Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby

[Blinocac200sx]

What would be bad about that?

 

[mksmth]

What would be bad about that?

nothing.

 

[donner]

My logic is that this decision should, and rightfully so, allow for all religious arguments to be made whether you are christian, Catholic, Jewish, muslim whatever. If we allow one we must allow all. By can of worms I meant that there may be time where we are talking here about a religious issue that seems nuts to us but it carries the same protections as we have.

I believe the next question will be can companies, claiming religious freedom, refuse to pay for other kinds of medical treatment, such as blood transfusions, vaccinations and medications derived from pig parts (including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin) or antidpressants?

 

[Biggsly]

I don't see how Obama could give exemptions to the unions that backed him and then tell others they have to follow his law. If you are going to make exemptions for some, then you need to for others.

 

[Lurker66]

I believe the next question will be can companies, claiming religious freedom, refuse to pay for other kinds of medical treatment, such as blood transfusions, vaccinations and medications derived from pig parts (including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin) or antidpressants?

The next lawsuit will be if sprintec, orthonovum and other medicine is technically birth control or a menstral cycle regulator.

I think this is a bad decision by the SCOTUS. Giving Companies the rights to determine what medicine and treatment is still none of their business.

 

[71buickfreak]

I guess I will be the voice of dissent here. While I normally agree with things that fly in the face of Obama, this is not one of them. A corporation is not a person, period. They don't get to make these types of decisions for their employees.

Look at this way- you work for a company that provides healthcare, but the owner is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't believe in antibiotics so by this ruling, they could withhold paying for your antibiotics.

You either provide health care coverage unencumbered or not. It is that simple. Yes, the employees can go get another job, but this goes against EVERYTHING I believe in. A corporation is NOT A PERSON! A business should not be allowed to have religious views and force that onto their employees.

I do not give a crap about the birth control topic, but this will lead to other issues giving corporations control over how we live our lives. Your boss will be able to tell you how to live, and that is BS.

 

[Lurker66]

I do agree with the Union ruling. My money is mine, if I choose to donate to a Union then its.my choice.

 

[Lurker66]

I guess I will be the voice of dissent here. While I normally agree with things that fly in the face of Obama, this is not one of them. A corporation is not a person, period. They don't get to make these types of decisions for their employees.

Look at this way- you work for a company that provides healthcare, but the owner is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't believe in antibiotics so by this ruling, they could withhold paying for your antibiotics.

You either provide health care coverage unencumbered or not. It is that simple. Yes, the employees can go get another job, but this goes against EVERYTHING I believe in. A corporation is NOT A PERSON! A business should not be allowed to have religious views and force that onto their employees.

I do not give a crap about the birth control topic, but this will lead to other issues giving corporations control over how we live our lives. Your boss will be able to tell you how to live, and that is BS.

And now we are 2.....there are others.

 

[71buickfreak]

And now we are 2.....there are others.

Together we make 3....

Sorry, had to do it before Spata did.

 

[53convert]

good.
the supremes are on a roll this time around..........