BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL . v . HOBBY LOBBY STORES,

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Could you please elaborate? I fail to see how this ruling is fair...

You can still get any birth control you choose, just in some cases you have to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred that Hobby Lobby still had to pay for all birth control, but with a conservatively leaning Supreme Court, this is the best we could hope for. This is a fair ruling because everyone gets a little victory: women can still use whatever type of birth control they want, Hobby Lobby still pays for birth control, but not the ones that it religiously objects to, and the SC closed the door on this reasoning ever affecting another area such as vaccinations. Is it the ruling everyone was hoping for? No. Is it the ruling I would have given? No, but it is a ruling that does its best to please everyone.

Regardless of that, for what it's worth, I think it was a fair ruling even though I don't like that they still have to pay for some birth control.

You do realize that birth control isn't used solely as a contraceptive, don't you? Some women need it for regular periods. That's fairly common.

Companies still need to pay for those, the Supreme Court only exempts them from "abortion pills" such as the day after pill.

I'm aware of that. My point was that regular birth control isn't used solely as a contraceptive as Taysby thinks. He thinks companies shouldn't have to pay for ANY birth control because people shouldn't be doing the Big Dirty and I was informing him that some women need birth control for regular periods.

Oh...gotcha!

ya learn something new every day. 
if people have ___ just to have it without getting the contraceptives themselves, they deserve to get pregnant. 

That is the dumbest thing you could have said. What about the children who have to grow up under those conditions. You need a time out from the conversation: sex .

[Ekann1]

Isn't it kinda pointless if he can't read that you gave him a time out?

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

Isn't it kinda pointless if he can't read that you gave him a time out?

Its the thought that counts

[MuggyWuggy]

This is why the ruling is dangerous:

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

This is why the ruling is dangerous:

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/religious-leaders-want-exemption-hiring-lgbt-peopl/

The ruling specifically says that they cannot extend the reasoning to this. These people have been around forever and I bet you could find thousands of articles before the ruling about this. Lastly, how does not having to pay for "the morning after pill" translate to not hiring gays? Yes, its "religious freedom", but that is still a big jump. The true problem here is ignorant idiots and not the ruling.

[MuggyWuggy]

I would say how idiots interpret the ruling is dangerous then, hoopla for hoopla sake

[MuggyWuggy]

But they did the in the first place with this case

[Remillo]

but if you want them (not for health reasons) YOU should have to pay for them.

The problem I have with this argument: Hobby Lobby still pays for Viagra with their health insurance plan.  If you want the Viagra to be able to continue having sex, but not for health reasons, shouldn't YOU have to pay for it?

[MuggyWuggy]

Is it a Christian belief to pay for hard boners???!

***that shouldn't be hard anymore

[Piotr]

Wondered what people thought about the recent supreme court ruling, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. For those who don't know, Hobby Lobby contested that they didn't need to pay for certain types of contraceptives (specifically, the morning after pill and a few other similar products) which was previously required by Obamacare. The Supreme Court ruled that closely held (companies with 5 or fewer people owning at least fifty percent of the company) companies could object to some areas of Obamacare (the morning after pill stuff) due to religious purposes. Employees can still get the contraceptives, but Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for certain types. Furthermore, the Supreme Court limited the ruling adding, "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

I personally think this is a huge victory for everyone. I completely agree with the 5-4 majority. What do you think?

I think Obamacare is illegal under iMtG Law, in a very obvious way. Forcing me to adhere to 3rd party regulations when I simply want to sell my time or buy somebody else's is not something I want to be done to me.

[Cloud1664]

So, if any religion opposes something it should be exempt from the law?  And legalizing gay marriage wouldn't "force" religions to do anything, it would simply mean that for those couples that get married, the marriage will be given legal effect.  It doesn't mean that religions opposed to gay marriage would be forced to perform them.

In my opinion, the language in this opinion is ambiguous enough that it will come up again, regardless of the limitations placed on this ruling.

With regards to Hobby Lobby, I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe no attorney will figure out a way to spin that language into something else, but I doubt it.  We'll just have to see.

Not all things.  just things like not allowing gay marriage, and not providing contraceptives.

(I'm using the mormons for an example)  They believe marriage is between man and a woman.  To get married, you perform a sacred ordinance in one of their temples as an oath to god.  With gay marriage legalized (without the fine print) people would push to force them to allow gay marriage, and let me tell you from experience in that religion, it's a really big no no and sin.  It would be bad.

How is "tightly owned businesses may not provide contraceptives for religious reasons" ambiguous?

So far I agree with everything you have said about this topic. Do you know any Mormons or was this information researched? I'm just curious.

[Cloud1664]

I was a Mormon for about 15 years, and my parents are still dragging me along even though (I think it's obvious, but apparently not . ) I don't want anything to do with it.

I thought you must have been. I could tell by your knowledge of marriage in the Temple. I've been LDS my entire life and still am. But I respect your decision to no longer have anything to do with it. To each his own.

[Mlerner12]

Wondered what people thought about the recent supreme court ruling, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. For those who don't know, Hobby Lobby contested that they didn't need to pay for certain types of contraceptives (specifically, the morning after pill and a few other similar products) which was previously required by Obamacare. The Supreme Court ruled that closely held (companies with 5 or fewer people owning at least fifty percent of the company) companies could object to some areas of Obamacare (the morning after pill stuff) due to religious purposes. Employees can still get the contraceptives, but Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for certain types. Furthermore, the Supreme Court limited the ruling adding, "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

I personally think this is a huge victory for everyone. I completely agree with the 5-4 majority. What do you think?

I think Obamacare is illegal under iMtG Law, in a very obvious way. Forcing me to adhere to 3rd party regulations when I simply want to sell my time or buy somebody else's is not something I want to be done to me.

You would rather not be a good person and save money to spend on likely selfish things that don't benefit those less fortunate than spend money to let people that cant support themselves survive? If Obamacare didn't exist a lot of people would be dead. Sounds illegal not to have it under iMtG.

[Piotr]

Wondered what people thought about the recent supreme court ruling, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. For those who don't know, Hobby Lobby contested that they didn't need to pay for certain types of contraceptives (specifically, the morning after pill and a few other similar products) which was previously required by Obamacare. The Supreme Court ruled that closely held (companies with 5 or fewer people owning at least fifty percent of the company) companies could object to some areas of Obamacare (the morning after pill stuff) due to religious purposes. Employees can still get the contraceptives, but Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for certain types. Furthermore, the Supreme Court limited the ruling adding, "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs."

I personally think this is a huge victory for everyone. I completely agree with the 5-4 majority. What do you think?

I think Obamacare is illegal under iMtG Law, in a very obvious way. Forcing me to adhere to 3rd party regulations when I simply want to sell my time or buy somebody else's is not something I want to be done to me.

You would rather not be a good person and save money to spend on likely selfish things that don't benefit those less fortunate than spend money to let people that cant support themselves survive? If Obamacare didn't exist a lot of people would be dead. Sounds illegal not to have it under iMtG.

I'm a good person at my own expense, not at the expense of others. I do not force people to do charity for me.

According to science of economics, in the long run a lot more people will be dead because Obamacare was introduced, and with it the inevitable spiral of bureaucracy, costs, corruption, inefficiency, rationing, queueing, and last but not least the inevitable slowdown in medical technology progress.