Just saw this video on this:

Yeah Corporations don't deserve to have freedom of belief/right to religion let alone freedom of speech.

It boggles my mind how one could say that immortal and immoral companies that never get sick, commit criminal actions regularly but can't be sent to jail, should be given human rights. By psychologist, Companies would be considered as sociopathic pyschopaths who are OBLIGATED BY LAW to prioritize their bottom line over the lives of consumers and people in general.

Insanity.

Figgycal said: Uddermode said: I don't know about you guys but shouldn't stuff like anticontraceptions and abortions be considered luxurys. Like nobody is forcing you to have relations and so why should other people pay for the stuff you choose to do. Insurance paying for abortions is like insurance paying for liposuction This decision has nothing to do with abortions and never did. This decision was about certain types of contraceptives that prevent women from having to get abortions. It should be noted that most types of contraceptives were found cosher -- just not the morning after's or the IUD's. So it seems to me like they're picking and choosing which forms of contraceptives they have an issue with. It should also be noted that both vasectomies for men and viagra are still available under their insurance and was never made into a big issue. I think the larger problem is what this means for the future. And whether we will see other, more religious companies take more invasive steps.

Picking and choosing is wrong. Either all types are fought against or none. Also you know what else prevents pregnancy? Not having sex and so again nobody should have to pay for your life choices. Vasectomys and viagra should also be taken off insurance then.

Uddermode said: Figgycal said: Uddermode said: I don't know about you guys but shouldn't stuff like anticontraceptions and abortions be considered luxurys. Like nobody is forcing you to have relations and so why should other people pay for the stuff you choose to do. Insurance paying for abortions is like insurance paying for liposuction This decision has nothing to do with abortions and never did. This decision was about certain types of contraceptives that prevent women from having to get abortions. It should be noted that most types of contraceptives were found cosher -- just not the morning after's or the IUD's. So it seems to me like they're picking and choosing which forms of contraceptives they have an issue with. It should also be noted that both vasectomies for men and viagra are still available under their insurance and was never made into a big issue. I think the larger problem is what this means for the future. And whether we will see other, more religious companies take more invasive steps.   Picking and choosing is wrong. Either all types are fought against or none. Also you know what else prevents pregnancy? Not having sex and so again nobody should have to pay for your life choices. Vasectomys and viagra should also be taken off insurance then.

That's what I'm trying to say, this decision is all about picking and choosing. Picking and choosing which forms of contraception is morally wrong. Picking and choosing which religious beliefs are worth putting on a petestal. Picking and choosing who is allowed to impose their religious views unto others. And picking and choosing what medical insurace can cover.

SocialistSlayer said: The Supreme court just ruled that the federal government actually can't massively overreach is power and force employers to buy contraception against their religious convictions.  But apparently Ruth Bader ginsberg didn't get the memo. That the constitution including the first amendment does in fact apply to everyone. Not just liberals and their businesses.  "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities," she wrote I guess she forgot the citizens United case.    It's quite a shame that our Supreme Court justices like her constantly and amply display their utter ignorance of the constitution.  I guess she thinks the constitution only applies to one person but if you and a friend come together you lose your rights.  How does an ignoramus like her get on the bench.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-exempts-hobby-lobby-from-obamacare-contraception-mandate/

you need to think a bit beyond the surface level of something...for example suppose I own a business and I don't believe in medicine, does this not now mean I don't have to offer a healthcare plan with prescription medicine coverage? expand a bit further, suppose I do not believe in *standard medicine* and instead believe homeopathic "medicine" should be covered instead. now explode it...I don't believe in doctors, only GAWD ALMIGHTY can heal his flock. now what? am I not forced to offer ANY healthcare? maybe just a pamphlet to church instead? :D

Sorry I can't give my employees lunch breaks anymore because it's against my beliefs. What a load of crap, I hate it when ridiculous garbage that makes no sense if you think about it for more than two seconds gets legal validation.

DarkWraith said: SocialistSlayer said: The Supreme court just ruled that the federal government actually can't massively overreach is power and force employers to buy contraception against their religious convictions.  But apparently Ruth Bader ginsberg didn't get the memo. That the constitution including the first amendment does in fact apply to everyone. Not just liberals and their businesses.  "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities," she wrote I guess she forgot the citizens United case.    It's quite a shame that our Supreme Court justices like her constantly and amply display their utter ignorance of the constitution.  I guess she thinks the constitution only applies to one person but if you and a friend come together you lose your rights.  How does an ignoramus like her get on the bench.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-exempts-hobby-lobby-from-obamacare-contraception-mandate/ you need to think a bit beyond the surface level of something...for example suppose I own a business and I don't believe in medicine, does this not now mean I don't have to offer a healthcare plan with prescription medicine coverage? expand a bit further, suppose I do not believe in *standard medicine* and instead believe homeopathic "medicine" should be covered instead. now explode it...I don't believe in doctors, only GAWD ALMIGHTY can heal his flock. now what? am I not forced to offer ANY healthcare? maybe just a pamphlet to church instead? :D

When it comes to medicine that saves a life then insurance should cover but this issues has to do with having to pay with other peoples choice that you don't agree. Some of you people are taking this in the wrong direction which is part of the problem

American reasoning: Corporations are people. And their sincere religious beliefs must be respected.

Man, you guys need to stop legalized corruption or your democracy will be so screwed within the next decades.

KungKras said: American reasoning: Corporations are people. And their sincere religious beliefs must be respected. Man, you guys need to stop legalized corruption or your democracy will be so screwed within the next decades.

The conservative republicans have lost it. And it's looking like they're actually going to win the next round of elections.

Shadow1980 said: Dr.Henry_Killinger said: Just saw this video on this: Yeah Corporations don't deserve to have freedom of belief/right to religion let alone freedom of speech. It boggles my mind how one could say that immortal and immoral companies that never get sick, commit criminal actions regularly but can't be sent to jail, should be given human rights. By psychologist, Companies would be considered as sociopathic pyschopaths who are OBLIGATED BY LAW to prioritize their bottom line over the lives of consumers and people in general. Insanity. ... Well, millions of us, including those that are pacifists for religious reasons, felt that it was unjust and immoral for our tax dollars to be funding a war of choice against a nation that didn't attack us, a war that left thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dead, a war that has destabilized the regions (hello, ISIS), a war that cost over a trillion dollars and was financed by borrowed money. We still had no choice but to pay for it. We all have to pay for things we don't like, even when we find it to be against our religion or whatever. People who live in states with capital punishment still have to fund executions even if they find them immoral. People who are vegans for ethical reasons may still have to deal with portions of their tax dollars going to farm subsidies that result in animals getting killed for food. Yet according to five of the nine SCotUS justices, corporations don't have to pay for their employee's contraception. Oh, if only we could all get to pick and choose what we have to pay for.

Too bad you're not a corporation.

I actually haven't heard that argument before about paying for a war I find morally objectionable and capital punishment, which is actually against my religious beliefs. It's a great point.

Figgycal said: KungKras said: American reasoning: Corporations are people. And their sincere religious beliefs must be respected. Man, you guys need to stop legalized corruption or your democracy will be so screwed within the next decades. The conservative republicans have lost it. And it's looking like they're actually going to win the next round of elections.

That is really, really scary.

I wish your democratic party would stop being so passive in the face of republican obstructionism and agressivness. But that's what they're paid to be by donors....

A republican president would be such a disaster. Obama has done a lot of things wrong, but one of the things he did right was to take some baby steps towards normalizing relations with Iran. If you know the history of that country, you would probably want them as an ally much more than Saudi Arabia. I'm afraid that if the next president is a republican. he will just destroy whatever diplomatic trust was restored. And, there will probably be even more war in the world....