there is a basic premise when dealing with a persons freedoms and rights.

that premise is that your rights and freedoms end where mine begin.

so in essence this thread is not truly about whether or not the owners have the right to practice their religion it is about where the line is between their rights and the employees rights.


since they felt that it was immoral to have anything to do with paying for the section b part of the contraceptives they could have tried to set up a deal with the insurance company so that any employee that wanted that part could have gotten it by paying that part of the insurance on their own.

that way they could have avoided interfering with their employees rights without doing anything they considered immoral it was the outright denial of their employees rights that makes this an issue.

---

none of the b list causes abortion. They either prevent fertilization or implantation neither of which are considered to be an abortion.

That is a mute point, the SCOTUS said they are abortifacients and that's whose opinion counts. You and I saying yes, no, yes, no means nothing.

============================================================
SCOTUS are lawyers and judges not biologists and as such are not immune to making bad law on the bases of bad science.

while it would be nice for SCOTUS to be infallible they are after all only human.

while SCOTUS is very powerful they have not yet found a way to rewrite biology.

---

since they felt that it was immoral to have anything to do with paying for the section b part of the contraceptives they could have tried to set up a deal with the insurance company so that any employee that wanted that part could have gotten it by paying that part of the insurance on their own.

It would be better for those bringing water to Detroit to bring abortifacients to Hobby Lobby's employees.

This is a B.S. argument. Wal*Mart doesn't pay for abortifacients and no one says a word. I see what's going on here.

SCOTUS are lawyers and judges not biologists

OMG, yes, no, yes, no.

---

there is a basic premise when dealing with a persons freedoms and rights.

that premise is that your rights and freedoms end where mine begin.

so in essence this thread is not truly about whether or not the owners have the right to practice their religion it is about where the line is between their rights and the employees rights.

Actually, this thread is about the idea that a corporation can practice religion as well as where that imaginary person's rights and the employees rights start.

since they felt that it was immoral to have anything to do with paying for the section b part of the contraceptives they could have tried to set up a deal with the insurance company so that any employee that wanted that part could have gotten it by paying that part of the insurance on their own.

The employee is paying for that part of the insurance. It is part of their remuneration for the work they do. I am not sure what the difference between the employer paying for insurance or the employer giving the employee money to buy these products actually is.

that way they could have avoided interfering with their employees rights without doing anything they considered immoral it was the outright denial of their employees rights that makes this an issue.

When you try to control what healthcare an employee can and cannot have access to, you are already in denial of their rights.

---

Reality Internet Personality

When you try to control what healthcare an employee can and cannot have access to, you are already in denial of their rights.

I grow weary but the truth must be told. No one is denying anyone anything. No one stopped Canada from bring water to Detroit, no one will stop you from bringing IUD to Wal*Mart employees.

---

Actually, this thread is about the idea that a corporation can practice religion as well as where that imaginary person's rights and the employees rights start.

Are you saying a Church can't be a corporation? Are you saying a Church can't have employees? Are you saying a Church can't require its employees to believe/practice its religion?

That corporations are people, the thread title, should be the Citizen's United case, not the Hobby Lobby case.

California Civil Code 51 wrote:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Hobby Lobby has stores in California. California set up their own exchange. Waiting to see if this gets into the California Court and Hobby Lobby has to buy it in California.

BTW the Unruh Civil Rights Act is one of those great pieces of legislation on par with the bill of rights.

---

The employee is paying for that part of the insurance. It is part of their remuneration for the work they do. I am not sure what the difference between the employer paying for insurance or the employer giving the employee money to buy these products actually is.

Well that's the problem employer supplied health care is a tax scam and should not be, if health care is a right the best model is a single payer system.

---

Hobby Lobby has stores in California. California set up their own exchange. Waiting to see if this gets into the California Court and Hobby Lobby has to buy it in California.

BTW the Unruh Civil Rights Act is one of those great pieces of legislation on par with the bill of rights.

California is part of the US of A and subject to the SCOTUS. Florida laws meant nothing when the SCOTUS elected Bush the Dumber.

In California if a women want's to rent out a room in her home for profit does she have to rent it to a man if he applies and has the down payment?

---

The employee is paying for that part of the insurance. It is part of their remuneration for the work they do. I am not sure what the difference between the employer paying for insurance or the employer giving the employee money to buy these products actually is.

Well that's the problem employer supplied health care is a tax scam and should not be, if health care is a right the best model is a single payer system.

That is the truth.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The employee is paying for that part of the insurance. It is part of their remuneration for the work they do. I am not sure what the difference between the employer paying for insurance or the employer giving the employee money to buy these products actually is.

Well that's the problem employer supplied health care is a tax scam and should not be, if health care is a right the best model is a single payer system.

I told you Obama is now showing the cost of employer supplied health care on W2. Now what else can we tax; any ideas? He already got my employer supplied life insurance. How about not letting companies write off strip club visits as a business expense. Oh let me count the ways we can tax and spend.

---

About a week ago I asked why there were no "term Limits" on other politicians, well it looks like someone else has noticed.

The Economist - The mid-terms - The royals of Capitol Hill

Term limits only say the voters don't have the necessities to make an informed choice. The founding fathers knew this so they limited suffrage to white men freeholders. Bringing back the principals of the founders would go a long way to restoring the US of A to what it was meant to be.

---

Term limits only say the voters don't have the necessities to make an informed choice. The founding fathers knew this so they limited suffrage to white men freeholders. Bringing back the principals of the founders would go a long way to restoring the US of A to what it was meant to be.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

---

Term limits only say the voters don't have the necessities to make an informed choice. The founding fathers knew this so they limited suffrage to white men freeholders. Bringing back the principals of the founders would go a long way to restoring the US of A to what it was meant to be.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Yes. Please do, Batter Up.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Term limits only say the voters don't have the necessities to make an informed choice. The founding fathers knew this so they limited suffrage to white men freeholders. Bringing back the principals of the founders would go a long way to restoring the US of A to what it was meant to be.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Yes. Please do, Batter Up.

I'm VERY curious too...

Term limits only say the voters don't have the necessities to make an informed choice. The founding fathers knew this so they limited suffrage to white men freeholders. Bringing back the principals of the founders would go a long way to restoring the US of A to what it was meant to be.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Yes. Please do, Batter Up.

I'm VERY curious too...

It'll be interesting I bet.... ;-)

Cheers.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Possibly he means bare foot and pregnate while walking 2 steps behind with her head bowed?

---

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Possibly he means bare foot and pregnate while walking 2 steps behind with her head bowed?

...and carrying all the shopping?

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Possibly he means bare foot and pregnate while walking 2 steps behind with her head bowed?

...and carrying all the shopping?

Unless there are land mines in the area, and then it is 30 paces in front.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Possibly he means bare foot and pregnate while walking 2 steps behind with her head bowed?

...and carrying all the shopping?

Unless there are land mines in the area, and then it is 30 paces in front.

oh... that could pose a bit of a dilemma... who'd carry the shopping?