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

Skip to comments.

Companies Can Refuse To Cover Contraception, Supreme Court Says
NPR ^ | June 30, 2014 | Bill Chappell

Posted on 06/30/2014 7:22:28 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2014 7:22:28 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

One small step for man...


2 posted on 06/30/2014 7:23:03 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

OMG, thank you Lord!


3 posted on 06/30/2014 7:23:22 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

And Obama swings again...AND ANOTHER STRIKE!


4 posted on 06/30/2014 7:23:39 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Religious can breathe for another day


5 posted on 06/30/2014 7:23:44 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Watch for a very active PEN and PHONE day ... Obama has warned us!


6 posted on 06/30/2014 7:23:50 AM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; ...

VICTORY!

5-4 Opinion

7 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:05 AM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I believe I saw that the definition of “closely held” is that 5 or fewer people hold a majority of the ownership.


8 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:21 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Where’s the but?


9 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:24 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Sandra Fluke is sad that she might have to spend $9 of her own money to get contraception.


10 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:39 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Someone who knows please tell us what this means in the larger sense. Does this give standing to others to exempt themselves from the ACA on other grounds?


11 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:41 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good. A punch in the chops for 0 bummer. He can take a flying leap at a rolling donut and hope the POS hits the hole. F him.


12 posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:50 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Constitution: 1
Obama: 0


13 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:13 AM PDT by NYRepublican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Roberts trying to make amends.


14 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:33 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
5-4 opinion, guessing Kennedy and traitor Roberts swung the right way, for a change.

However it broke, thank GOD!!!

15 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:35 AM PDT by Marathoner (What are we waiting for? Where are the Articles of Impeachment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Shareholders of a company should be able to say that they have religious beliefs regardless of whether it is closely held by 5 or fewer people.


16 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:38 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Freedom 1, Obama 0


17 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:45 AM PDT by From The Deer Stand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Supreme Court's war on women.

/sarc

18 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:55 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Which means bend over ...

19 posted on 06/30/2014 7:25:57 AM PDT by 11th_VA (Decriminalize Tax Evasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

What does this do for EWTN? Didn’t a state supreme court recently rule that the network had to comply even though it was against their closely held doctrine?


20 posted on 06/30/2014 7:26:20 AM PDT by punknpuss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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