Hobby Lobby decision from SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby Wins

That doesn't make them comparable or the same thing.

Viagra is not an abortifacient. Not by a long shot.

 

So, you are quite comfortable with a "worker" shoving their opinion down the Boss's throat though. Did this decision say that a corporation is authorized to force people to believe in a certain way?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when a woman, or anyone has lost any freedom, or right to purchase a product?

 

But aren't they "entitled" to get what they want for no charge?

 

Yes, the Supreme Court rules corporations can have religious beliefs.

This is the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that profit-seeking corporations are capable of holding religious views, and may be exempted from federal law because of the corporation's religious convictions.

Now a Muslim business owner can fire someone that does something against their religion. If he wants to run his business using Shira law he gets to. A Christian Scientist business owner who furnishes insurance to employees can refuse to pay for a blood transfusion because it's against their religion.

If these religious nuts want to run a business, they have to follow laws but they want to get around them. An employer isn't supposed to make medical decisions for their employees.

The decision was 5-4, based on the party affiliations of the justices. The court's four liberal justices pointed out that allowing corporations to opt out of federal law on the basis of religious beliefs is a decision of "startling breadth," which may have disastrous implications (even beyond the ACA). Corporations may now be free to block coverage for blood transfusions, vaccines, and many life-saving therapies to which they object.

A terrible ruling that will open the floodgates of other bad decisions. The American worker has no rights anymore.

 

It's a bit late now for your nonsense arguments and denial of blood transfusions
on religious grounds was already brought up by the Obama people and swiftly rejected as a disingenuous attempt at the old slippery slope (no permission, on religious grounds, has been granted by the court to any employer that would put anyone's life in jeopardy).
Your post smells of sour grapes.

Polls don't seem to deter you when Obama Care is mentioned, however. It's still as unpopular as ever and when discussing a feature of Obama Care that has just been kicked to the curb by the Supreme Court that must be taken into consideration also.........http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/207171-poll-approval-of-obamacare-remains-low

At any rate religious freedoms are not tied to one of a kind polls taken from unknown sample groups. Sorry.

 

Why is the courts are ruling against the lefts right to force us to pay for their rights.

 

Women are going to remember this in 2016 They will remember the ultra conservative right wing activist judges that bow to corporations.

 

Oooohhh....scary!

 

You mean women will remember the lies told about it by liberals.

- - - Updated - - -

Bwaahahahahaha! When the swing voter votes for a liberal cause he is a hero, now he is just voting his party affiliation. Hey, libs don't have much use for the Constitution do they?

 

If you feel better substituting "a bakery" you can. The precedent established is that a business owner - the beneficiary of huge breaks from the taxpayer when he offers employer-administered health coverage - is enabled to impose his personal taboos on those covered. Justice Ginsburg confronted the implications: "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]"

The crackpots who are haunted by unidentified Progressive Libs". "Liberals", or "The Left" could even be denied the medication they desperately need if they work for a corporation that espoused a religion that gets pissy about their employees medical care.

 

Yeah, the hyper lib will whine but this was a very narrow decision. This wouldn't have been an issue at all if it were not for the heavy hand of Obamacare.

 

The American people, especially women, will register their reaction to enabling corporations to impose religious restrictions on their employees' healthcare.

 

Typical liberal authoritarianism. Thanks for the display.

 

Keep swinging for the fences, champ. The "crackpots" you refer to are, in fact, the ones espousing this slippery slope of imagined dire consequences.

 

How did this decision place restrictions of any type on the health care a woman can receive?

 

oh, cry me a river...if you can't buy insurance without being on the government dole, don't stick a gun to my head and tell me I have to support you...that's what you don't get about this.......
I owe no one anything except for my family and those I CHOSE to help.............what is it about the damned socialist that they can't figure this out?

- - - Updated - - -

no, you stated a J Witness owning a strip club....... now you're moving the goal post, yet again........

 

The rights of the owner trump the rights of the worker. Essentially, this is what this ruling conveys. Not only did this ruling give anyone who has a religious opinion carte blanche to use it to force upon his employees his personal views, those views don't even have to be correct. Say I think all forms of contraception are abortion. This ruling allows me to take that one remedy away from my employees. Regardless of the merit of the religious belief, the courts can allow you to have unequal coverage depending upon the whim of your employer. Did they do this for men? No. Only women. And you wonder why women vote left in droves. This is just another example of the male dominated power structure imposing themselves upon women. I find it disgusting and if any woman actually buys into this logic, we need a new term for them similar to Uncle Tom. How about "Miss Oginist"

 

Don't like your employer ? Quit ! Duh !

As far as your attack on women who think differently , how about calling them .. " responsible " or " not slutty " ?

 

I believe we should be able to invest in morals testing companies on a for-profit basis and not just drug testing companies.

 

Good. While I disagree with there views on contraception from the religous standpoint which I believe was their main argument I am happy that they won because from a secular standpoint there is no reason for anyone to pay for anyone else's nonessential medical costs. If some guy can't afford the $60 for two big boxes of condoms a month or some girl can't afford the $60 a month (or less) for the pill then they need to get off their lazy (*)(*)(*)(*)ing asses and get another job or don't have sex since having a kid will be a lot more expensive. We as a society need to stop giving hand outs to the morons in this country. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why along with prenatal care that something that is as situational as contraceptives must be mandated on everyone. Get a ****** rider on your insurance if you want that stuff covered.

It was funny reading some of the responses from the gimmes of this forum and the self entitled snobs that think they are entitled to free contraceptives paid for by other people.

 

it merely gave the right to the owner not to be forced to pay for this. Another owner might offer it. That's what's nice, still yet, about America......an individual has retained the Right to Chose.................all of them.
You have a choice, you can work for Hobby Lobby or not.......no one is forcing you to work for someone who resists paying for another's sexual lifestyle....besides they can still buy it as a rider from obmmercare.so, why the outrage, there's still plenty of choices out there...............

 

It is not being "mandated". Only the employer wants to deny and disparage Individual Liberty when it comes to contraception for bottom line purposes.

 

It was being mandated by the government. One of the selling points of the ACA was that contraceptives were to be required in ALL insurance plans along with other nonsense like prenatal care as well. This is why the system is doomed to failure because no other insurance can work this way so why do people think that health insurance somehow will. It shows a complete lack of understaning of basic economical principles especially on the macro level.

If the individual worker wants to have insurance cover their contraceptives (which only an complete idiot would actually think saves them money) then they can attach a rider to their current plan. There is nothing stopping them from doing that.

 

Only the government wants to deny and disparage individual liberty by forcing people to buy a private party product or dictate what people can or cannot do.

 

They do that all the time.

No one is forcing the owners to use contraceptives, only to practice the moral of tolerance, even in the shadow of the valley of contraception.