[$tinkle]

keep your laws off my body!

except this one that will mandate by legislative fiat the funding: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?_r=2

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that they had developed legislation to override the Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The bill would ensure that women had access to insurance coverage for birth control even if they worked for businesses that had religious objections.

The bill, put together in consultation with the Obama administration, would require for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Stores to provide and pay for contraceptive coverage, along with other preventive health services, under the Affordable Care Act.

The measure could be on the Senate floor as early as next week, Senate Democrats said. House Democrats are developing a companion bill, but it faces long odds in the House, which is controlled by Republicans. Speaker John A. Boehner described the Hobby Lobby decision last week as “a victory for religious freedom.”

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who led efforts by Senate Democrats to respond to the ruling, said: “Your health care decisions are not your boss’s business. Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will.”

seriously, does this slag not get it? last i checked, businesses & employment therein is voluntary, and health care packages are negotiated.

IOW, these are contracts that parties either agree to, or part ways. but now she wants to force a contract renegotiation of her terms? this amounts to little more than a bill of attainder

 

[jimmydean]

keep your laws off my body!

except this one that will mandate by legislative fiat the funding: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?_r=2seriously, does this slag not get it? last i checked, businesses & employment therein is voluntary, and health care packages are negotiated.

IOW, these are contracts that parties either agree to, or part ways. but now she wants to force a contract renegotiation of her terms? this amounts to little more than a bill of attainder

I think the point you seem to be missing is that I should not have to endure my bosses religious beliefs as part of my job, unless it's part of my job. It's fine if my boss doesn't agree with my need for promiscuity, but he shouldn't be allowed to decide what method of protection I use because he doesn't believe in contraception.

They are trying to say "I won't pay for your anti-baby pills because the Jeebus wouldn't want it that way" when I could give a damn WJWD. If my boss wants to offer health care as a benefit, great. But they shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick coverage based on "religion".

That is the issue. If you don't want to pay for something, then don't. But don't hide behind a book of fiction as your reason and think that is enough for someone who knows better.

 

[jonKranked]

i'm sure the hobby jesus lobby never intended their freedoms to apply to muslims:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/guantanamo-bay-hobby-lobby-decision-court-filing-read

 

[$tinkle]

I think the point you seem to be missing is that I should not have to endure my bosses religious beliefs as part of my job, unless it's part of my job. It's fine if my boss doesn't agree with my need for promiscuity, but he shouldn't be allowed to decide what method of protection I use because he doesn't believe in contraception.

then why on darwin's green earth would you apply for employment at such an oppressive place? before scuttling DADT, it's like being gay & applying for military enlistment, only later to sue for discrimination. you knew the rules going in; eyes wide open.

They are trying to say "I won't pay for your anti-baby pills because the Jeebus wouldn't want it that way" when I could give a damn WJWD. If my boss wants to offer health care as a benefit, great. But they shouldn't be allowed to cherry pick coverage based on "religion".

4 out of 9 justices agree

That is the issue. If you don't want to pay for something, then don't. But don't hide behind a book of fiction as your reason and think that is enough for someone who knows better.

wait. it's ok not to pay and offer no explanation, rather than offer an explanation steeped in constitutionally defended rights? that's an odd, arbitrary, and dangerous point of view, that would only serve to come back to haunt you & your ilk in no time.

 

[$tinkle]

i'm sure the hobby jesus lobby never intended their freedoms to apply to muslims:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/guantanamo-bay-hobby-lobby-decision-court-filing-read

appearing next week on al-jazeera's after-madrassa-special: "muslim -vs- muslim"?

 

[jonKranked]

who's the al-jazeera equivalent of jerry springer? and how does their "not the baby daddy" dance go?

 

[jimmydean]

wait. it's ok not to pay and offer no explanation, rather than offer an explanation steeped in constitutionally defended rights? that's an odd, arbitrary, and dangerous point of view, that would only serve to come back to haunt you & your ilk in no time.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to force it on me. It means you are free to believe what you want but keep it off my lawn.

 

[jonKranked]

Freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to force it on me. It means you are free to believe what you want but keep it off my lawn.

the GOP loves the consitution, until it messes with them forcing Jeebus on the heathens

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

[$tinkle]

Freedom of religion doesn't mean the freedom to force it on me. It means you are free to believe what you want but keep it off my lawn.

true; you should not be forced to apply for employment, nor forced to pick insurance coverage*



*oh wait! this is what obamacare does!!!!

 

[$tinkle]

the GOP loves the consitution, until it messes with them forcing Jeebus on the heathens

also true - we have no state religion, like the aglican church of england

way to keep up, lads!

 

[jimmydean]

true; you should not be forced to apply for employment, nor forced to pick insurance coverage*



*oh wait! this is what obamacare does!!!!

My work doesn't require me to pick coverage, I chose because I need coverage. But my employer also doesn't restrict what is covered based on the Jeebus, either.

I also tend to not give my personal business to places who have a Jeebus fish on their business cards or signage, either.

 

[$tinkle]

My work doesn't require me to pick coverage, I chose because I need coverage. But my employer also doesn't restrict what is covered based on the Jeebus, either.

so you're pro-choice when it's your choice; got it.

I also tend to not give my personal business to places who have a Jeebus fish on their business cards or signage, either.

as a rule, so do i. why should your fish influence how good a plumber you are? i prefer angie's list over angel's list