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

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 06/30/2014 4:29:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:

childish behavior



Skip to comments.

Supreme Court: Closely held companies canít be required to cover contraceptives
Catholic Review ^ | 6/30/14 | Patricia Zapor

Posted on 06/30/2014 3:21:29 PM PDT by Welchie25

In a narrowly tailored 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court June 30 said closely held companies may be exempted from a government requirement to include contraceptives in employee health insurance coverage under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The court said that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, the two family-run companies that objected to the government mandate that employees be covered for a range of contraceptives, including drugs considered to be abortifacients, are protected from the requirement of the Affordable Care Act. The opinion essentially held that for-profit companies may hold protected religious views.

But the court also said that government requirements do not necessarily lose if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

The ruling is not a slam-dunk for all entities that oppose the contraceptive mandate for religious reasons. The court noted that cases challenging the mandate for nonprofit entities, such as Catholic colleges and faith-based employers, are pending and that the June 30 ruling doesn’t consider them. The decision also did not delve into whether the private employers have religiously motivated protection from laws under the First Amendment.

It said the government failed to satisfy the requirement of RFRA, a 1993 law, that the least-restrictive means of accomplishing a government goal be followed to avoid imposing a restriction on religious expression.

The majority opinion said the ruling applies only to the contraceptive mandate and should not be interpreted to hold that all insurance coverage mandates - such as for blood transfusions or vaccinations - necessarily fail if they conflict with an employers’ religious beliefs.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicreview.org ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: blogspam; checkoutmyblog; comeseemyblog; didjareadmyblog; ihaveablog; iminteresting; listentome; lookatme; payattentiontome; pimpmyblog; readme; readmyblog; readmyramblings; trollingforhits

1 posted on 06/30/2014 3:21:29 PM PDT by Welchie25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Welchie25

I guess the Liberal Messiah wasn’t able to bribe/extort the Chief Justice this time.


2 posted on 06/30/2014 3:24:05 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: humblegunner

What is wrong with you?


4 posted on 06/30/2014 3:29:51 PM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Welchie25

IMO the religious entities should have a stronger case than a for profit company.


5 posted on 06/30/2014 3:37:21 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Welchie25

It’s abortion that won’t be covered. The left’s baby killing trumps all. Fascists.


6 posted on 06/30/2014 3:38:39 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

Ignore the troll. Worst poster on FR, bar none.


7 posted on 06/30/2014 3:43:45 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
What is wrong with you?

I'm not the one posting excerpts from a single source and redirecting traffic.

8 posted on 06/30/2014 3:43:49 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
Worst poster on FR, bar none.

Yes, but maybe that pimp will knock it off. We can only hope.

9 posted on 06/30/2014 3:44:59 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Welchie25

The court has now invented out of thin air
a new class of business that are “closely held companies”
just like they invented the class of “providing public accommodation”.


10 posted on 06/30/2014 3:49:09 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Under pressure, they sliced a baby.


11 posted on 06/30/2014 3:49:40 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

I wish proudgunners would shut up.


12 posted on 06/30/2014 3:50:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Anyhow, what would a distantly held company be?


13 posted on 06/30/2014 3:51:24 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

And more importantly, not defined what closely held company actually means.


14 posted on 06/30/2014 3:51:43 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I wish proudgunners would shut up.

Sorry about that. Have you a tissue into which you might weep?

15 posted on 06/30/2014 3:52:02 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Worst poster on FR, bar NONE. Flaming a-hat.


16 posted on 06/30/2014 4:00:09 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

You are close to becoming a snotrag yourself.


17 posted on 06/30/2014 4:01:32 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

Gratuitous nuisance monger.


18 posted on 06/30/2014 4:02:10 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
You are close to becoming a snotrag yourself.

So is your Mom but I'm polite enough not to mention it.

19 posted on 06/30/2014 4:07:04 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
Worst poster on FR, bar NONE.

Maybe you should do something about it.

20 posted on 06/30/2014 4:08:22 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Welchie25

Lets ALL go to the Lobby! Tuesday, we’ll be there using our credit cards{leaving a “footprint”}!


21 posted on 06/30/2014 4:09:26 PM PDT by PizzaDriver ( on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears

bfl


22 posted on 06/30/2014 4:10:04 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; Fuzz

I could be wrong but I would think that “publicly traded” is not “closely held.”


23 posted on 06/30/2014 4:12:50 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Welchie25

All forms of chemical “birth control” are really abortion drugs. They “control birth” by making sure the “fertilized egg”(what you and I would call a baby), is not born.

Contraceptives — those things that prevent conception — are barrier methods (like condoms) and good old-fashioned abstinence. The latter has been made practically illegal in LiberalLand.

Honestly, I think we should throw out 100% of the birth control/contraceptive culture and get back to God. Who’s with me on this?


24 posted on 06/30/2014 4:21:02 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scrabblehack

And if publicly traded it probably couldn’t be subject to a rule like this either. Because then just who has the standard that deserves the deference? There could be a mechanism for getting standards worked in, such as shareholder resolutions.

The USSC probably did the best they could here. Some other case would have to come up involving shareholders before the principle could be supported by the Court.


25 posted on 06/30/2014 4:21:48 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

Let’s not have science as lousy as the global warmists do — anti ovulation drugs aren’t abortifacients any more then refraining from sex is murder.

What a conscientious Christian ought to do is beyond the scope I am treating here.


26 posted on 06/30/2014 4:23:31 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Right. Now all we have to do is sponsor shareholder resolutions at public companies asserting each company’s dedication to Christian values and their abhorrence at paying for abortion drugs.

Such resolutions would be very easy to pass and would generate a slew of new test cases.


27 posted on 06/30/2014 4:27:00 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst

God makes everything beautiful “in its time.”


28 posted on 06/30/2014 4:29:15 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

That’s the story. But if you think all “birth control” pills do is prevent ovulation, then you are buying the liberal media spin. They want to pretend “birth control” is the same as contraception. But there is a reason why they are not called contraception pills.


29 posted on 06/30/2014 4:29:42 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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