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.

 

Christianity & Hobby Lobby

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Women's health needs should be available through their insurance -- same as men's health needs should be available through insurance -- if the corporation provides insurance.


They do, they did, and still do and still can.



With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage. The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations









posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

If you are a dude, I really don't care what your opinion is on this.

Nor, do I care about the loophole 5 old fart male Catholic judges used to make this insulting decision.

Oh, and yes I know YOU don't consider it a loophole.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Except the Supreme Court pulled a "Quick Change / Hat Trick" while we were sleeping!


Yet moments before they adjourned for their summer recess, the justices proved they can act quite quickly and recklessly when it comes to violating the terms of a controversial opinion they handed down only days earlier. It’s as if the loaner car the court gave us in the Hobby Lobby ruling broke down mere blocks from the shop.



the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.


100's of non-profits, and now for profit corporations, have been given a stay, and are continuing to be allowed to refuse to grant 3rd parties to cover the benefits that they object to.


Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word, then skipped town for the summer.


www.slate.com...< br />
Bastardos!


edit on 14-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: NthOther

Again where are you getting this from?...an owner with religious values can reflect those values in the way he runs his company. But he's not a king, he can't demand that his subjects follow the same religion. More than half the US is women, this ruling just made every company be able to control whether or not female workers can have access to contraceptives in their health care plan. Whether the owner is Christian or not, it would be foolish for a company to not save the money and so women across the country will soon not be able to have access to contraceptives, whether they're religious or not.
PS: No one wants to do business in the US because it costs too much, not whatever fairy tale reason you were thinking of.


HL health care plan DOES pay for contraceptives. Just not the morning after pill and abortions. So its not like HL is acting like it thinks people are not having sex or anything "prudish" and old fashioned.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock




HL health care plan DOES pay for contraceptives. Just not the morning after pill and abortions. So its not like HL is acting like it thinks people are not having sex or anything "prudish" and old fashioned.


None of that matters. SCOTUS ruled that ANY closely held corporation could opt out of the entire contraception mandate. Many Catholic employers DO deny ALL contraception.

ETA


Just not the morning after pill and abortions.


The contraception mandate NEVER included abortion.


edit on 14-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

LOL

You finally discovered that.

Looks like the HHS needs to get busy.

What can the HHS do now?

There must be something they can do.




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
Then you are debating at a handicap with a closed mind and failing to be truly "DIVERSIVE" in your expression,relegating ANYTHING you would say as only subjective ,unless one is a feminist as well.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What do you mean "I finally discovered that"? This is like the 3rd time I've posted this info FOR YOU, in so many threads!


edit on 14-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I live on the Mexican border.

Do you know the #1 drug bought from the pharmacies across the border?

Viagra.

For men's "Health issues".


Men should pay for their own dang Viagra or get their girlfriends to pay for it.

The thing about all this sex related accessory stuff that has nothing to do with sexual health really. If its an illness, to numerous to name them all then fine. Pregnancy management and erection supplements not to mention KY ect, should be paid for by the persons involved.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Annee
Then you are debating at a handicap with a closed mind and failing to be truly "DIVERSIVE" in your expression,relegating ANYTHING you would say as only subjective ,unless one is a feminist as well.


Again with the closed mind. Repetition your thing?

The highest court in the American government is forcing women to be subjected to religious rule.

It very straight forward



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
So we are back in the inquisition?
PART of coverage has been removed not all of it. THERE IS NO religious power in charge at all only western traditions of INFLUENCE.
They can still OFF the kid earlier and keep their figures intact...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7




PART of coverage has been removed not all of it.


Can you explain to me what this means? What coverage do you believe has been "removed", and from whom?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

What do you mean "I finally discovered that"? This is like the 3rd time I've posted this info FOR YOU, in so many threads!



But what can the HHS do ?

Are they in panic mode now ?

The ACA must have something in it.




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

What do you mean "I finally discovered that"? This is like the 3rd time I've posted this info FOR YOU, in so many threads!



But what can the HHS do ?

Are they in panic mode now ?

The ACA must have something in it.



I don't think that the Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to DO anything about it. It has to go to "committee". Ergo, the Democratic Bill being submitted that attempts to nullify the ruling, not that it'll pass, but they have to appear to be doing something.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


The highest court in the American government is forcing women to be subjected to religious rule.


The Court if forcing the Government to abide by the U.S. Constitution and Statutes.

The ACA, IRS, and HHS in particular threw the first stone.

No "Religious" laws have been created by the Court.

The IRS and HHS made many rules regarding religious separations and exemptions and by doing that, they caused legal harm to "for profit" people and businesses.




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

But HHS made the initial rulings establishing exemptions.

Those were unConstitutional.




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




No "Religious" laws have been created by the Court.


The "Relgious" law was created by Congress when they ratified the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. SCOTUS created the precedent that "Closely Held Corporation" can have sincerely held "Religious Beliefs".



But HHS made the initial rulings establishing exemptions.

Those were unConstitutional.


The court never ruled any exemptions were unconstitutional.

The Court granted an injunction for religious entities that object informing 3rd partied of their status, until the cases can be heard, next SCOTUS session.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


The court never ruled any exemptions were unconstitutional.


Yet.

But then again, they ruled that the rules against for-profit companies can now include religious exemptions.

Big difference?

edit on Jul-14-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




But then again, they ruled that the rules against for-profit companies can now include religious exemptions.


They ruled no such thing!

They ruled that for-profit, closely held corporations with sincerely held beliefs QUALIFY FOR exemptions, under religious objections, that are already in place for non-profit religious.

The precedent being set here is in regards to the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and for profit corporate entitles being "people" protected under the ACT.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
They don't want LATE term abortions. is what I understood. there ARE investments is 401K beyond their control anyway.



new topics




 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join