What's stopping scientologists from denying anti depressants ?

After the fiasco with Obama Care, you won't have to worry about the Democrats controlling both the presidency and the legislature for at least the next 60 years.

 

Why would I care that a scientologist owned business would or could opt out of providing certain mental health meds? Too many people are needlessly medicated as it is. People should "man up" and put on their big boy pants and deal with the circumstances of life.

No wonder our society is falling apart.

 

The majority opinions specifically dealt with these issues but in my opinion, if a religious belief is sincerely held, the government should not force people to subsidize it. It's possible to live without other people buying you stuff.

 

Scientology should NOT be allowed to be considered a Religion.

It was created by L.Ron Hubbard a Science Fiction writer who publicly stated..."Why should I write Sci-Fi Novels that are making me Peanuts when I can makeup and write a book of Religion?"

Celebrity Scientologists have been investigated and it is well known the Church of Scientology pays Celebrities MILLIONS OF DOLLARS just to say they are scientologists.

If anyone even knows the premise of Scientology they know just how idiotic and ridiculous this MONEY MAKING FARCE...WHICH IT'S OWN CREATOR L.RON HUBBARD himself has stated and admitted that he laughed his A$$ OFF when he saw the people stupid enough to join and donate all their money and property.

By the way...Hubbard was supposedly arrested but it is thought he paid off officials off the coast of South East Asia where he was caught having sex with young boys at least 40 of them he had aboard his boat.

AboveAlpha

 

The Supreme Court did rule Scientology as a religion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10510301/Scientology-is-a-religion-rules-Supreme-Court.html

But I agree, it really shouldn't be a religion.

 

Yeah...I can't believe they did that...but they did.

AboveAlpha

 

I read the 36 page dissent and Ginsberg said it best:

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered aloud in her dissent, 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 where is the stopping point to the “let the government pay” alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, according women equal pay for substantially similar work.

Claims denied include;

owner of restaurant chain refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration

born-again Christians who owned closely held, for-profit health clubs believed that the Bible proscribed hiring or retaining an “individual living with but not married to a person of the opposite sex,” “a young, single woman working without her father’s consent or a married woman working without her husband’s consent,” and any person “antagonistic to the Bible,” including “fornicators and homosexuals”

The Senate voted down the so-called “conscience amendment,” which would have enabled any employer or insurance provider to deny coverage based on its asserted “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” That amendment, Senator Mikulski observed, would have “put the personal opinion of employers and insurers over the practice of medicine.”

No individual decision by an employee and her physician be it to use contraception, treat an infection, or have a hip replaced is in any meaningful sense the employers decision or action.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga resist coverage for only 4 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives does not lessen these compelling interests. Notably, the corporations exclude intrauterine devices (IUDs), devices significantly more effective, and significantly more expensive than other contraceptive methods.

 

According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . applying the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

USSC only ruled narrowly on this case only. Paying taxes is against my religion, USSC has already decided in favor of the IRS exemption.

 

... The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public. No individual decision by an employee and her physician be it to use contraception, treat an infection, or have a hip replaced is in any meaningful sense the employers' decision or action ....The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandatemust necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” ... The remedy is not forcing employers to copay and Then let the government pay (rather than the employees who do not share their employer’s faith), the Court suggests. The ACA, however, requires coverage of preventive services through the existing employer based system of health insurance “so that employees face minimal logistical and administrative obstacles.” where is the stopping point to the “let the government pay” alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage or according women equal pay for substantially similar work

 

Hobby Lobby is the one buying the policy. Considering the HHS suggestion was to stop offering insurance to their employees. The decsion also suggest the govt could provide the coverages for the 4 medications in question. I wonder if people read these decsions or just believe what they are told.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

 

It's fine for the court to limit it to the contraceptive mandate since that's what the law and the related challenge was to, a contraceptive mandate. It's normal for a court to limit its rulings, otherwise they could write for thousands of pages. The most common approach to this kind of constitutional law issue would be to have the court weigh the religious belief against the dangers of the sought-after exemption. Here, we have a core religious belief of a major religioun weighed against a condition (pregnancy) that is commonly dealt with by women independently and which doesn't endanger others if it is not dealt with, like a lack of a vaccine would.

The court's liberals are crying wolf here, they know it would be easy to reason out an issue regarding vaccines if someone actually makes a challenge against them. They are making a big deal out of it anyway because they wanted to see the government destroy the Christian corporation.

Ginsberg is 85 years old or something, she has been a judge for many decades. As such, she knows that coming up with a rationale to require vaccination would be a non-issue. She wrote her opinion to serve as fodder for idiots who can only cut-and-paste what other people have written. It was not a real constitutional law argument which is why all of the court's liberals did not concur. I suspect that her mind is going, I have read many of her opinions and she is usually better than this slop.

 

I'm guessing that you were one of those who believed that Romney would win in a landslide in 2012. Am I right?

 

Since a population that does not have access to birth control has higher medical costs than a population that has access, the Hobby Lobby group plan should have to pay a higher rate for their health insurance. With employees having the option of opting into a plan that includes birth control, for no charge.

 

................................................................they have access to birth control.........................................

 

The issue seems to be that any person who chooses to hire a female must provide that female with adequate compensation so that she can afford birth control one way or another. Is this the operating premise??

 

Insurance works only when it's a collective pool of payees towards a insurer determined policy. It can't work when individual payees start to demand what the insurance covers and what it doesn't for other people. Either way, this entire ruling is only going to justify Single Payer down the road.

 

Why would you assume that older religions had more honorable foundings than does Scientology? Do you actually believe that God personally founded any of the ancient religions?

 

This is laughable on premise alone. Using that logic, should female owners start denying men insurance that covers prostate exams because it has nothing to do with them ? Insurance works only when it's a collective pool. Payees demanding how others get covered will not work.

 

"All other religions are cults. Mine is the only true one." - every religious moron on the planet

 

The Republican base hasn't been told that this is an insurance issue. They believe that employers are being forced to pay out of pocket for "loose women" to purchase abortions after they have had indiscriminate sex with evil left-wing men who don't love the Baby Jesus.

You can't rationally argue someone out of a position that was not arrived at rationally to begin with.

 

Allowing ANY religion to dictate or interfere with societal progress based on the past and dogmatic belief could direct us toward the backward looking state of the Islamic world. Such interference did not work out well across the Middle East....obviously, and I do not wish to see it here.

 

This has nothing to do with subsidizing religious belief because Hobby Lobby's owners weren't being asked to take Plan B. Hobby Lobby has no right to tell it's employees that they cannot acquire Plan B through an insurance carrier they don't own. It's not like Hobby Lobby has their own insurance company - they purchase insurance. And in doing so they offer it to employees. But now, Hobby Lobby gets to decide what type of coverage their employees have. It's sickening and disgraceful.

 

The whiny left's interpretation of the ruling is what's irresponsible... although predictable.
No one is denying anyone medication. People are free to buy their "morning after" pills if they choose not to have protected sex.

I suggest reading up on what took place here, and stop being so fauxraged over the victory of religious freedom.

It's a rarity... so the "sky is falling" dramatics are quite unnecessary.

 

Everyone who wish to hold down the progress because of religious beliefs is on the wrong side. If you have rational arguments to oppose something you are welcome, but you can't do it " because God made us this way ". I always thought religions need to evolve in the sense they should abandon dogmatic teachings, and become more open to new ideas, it feels a little awkward still hearing people in the 21st century saying " God said it's forbidden ". At least scientologists are against the lobby of psychiatrists and big pharma so they do something useful after all.

 

First Amendment...doesn't matter what you always thought. Sorry to be so blunt but that's the plain truth.

You want your religious freedom, I assume? The flipside of that is you have to allow others their freedom as well.