depressants will not be covered...

Or when ANY religious company that is against vaccines also tells it's employees that they won't cover that...

Seriously, SCOTUS opened up a can of worms...

What is a "JW company"? I grew up JW, and the only companies to speak of were self employment. JWs believe in being rewarded for work, but teach against getting into business ownership on any level but mom and pop. If you're working to support yourself, great. If you're working to make more money so you can take that and make even more and continue the cycle, you've now chosen money as your God.

Basically, I can't ever see what you said happening. JWs also take " Caesar's things to Caesar" and "obey the law until it goes against God's law. From my experience (plenty) a JW business owner would cover blood transfusions because the law said he has to (a biblical teaching for JWs). He would also cover it because it's not his decision to make for someone else (again, they teach free will). He would never take a blood transfusion, because the bible literally says, word for word, keep abstaining from...blood. Nowhere, though, does it say you have the right, privilege or duty of forcing people to follow your beliefs.

I just don't see it happening. They would consider the government and the employee sinners, but I doubt they'd even say a word about it.

[maccards44]

You mean like the government did?

"the government" just agreed with the religious group so I don't even...