It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

page: 43
49
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

thought this was a religious rights issue??
what can only business owners have religious veiws now???

if hobby lobby needs this protection then so doesn't every individual with the same beliefs!




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I will keep this short and sweet.

Anybody can become an alcoholic.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

And the entitlement mindset marches on.

Both the Alcoholic and the woman need to pay for their own life's choices.

I don't work to provide "free stuff" to everyone else.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Here let me answer this for you.

dawnstar:
Macman, the business is owned by either a private citizen or group of private citizens. Why do you ask??

Macman:
Well dawnstar, since it is owned not by the employee, and by this person or persons you stated, it is the OWNERS that get to decide what is offered in the form of compensation for work performed.
If the employee, or WORKER wants something not OFFERED (AKA paid for), then they can either pay for it themselves OR, drum roll please........WORK somewhere else.


I understand this is a very hard thing to wrap around the mind of the entitlement people, but this is what it is.


edit on 1-7-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I don't necessarily believe that we should be paying for someones birth control.

However there are valid medical reasons for putting someone on birth control. In those instances I don't see why anyone would have a problem with paying for the medication.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

**Correction. Misread your statement**

I agree that there may be reasons, but that doesn't matter.
Not one person has been denied the ability to get what ever medication they want. NOT ONE.
The only thing is who will pay for it.



Never understood how people can claim they are for the rights of people, only to turn around and make exceptions when it doesn't fit their argument, or want.

edit on 1-7-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

but you have two people both have the same belief about birth control
one's a business owner the other isn't

at the moment the business owner has his rights protected he don't have to provide insurance with it included
but unless the employee is employed by such business they aren't extended that same protection are they? they have to still buy a policy that includes it don't they?
they need to change this or they will be setting a precedent that places a business with more rights than the person they are pretenting to be!


edit on 1-7-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Good grief.

If the business owner OWNS the Business, then it is the business owner that gets to decide what is offered.

How are you not getting this???

The employee owns nothing in this scenario. They work for a wage and a compensation package (If offered).

At what point in your life did you honestly decide that the worker gets to dictate to the business owner what they will get or not get???

There is a simple, logical and Constitution based resolution to this.

The worker has the freedom to go work elsewhere.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

And further more.................

There are NO, Zero, NONE, NADA rights being denied to the worker.

The worker has no RIGHT to have an employer/business pay for this.

And if it is something that the Worker wants.....the business/employer has not stopped them from getting it. The Worker can purchase it on their own.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Here: have some kool-aid. It will help you feel better.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I think what he is saying is the individual does not have the same option on his private med coverage to "opt out" of paying for that portion of the coverage.

My wife and I are (well) over 50 and yet our coverage includes maternity coverage with no option to exclude it. In other words, we are paying to cover other's maternity. In some cases I have no issues with that. I do, on the other hand, have an issue with paying for some ghetto queen baby making machine's multiple kids with no husband, no job.

Of course, we already are paying for that anyway... $25/month for an all utilities paid apartment (govt pays the balance), SSI of over $600/month and food stamps, not to mention Medicare/medicaid for all the babies you can make.

Sick and tired of people thinking they deserve something for nothing and get upset when it turns out to be less than expected. We are now the United States of the Entitled. What is it? 48% of the US is taking money from the govt? WTF?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

It appears that, perhaps, entitlements are becoming the new right. "I have a right to those entitlements!"



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


if hobby lobby needs this protection then so doesn't every individual with the same beliefs!


Individuals do have religious ACA exemptions.

And so do religious non-profit organizations.

Maybe those exemptions should apply to everybody and every business.

Religious Exemptions to Contraceptive Coverage


Final Affordable Care Act Regulations on the Exemption of Contraceptives Coverage by Religious Employers and Student Health Insurance



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
they both have a right that is being infringed on by the ACA
the believing business man feels that he shouldn't be forced to particpate in any way with birth control and feels that buying into an insurance plan for his employees does this.
so isn't the believing person's rights also being infringed on maybe moreso since they have the gov't trying to force them to buy an insurance policy that has that coverage?

the business is claiming to be legally considered "a person" but are expecting more protection than any person has at the moment!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: butcherguy
By the ACA guidelines, women have CONDOMS paid for by insurance, men do not. .

That's a really good point. Men could challenge Obamacare as being sexist.



As I said earlier, I don't think it covers vasectomies or has a provision for the male contraceptive pill that is currently in development and close to FDA approval.

Men should sue Obamacare for gender discrimination!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
I don't see where that covers individuals it's more about businesses.
where does it say that I as a person with no affiliation of any group and not connected to any employer can purchase an insurance package that doesn't include birth control and if I did would it meets the requirements needed to be an approved plan?

as far as the idea that this protecton should be extended to all who wise it
it would be better than what we have since there is no way that the business' beliefs should be held worthy of protection and not the individuals that the businesses are pretending to be!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
they both have a right that is being infringed on by the ACA
the believing business man feels that he shouldn't be forced to particpate in any way with birth control and feels that buying into an insurance plan for his employees does this.
so isn't the believing person's rights also being infringed on maybe moreso since they have the gov't trying to force them to buy an insurance policy that has that coverage?

I think that the SCOTUS ruled that this business doesn't.


originally posted by: dawnstar

the business is claiming to be legally considered "a person" but are expecting more protection than any person has at the moment!


A person is not required to provide this to others.
A business is owned by people, people decide how the business operates.

I have yet to see a business run without people making decisions, or owning it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: macman
so it's not a sin to buy it for yourself
but it is to buy it for others??
huh???



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

And the entitlement mindset marches on.



True. As a business owner you feel you are entitled the right to pick and choose what you pay for as far as health care, while everyone else doesn't get that choice.

You want the special rights because of your religious beliefs. Read that again. Special Rights because of your Religious Beliefs. That is the entitlement right there. Because those who aren't Religious or of a Religion that allows birth control just have to pay up as usual.

Once again, you want special rights that others don't get. Simple as that.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hobby Lobby, et. al. has nothing to do with the Constitution ... read the ruling; it is entirely based on the flawed and unconstitutional RFRA.

If the RFRA was unconstitutional, it would have been shot down. Instead, it is upheld. And the RFRA goes back to the freedom of religion in the Constitution.


Unfortunately, not everything is as simplistic so as to comfortably align with personal agendas.

Here are a few links to actual facts for you or anyone else interested in the reality of this ruling:



Even so, RFRA’s constitutionality did get challenged, in a case involving a local law, not a federal law, and the Court struck it down in that situation. In the 1997 decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, the court ruled that Congress did not have authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to impose RFRA’s strict standard of protection against state or local laws that were challenged as too burdensome on religion practices.


Constitution Center - Good article in general about the matter



The Supreme Court's opinion in Boerne v. Flores declared unequivocally that the Religious Restoration Act (RFRA) is unconstitutional.


University of Pennsylvania Law School - The RFRA is Unconstitutional, Period.




The United States Supreme Court found that RFRA was unconstitutional as exceeding Congressional power under the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in City of Bourne v. Flores. Thus, RFRA cannot constitutionally be applied to state laws.


Constitutional Law Prof Blog

So, now that we have that fact established, Flores has been applied specifically to State and Local law, and RFRA has not yet been challenged at the Federal level. That will happen soon.

However, as one sees above, the RFRA is a massive overstepping of Congressional power, attempting to add illegal "amendments" to the First Amendment and our Constitution.

Those five Neocons on the bench that so ruled on this abomination KNOW this fact, and yet, in order to throw meat to the Rabid Right Wing, chose to try to bluff their way through, play partisan politics, and make a mockery of the Highest Court in the Land.

Admittedly, it is hardly surprising that Wingnuts are all for the breach of the Separation of Powers so long as the "jackbooted thugs" march to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers."

No one who claims to support the Constitution of the United States can possibly claim to support this abominative ruling.
edit on 15Tue, 01 Jul 2014 15:37:23 -050014p032014766 by Gryphon66 because: Desnarkified, a bit.




top topics



 
49
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join