If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Supreme Court to decide if you can use your religion as an excuse to make health decisions for your employees   (wtop.com) divider line 431
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, health law, reproductive healths, faiths  
•       •       •

4475 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



431 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 05:09:52 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Mike_LowELL: R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.

That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.

Quite right. The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.


What about the flagon with the dragon?
 
2013-11-26 05:10:08 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Look, I don't think contraception/abortion coverage in a health plan makes the owners of the company "responsible" in the eyes of God in any way, shape or form - so they all need to farking take a breath and stop this nonsense...

BUT...

Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception   IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!


Maybe you could try more boldface and capitalization, you know, to really get your point across more clearly.
 
2013-11-26 05:10:53 PM  

BravadoGT: Number 1.


Ok. So seriously just getting back to basics, how can a corporation have religious rights independent of its shareholders? Like, just in terms of metaphysics, that seems impossible to me. Literally impossible.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:01 PM  

mithras_angel: So, if this were to pass through the Supreme Court, it would indicate that any corporation which has a religious objection to ~any~ law, would be able to file against that law, citing this case.


How long, then, before a corporation's executives creates a faith that has religious objections to paying taxes?  I'll note that certain faiths (and certainly some wingnuts) have this belief already.


Where would this end?


Badly.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'

You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.


You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:52 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: Why don't they just pay everyone directly out of their own pockets and assume all the liability of running this large company directly instead of limiting their liability with an incorporation?

Because it's their choice to do so. Perhaps you don't like this and think they should be forced to operate differently.


It's their choice to pick which laws their company will follow?
 
2013-11-26 05:11:59 PM  

profplump: BravadoGT: There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children.

There is, because the whole purpose of incorporation is to form a separate legal person to provide

FINANCIAL isolation from the the individual(s) that own the business. You can either have that isolation or not; you don't get to pick and choose when it applies and when it does not. If he wants to operate the business as a sole proprietorship, with the limitations and liabilities that imposes, he's welcome to do that. But he can't take limited liability and shared ownership and the like from the incorporation statues and then pretend the corporation is merely his alter ego.

FTFY
 
2013-11-26 05:13:01 PM  

This text is now purple: You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.


pxlboy: mithras_angel: So, if this were to pass through the Supreme Court, it would indicate that any corporation which has a religious objection to ~any~ law, would be able to file against that law, citing this case.


How long, then, before a corporation's executives creates a faith that has religious objections to paying taxes?  I'll note that certain faiths (and certainly some wingnuts) have this belief already.


Where would this end?

Badly.


How so? Given the case in Shelby never even cited Brown, this is an odd claim to me.
 
2013-11-26 05:13:38 PM  

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'

You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.

You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.


How so? Given the opinion in Shelby never even cited Brown, this is an odd claim to me.
 
2013-11-26 05:13:50 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Post on Serious Thread: My will is to bash yor moms head in with a rock. So that's ok?

So let me get this straight. You not being forced to work somewhere that you don't want to work at is the same as you committing assault.

Not sure I'm following you there.


Yes. Again, if you've ever lived outside mom's basement, you would know economic coercion is tantamount to physical abuse. They both result in horrid bodily harm. Generally a simple physical assault is brief, so it's frankly less harmful.
 
2013-11-26 05:17:39 PM  

BravadoGT: profplump: BravadoGT: There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children.

There is, because the whole purpose of incorporation is to form a separate legal person to provide FINANCIAL isolation from the the individual(s) that own the business. You can either have that isolation or not; you don't get to pick and choose when it applies and when it does not. If he wants to operate the business as a sole proprietorship, with the limitations and liabilities that imposes, he's welcome to do that. But he can't take limited liability and shared ownership and the like from the incorporation statues and then pretend the corporation is merely his alter ego.

FTFY


it's not just financial, try and launder money for a cartel and see how much jail time you get and compare it to the jail time the banks or employees served for the same thing.
 
2013-11-26 05:18:12 PM  
Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?
 
2013-11-26 05:18:52 PM  

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.

And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?


You need to show your work on that one.

The way it works is like this:
1. People have rights.
2. People have the right to form groups, in order to perform various actions. (see Right to Assembly)
3. While in those groups, they maintain their individual rights.
4. In part because of #3, the group itself maintains the rights possessed by its component parts. i.e. The group can be treated as a single person, with the rights of a single person.
5. A corporation is an entity made up of a group of people.
6. Because of #5, a corporation has the legal rights of a group.
7. Because of #4, a corporation has the rights of an individual.
8. Because of #7, a corporation can be treated as "fictitious" legal person, because it simplifies paperwork.

The problem with trying to dissolve the "fictitious" part, is that even if you remove it, the underlying rights are maintained, because much like Soylent Green, corporations are people.
 
2013-11-26 05:19:18 PM  

someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?


Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?
 
2013-11-26 05:19:28 PM  

ciberido: Really?  How often does that happen?


Every 15 minutes.
Like Clockwork.
BBBBBAAAARRRKKKK!!!!! You humans will pay for ruining our homeland!! GRRRRRRRR!!!! Family Darkpaw of the Sabretooth Clan will slay you all!! BARK!
 
2013-11-26 05:19:51 PM  

someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?


this is what boggles my mind.  especially since contraceptives are used for more than just preventing pregnancy.
 
2013-11-26 05:20:37 PM  

flucto: someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?

Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?


doctors prescribed me birth control so that i am not in so much pain i can't go to work.
 
2013-11-26 05:21:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: If the company is actually buying you a car, they should absolutely be able to decide what kind f car they buy you. That's how company cars work.

If a company provided, as part of their compensation, an all expenses paid vacation, yes they should be able to decide where the appropriate destinations for the paid for vacation would be.

I think the word "should" is doing a lot of work in these sentences. Do you mean "should" in the general sense that public policy should not interfere between competing options (like vacations to France of Germany)? Or "should" in the sense that the choice should generally be available, but the government still has the right to place regulations (i.e. you can't mandate vacations in the middle of war zones). I dont see anything constitutionallywrong with the government saying you can't limit your vacation to going to war-torn hellholes, or saying that the Company car has to meet some emissions standards or nothing.


I see something wrong with the government requiring an employer to provide a company car, or all expenses paid vacations.

These are benefits that the company can provide at will, with the employee deciding how much he or she values the benefits in deciding whether to work there. Similar to how health care should be treated.
 
2013-11-26 05:22:06 PM  
BravadoGT:In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.

No, not crabgrass, silly person.  Your neighbor from Mars eats cars:  Cadillacs, Lincolns too,Mercuries, and Subarus.  And he doesn't stop, he keeps on eatin' cars. Then, when there's no more cars, he goes at night and eats up bars where the people meet.
 
2013-11-26 05:22:22 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!


What if I, as an employer, do not want my company-provided insurance plan to cover chemotherapy? Am I making a health care decision for my employees? For context, I could show you the portion of the bill that my insurance company paid for my course of chemo. But Fark cannot handle a file that large.
 
2013-11-26 05:22:26 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.


Amen. Now, next time someone dies from food poisoning, I say freeze McDonald's assets for the same period as a person would be sentenced for negligent homicide.

Do that and corporate personhood rocks. :D
 
2013-11-26 05:23:56 PM  

This text is now purple: TheWhoppah: Corporations do not have a right to exist. There are conditions that must be met before a corporation may be formed and there are conditions that must be met to maintain the corporate charter. A corporation that does not operate in the public interest may be dissolved. Just make compliance with Obamacare a condition for incorporation and this question is answered.

That's tough sledding, given a right to assembly and speech. In the simplest analysis, corporations are just a group of people -- with all of the rights possessed.


Incorrect.  There are very specific rules for how a corporation is formed... you can't just assemble and say "woohoo look at us, we are now a corporation" and be done with it. The government sets the conditions under which a group may be incorporated and stay incorporated.
 
2013-11-26 05:23:56 PM  

chairmenmeow47: doctors prescribed me birth control so that i am not in so much pain i can't go to work.


Personally I think all prescriptions should be covered. Condoms less so.
 
2013-11-26 05:24:32 PM  

This text is now purple: Mike_LowELL: Irving Maimway: What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?

Congratulations, you just figured out why anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of American civics can figure out that the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional.

The 18th is the only possible unconstitutional amendment to the constitution.


I would have to disagree and say any past the first ten (and possibly even those ) are in fact unconstitutional because they amended (changed) the constitution. They obviously, therefore go against the founder's intentions and Jesus's.
 
2013-11-26 05:24:49 PM  

This text is now purple: You need to show your work on that one.


I appreciate your work in breaking it down step by step - let me just respond to a couple steps where I think the argument does off track.

This text is now purple: 4. In part because of #3, the group itself maintains the rights possessed by its component parts. i.e. The group can be treated as a single person, with the rights of a single person.


This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.

Secondly, groups may be made up of a heterogeneous array of individuals. How do you know what attributes of the individuals to ascribe to the group? I'm not saying groups have no rights, but its not at all clear to me they keep *all* rights.

This text is now purple: 5. A corporation is an entity made up of a group of people.


This is false. This is not - very definitely not - what a corporation is. A corporation is an independent legal entity. It need not even be made up of people at all, and it surely is something distinct from the individuals who own its equity. If what you're saying was true, the idea of limited liability would go out the window.

Don't confuse "people can have ownership stakes in a corporation" with "corporations are made up of people".
 
2013-11-26 05:25:31 PM  

flucto: someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?

Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?


 Doctors prescribe contraceptives for women who don't want to become pregnant. They prescribe antidepressants for people who don't want to be depressed. They prescribe antibiotics for people who don't want to be dead from cutting their foot on the beach. You have not offered a reasonable distinction between contraception and other medical treatments that people have religious objections to.
 
2013-11-26 05:25:48 PM  

someonelse: Why just contraceptives?


Because men have to control what the pussy does. A woman knows intimately that a child is hers; a man has to go on faith and promises. The only way to control patrimony is to control the pussy. And the best way to do that is keep it pregnant and home away from other men.

That's basically what all this boils down to. Insecure men wanting to ensure patrimony by coercion and force.
 
2013-11-26 05:25:48 PM  

ciberido: BravadoGT:In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.

No, not crabgrass, silly person.  Your neighbor from Mars eats cars:  Cadillacs, Lincolns too,Mercuries, and Subarus.  And he doesn't stop, he keeps on eatin' cars. Then, when there's no more cars, he goes at night and eats up bars where the people meet.


GET OUTTA MAH HEAD!
 
2013-11-26 05:25:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I see something wrong with the government requiring an employer to provide a company car, or all expenses paid vacations.


As a policy choice that's fine, but the constitutionality of this has been settled for now.
 
2013-11-26 05:26:47 PM  

dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.


This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?
 
2013-11-26 05:28:21 PM  

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: DamnYankees: Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'

You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.

You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.

How so? Given the opinion in Shelby never even cited Brown, this is an odd claim to me.


Specifically calling out voting districts is an abridgement of equal protections under the law. Basically, from this, "fair" can be derived.
 
2013-11-26 05:28:37 PM  

koder: Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.

Amen. Now, next time someone dies from food poisoning, I say freeze McDonald's assets for the same period as a person would be sentenced for negligent homicide.

Do that and corporate personhood rocks. :D


I'm intrigued by this corporate personhood idea that is thrown about fark so frequently. If corporations should be treated exactly like people, can I set up 1,000 new corps that each get a vote in elections? Will they be counted in the census, affecting govt spending and redistricting and house rep allocation? Since they won't do anything or earn any money, can they apply for govt benefits? Because I'd dividend them all to me, the owner. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
 
2013-11-26 05:29:36 PM  

This text is now purple: Specifically calling out voting districts is an abridgement of equal protections under the law. Basically, from this, "fair" can be derived.


Again, there's a reason why the opinion (if you read it) doesn't actually make this claim. That's because equal protection applies to people, not political entities. There's no rule that you need to treat all political entities equally - that would be a pretty absurd idea if you think about it.
 
2013-11-26 05:29:48 PM  
Question that has never occurred to Subby

Why are employers saddled with providing Health Insurance to employees (sorry, workers)? How did this get to be their problem? Are employers required to provide Automobile financing? Home or Renters insurance? Breast implants? How about Microwaves? Inflatable kiddie pools? Why aren't Employers required to provide group coverage of Flood Insurance, or Kid's All Purpose Full Time Helmets, suitable for bathroom wear all the way through to Formal Wear? Why aren't Employers required to provide the latest PCs or Macs? Bio-chip implants for Google Glasses? Why am I required to pay for your health choices? Do you want to pay for mine, because mine are f*cking legendary.

Why is the cost of elective plastic surgery falling? Market Conditions.
Why is the cost of elective eye surgery falling ? Market Conditions
Why is the cost of flat screen televisions falling? Market Conditions

Cost of health care? Like an Atlas Booster lift-off. Know why subby?

Can't guess?

Disconnect from Market Conditions into  some other guy is going to pay for it.

You wanna be That Guy who advocates for screwing  everybody, Subs?
 
2013-11-26 05:30:02 PM  

someonelse: Doctors prescribe contraceptives for women who don't want to become pregnant. They prescribe antidepressants for people who don't want to be depressed. They prescribe antibiotics for people who don't want to be dead from cutting their foot on the beach. You have not offered a reasonable distinction between contraception and other medical treatments that people have religious objections to.


My point is pretty clear: prescribed vs over the counte. No employer should be opine about that which is prescribed. A prescribed sterilization for medical reasons: covered. Elective? eh.
 
2013-11-26 05:30:58 PM  

pedrop357: dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.

This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?


Your argument boils down to the idea that if you cannot pay the price for treatment on the open market, you cannot have it. And your argument is not limited to contraception. It logically applies to anything the employer wants it to, including life-saving procedures.
 
2013-11-26 05:31:12 PM  
Corporations can be sold.
People can not be sold.
Therefore, Corporations are not people or Wall Street is engaged in the slave trade.
 
2013-11-26 05:31:31 PM  
When the medical people start forcing contraception onto the catholic and then forcing them to have sex purely for fun then at that point I will accept that their religion is under attack and they are having their religious freedom curtailed.

As long as you have ability to make the personal choice to put the condom on or take the pill you still have your freedom in that area.

These people want the choice removed in the way they want. `religious freedom` is not forcing everyone else to do what you want you farktards.
 
2013-11-26 05:31:39 PM  

Shryke: Headso: The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law

Says every tyrant, ever.


images.encyclopediadramatica.es
 
2013-11-26 05:32:10 PM  

DamnYankees: This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.


Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.
 
2013-11-26 05:33:20 PM  

someonelse: pedrop357: dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.

This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?

Your argument boils down to the idea that if you cannot pay the price for treatment on the open market, you cannot have it. And your argument is not limited to contraception. It logically applies to anything the employer wants it to, including life-saving procedures.


It was sarcasm aimed at this idea that if your employer doesn't pay for something, they are denying it to you and/or it's tantamount to them forbidding from you from doing it.
 
2013-11-26 05:34:03 PM  

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: 5. A corporation is an entity made up of a group of people.

This is false. This is not - very definitely not - what a corporation is. A corporation is an independent legal entity. It need not even be made up of people at all, and it surely is something distinct from the individuals who own its equity. If what you're saying was true, the idea of limited liability would go out the window.

Don't confuse "people can have ownership stakes in a corporation" with "corporations are made up of people".


This wasn't a legal statement; it's a statement of fact.

If you revoke a corporate charter, the corporation devolves into its fundamental state of a group of assembled people with like purpose.
 
2013-11-26 05:34:20 PM  

TheWhoppah: Corporations can be sold.
People can not be sold.
Therefore, Corporations are not people or Wall Street is engaged in the slave trade.


People can be sold and they are sold every day. Wall street is slavery as much as when you go to work and do work for your boss you are a slave at that point.

Good day sir.
 
2013-11-26 05:34:54 PM  

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.

Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.


The PEOPLE who make up that corporation do not give up their First Amendment protected rights simply because they choose to work together.

If corporations don't have rights, can their bank accounts be pilfered at will andtheir buildings and vehicles searched without probable cause?
 
2013-11-26 05:34:56 PM  
The real issue here is that the employer knows every single thing covered under the plan.  That is not the way it should be.  It should say gynecological services and it ends there otherwise you basically have employers making health decisions like this by proxy of what a plan offers.  It's bad enough insurers get a say.  If this is allowed just say screw it because every corp out there will become part of The Bible Readers Fellowship the next day.
 
2013-11-26 05:35:04 PM  

Novart: Coastalgrl: Novart: Coastal

Never said the man or the party was perfect.

Given a choice between someone listening in on my phone conversation vs being forced to breed, I'll take the spying.

No spying is wrong and I can't stand it. But if I get knocked up due to rape, guess what, I'll drive to wherever I need to and take whatever pill I need to get rid of it.

Also, I have no party affiliation. I refuse based on principle.

That's good, but only one of those things is actually happening.

If corporations/Republican lawmakers did provide an exception for rape (or incest), would you be ok with not getting free contraceptives?


No, because I use them to regulate my cycle. Without it I would bleed at random times. Also, I would like to engage in sexual activity and have the pill contraceptive as a back up. Abortion should not be used as a method of contraception. Its been nearly a decade for me but just in case I ever want to.

Waay too TMI
 
2013-11-26 05:36:23 PM  
More importantly, does God consider corporations to be people?
 
2013-11-26 05:36:35 PM  

This text is now purple: If you revoke a corporate charter, the corporation devolves into its fundamental state of a group of assembled people with like purpose.


That's not true. Like, factually, its not true. If you dissolve a corporation, there's no 'assembled group of people' left over at all. The corporation just ceases to exist.

You can't make a factual statement about what a corporation is without it being, by definition, a legal statement. Corporations are legally created entitles - everything about them is legal in nature.

And I noticed you didn't respond to my other points about attributing rights to groups which are held by its members.
 
2013-11-26 05:36:48 PM  

flucto: someonelse: Doctors prescribe contraceptives for women who don't want to become pregnant. They prescribe antidepressants for people who don't want to be depressed. They prescribe antibiotics for people who don't want to be dead from cutting their foot on the beach. You have not offered a reasonable distinction between contraception and other medical treatments that people have religious objections to.

My point is pretty clear: prescribed vs over the counte. No employer should be opine about that which is prescribed. A prescribed sterilization for medical reasons: covered. Elective? eh.


You are oversimplifying. What about antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications? Are they elective? If I have religious objections to them, why should I be compelled to offer coverage that includes them? What about joint replacement? Elective or no? I can function by hobbling around, after all. I don't technically need a new knee to survive, but I may elect to get one.
 
2013-11-26 05:36:57 PM  

Farking Canuck: Shryke: Farking Canuck: I did not say that religion was not protected.

Just that religious people were delusional and worse. Oh what a difference.

Well those are your words. But I am certainly not going to argue with you.


It's an odd day indeed when I find myself siding with  Farking Canuck in a thread.  I'm gonna need more popcorn.  And probably some bourbon.
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report