-CraZed- said:
Figgycal said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Why would an "individuals" interest be any more important than a group of individuals, a corporation?
They are still covering 16/20 of the contraceptives. They just didn't want to pay for abortifacients.
Although ido believe businesses shouldn't be forcedtoo payfor that stuff. The only way that would be a valid comparison is if pregnancy was a disease.
Believe it or not there are actually more than just Christians that are morally apposed to murdering babies.
So employees views should trump employer?
The only thing this ruling does is get the employer out of the employees personal business.
No that was the citizens United case. And even then that's not true. That case rules they are groups of people. And of course they have constitutional right s if they didn't newspapers wouldn't be able to print their opinions. TV anchors couldn't report what the wanted. Unions couldn't donate money. Etc etc.
You must be. How else could you explain your egregious counter factual claims.
|
There's something to be said about your ability to defend the interests of large, faceless corporations over the interests of its employees.
I'm struglling to see how this a victory for the employees that now have to pay for something that was once covered by their insurance, but are not anymore because their bosses found it immoral. Is it a victory because some religions agree with it? Thank goodness than we don't have a clause in our ammendment that either promotes religions or supresses the free excercise thereof. Because as you might realize, not everyone who believes in a religion, has fundamentalist views of that religion. The vast majority of Catholic women, for example use contraception on a regular basis despite Church teachings. Their religious beliefs were overwritten.
But it's not worth even having a discussion about this, because you've already made up your mind that contraception is murder. Well how do argue with that? A kindhearted corporation, that has inalienable rights and religious convictions, decided to stop supporting the murder of innocent babies. I certainly can't argue with that logic. Or any logic you put your faith in.
Edited. Part of my comment was needlessly rude and aggressive, sorry for that.
|
How is he defending large faceless corporations? This applies to small companies as well. You do realize even small businesses can be incorporated right?
It is a victory in the sense that it sets a very narrow precedent for actual freedom. NO ONE should be forced to pay for someone elses lifestyle, habits or even their circumstances. Not a large facelessevil, greedy corporation run by human beings who all have personal beliefs nor a msall business owner who offers employees health insurance. The relationship between an employee and and an employer is based on a wage for services rendered period. The rest is offered as a benfit and is optional for both parties or at least it should be.
As an employee, you have the right to buy health coverage elsewhere should your employer choose not to offer abortifacients. Why do people have an issue with this?
|
A million times this. Big government overreaching yet again. You guys are all looking at the small picture, but the big picture is this. Why is ANY employer forced to offer ANY particular type of health care? If you don't like it, opt out and go get your own damn health care individually. One that covers everything you need and WANT. F***ing ObamaCare.
Benefits used to be a way for an employer to tip the scales and get good candidates for open positions.
The government's job is to provide you with the equal opportunity to achieve everything you can dream of. Not spoon feed it to you with a guarantee. Wow, some people.
