Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

Cyprian
reply to post by greencmp

 

Good call. As such, I now choose that anyone named greencmp no longer has First Amendment rights. That's how it works, right?

Seriously, employers have zero right to inflict religious grounds on employess..and I speak as a Christian, and minor clergy.

If you mean that you want to take away my right to conduct my business however I please, than yes, the opposing viewpoint in this argument is consistent with the spirit of your proposed new negative right. Your statement is close to the mark, the question in this case is simply about a slightly different right.

You are also erroneously conflating opposition to mandated subsidy with an intent to deny access.

I find it funny how employers have no rights to impose what kind of healthcare the individual should have.

Yet. . . .

It's okay for government to impose what kind of healthcare the individual should have.

Krazysh0t
The object that this argument is over is irrelevant. As it stands, there is a law on the books that mandates that a company or corporation provide contraceptives to their employees as part of their health care preventative services. The employees of this company shouldn't have to pay out of pocket for these expenses all because the place they happen to work at disagrees with what they are being forced to provide. THAT is where the religious discrimination lies. It is forcing another's belief (in this case a corporation) onto someone else.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we decide to make access to transportation a 'right' and mandate that employers provide automobiles to employees, would you force the Amish to follow suit?

dawnstar
reply to post by the owlbear

 

I dont' see where making all medications (preventive medicine) would solve the issue. Hobby Lobby would still be paying for a portion of the birth control.

As far as why she can't just pay for it itself??
Well I am wondering just how many could do this before obamacare but now that it's passed and the cost of the premiums and the higher deductables along with fines if you just can pay those premiums has INCREASED the cost of healthcare for so many well
Maybe now she'd have to take that thirty dollars out of the grocery bill and let the kids she has go hungry every other day or something?

It's amazing how this Affordable Care Act has made healthcare unaffordable for so many!!!

Citizens and corporations cannot pick and choose what their taxes go toward due to beliefs.
Does a person who believes in nonviolence not have to pay for bullets and bombs?
If Hobby Lobby wins this, it opens that proverbial can of flying monkeys...
It should be the choice between a doctor and patient, not your employer and their church. Otherwise, what else can corporations and individuals NOT pay because of personal objection?

greencmp

Krazysh0t
The object that this argument is over is irrelevant. As it stands, there is a law on the books that mandates that a company or corporation provide contraceptives to their employees as part of their health care preventative services. The employees of this company shouldn't have to pay out of pocket for these expenses all because the place they happen to work at disagrees with what they are being forced to provide. THAT is where the religious discrimination lies. It is forcing another's belief (in this case a corporation) onto someone else.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we decide to make access to transportation a 'right' and mandate that employers provide automobiles to employees, would you force the Amish to follow suit?

edit on 26-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

The Amish aren't an employer... They are a community of religious folks.

Maybe that is because we are discussing rights when the gov't is moving with a more 'what is good (in their opinion) for the country!
Is it good for the country to have a bunch of people outside of the healthcare system if one of those imaginary bioterrorists strke a highly populated area? No!!
Then we should do something to get them all into the system!!
Is it good to have so many children living in single parent and proverty stricken households?
No!! We will have to increase the handouts to pay for them!!
Then we should make birth control easily affordable for all who desire it and prepare the way to make it mandatory!!!

or course there are other ways that could be found to solve these issues but most of them would take money out of their buddies pockets so they aren't gonna do that!!!

reply to post by greencmp


It's my body. I'll drive it around if I want to.

Take THAT, crazy Amish!

reply to post by greencmp


I respectfully point towards Sunday Blue Laws...struck down in most states. because companies don't have religious beliefs...people do.

beezzer
I find it funny how employers have no rights to impose what kind of healthcare the individual should have.

Yet. . . .

It's okay for government to impose what kind of healthcare the individual should have.

Didnt you get the memo that Obamacare supporters sent out?

Government knows whats best for everyone, they should never be questioned or criticized, and NEVER call them out on their lies.

Just be a good slave and do as your told

beezzer

This is big, in my humble opinion.

If the Supreme Court decides in the favor of Hobby Lobby, then basically, Obamacare is toast. Because it will show that government mandate is not above religious freedom.

If the Supreme Court decides against Hobby Lobby, then it will indicate that that government mandates hold supreme (snark) over religious freedoms.

How about they rule against Hobby Lobby simply because of the fact that this has nothing to do with religious freedoms?

Unless of course, you believe that having the right to force your religious beliefs on others, (in this case 18,000 others) is somehow a right granted to you under the "veil" of religious freedom.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg are exactly right! If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, it will open the floodgates for the selective exclusion of other medical treatments like blood transfusions, transplants, etc..., from corporations with owners of different religious faiths. IMO, that would be just the opposite of "religious freedom" and more akin to "religious imposition."

Sorry, but I just don't see how the court could rule in their favor, not on this one.

On the other hand, having this debate could very well turn out to be the perfect "lead-in" argument in support for why we should have single-payer, universal healthcare coverage for everyone.

Hell, I'm just waiting for you right-wingers to declare the Supreme Court itself, to be unconstitutional.

reply to post by doubletap


Didn't you get the memo the Tea Part sent out? the one that says blindly hate anyone not "conservative" enough, Big Business is good, rights are for the elite and hate the President. Oh yeah, and obey us at all kosts.

Somewhere waiting for corporations to be declared people so I can pants Walmart...

reply to post by the owlbear


"Does a person who believes in nonviolence not have to pay for bullets and bombs? "

i'd be willing to bet that world would be a more pleasant place to live if we could decide such matters!! It would be far better in alot of ways!!

If a religious organization can opt out of the law under religious beliefs...Can't I, as an Atheist just say It's against my religion and opt out as well. I am feeling discriminated against because I don't believe in fairy tales.

Krazysh0t

greencmp

Krazysh0t
The object that this argument is over is irrelevant. As it stands, there is a law on the books that mandates that a company or corporation provide contraceptives to their employees as part of their health care preventative services. The employees of this company shouldn't have to pay out of pocket for these expenses all because the place they happen to work at disagrees with what they are being forced to provide. THAT is where the religious discrimination lies. It is forcing another's belief (in this case a corporation) onto someone else.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we decide to make access to transportation a 'right' and mandate that employers provide automobiles to employees, would you force the Amish to follow suit?

edit on 26-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

The Amish aren't an employer... They are a community of religious folks.

The Amish have no businesses and pay no taxes?

reply to post by beezzer


People (Progressives) need to remove their cranial orb from their rectal cavity and realize that the Corp that offers Health Insurance is not forcing anything onto anyone. The employee has the freedom to work there or somewhere else.

The push for Govt to force companies, because that is who is being demonized as of late, to to do something will come back to bite them in the rear. The rules, just like EOs and such, will be used against them when they are out of power. And then they will cry the loudest.

reply to post by Flatfish


So it is okay for government to impose a set standard and have people obey it, but companies (based on religious principle) are denied that same aspect?

Companies aren't denying rights. Companies aren't imposing a set of rules for their employees to obey based on religious principle.

Companies simply don't want to PAY for something that they disagree with.

The employees are still free to purchase and pursue any type of abortion options they see fit.

GeorgiaGirl
The founders are rolling over in their graves that we are even discussing whether the government should be mandating types of contraceptive coverage businesses must pay for.

I'm pretty sure they would all come down on the side of Hobby Lobby here.

How far we have come from the ideas of freedoms.

Have you ever read the First Amendment? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So they would not support Hobby Lobby because it would be respecting the establishment of religion. Also learning that freedoms are for people and not companies would help.

reply to post by macman

The employee also has the right to seek employment elsewhere if they don't wish to endure their boss' sexual harassments! But there are still laws on the books that at least attempts to prevent them from having to!
You act like there are decent jobs all over the place with very few applicants looking!
Personally I know better!
So should she quite her job over birth control on the chance that she will be one of the lucky ones to land a decent job quickly when she knows that a good part of her income is being used to pay her mortgage?
Ya real good advice!! We can all pay when that house and so many more aren't paid for and we end up bailing out the banks again!!

reply to post by macman

People (Progressives) need to remove their cranial orb from their rectal cavity and realize that the Corp that offers Health Insurance is not forcing anything onto anyone. The employee has the freedom to work there or somewhere else.

It would also help if you were to pull your cranial orb out of your rectal cavity and listen to why Hobby Lobby wants to deny birth control from their employees. They say it's because it is against our religion. That is forcing their religious views on their employees.

Cyprian
reply to post by greencmp

 

I respectfully point towards Sunday Blue Laws...struck down in most states. because companies don't have religious beliefs...people do.

And yet--Chick Fil A is allowed to close on Sundays, because they want to.

Should the government tell them that my right to a chicken sandwich on Sundays is more important?