Because the Catholic church doesn't teach that erectile meds are a sin. The church has taught that birth control is a sin for the past 2,000 years. The "right" to employer provided birth control is something that Obama invented two years ago.
If this was a Muslim owned store you left wingers would be bending over backwards to accommodate them in the name of diversity. You only get butt hurt when it comes to Christians freely practicing their religious beliefs.
The Catholic church doesn't object to birth control used for medical reasons. It objects to birth control being used as birth control.
Because the Catholic church doesn't teach that erectile meds are a sin. The church has taught that birth control is a sin for the past 2,000 years. The "right" to employer provided birth control is something that Obama invented two years ago.
If this was a Muslim owned store you left wingers would be bending over backwards to accommodate them in the name of diversity. You only get butt hurt when it comes to Christians freely practicing their religious beliefs.
It is the Catholic church that teaches that birth control is a sin and the owners of Hobby Lobby are practicing Catholics. So now you are trying to tell me that the Catholic church doesn't care about poor children? I guess all the hospitals, clinics, schools, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc run by the Catholic church in every city in America are all just figments of my imagination.
I thought it was a pretty good read and this jumped out at me:
But, as both Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy pointed out, the government has fashioned an alternative way to assure such coverage. Rather than making the owners pay for the coverage to which they object for religious reasons, the employee benefit plan itself — that is, the insurance company or the internal plan administrator — has to take on the obligation, and provide the coverage to the female workers, free of charge.
Either this “middle man” has to absorb the cost itself (the owners can’t be required to put up the money), or it will get a government subsidy to help cover the cost.
So a closely-held corporation whose owners have "sincere" religious beliefs against the four forms of contraception at issue in this case can't be compelled to provide coverage for them, but whatever middle man provides the coverage would have to take on the obligation itself.
The majority opinion is that there's already an alternate means for this coverage to be provided that's available to non-profits that could be made available to for-profits, and because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (the crappy law that's made this suit possible in the first place), their opinion is the government is compelled to use that option.
Is that enough of an accommodation of the owners’ religious objection? The two key opinions on Monday seemed, literally speaking, to say it was.
Justice Alito wrote: ”An approach of this type . . . does not impinge on the [companies' or owners'] belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves [the government's] stated interests equally well.” (The government’s interest here is to assure that women have access to the birth-control services.)
Alito’s opinion for the Court went on, saying that the dissenters’ on Monday had identified “no reason why this accommodation would fail to protect the asserted needs of women as effectively as the contraceptive mandate, and there is none.”
Justice Kennedy, in his separate concurring opinion, made the same point. And, in fact, he was more emphatic. Taking note of the “existing accommodation the government has designed, identified, and used for circumstances closely parallel to those presented here,” Kennedy said flatly that “RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] requires the government to use this less restrictive means.”
Not that the decision sits well with me at all:
It is rather difficult to read those comments by those two Justices as anything other than a declaration that religiously oriented owners of closely held companies must be satisfied with letting the “middle man” take on, in their place, the obligation to provide the birth-control coverage. That, the comments seem to say, is good enough.
But that may not be the end of the matter. An issue that was not directly before the Court (although the Alito opinion made a couple of passing mentions of it) is directly tied up with how the accommodation the two Justices discussed actually will work.
To take advantage of the exemption, a closely held company owned by religiously devout individuals must file a form, specified by the government, in order to trigger the legal duty of the “middle man” to provide the coverage as a stand-in for the company or its owners.
Federal government lawyers have made it clear in court, over and over again, that the “middle man” will not have any authority to step in unless the company or its owners file that government form claiming an exemption for the mandate.
Some whose religions tell them to have nothing to do with some forms of birth control (often on the premise that they amount to a form of abortion) believe that even the filing of that formal declaration is itself an act of participation in the provision of those very services for people on their payroll. The form sets in motion, this argument goes, the entire process that results in birth control being made available to the workers for free.
The non-profits are basically crying foul at even having to allow a "middle man" to act on their behalf. And then there's the update right at the top of the post:
UPDATE 2:14 p.m. Acting swiftly in the wake of the Court’s ruling on Monday, and relying directly upon that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Monday blocked all enforcement of the mandate against an Alabama Catholic TV network, a non-profit entity. The concurring opinion of the court of appeals, written by Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., argued that the accommodation, discussed in the following post, is itself likely to be struck down.
So I doubt we've seen the last of this.
And anyone cheering this decision because they think it means contraception won't be covered or provided is going to be pretty disappointed when they actually find out what the majority ruling actually says
I don't like this ruling for a couple of reasons...It's expanding the definition of religious objection but creating a class of business owners who are quasi religious and are tax paying. You are giving them preferential treatment in the law because of their religious objections. This is really mucking up the Separation of Church and State. And now any one can claim their company is religious in nature and claim an exemption. But this is why the Supreme Court is the most undemocratic part of our government. They answer to no one and have lifetime appointments. Now, I don't think your company should be paying for what you do sexually, but if women's contraception is banned by company so should Viagra. But that's not what is happening. This is the last vestiges of White Supremacy at work under the guise of Christian Freedom.
I don't like this ruling for a couple of reasons...It's expanding the definition of religious objection but creating a class of business owners who are quasi religious and are tax paying. You are giving them preferential treatment in the law because of their religious objections.
See that's the whole problem because of the decision, it has opened a whole can of worms. They have created a new class of businesses. The Quasi Religious Business. This would be a business that could opt out of the program if they wanted because of this ruling. Only because of abortion. But not blood transfusions or vaccines. Someone is going to boot up another lawsuit and show that the government is showing preferential treatment because of this ruling. All you would have to say is, my company is majority religious and a certain law is unagreeable to my faith and company..boom. You have a case. They tried to narrowly tailor it to just conception but by doing that they are leaving the doors open to everything. Why stop at contraception? And since the court can't just say "only Christians" this applies to ALL religious companies. But more importantly, the decision opens the true door to ANY corporation rejecting a law because it goes against their morals or faith. It's a corporate decision more than anything. I don't think this decision will make it out of the year. Congress will write a bill when other religions start opting out of other laws.
See that's the whole problem because of the decision, it has opened a whole can of worms. They have created a new class of businesses. The Quasi Religious Business.
I get what you're saying, but why would a company not opt to avoid the fee/cost? and if every corp opts out of paying for it, who is receiving pref treatment? or is part of a new class?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
