America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

The Supreme Court ruled today that closely held for profit companies can claim religious exemption from providing health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

I think they made the right choice.

Think it through. If the owner of a privately held company has to go against his or her religious belief then their freedom of religion has been been taken away.

almost all the employees are prolly on the welfare anyways... so if they're taking gubment money they should do as the gubment says...

+ 1000





And the numbers ARE growing.....( where's the NO sarcasm alert ?)

Rick, when you can show the REST of us that deranged individuals or people who just like to use force to get what they want in society aren't carrying " hidden guns " perhaps we'll take you a bit more seriously! ( which will never happen)
You simply cannot force a business to pay for someone's contraceptives.....period!!! No pun intended

Rick, your points are important issues. But I think your perspective is off. One of our founding principles is freedom of religion. This is not about the cost of birth control, it is about upholding the constitution. So is the right to carry guns. Nothing, repeate nothing is more important than the constitution when concidering the big picture.

Not poking " for fun" And not sure what makes you think it's " for fun" read my lips.....they ( women ) have NO RIGHT to paid for birth control.

I see your point that this could become a slippery slope. But this is an individual ruling. Also it is about birth control, not a medical condition. I believe it to be a very narrow ruling in nature. Hopefully it does not become a slippery slope. I still believe it to be the right decision. Also, and this is an assumption, these companies probably had not previously provided birth control as part of their healthcare plan.

A couple items I'm curious about (and everyone should be).

1 - do we know where the ruling falls in relation to birth control medication to treat illnesses? There are a number of common medical reasons for specific birth control pills to be prescribed, these are used to control hormone levels. As it is a medical reason and not a "birth control" reason, does the employer's religious objections have any weight?

2 - I'm with buckwheat on how far a company's "religious beliefs" can be stretched. There are actual parents who get in trouble for keeping their kids from getting medical treatment due to their religions... are corporations going to have greater rights than people?

3 - Are we all cool with making sure that all states these companies operate in have available abortion clinics? I mean, that's the expected outcome of this. Yes, a responsible person uses birth control.. but people are generally stupid, and about the only thing they don't put off doing is f#ck.

You should set up a corporation for Louie-dog... that way if he trips or bites somebody they won't come take away his dog house and stuff...

He could start his own religion too.....

Drafter is on to something here.

A credit card for Louie (for cuban cigar and liquor purchases) and maybe "rent" him a room at a loss for tax purposes......then maybe disability and claiming him as a dependent.

So this is very interesting on its surface.

I mean, I looked at it a little, and Hobby Lobby is essentially only claiming 3 things that it doesn't want to cover: 2 morning after pills, and IUDs in general. It's claim is that these items interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg, which it believes is abortion.

A few things I have a problem with here.
1 - We're letting a corporation WHICH IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING YARN define what a medical procedure is. If Hobby Lobby defines abortion as any wasted sperm can it refuse to cover sperm count tests for men? (I mean, the catholics believe "every sperm is sacred"... guess what happens to that donation after the Dr's done checking how many viable swimmers you have?). We may joke about it, but this is a very real concern, and is based on exactly the same argument they are making now.

2 - What about additional medical procedures? If you're trying to get pregnant and require In vitro fertilization, you're gonna have to kill off some fertilized eggs. This is a standard medical procedure... fertilize a ton of eggs, freeze some, implant a few and toss the rest in biohazard. That's the same thing Hobby Lobby has a problem with regarding IUDs/morning after... If they decide to not cover fertility treatments, they now have precedent.

3- Lets not get into the myriad of other medical treatments which go against religions. You want to work for a muslim or hindu owned business? Don't get diabetes... insulin's mostly sourced from cow or pig pancreas.

4 - Hell, lets think of the general precedents set here. A business can be religious (as in the business entity now is a churchgoing person) A business can have feelings about what other people do with the money it pays out... for instance, if it pays your salary... (and an insurance policy is usually part of a benefits package which includes salary) can it have any say about what you do with that money?

There is a work around on this though. I'm suprised they let it go this far. Stay tuned..... you will love it......

Oh... and The Hobby Lobby still sucks!

Several years ago I bought some paint for a Pinewood derby car there that was completely dried out. Wasn't worth going back as it was half way across town. So F-them and their dink head CEO, David Green.

Was that you in the Jack in the Box commercial?

He's prolly thinking of that Carl's Jr commercial...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ux5T-3GpI

#yesallwomen

NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO BUY ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT TO - including health insurance. PERIOD!
It should remain a freedom of choice - ESPECIALLY when it comes to buying any type of insurance.

What's next… we're all going to be forced to buy a Chevy? What about Life Insurance too?

I think what people forget or don't know about this case is that Hobby Lobby wasn't opposed to all forms of birth control or contraceptives. It was only abortifacient drugs like the morning after pill where essentially a woman could conceive and then take the drug terminating the brief conception. In their religious beliefs that is tantamount to abortion. Personally myself as a matter of policy I wouldn't mind taxpayer funded contraception simply because its cheaper than a lifetime of welfare and public assistance for the child. However, I don't support the idea that the government possesses the power to force people to buy a particular product. To me that is gross misinterpretation of the Commerce clause as it gives the Federal government too much broad power where the original intent of the Constitution was to afford the government very limited and defined power.