That's what they said.It is difficult to believe that HL didn't know considering they had a "self insured group health plan".
Seems you have a record in this thread of basically insinuating that people who disagree with you are naive, don't get the big picture or the like. I guess we'll see what the outcome really is, and I doubt you own a crystal ball.
You are missing the big picture. It probably helps if you have read the decision. Essentially, the Supreme Court said that a company, if owned substantially by a religious organization, can refuse to cover medical procedures that conflict with their religious beliefs, even if the company itself is not a "religious business".e.g., "Hobby Lobby". The NYT is not a religious organization so hence....no "invitiation" was "sent" to the NYT. What you will see as a result of this ruling is more and more religion owned businesses opting out of birth control coverage. That is quaranteed by this decision...unless you are of the naive belief that it only applies to "Hobby Lobby" and the four types of BC they objected to.
Great point. Other self-insured groups, like Catholic hospitals, have gotten exemptions from some of the mandates since they end up directly paying the bills.
That's what they said.
It's not like they've been caught lying about healthcare promises.
But cutting through the crap, I've said before many times to someone else here, if any company can satisfy the markers noted in the ruling, then they can & should take advantage of the relief.
Right?
Nobody, did you even read that I have no problem buying my own contraceptives and that doesn't bother me at all?
But now are you going to tell me seriously that if it had been a Muslim owned company that denied a certain prescription which would normally be covered under the insurance provider to their employees based on their Muslim beliefs and the SC backed them up that you would support that decision?
I believe the RFRA is what codified that the government could override religious belief objections so long as the state had a compelling interest and that it didn't create a burden on compliance with no other way to achieve results. Contraception could be handled via direct subsidies from the structure of the ACA or they can drop the prescription requirement for contraception, which the ACOG stated would be a safe recommendation. Because of that, the ACA can't create a penalty( in HL case, 475 million/year ) since there are alternatives. Based on your argument, it appears your opinino is the RFRA is too strong in its ability to limit the government's ability.
They ruled that a "closely held corporation" is just like a sole proprietor, who already had the ability via the RFRA to reject the contraception mandate. They defined the CHC as 5 or less people owning 50% of the company.
I agree with your point regarding limited liability. This case could be used to remove that shielding, and open the CHC owners to liability. It seems like an appropriate trade off. If you want the RFRA to apply to your corp, then accept the liability of that choice.
And then there's the little problem of China.....
"The arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby proudly touts itself as a Christian company that puts people over profits. However, some staunch Christians say there's a gaping hole in that claim -- namely, China.
Products bearing "Made in China" labels are found all over the shelves at Hobby Lobby, evidence that some of its wares come from Chinese factories that have a reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages. Employees at these facilities often end up working grueling hours in prison-like conditions and never earn enough to escape poverty.
"You cannot call your business 'Christian' when arguing before the Supreme Court, and then set aside Christian values when you're placing a bulk order for cheap wind chimes," wrote Christian author and columnist Jonathan Merritt in a recent article for The Week.
Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to requests for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.
Then there's China's controversial record on abortion......
Christians Call Out Hobby Lobby For Hypocrisy
Their silence speaks volumes.
Does it say Constitutionalist under my name or Muslim?
You're the one who said the invitation went out to companies.
Very unspecific.
More of that intentionally sloppy language.
But cutting through the crap, I've said before many times to someone else here, if any company can satisfy the markers noted in the ruling, then they can & should take advantage of the relief.
Right?
Now, why was the case even necessary given Obama said everyone could keep their coverage?
Do you think he lied?
Jonathan Merritt is a Leftist who uses the Evangelical pose to get quoted in sources like The Huffington Post.
Ginsburg is implimenting a slippery slope fallacy. the narrow ruling only allows for contraception no other restrictions.
it doesn't apply to one religion it applies to all equally so there is no violation of the establishment clause.
nope what was unconstitutional was government thinking that i can violate peoples religious beliefs and practices.
again it only applies to private companies and non-publicly traded companies and it only applies to contraception.
What about a Fundamentalist Christian who owns a corporation and believes very deeply in 2Thessalonians 3:10 (For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.) Because of this, the Christian has a deeply held moral objection to paying for unemployment insurance. Under current law, non-profits are already exempt from paying unemployment insurance, just like religious non-profits already had an exemption to providing birth control as part of the ACA.
Here the state obviously has a compelling interest to require corporations to pay for unemployment insurance; just as the court deemed the state had a compelling interest to require corporations to provide a portion of health care plans which covered certain care options. But there is clearly a path available to certain non-profits to avoid paying unemployment insurance. So using this ruling, because the court can envision a way for unemployment insurance to be paid without impacting the objecting Christian, that Christian corporation should be exempt from paying unemployment insurance.
Any flaws in that logic?
Do you not know about RFRA, which was the law that SCOTUS applied to this decision?
I suggest some research on RFRA. It was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Do you want to know the main reason RFRA came into being? It was to protect the Native Americans (remember - the people who had you all worked up last week, worrying about their rights and thoughts on that trademark thing?). RFRA was intended to keep the government from intruding on Native Americans' sacred land. Everyone from the ACLU to the Catholic Church supported RFRA.
All of a sudden, Ginsburg - who was an ACLU attorney who supported RFRA - has an issue with its application. She launches into an hysterical hypothetical about gelatin, pigs, and transfusions. How realistic do you think it is that people will all of a sudden not get blood transfusions covered by their insurance? Good grief.
HHS made a decision to force all employers to offer 20 forms of birth control to their employees in their insurance. HHS disregarded RFRA, and SCOTUS (the honest ones) upheld RFRA< which again was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
So the ones who made up **** willy nilly were the dissenters, not the ones who ruled in favor of it. Ginsburg supported a law in 1993 that she chose to ignore in 2014.
The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.
Wow....you are sadly mistaken. Read the decision.
I agree. It may not be 'unconstitutional' but it sure does reflect on the ruling itself as being a type of legislating from the bench rather than resting on any principle. That's especially true because their 'reasonable accommodation' is for the Feds to just pay for the problem. If that's the case, there are all kinds of rules and regulations I'd like out of if I can get the government to pay on my behalf. Unemployment insurance was an excellent example.
The only contraceptive HL objected to was the type that causes an abortion. The employees who want this coverage can purchase their coverage through the exchanges.
Seems straightforward, but we should probably read up on the RFRA provisions to see if there are any other exclusions/rules.
You would need to bring suit against the government that the FSLA violates your religious beliefs protected by RFRA before we can find out what the judiciary thinks though.
If it's "the morning after" pill, it's not an abortion to me.
Of course that is possible....except that Hobby Lobby had a "self insured group health plan" making it difficult to believe that the owners didn't know what their own companies insurance plan was covering.
These people don't believe in science so when science says that they are not abortive measures they simply say they don't believe it.
You asking me who made crap up willy nilly? The conservative morons on the scotus.
Like idiot boy scalia for example... Where in employment division vs smith he wrote his opinion on how natives who use peyote... In a practice far predating Christianity BTW... Can't use religion as an excuse. What a hypocritical dork that guy is.
Face it, the right only likes the ruling because its a sticking of the thumb in Obamas eye. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?