The courts should NOT try to curtail religious freedom. This country was founded on the right to religious freedom. The so-called women’s rights groups have no right to tell anyone what to believe or to try to force their beliefs on others.
Let me alone to believe & worship as I choose as I will leave you to your beliefs & choice of worship, be it God or a rock in your yard – that’s your right in this free country. It’s my right to believe & worship as I choose for the same reason.
Corporations are RUN by PEOPLE, are they not?!? These PEOPLE have BELIEFS, do they not?! Should it not be up to THEM to make their own decisions, and not the government?? My take on this is, the court (Left-leaning, BTW…) is making sure that corporations CANNOT deny coverage for birth control, abortions, etc., to their employees because of their own religious beliefs. It’s so transparent. Too bad the only thing our loser POTUS is transparent about is how badly he handles being our POTUS.
This is looking to rule on a CORPORATION’S standing in a right to religious freedoms by the owners. The Constitution doesn’t say all corporations are created equal, does it?
My take is that they are for-profit companies & not entitled to freedoms for religous people or even non-profit religious institutions. If they are to be allowed the Corporate shield, then they should play by the same rules. Seems to me that they are wanting their cake and eating it too.
Absolutely. A corporation is not a person and is not afforded religious rights and the idea that they want to hide behind the facade of being a religious institution is ridiculous. What’s next? Exempt from paying taxes? They should have to play by the same rules as anyone else.
Exemption from paying taxes is NOT a biblical precept. The issue is whether or not a corporate entity has the same rights as an individual when it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. If a corporation has freedom of speech, then we must allow it to have freedom of religion as well.
These corporations are not trying to prevent employees from using birth control or even having abortions. They are simply asking not to be forced to be a party to it by financing it through health insurance premiums.
If you want birth control or an abortion, pay for it yourself. Since when is pregnancy a disease anyway?
Spoken like a true man. If they don’t want to pay for it, don’t! The employer rarely pays 100% of the premium for the employee anymore. Pay a set amount and if the employee wants birth control, they can pay the difference. But it must at least be offered. The employer does not have the right to force their beliefs onto their employees. But they do have the right not to pay for it.
Birth control is usually obtained through a prescription. That makes it medical.
So Libby what your saying is that I as an employer (an individual as far as a I know) have no right to determine how the rather large sum of money that my company has to expend is used. This might be surprising to you but corporations are made up of rather large numbers of individuals in particular the individual shareholders of the corporation. It is the duty of the corporation to act in the interests of its shareholders. Being that it is a privately held company IE fewer than 500 shareholders (SEC rules) If the majority of the shareholders are electing to assert their individual rights it seems fair to say that the individual rights of those shareholders should be extended to the corporation.
So lets say for the sake of discussion that it is not an individual and that the corporation is mandated to violate the rights of its owners does that mean that the owners need to sue their own corporation for violation of their civil rights? the civil rights of the owners are violated no matter what if this is allowed to stand because the owners are not able to enjoy the freedoms granted to them. The first amendment gives the freedoms of Speech, Religion, Press, and Assembly. This case deals with two of those freedoms assembly and religion. Corporations are recognized as people because they are made up of people (their shareholders) and they have the right to assemble together to redress their grievances against the government. We also allow class actions if you contend that a group of associated people in the form of a corporation should not be allowed then neither should the ability to create a class of people who have been mutually wronged. This would thus destroy our system of courts because there are not enough courts to address the redress of grievances in a situation like that.
You say that an employer has the right to not pay for it. But unfortunately money is not as such that I can say who is paying what portion of the health premium once money is co-mingled it is all applied to the overall bill. A good example if I am not a drinker and I contribute $50 to the grocery bill and there are $150 of groceries and $50 worth of alcohol is it possible to say that my $50 in no way contributed to the purchase of the alcohol. No and the reason for that is that it could be argued that my contribution of the $50 allowed for the purchase of the alcohol because the initial $150 worth of groceries were accounted for. Even if I didn’t contribute directly to the purchase of it I enabled that purchase of alcohol. By requiring that the coverage be part of every insurance plan your basically telling employers that they either need to contribute to paying for it or even if you argue that they don’t contribute it is enabling because of the contribution covering the rest of the premium thus freeing up money for the employee to get it anyways.
Finally to contend that anything prescribed is purely medical is ridiculous. Prescription has been the scofflaws way around laws for time memorial whether it is marijuana or alcohol during prohibition. If something is legalized because of a prescription that is where you see abuses of that prescription whether it has a useful purpose like many killers do or it is merely something people like to invibe like marijuana or alcohol.
November 27, 2013 at 10:37 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Lundberry – All I can say is, What?
I gave up trying to read your post halfway through. Employers have been offering cafeteria benefit coverage for a long time. If they want to offer a bare-bones plan for a set amount of money and let the employee choose whether they want to pay for an additional coverage on their own why is that not a win-win?
November 27, 2013 at 11:31 am
Lundberry says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, your argument that an employer could offer a bare bones plan doesn’t work when the bare bones plan still includes a coverage that is offensive to the owners beliefs. If you want to contend that corporations are not people then the supreme court needs to overturn literally thousands of cases. Because that has been the basis of said decisions. Being that every other freedom given by the first amendment is extended to corporations as a result of their personhood it makes sense that this would also be treated similarly.
November 27, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Lundberry – my suggestion is that the employer offer a bare bones plan NOT including those things that offend their sensibilities, but are required to offer those coverages as options. They are not required to PAY for them (which seems to be everyone’s beef) but would be required to offer them to the employee to purchase with their own money.
Just as the owners of the corporation do not have the right to be forced to PAY for coverage they find offensive, they do not have the right to force those beliefs onto their employees and should allow them to purchase coverage at a group rate with their own money.
November 27, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And I never said corporations are not made up of people, I said for-profit corporations are not entitled to evade the law by claiming they are a religious institution.
Also, that corporations (meaning the people who own the corporation) have no right to force their religious beliefs onto their employees. It should be mandatory that those coverages be made available but the corporation should not be forced to pay for them.
November 27, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m a woman and I agree with every word he said. So much for “spoken like a true man.”
December 2, 2013 at 11:39 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OK. Spoken like a true mindless, Republican housewife.
December 2, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Robert Hill says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Obama and his libertine ilk worship care-free pleasure. They want to make sure that sin is “easy.” The ‘pill’ is the peyote of the pagans.
November 26, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ned,
My wife was prescribed birth control so we COULD have a child, so she could start menstruation. That prescription came from a doctor, who last I checked, is in the medical field. There are medical reasons women need birth control. Read up and inform yourself a little bit. Birth control isn’t simply to prevent pregnancy. In our case with our first daughter, it was quite the opposite. Besides, women have been subsidizing boner pills.
MOst of the time the “pill” is not treatment. it is a recreational drug. You know that.
And those other pills you mention are also not questionable for anyone with traditional Christian vallues to subsidize or procure.
December 3, 2013 at 9:51 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Robert – time to pack up the pulpit and move on buddy.
November 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Shawna says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree Libby! The Corporations are not allowed to violate descrimination laws by only hiring those of their same religious convictions, so how can they decide on whether or not an employee receive’s all of the benefits they are entitled to? Further…why is this an issue, contraception is available, not forced…why are so many so afraid of “we the people” making choices for ourselves.
Wait until the Jehovah Witness’ businesses start limiting their health insurance policies because of THEIR religious beliefs. Will that be OK? What about Scientology? They don’t believe in medical care…should they be allowed to cancel all policies? Some of us are tired of the christian phonies and their self persecution… Christians have become the leading liars of America and they don’t feel any other religion is pure… The supreme court will stand with these businesses because of the money they receive from the business community. Check out Clarence Thomas’ record of ruling in favor of the companies who financially support his wife’s political activities and HIS legacy building back home… lots of dirty money at the supreme court and it will guarantee all of the men will support big business. Particularly Alito who is catholic but did not spend much time helping to raise all of his own kids. According to him his folks didn’t nurture him so he didn’t see any reason to be very involved… have sex…have babies…give up babies to wealthy white women who want to adopt.
Nan, some religious beliefs are contrary to reason, and not all religious liberties can be accommodated without undue burden. But making people pay for their promiscuity-promoting pills should not unduly bruden anyone, should it? The “pill” causes cancer, pollutes waterways and is mostly what might be called a recreational drug, insofar as it does not treat disease. Why insist that employers pay for it?
The courts should NOT try to curtail religious freedom. This country was founded on the right to religious freedom. The so-called women’s rights groups have no right to tell anyone what to believe or to try to force their beliefs on others.
Let me alone to believe & worship as I choose as I will leave you to your beliefs & choice of worship, be it God or a rock in your yard – that’s your right in this free country. It’s my right to believe & worship as I choose for the same reason.
Corporations are RUN by PEOPLE, are they not?!? These PEOPLE have BELIEFS, do they not?! Should it not be up to THEM to make their own decisions, and not the government?? My take on this is, the court (Left-leaning, BTW…) is making sure that corporations CANNOT deny coverage for birth control, abortions, etc., to their employees because of their own religious beliefs. It’s so transparent. Too bad the only thing our loser POTUS is transparent about is how badly he handles being our POTUS.
Not the issue at all.
This is looking to rule on a CORPORATION’S standing in a right to religious freedoms by the owners. The Constitution doesn’t say all corporations are created equal, does it?
My take is that they are for-profit companies & not entitled to freedoms for religous people or even non-profit religious institutions. If they are to be allowed the Corporate shield, then they should play by the same rules. Seems to me that they are wanting their cake and eating it too.
Absolutely. A corporation is not a person and is not afforded religious rights and the idea that they want to hide behind the facade of being a religious institution is ridiculous. What’s next? Exempt from paying taxes? They should have to play by the same rules as anyone else.
Amen, Libby and InsGuy.
Exemption from paying taxes is NOT a biblical precept. The issue is whether or not a corporate entity has the same rights as an individual when it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. If a corporation has freedom of speech, then we must allow it to have freedom of religion as well.
The Corporation’s right to religious freedom ends when it starts infringing on the rights of it’s employee’s freedom.
These corporations are not trying to prevent employees from using birth control or even having abortions. They are simply asking not to be forced to be a party to it by financing it through health insurance premiums.
If you want birth control or an abortion, pay for it yourself. Since when is pregnancy a disease anyway?
Spoken like a true man. If they don’t want to pay for it, don’t! The employer rarely pays 100% of the premium for the employee anymore. Pay a set amount and if the employee wants birth control, they can pay the difference. But it must at least be offered. The employer does not have the right to force their beliefs onto their employees. But they do have the right not to pay for it.
Birth control is usually obtained through a prescription. That makes it medical.
So Libby what your saying is that I as an employer (an individual as far as a I know) have no right to determine how the rather large sum of money that my company has to expend is used. This might be surprising to you but corporations are made up of rather large numbers of individuals in particular the individual shareholders of the corporation. It is the duty of the corporation to act in the interests of its shareholders. Being that it is a privately held company IE fewer than 500 shareholders (SEC rules) If the majority of the shareholders are electing to assert their individual rights it seems fair to say that the individual rights of those shareholders should be extended to the corporation.
So lets say for the sake of discussion that it is not an individual and that the corporation is mandated to violate the rights of its owners does that mean that the owners need to sue their own corporation for violation of their civil rights? the civil rights of the owners are violated no matter what if this is allowed to stand because the owners are not able to enjoy the freedoms granted to them. The first amendment gives the freedoms of Speech, Religion, Press, and Assembly. This case deals with two of those freedoms assembly and religion. Corporations are recognized as people because they are made up of people (their shareholders) and they have the right to assemble together to redress their grievances against the government. We also allow class actions if you contend that a group of associated people in the form of a corporation should not be allowed then neither should the ability to create a class of people who have been mutually wronged. This would thus destroy our system of courts because there are not enough courts to address the redress of grievances in a situation like that.
You say that an employer has the right to not pay for it. But unfortunately money is not as such that I can say who is paying what portion of the health premium once money is co-mingled it is all applied to the overall bill. A good example if I am not a drinker and I contribute $50 to the grocery bill and there are $150 of groceries and $50 worth of alcohol is it possible to say that my $50 in no way contributed to the purchase of the alcohol. No and the reason for that is that it could be argued that my contribution of the $50 allowed for the purchase of the alcohol because the initial $150 worth of groceries were accounted for. Even if I didn’t contribute directly to the purchase of it I enabled that purchase of alcohol. By requiring that the coverage be part of every insurance plan your basically telling employers that they either need to contribute to paying for it or even if you argue that they don’t contribute it is enabling because of the contribution covering the rest of the premium thus freeing up money for the employee to get it anyways.
Finally to contend that anything prescribed is purely medical is ridiculous. Prescription has been the scofflaws way around laws for time memorial whether it is marijuana or alcohol during prohibition. If something is legalized because of a prescription that is where you see abuses of that prescription whether it has a useful purpose like many killers do or it is merely something people like to invibe like marijuana or alcohol.
Lundberry – All I can say is, What?
I gave up trying to read your post halfway through. Employers have been offering cafeteria benefit coverage for a long time. If they want to offer a bare-bones plan for a set amount of money and let the employee choose whether they want to pay for an additional coverage on their own why is that not a win-win?
Libby, your argument that an employer could offer a bare bones plan doesn’t work when the bare bones plan still includes a coverage that is offensive to the owners beliefs. If you want to contend that corporations are not people then the supreme court needs to overturn literally thousands of cases. Because that has been the basis of said decisions. Being that every other freedom given by the first amendment is extended to corporations as a result of their personhood it makes sense that this would also be treated similarly.
Lundberry – my suggestion is that the employer offer a bare bones plan NOT including those things that offend their sensibilities, but are required to offer those coverages as options. They are not required to PAY for them (which seems to be everyone’s beef) but would be required to offer them to the employee to purchase with their own money.
Just as the owners of the corporation do not have the right to be forced to PAY for coverage they find offensive, they do not have the right to force those beliefs onto their employees and should allow them to purchase coverage at a group rate with their own money.
And I never said corporations are not made up of people, I said for-profit corporations are not entitled to evade the law by claiming they are a religious institution.
Also, that corporations (meaning the people who own the corporation) have no right to force their religious beliefs onto their employees. It should be mandatory that those coverages be made available but the corporation should not be forced to pay for them.
I’m a woman and I agree with every word he said. So much for “spoken like a true man.”
OK. Spoken like a true mindless, Republican housewife.
Obama and his libertine ilk worship care-free pleasure. They want to make sure that sin is “easy.” The ‘pill’ is the peyote of the pagans.
Ned,
My wife was prescribed birth control so we COULD have a child, so she could start menstruation. That prescription came from a doctor, who last I checked, is in the medical field. There are medical reasons women need birth control. Read up and inform yourself a little bit. Birth control isn’t simply to prevent pregnancy. In our case with our first daughter, it was quite the opposite. Besides, women have been subsidizing boner pills.
MOst of the time the “pill” is not treatment. it is a recreational drug. You know that.
And those other pills you mention are also not questionable for anyone with traditional Christian vallues to subsidize or procure.
Robert – time to pack up the pulpit and move on buddy.
I agree Libby! The Corporations are not allowed to violate descrimination laws by only hiring those of their same religious convictions, so how can they decide on whether or not an employee receive’s all of the benefits they are entitled to? Further…why is this an issue, contraception is available, not forced…why are so many so afraid of “we the people” making choices for ourselves.
Wait until the Jehovah Witness’ businesses start limiting their health insurance policies because of THEIR religious beliefs. Will that be OK? What about Scientology? They don’t believe in medical care…should they be allowed to cancel all policies? Some of us are tired of the christian phonies and their self persecution… Christians have become the leading liars of America and they don’t feel any other religion is pure… The supreme court will stand with these businesses because of the money they receive from the business community. Check out Clarence Thomas’ record of ruling in favor of the companies who financially support his wife’s political activities and HIS legacy building back home… lots of dirty money at the supreme court and it will guarantee all of the men will support big business. Particularly Alito who is catholic but did not spend much time helping to raise all of his own kids. According to him his folks didn’t nurture him so he didn’t see any reason to be very involved… have sex…have babies…give up babies to wealthy white women who want to adopt.
Nan, some religious beliefs are contrary to reason, and not all religious liberties can be accommodated without undue burden. But making people pay for their promiscuity-promoting pills should not unduly bruden anyone, should it? The “pill” causes cancer, pollutes waterways and is mostly what might be called a recreational drug, insofar as it does not treat disease. Why insist that employers pay for it?
Why are you against family planning? It seems sensible and responsible to me.
And for the third time, please explain your pollution comment.