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.

And the religious beliefs of its employees that want their contraceptives covered by their insurance... don't matter? This is another case of conservatives favoring fundamentalist Christian ideology and corporations over the interest of individuals. They weren't forced to give out contraceptives by hand to each employee -- it was included as part of their insurance coverage if they chose to use it, because get this: preventing women from getting pregnant is cheaper than paying for abortions and pregnancies.

And the first ammendment is not talking just about Christianity, so the fact that this was a narrow ruling only involving contraceptives is mind boggling. What about people of other faiths who have other religious objections. An orthodox Jew refusing to cover insulin for a diabetic employee because it comes from pigs, blood transfusions, vaccinations and other medical activities that certain faiths don't agree with. They don't matter either huh? It shouldn't matter right, because the religious rights of the emplyees shouldn't be trumped by the religious rights of their bosses. Except for Christian beliefs apparently -- they deserve special treatment. Because of this ruling, a corporation's religious views in fact, do trump the religious views of its employees.This decision is literally only protecting the interest of Christian business owners who look down on contraceptives and is a blatant betrayal of the first ammendment. We will see other faiths try to pull the same act in the future.

And this ruling also sets precedence that not only are corporations people, but they also now have religious beliefs and can exempt themselves from laws they have a religious objection to. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Dayum!! And I always thought that when I use protection with my girlfriend, it's so that it prevents her from getting pregnant, not from having to get an abortion! Maybe it works differently in Europe and in America?

Personally, I think using contraception is a private decision and shouldn't be covered by insurance at all. It's totally absurd. It's your personal decision what you want to do, why should other people pay for it? It's not life saving, it's not preventing any kind of an illness.

PS. KungKras, the world needs a strong republican president after how Obama is humiliating himself and his country on the international scene. The last president who was played and fooled this much was probably Carter. Obama is one huge mistake. And the argument about more wars under republicans - I somehow haven't noticed any signs of America slowing down with wars between Obama and Bush, so this argument holds no water. Let alone the fact that the age old saying "if you want to have peace, get ready for war" is and always will be true. McCain would make for a bad ass president, but he's probably too old at this point :-/

And the religious beliefs of its employees that want their contraceptives covered by their insurance... don't matter? This is another case of conservatives favoring fundamentalist Christian ideology and corporations over the interest of individuals.

Why would an "individuals" interest be any more important than a group of individuals, a corporation?  They weren't forced to give out contraceptives by hand to each employee -- it was included as part of their insurance coverage if they chose to use it, because get this: preventing women from getting pregnant is cheaper than paying for abortions and pregnancies.

They are still covering 16/20 of the contraceptives. They just didn't want to pay for abortifacients. 

And the first ammendment is not talking just about Christianity, so the fact that this was a narrow ruling only involving contraceptives is mind boggling. What about people of other faiths who have other religious objections. An orthodox Jew refusing to cover insulin for a diabetic employee because it comes from pigs, blood transfusions, vaccinations and other medical activities that certain faiths don't agree with.

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.

  don't matter either huh? It shouldn't matter right, because the religious rights of the emplyees shouldn't be trumped by the religious rights of their bosses. Except for Christian beliefs apparently -- they deserve special treatment.

Believe it or not there are actually more than just Christians that are morally apposed to murdering babies. 

Because of this ruling, a corporation's religious views in fact, do trump the religious views of its employees.

So employees views should trump employer?

The only thing this ruling does is get the employer out of the employees personal business. 

This decision is literally only protecting the interest of Christian business owners who look down on contraceptives and is a blatant betrayal of the first ammendment. We will see other faiths try to pull the same act in the future.

And this ruling also sets precedence that not only are corporations people, but they also now have religious beliefs

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.

and can exempt themselves from laws they have a religious objection to. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

You must be. How else could you explain your egregious counter factual claims. 

Corporations are made up of people just like any other organization. Why should they be treated any differently in regards to their Constitutional rights? I know, I know because money right? Yeah Gates, Buffet, Soros they have more money each than a majority of the registered corporate entities of this country and they spend tons of money on political causes.

No corporations aren't a person. They are however, people.

Churches are a special case, because they operate on a non-profit basis. And yes, YOUR religious freedoms go beyond the church... but it does not extend to being forced upon your employees.

Tell me, if I get a job working for a muslim, should they be able to force me to do prayers 5 times daily, facing Mecca? By your reasoning, my refusal to do so impacts upon their religious freedom, rather than being a case of me exercising my own. How is the case of paying for health insurance that covers contraception any different?

People, back when there was conscription, who refused to go to war due to their religious beliefs didn't get to just go home and continue living their lives. They had to take dangerous jobs like firefighting, or allow their bodies to be used for medical trials, and things like that, instead.

"Religious belief" and conscientious objection isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. If a company that employs people refuses to follow requirements put on it by laws because it contradicts the owners' religious beliefs, those owners are completely within their rights to cease to hire people, to stop operating as a corporation. If you are required by law to do something as a corporation and your religious beliefs contradict that, then you can do that - but you don't get to keep operating as a corporation.

If your religious beliefs contradict your obligations as a business owner, don't be a business owner.