It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
This ruling sets a precedence such that a business owner's religion can exempt the business from obeying the law.
Where does the Constitution declare a right for women to receive free birth control?
Free birth control is a government mandated entitlement,
it is not a right.
This decision says that, under certain specific conditions, religious liberty, which is a Constitutionally declared right, is not trumped by government mandated entitlement programs. As it should be.
originally posted by: bimyou
What if your "social, cultural and religious issue" involves denying black people work or promotions? Or if you're a Nazi and deny Jews promotions or jobs? Where does it end? People who are hard working and need a job all deserve the same equal rights regardless of your fear and religion getting in the way.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: bbracken677
Addendum: If it is solely the woman's responsibility, the woman's choice, then why are men being extorted for child support?
Dont get me wrong, I do not think that way, but in extrapolating the thought process from the father has no say, no responsibility that tends to lead to questioning child support...
One cannot have it both ways. Or I suppose one can, but there is no logic there.
originally posted by: paleorchid13
There are asexuals ....very rare though. Although not as desperate as airway, breathing, circulation , sustenance, ....sex is classified as a biological drive. Are you saying it's easy to fight attraction or sexual drive and that living as a ..say monk in the Himalayas is an easy task? Fighting it takes discipline and many people fail ...controlling sex has never worked ..nor will it ever .
I realize that those on the left are always on the lookout for hypocrisy at all levels, but do Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho realize that they have just indicted any Christian with an index fund, or offering its employees the chance to invest their own dollars in one, as being necessarily a hypocrite if even one company within the fund does anything immoral? Or are Ungar, Redden, and Gallicho all just that incompetent about how 401(k) plans work – namely, that the investments and decisions within them are made by employees, not employers. The menu of choices is provided not by the employer but by the administrator of the plan, offering a wide range of mutual funds – which are most commonly indexes invested in the breadth of the market.
originally posted by: MsSmith
Please tell how how taking birth control or getting an abortion has any affect on any man anywhere. You could argue that it has an effect on the potential fetus, but since you aren't that fetus and that fetus's existence has no effect on you (outstde of paying child support if you happen to be the father), you still have no right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do to her own body on her own time. Ever.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: amazing
and why would people want to pay extra for something they don't need, so that someone else can have it?
To help others since we're all in this together. Ya know the same reason you pay in to other programs which you never use. Or give to charity or donate to some cause even though you don't benefit directly from it.
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: FlyersFan
It's not the Business Model or Pay that they are complaining about. It's the BS reasoning and claims being made on their side of the argument that people don't like.
If the employee chooses to have an abortion on their own, they'll pay for it from the money they make from working at Hobby Lobby anyway meaning that Hobby Lobby will still be paying for it as indirectly as they were before this case. So the logic fails in that argument.
The only difference is that now the employee has to spend more to do it than they would if it was covered and it's more of a hassle for them. This is just a way for some people to push others to make certain choices over others by claiming Religious Reasons. Even when those choices don't include them and people are just fed up with the Religious Views of Other People dictating the lives of others who may not even have the same Religious beliefs. It's the insistence upon Others Beliefs invading the Lives of others which is the heart of this.
originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: Surefire
My religion states that anyone whose religion states that providing insurance is an affront to their god is an affront to my god and therefore needs to be killed.
By making laws stopping me from killing people, the government is violating my freedom of religion.