Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/25/2014 8:27:38 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: GIdget2004

I would be careful reading too much into the questions. We all thought the ACA was goner after the SCOTUS hearing.


2 posted on 03/25/2014 8:32:11 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

The problem with her question is the other references are attached to specific diseases. Pregnant is not a disease.


3 posted on 03/25/2014 8:34:15 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

11:39 am
by Brent Kendall

Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially a key vote in the case, asked Mr. Clement how the court should take into account the religious rights of employees, which may differ from the religious views of their employer.

He asked: Under the challengers’ arguments, do employer rights trump those of workers? Among other things, Mr. Clement suggested the government could step in to subsidize contraception coverage for women who work at companies that don’t provide it, just as the government is doing in cases involving objections by religious nonprofits.


4 posted on 03/25/2014 8:40:45 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
The key word is corporations. Individuals have the right to stop treatment, not get vaccinated etc etc.

The problem still remains...No individual in their corporation is denied contraception, the owners are just not going to be part of this "sin" for want of a better word.

5 posted on 03/25/2014 8:41:07 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

It won’t matter. You will do as the government commands.


6 posted on 03/25/2014 8:41:17 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

There used to be saying that went something like, “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. My response to the Flukes of the world would be yes your employer does have the right to be involved in your healthcare decisions if they are paying for it. If you don’t like that find a new employer or pay for your own insurance. Problem solved. That’s the America we used to live in.


9 posted on 03/25/2014 8:47:54 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

If corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions?

How in the Hell does one equate a Voluntary Act with that of Medical Necessity??

She really is an IDIOT!!


10 posted on 03/25/2014 8:52:09 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

So what is this case all about? Freebies. Freebies that are passed out like candy at PP.


11 posted on 03/25/2014 8:53:21 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Whatever stance one takes on the religion component of the First Amendment and a legislative body’s demand that a shopkeeper buy/sell/do things contrary to religious belief, this topic is also a plain old ECONOMIC LIBERTY and plain old HUMAN LIBERTY issue.

If a seller of beans has no desire to blue beans, but only green, purple, and magenta beans, then no legislative body should demand that he do so.

Likewise, if a consumer is interested only in aqua beans and turquoise beans, he should not be compelled to buy blue beans.

This holds whether he is Christian, Pagan, Mulsim or Jew.


12 posted on 03/25/2014 8:58:46 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

I like to think of it like citizens united. The case is based upon the interpretation that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

Spending = speech and it is protected under the 1st Amendment. If that holds for speech, then it will hold true for religious protections under the 1st.

An employee can not force or prohibit a corporation from spending money on campaigns of its choice and certainly can not force the company furnish drugs violate its faith either.

Sonia Sotomayor’s question is irrelevant as the individual employee can go an get blood transfusions and vaccinations without the involvement of a corporation.


13 posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:43 AM PDT by vg0va3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Prayers to protect the unborn and to protect these businesses from supplying funds for the killing of the unborn to happen.


15 posted on 03/25/2014 9:05:31 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

A Pro-Life Prayer For Our President And Public Officials

Lord God, Author of Life and Source of Eternal Life,

Move the hearts of all our public officials and especially our President, to fulfill their responsibilities worthily and well to all those entrusted to their care.

Help them in their special leadership roles, to extend the mantle of protection to the most vulnerable, especially the defenseless unborn, whose lives are threatened with extermination by an indifferent society.

Guide all public officials by your wisdom and grace to cease supporting any law that fails to protect the fundamental good that is human life itself, which is a gift from God and parents.

You are the Protector and Defender of the lives of the innocent unborn. Change the hearts of those who compromise the call to protect and defend life. Bring our nation to the values that have made us a great nation, a society that upholds the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Mary, the Mother of the living, help us to bear witness to the Gospel of Life with our lives and our laws, through Christ, Our Lord.

Amen.

 


16 posted on 03/25/2014 9:06:55 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Soto’s and Kag’s questions indicate that they are deciding on political rather than legal grounds. They are automatic for Obama.


19 posted on 03/25/2014 9:26:35 AM PDT by djpg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Why bother with arguments, the Supremes are Obama’s lap dogs.


23 posted on 03/25/2014 10:20:58 AM PDT by Rich21IE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson