Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court rules in favor of Religious companies not covering contraception
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:13 pm to CatFan81
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:13 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Nuh uh. Just because you disagree with me on everything doesn't mean that I need therapy
And just because someone agrees with Hobby Lobby doesn't mean they're a misogynist. I know you never said anyone was but so that seems to be the theme of the crazier liberals today.
0
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:16 pm to Vols&Shaft83
How's the poliboard today?
I want click over there so bad, but the conservative circle jerk will be full swing and I don't want to get anything in my eye.
I want click over there so bad, but the conservative circle jerk will be full swing and I don't want to get anything in my eye.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:17 pm to Duke
quote:
The blurb I got reads that it's a pretty narrow ruling. Only covers the birth control mandate. 5-4 on ideological lines. Not surprising.
It's more narrow than that.
It only covers certain types of contraception as offered by plans paid for by certain types of companies. It won't impact that many people.
Not that it makes it okay or not or anything like that. What it really does is set a precedent for future rulings.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:21 pm to DCRebel
And my stance on birth control and contraception is that women shouldn't even need health insurance to get their hands on it.
We should be giving that shite away.
We should be giving that shite away.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:23 pm to DCRebel
quote:
Not that it makes it okay or not or anything like that. What it really does is set a precedent for future rulings.
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the ruling. More than anything, the court seems to be dictating which religious beliefs are acceptable in this country. The 91 case the SC rejected that paved the way for RFRA that this case was based on, had to do with Native Americans taking peyote. Alito made it a point to put in the opinion that things like blood transfusions don't apply, but there are religions that don't believe in blood transfusion. Vaccinations as well.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:23 pm to DCRebel
I assume only privately owned companies are covered. I see the precedent set pretty clearly.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:23 pm to The Spleen
Spleen, take it to its logical conclusion. Faith healers.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:24 pm to DCRebel
quote:
We should be giving that shite away.
Not disagreeing with you, BUT how do the doctors and chemists who create these pills get paid?
This post was edited on 6/30/14 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:25 pm to Duke
quote:
I assume only privately owned companies are covered. I see the precedent set pretty clearly.
Privately and CLOSELY owned, which isn't that many companies.
Closely owned in this sense is where 50% or more of the company's equity is owned by five or fewer people (I'm too lazy to look it up, but I do believe that is the definition cited by SCOTUS), as in the case of Hobby Lobby which is owned mostly by one family.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:26 pm to DCRebel
quote:
Privately and CLOSELY owned, which isn't that many companies.
More like a slit than just narrow.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:26 pm to 3nOut
do hobby lobby female employees have to pay for erectile dysfunction meds for male employees?
mennonites were also involved in this case - we all need to go back to the mennonite way of life btw. it's way cool
mennonites were also involved in this case - we all need to go back to the mennonite way of life btw. it's way cool
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:27 pm to Duke
And wasn't there a SC case a few years ago where some Quakers said paying taxes was against their religion that the SC ruled against?
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:28 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Not disagreeing with you, BUT how do the doctors and chemists who create these pills get paid?
I didn't say we steal them and then redistribute them.
It could be like the VA, whose pharmaceuticals are purchased in large amounts from big pharm at a fair market value and then made available to their customers inexpensively or free (depending on the patient).
So, yes, what I'm describing is something that'd be subsidized with taxes, which means that a lot of people wouldn't support it out of some principle that I don't ascribe to. Oh well.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:33 pm to DCRebel
I'd really love a cost-benefit analysis on something like that. Really with every piece of spending that is done by government.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:33 pm to The Spleen
quote:
And wasn't there a SC case a few years ago where some Quakers said paying taxes was against their religion that the SC ruled against?
Yeah, that's why the religious freedom exemption is a bit odd to me.
Who determines which religious gripes are legitimate or not? Can't I just be like "uh, yeah, I'm a member of a religion where I don't have to pay taxes and can't be drafted and should be allowed to own four grenade launchers. It says so in this book here, dude. It's holy 'n' shite." I mean, religious freedom 'n' all, right?
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:36 pm to Duke
quote:
I'd really love a cost-benefit analysis on something like that. Really with every piece of spending that is done by government.
As would I.
I do think that, off of the top of my hand, that reducing unwanted pregnancies would significantly reduce abortions and healthcare costs in the short run, and maybe even cyclical poverty and violent crime in the long run.
So many of societies ills have been pretty reliably linked to things like unwanted teen pregnancies.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:39 pm to DCRebel
Agreed.
It beats the current model of "all spending is bad" vs "some spending is good."
It beats the current model of "all spending is bad" vs "some spending is good."
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:40 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Not disagreeing with you, BUT how do the doctors and chemists who create these pills get paid?
Maybe like the makers of the free condoms given out at health clinics.
Some generics are pretty cheap to manufacture.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:40 pm to Duke
quote:
It beats the current model of "all spending is bad" vs "some spending is good."
When people say "all spending is bad," what they really mean is "spending on shite for OTHER PEOPLE is bad," because you know damn well that they're not about to turn down their social security checks.
Posted on 6/30/14 at 2:42 pm to DCRebel
quote:
When people say "all spending is bad," what they really mean is "spending on shite for OTHER PEOPLE is bad," because you know damn well that they're not about to turn down their social security checks.
Like one of my friends that constantly bitches about government spending while working for a defense contractor in Huntsville, AL and living in a $500k home.
Page 10 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News