Supreme Court justice; RBG; displays ignorance of Constitution

[Uddermode]

whatever said:

Uddermode said:

whatever said:

-CraZed- said:

You are right being employed by someone doesn't allow them to enforce their beliefs on you. How does not paying for someone elses contraceptives amount to forcing your religious views on someone? ...

Not paying for contraceptives because it's against your religion is absolutely 100% forcing your religious views on your employee.

But wouldn't forcing him to pay contraceptives be 100% forcing your religous view(or lack of) against them? This debate does not require religious beliefs at all. Why should anybody have to pay for someone elses choices. Sexual intercourse is a choice and so the use of contraceptives is only on a choice based situation, if you can't afford contraceptives then don't have intercourse. Stop being entitled little kids that believe everybody else should hand you things instead of working hard and then blow your money into whatever you want.

This debate is about allowing a company to not follow the law simply because of the owners religion.  That is the debate.  It has nothing to do with being entitled.

I'm fully aware of what the debate is and the debate itself is flawed. I'm a hardcore religious person but religion has no place here. Anybody should be able to deny paying for other people's contraceptives regardless of what they believe in. The money that goes to contraceptives should be covered by the salary of the employee if he choses to spend his money like that but the employer doesn't have to provide extra money or coverage if he does not want to. Paying for contraceptives is like providing a salary, insurances, and then an extra drinking fund so that the workers could go by booze after work, its unneccessary, pointless, and at the cost of the employer for the choices the employee decides to make with the employers money.