Printable View
Yea baby.......it will be visited again, as this was a 5/4 decision. And the decision only effects closely owned corporations. Closely Owned are those that are family owned or tightly controlled, PRIVATE businesses.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/[/url]
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;535057]Yea baby.......it will be visited again, as this was a 5/4 decision. And the decision only effects closely owned corporations. Closely Owned are those that are family owned or tightly controlled, PRIVATE businesses.
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Good!! I'm sure when it's reworded and then revisited the gubment will get what they want. As for now....it's good!
Women could always just pay for birth control pills - they're dirt cheap. Or use condoms. Or you could just get married like the rest of us and the birth control will take care of itself. Just buy one less latte frappe crappy a month for crying out loud. Shouldn't even need a supreme court decision.....
I wonder if Sandra Fluke is rolling out of bed from one of her hundreds of lovers and crying about this??
I'm all for castration of multiple dead wood dads, and sterialization for third time un wed moms.
[QUOTE=kygorski;535100]I'm all for castration of multiple dead wood dads, and sterialization for third time un wed moms.[/QUOTE]
--
Hmmm... so you don't want to live in America anymore?
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html[/url]
Religious convictions.... sure...
[QUOTE=Hlleonard;535108][URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html[/URL]
Religious convictions.... sure...[/QUOTE]
hahahaha that sure could put them in a bad light. In the world of politics and big business there are very few rules that apply.....They got what they wanted regardless of this article. I wonder if they are gong to fix this? If they don't after all this is out then they deserve what comes their way.
Is this what "yea baby" means Mr. Fisher?... You seem to be a great believer in 'do away with the welfare system' so in that vein your tickled that a company can deny it's employees birth control based on their bottom line.... I mean religious belief, so it seems you would like to see more kids born into food stamps instead of less...
This is a copy and paste from an article written after the supreme court decision...
“Other closely held companies now have a license to harm their employees in the name of the company’s religion,” she said. “If companies qualify, they can use this decision to make the same claim.”
How many large cap mutual funds don't include Pfizer or a handful of the other big player drug manufacturers?
[QUOTE=Hlleonard;535159]Is this what "yea baby" means Mr. Fisher?... You seem to be a great believer in 'do away with the welfare system' so in that vein your tickled that a company can deny it's employees birth control based on their bottom line.... I mean religious belief, so it seems you would like to see more kids born into food stamps instead of less...
This is a copy and paste from an article written after the supreme court decision...
“Other closely held companies now have a license to harm their employees in the name of the company’s religion,” she said. “If companies qualify, they can use this decision to make the same claim.”[/QUOTE]
Do you even have an idea of what PERSONAL responsibility means.
Hmmm... this is an opinion, not mine but somebodys. you recon there could be any truth in it?
This isn't the only example of Hobby Lobby's rank hypocrisy.
1. Long before Obamacare, 28 states mandated contraceptives be included in all heath insurance policies:
[B][I]Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin[/I][/B]
[URL="http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf"]http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_I...[/URL]
[B][U][I]2. Hobby Lobby is in every one of those states and is already supplying contraceptive coverage to its employees.[/I][/U][/B]
3. If Hobby Lobby is so concerned about contraceptive coverage, why didn't they sue the States that require them to provide contraceptive coverage?
The majority of the other plaintiffs are in states that require contraception. [U][I][B]Why didn't they sue?[/B][/I][/U]
4. Here's the thing that gives away the game:
[B][U][I]Two of the plaintiffs were in states that DIDN'T required contraception and they yet those companies STILL provided contraceptive coverage, because it was a better and cheaper plan!!!![/I][/U][/B] (Insurance companies know contraception is cheaper than pregnancies.)
Likewise, Romney Care required contraception coverage and Massachusetts is the second most Catholic State in the country and nobody sued the State. Finally, the VA also provides contraceptive care with tax payer's money and no one sued the VA.
Bottom Line: This is an example of "Situational Ethics." These people turn their moral outrage on and off based who is in Office, how much the insurance costs and what party passed the law. That's not my definition of "deeply held moral belief."