- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Ruling gives businesses ploy to bypass birth-control mandate

Published: Fri, November 15, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

Ruling gives businesses ploy to bypass birth-control mandate

Can the birth-control man- date be challenged on religious grounds by two Catholic business owners?

Under the new federal health care law, the birth- control mandate requires businesses to provide free coverage for birth control, emergency contraception and sterilization to their employees regardless of religion.

Francis and Philip M. Gilardi, owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics in Ohio, argued against the birth control mandate since it would force them to violate their religious views.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last week agreed with the Catholic business owners on the issue that providing contraceptives to employees would be a violation of their religious beliefs. However, the court stated that the companies did not have the right to challenge the mandate solely on religion.

What does this mean for employees’ rights?

It means that business owners such as Francis and Philip M. Gilardi can use a ploy of religion to restrict the rights of employees and avoid extra expenses to the business.

Yes, religion is an important factor in the argument represented by the two owners; however, the law is irrefutable.

A business should be able to provide free coverage for contraception to employees who have different religious beliefs than the company or owners under the law. If the business or owners did not want to provide contraceptives to employees how is that any different than rejecting employees’ rights based on their sex or religion?

It does not seem fair that the owners would not provide services to others based only on their religion. Instead, the owners should seek other resolutions to provide contraception to their employees without violating their religious ideals.

Not only does challenging the birth control mandate on religious grounds pose a threat to employees’ religious beliefs, but it prevents employees from using birth control for different medical purposes due to the costs of contraceptives.

Whether the Ohio business owners are attempting to save money for their business or protect their religious ideals, the owners should give their employees the right religiously, financially, and medically to have access to contraception.

Catherine Cooper, Youngstown


1Dmoadus(2 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

What world does this writer live on? She says that challenging the birth control mandate on religious grounds violates the employee's religious beliefs. Just what religion could an employee belong to that has birth control as one of its tenets?
And being that no religion has birth control as one of its tenets, and many religions prohibit it, the needs of the employee must yield to the religious employer's beliefs. Pretty simple. This letter once again demonstrates the absurdity of the liberal mindset.

Suggest removal:

2Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Most Americans accept the notion that the government should not impose a national religious belief on the people.

Most Americans also accept the notion that corporations should not impose their religious beliefs or require a particular religious practice be observed on the public.

This is properly a "freedom" issue, and should transcend conservative/liberal conflict.

Granted that if a corporation has declared that they will require some religious practice practice to be observed by their employees, prospective employees can choose to work there or not.

I don't agree with your intrepretation of the writers words, but I tend to agree that employers (without pre-notification) should not be enmeshed in an employee's practice of religion or their freedom practice no religion at all.

With the exception of pre-notification, under no circumstances do I see a requirement for an employee to yield to an employer's religious convictions.

By the same token, if an employee's religious practices are shown to be detrimental to the conduct of business, then the employer is justified in discharging that employee.

Suggest removal:

376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Ms Cooper:

The ever famous Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee claiming that her contraception costs over 3 years at law school are $3,000 ($100 mo).

Walmart, Target, Sam's, and even grocery stores have $9 and even $4 plans that offer birth control. It would be a tough argument to say that you could not afford $4 per month for your birth control since that is less than one lunch at McDonalds.

Ms Cooper, requiring a company to pay for something that goes against their values is like asking you to personally do something that is not ethical to you.

Also, if you can't afford $4 per month, planned parenthood offers free birth control.

You have options.

Suggest removal:

4YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

It's a loaded argument on both sides. While an employer can object to offering an insurance plan that covers birth control on religious grounds, they are de facto making their employees follow the employer's religious practices, which is generally illegal in terms of hiring or firing an employee.
The employee who opted to "not work there" would be eligible for unemployment compensation. So while you are correct @Elf2 that the employer could drop the employee if the religious practice was "detrimental to the business" the employer would have to so that the costs of a birth control plan exceeded the employers costs in unemployment.

My question is if the employer(s) objecting to birth control on religious grounds are providing a livable wage that covers the average cost of housing, utilities, food and clothing. Since the same religion holds Jesus taught: "When I was hungry you fed me, naked you clothed me, sick you cared for me.."?

Suggest removal:

5Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Fortunately an employer's and an employee's religious practices rarely intersect in the workplace, particularily after the fact of hiring.

You could be wrong about employment comp however. There is no provision for employment comp for an "at will worker". There is likely to be no case upheld for unemployment comp when the empoly is fired for cause.

If the cause is unwillingness to dress appropriately (a Hooters waitress wearing a Burqa), or performance (nurse wearing a necklace of garlic while administering dialysis) or rejection of a task (phlebotomist who refuses to draw lblood because it is against her religious beliefs), there is cause dismissal.

I'm not at all convinced that what a woman does or does not do in the privacy of her bedroom is something that should necessarily concern an employer.... unless it is detrimental to the conduct of the business.

Suggest removal:

676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Wow: The entitlement mindset is hard at work!

No one is saying that anyone is being prevented from using birth control. You are free to do what you want. The point is that you can't force a person or a company to do something that goes against their moral beliefs.

What if you had a strong belief that birth control was against your religion and your employer forced you to take it?

As far as unemployment, you are free to resign your job, but your company would not be required to give you unemployment benefits and they cannot fire you for your religious beliefs.

Entitlement mentality: "Jesus taught: "When I was hungry you fed me, naked you clothed me, sick you cared for me.."?

How about this one: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day….Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Suggest removal:

776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Actually wouldn't that would be Matthew 25:35?

Before you jump on me for the "entitlement" analogy, I have a clear conscience when it comes to feeding, clothing or caring for people. I just don't see were birth control fits in.

And to quote bible verse in defense of birth control is probably not appropriate.

Suggest removal:

8YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I fail to see how there is any "entitlement mentality" here when we are discussing an employee's right to go to work and earn a paycheck without their employer stepping into their doctor's office and/or bedroom. Unemployment isn't an entitlement. You have to continually work and earn income to be eligible. An employer has to terminate you without just cause or your working conditions have to be unsafe, illegal or unethical.

An employer can't fire you for your religious beliefs, but if they do and you can prove it you'd collect unemployment and win any discrimination suit you filed.

For example: I apply for a job at a company that does business on Sundays and put on my application that I can't work Sundays. I tell the interviewer its because I go to church and they don't hire me. I can't claim they discriminated against me because they need someone to work a shift I said I wasn't available (regardless of why I'm not available.) But if they hire me and I work for them for 26+ weeks and am never scheduled on Sundays then they are stuck with it. They can't fire me without liability because they employed me with that limitation. The detrimental to the business argument would fail because the employer hired me and kept me on that long.

The conflicts are rising up now because for decades health care was called a "benefit" instead of the tax (mostly born by employers) it is. So with birth control (or any other coverage) you could elect to go without insurance if the plans available didn't meet your needs. Now that you must have insurance or pay another tax on top of the cost of your medical care employees expect the same coverage across plans.

The birth control violates an employer's rights is lame. By the same claim a Satanist who religiously believes people shouldn't reproduce could choose not to cover pregnancies. I doubt that employer would have as much public support. Personally, I say let the employer decide and deal with the market response.

Suggest removal:

9Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

The arguments from the left on this issue are entirely absurd. There is not one single person at Freshway or Hobby Lobby or any of the other companies involved that are trying to prevent their employees from obtaining or using birth control. Not in any way, not in any shape, not in any form. How can anyone twist the desire to NOT be involved in buying somebody else’s birth control into a violation of that person’s rights?????

The people who have objections to providing birth control are not preventing the sale of birth control and are not attempting to force other people to comply with their point-of-view. It is the proponents of Obamacare who are trying to mandate compliance to their point-of-view, using force of law and financial extortion.

Once again I will reiterate……………….. Suppose that a future administration appoints an HHS secretary who insists all employers and insurance carriers must provide coverage for Gay Restorative Therapy to “heal” people who are homosexual; including the businesses owned by homosexual people and the LBGT and PFLAG organizations. Suppose some future administration appoints an HHS secretary who insists, since people who attend church regularly live healthier longer lives (a statistical fact), that those who do NOT attend church regularly should be assessed and extra fee or fine for healthcare. I do NOT support either of these scenarios. Are we aware that this is the power we have now granted to our president?

Suggest removal:

1076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Ytownparent: What does your right to work have to do with birth control?

Labor laws are a tad more complex than you are stating. Employers pay into the system which gives you temporary assistance in the event that you lose your job for just cause.

" health care was called a "benefit" instead of the tax (mostly born by employers) it is"

Sorry...wrong. Still a benefit. Each year your employer will give you a benefit statement showing the value of the hidden costs of your compensation. You may not realize but your employer provides a benefits in addition to the hourly wage that you see your employer pays federal income tax, social security and Medicare taxes and Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax. They also subsidize your medical dental and vision plan premiums. Vacation, holiday and sick pay are company provided and I could go on. This amounts to more than 40% of your paycheck

Health care being a "tax", comes from the ruling on Obamacare which is not an insurance plan, it is an exchange or data hub. Obamacare is a tax disguised as a penalty. It includes some the following taxes on health care:

- Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500.(was $10,000)
- Itemized medical expenses reduced to 10% from 7.5%.
- Penalty on non-medical withdrawals from HSAs increased to 20% from 10%.
- 10% tax on indoor tanning services.
- 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018. If you employers pays for all or most of your healthcare plan (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) you'll have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans.
- "Medicine Cabinet Tax" eliminates over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. Eff 1/1/2011.
- A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income.
- A tax on medical devices costing more than $100.

Suggest removal:

11Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Unemployment compensation is NOT available for those who are discharged for just cause!!!!

Corporation now have moral beliefs??????

Suggest removal:

12Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


No, people have moral beliefs, and people own and run corporations.

People have the right to determine how they will invest their money, how it will be spent, and in what activities their enterprises will and will not participate.

Picture yourself investing in a company and then finding out that the company was participating in practices that were IN YOUR OPINION immoral. Should you be prohibited BY LAW from withdrawing your investment from the company because you don't have the right to impose YOUR OPINION on others? Should you be prohibited from attempting to use your stake in the company (shareholder vote) to change company policy to prohibit what is IN YOUR OPINION immoral activity? No, you should not be prohibited; it is your money, your investment, and your right to determine how it will be used.

If you don't want to work for or buy from Hobby Lobby or Freshway foods, then don't. That is your right. You do not, however, have the right to tell the people who own these companies what they must or must not do with their company and their money.

I do not argue this point because I am against birth control. I am not against it, have used it, and advocate its use. I argue this point because I am concerned that if the government can force these people to do things against their will today, what will the government force me to do against my will tomorrow??

Suggest removal:

13Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

corporations are legal entities, largely created to establish a barrier of liability between the owners and the corporate activities.

corporations are created by courts, they do not possess human characteristics, they are incapable of thought, they are inanimate.

As a creation of the legal system, they are told what they can and can not do. Corporations are told, for example, that they can not discriminate in hiring practices.

Suggest removal:

14Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


Corporations are legal entities created and operated by people.....people who have moral beliefs and rights.

Yes, there are laws that RESTRICT people and businesses from doing some things (things we are NOT to do): People cannot kill one another. People cannot harm one another. People cannot steal from one another. Companies cannot operate unsafe workplaces. Companies are restricted regarding emissions of pollutants. Companies cannot discriminate in employment practices (BTW there is nothing discriminatory in NOT paying for birth control).

If you cannot see the difference between laws which restrict action, and bogus laws that require definitive action (i.e. require someone to buy something); and if you cannot see the grotesque step over the cliff that such bogus laws create, then there is no point in this discussion.

As per my hypothetical……From your standpoint I take it you would agree it would be OK for HHS to require by law that all insurance companies and all employers everywhere must offer healthcare coverage that includes payment for Gay Restorative Therapy to “heal” and reverse homosexual tendencies. Personally, I don’t want the HHS to have this power.

Suggest removal:

15Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


I am not sure what side of this you are coming down on.

You are correct. If a "Satanist" (and I know nothing about them) is against procreation and does not wish to pay for pregnancy coverage, then that should be their right. If you want to have babies and want coverage for pregnancy, then I suggest you should not work for said Satanist. I also agree that the Satanist is going to have a hard time finding employees willing to work for him, but that would be his problem.

A better example involving working on Sunday would be a Jewish person working for Hobby Lobby. What if the Jewish person does not want to work on Saturdays and wants to work on Sundays. Is Hobby Lobby "discriminating" against him by not being open on Sundays? Shall we FORCE Hobby Lobby to open their stores on Sundays?? Of course not; this would be absurd; but this is exactly what the entitlement mentality expressed here would require.

Suggest removal:

16YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@Jerry I see this as a business entitlement or corporate welfare.
If a business owner objects to complying with the laws, then they don't have to do business here. Plain and simple. If you want to do business in this country comply with the laws, or don't do business here because there are plenty of people who are more than willing to follow the rules and do business here. As it stands now those who are willing to follow the laws are playing on an unlevel playing field that is tipped to the advantage of those who don't.

I see it as a ploy by this business owner to get out of offering health insurance all together, because the government is requiring it. Without the ACA the market has been making it nearly impossible to get an affordable plan without birth control. It is better business for a carrier to pay out a few hundred bucks for birth control a year to a a beneficiary than a few thousand dollars for prenatal care & child birth every year or two.

As per your hypothetical, it raises a good question of where is the line? The government has a more solid demarcation of "medically acceptable care", but business owners don't. If we allow one objection don't we have to allow them all? Can someone who objects to war on religious grounds refuse coverage that provides PTSD treatment for vets? Where is the line of proof to an objection? Must Gilardi swear under penalty of perjury that neither he nor his spouse nor his dependent children has ever used birth control in order to object? What if Pope Francis decrees that it is immoral to expect the poor not to prevent pregnancies they can't afford? Will they drop their suit or continue with it?

If you don't like the law, you don't have to do business here. If you don't do business here, someone else will.

Suggest removal:

17Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

"If you don't like the law, you don't have to do business here"

I kind'a thought we had rights in this country to conduct our lives as we see fit, and to earn a living and conduct business as we see fit, as long as we did not harm other people. I guess I was wrong.

It now seems we do not have the right to conduct business and earn a living unless we conform to the latest politically correct points of view, and check for approval with President Obama and YTownParent first. If we don't agree with them, then we have to leave the country to conduct business.

You do realize what you are saying is that the President and HHS secretary now have the power to make us do ANYTHING THEY WANT US TO DO, and if we do not conform we can be financially punished......right???

I wonder what our divinely empowered ruler, President Obama, will decide I have to do next, in exchange for his benevolent permission allowing me the privilege (not right) to conduct business in America.

Suggest removal:

18YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Blame congress @Jerry they passed the ACA, not me. Yes Obama deserves half the blame too because he signed it.

No one has the power to make you do "anything they want us to do". The Congress we elected has the right to make laws and the President has the right to sign them or veto them. We have the right to elect someone else.

But the age old "I thought I had the right to earn a living" argument is the crappy whining of people who don't like the laws and they've gotten away with harming others by using it.

The prime example of who falls under "If you don't like the law, you don't have to do business here" are Home Health Agencies who use the "companion care" designation deny employees overtime pay, health insurance and workers compensation coverage for work related injuries for decades.

Companies get a clerk at the Dept of Labor or a court to exempt them from the law because they cry that it violates their right to earn a living. What about an employee's right to earn a living? Isn't denying those employees those protections harmful to others. Oh, if an employee doesn't like it they can go work elsewhere, but good luck finding a company that doesn't use that exemption. It is a one sided system.

The legal challenge is all about money and their just using the personal religious beliefs argument because they may be able to win it in court. It's disingenuous at best because no business owner is going to let their personal property be considered part of the business when it comes to paying the business's creditors.

Suggest removal:

1976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Ytownparent. If you can't afford $4 mo for birth control you can get it free at Planned Parenthood. Compliments of our tax dollars.

Suggest removal:

20Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@ YTownParent

I do blame Nancy Pellosi and Harry Reid and the absurd Congress they presided over in 2009-2010 when this atrocity was enacted in the dark of night entirely and absolutely by Democrat votes. I also blame President Obama because it was his idea and it was/is his HHS Department that has written the ensuing 20,000+ pages of oppressive regulations to implement this degrading mess.

This atrocity of legislation assigns the power to make decisions about what we can be forced to do to the President and the HHS..............so, yes, they can make us do anything they want us to do and punish us financially if we do not comply with their wishes. Congress has completely abdicated their Constitutional function is this regard.

Suggest removal:

21HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

The eivo obsession for freeloader knows no bounds.... Almost like a predator

Suggest removal:

22Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Automobiles are created by and operated by people. Automobiles do not have morals or religious beliefs.

Do you believe that a corporation is a "person"?

Suggest removal:

23HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

You Just can't seem to stay out of the troll ditch.

Suggest removal:

24HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

pred•a•tor [ préddətər ] 3.ruthlessly aggressive, determined, or persistent person.

Stalker might be more appropriate...
one who pursues relentlessly

Suggest removal:

25Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


I never said corporations had moral beliefs. I said the corporations are created, owned, and operated by PEOPLE who do.

Yes, I own and operate an automobile, and it does not have moral beliefs......but I do. I will not use my automobile to do something I believe to be immoral.

Apparently, however, you feel you have the divine right to force people to do something they believe to be immoral with their automobiles also. I suppose, in your opinion, if a person who is opposed to abortion has a car and refuses to drive pregnant women to get abortions, they are then violating the right of the women and should be punished.

Suggest removal:

26tnmartin(415 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Perhaps I missed something.
The court's ruling did nothing to prevent individuals from using birth control methods. Any more than it prevented people from from buying whiskey or sunglasses or ugly t-shirts. Out of their own resources. What it DID do, is to halt the ridiculous notion that employers were to be REQUIRED to fund any or all of such nonsense. There is a difference there, and most people intelligent enough to be potty trained can see the difference.

Suggest removal:

27Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I never said that you said that. In fact it was 76Ytown who made that remark...."The point is that you can't force a person or a company to do something that goes against their moral beliefs."

You have picked up on the notion that a corporate owner's moral beliefs are transferrable to that of the corporation.

I'm simply challenging that notion.

I'm amazed that suddenly you feel it necessary to launch into a tirade over what YOU think I've claimed as a divine right.

You know nothing about my opinion or desired reaction in your hypothetical. In fact I have said nothing about abortions, or birth control (which you advocate). Overreacting?

Suggest removal:

28YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Well said @Elf2. The whole argument is over "the notion that a corporate owner's moral beliefs are transferrable to that of the corporation."

In some cases, yes, those beliefs are & have been part of the corporate identity of a companies like Chik-Fila & Hobby Lobby. The owner's religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company's brand. Their beliefs are all over their corporate websites & literature. Their beliefs consistently dictate how they do business, from what days they are open to whom they provide spousal benefits to. It's not a stretch of the imagination to see those companies in the same light as religious institutions because they have always placed themselves in that group.

Not so for Freshway Foods & Freshway Logistics, the Gilardi brother's companies. A trip to their websites shows no mention of Catholic values. They are closed on Saturdays but do business on Sundays (unlike Hobby Lobby, Chik-Fila, etc.)

Just claiming your company now reflects your personal religious beliefs because you see a way around laws that apply to everyone else isn't honest business. It's a cheap ploy in their case.

Suggest removal:

29Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


You made the connection to automobiles, as if there was a point to be made. Also, you are the one who is advocating the use of the law to force your beliefs onto other people.

I simply provided yet another example case in which the owners and operators of an inanimate object are human; and forcing a human to violate his moral beliefs is wrong. Forcing the owner of a car to violate his moral beliefs with his car is wrong. Forcing the owner of a corporation to violate his moral beliefs with his corporation is also equally wrong.

You brought up automobiles as if this was an applicable analogy. I was pointing out that your analogy actually serves to make my point, not yours. You may fill in any moral/religious dilemma you might imagine which could come up using an automobile: transporting alcohol, picking up women, driving to the drug store to procure birth control, driving to Walmart on the Sabath, driving a pregnant woman to get an abortion, etc etc.

It is wrong to assume we can force a person to violate his moral or religious beliefs, just because he owns and operates an inanimate car. It is also wrong to force a person to violate his religious or moral beliefs. just because he owns and operates an inanimate corporation.

What point were you trying to make????

Suggest removal:

30Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


So..... now you have set yourself up as the official and sole arbiter, empowered to make final decisions regarding who does and who does not really have moral beliefs.

Suggest removal:

31YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


I haven't set myself up as an arbitrator of anything because I don't have any legal authority to do so. I'm simply asking the question of what criteria should those we have invested with that power use. A question you haven't answered, but I have stated my opinion that there shouldn't be a blanket ability to just say you have a belief you haven't stated you had or shown any practice of just because it benefits you.

You still haven't answered where the line a should be drawn. I'm sure the owners of Northside Hospital have a moral disgust with unions, so should they be able to just fire any union member because they violate the owners belief that unions are morally wrong?

Suggest removal:

32SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

jerry, you been out drinking with eivo?
Logic is not your forte

Suggest removal:

33Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


You made the judgment that the owners of Freshway really don't believe what they say they believe, and that they were engaging in a "cheap ploy". Not only that, you are advocating that they should be financially punished based on that judgment. You decided that the desire of the people who own Freshway to not pay for birth control was not virtuous enough to suit your tastes.

You're asking me where "the line should be drawn"..................The line should not have to be drawn at all, except that we have this atrocious monstrosity call Obamacare.

We have laws (including labor laws) that prevent us and restrict us from doing things to harm one another, and to prevent my rights from infringing on yours. Things we are NOT supposed to do.

How do you twist that into requiring the people who own Hobby Lobby or Freshway to take affirmative action to buy a specific product for their employees?

The bottom line is that the owners of Hobby Lobby and Freshway are NOT preventing their employees from procuring and using birth control. Any employee of Hobby Lobby or Freshway can buy and use as much birth control as they want, and their employment is in absolutely no jeopardy. No one is taking that right away from them.

Why do you wish to take the right to NOT pay for birth control away from the people who own Hobby Lobby and Freshway??????

Suggest removal:

34Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...
Take a deep breath and calm down.

You are drawing all sorts of inferences (putting words in my mouth) that I have not said.

Consider folks mentioned above (Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-a, Freshway, etc), their owners may have religious or moral beliefs that can not be exercised in the conduct of their business. Like it or not Chick-fil-a can not legally ask an applicant about their religious affliliation. They can not fire someone, or other wise discrinimate against someone because of their religion.

They accept that as part of the "freedoms" of doing business.

Under Obamacare, one of the costs of doing business will be insuring employees.

If the don't want to insure (for whatever reason, or for no reason at all) their remedy is in court.

But, short of a court order, they are expected to obey the law.

Suggest removal:

35YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@eivo This isn't an issue of handing out something to someone. It's of an employer not providing what the law now says workers earned by working for the company. Short of a court order (or only using part-time employees who don't work enough to earn the coverage) every business is expected to follow the law.

The owners are arguing that they should be exempt because their business is an extension of their religious beliefs. We'll see what the Supreme Court ultimately decides.

If they rule in Freshway's favor you can bet someone will have the Freedom from Religion Foundation suing for an injunction barring public schools from purchasing from Freshway. They'll argue tax dollars shouldn't go to support a company's religious expression. I wonder if the owners would argue that their religious beliefs are separate from the company then.

Suggest removal:

36Jerry(609 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


......"They can not fire someone, or other wise discrinimate against someone because of their religion".....

Absolutely agreed. There are reasonable laws that restrict our behaviors so that we cannot infringe upon the rights of others.

........"Under Obamacare, one of the costs of doing business will be insuring employees."..........

This is the crux of the problem. This is a horribly ill-conceived inane atrocity of a law, that yields our rights to the whims of the executive branch.

I am not putting words in your mouth, I am simply pointing out the extent of what you are proposing. If you support the concept of forcing the people who own Hobby Lobby to buy birth control for their employees, as directed by the President; then you also support the concept of forcing them to pay for limousines to take their female employees to abortion clinics if directed by the President (or any of my other hypotheticals). It does not matter if you would personally not take things this far, you have yielded this authority to the President. You support the concept that the President can order this.

YtownParent asked me where I would draw the line....I will answer more directly:
I would draw the line at ensuring Hobby Lobby can NOT prevent their employees from procuring and using birth control; and as has been pointed out, we already had this line before Obamacare.

The real question is, where do you draw the line, or more importantly where does President Obama draw the line? I see no evidence of a line at all.

Suggest removal:

37YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Obamacare is all about handing out to the insurance carriers in the form of forced consumers paying into their coffers.

Suggest removal:

38Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

A while back I asked you a simple question: Do you believe that a corporation is a person?

Now for my beliefs. I believe that it would be wrong to force Hobby Lobby to purchase birth control for their employees. I also believe that it is appropriate that Hobby Lobby be required to provide healthcare insurance for their employees.
I also believe that birth control is an entirely appropriate medication that falls under healthcare coverage.

Hobby Lobby is not being told to purchase birth control, they are being told to provide healthcare coverage. The decision to purchase birth control or not is entirely between the employee and their doctor.

I suspect that what you really have a issue with is Obamacare, the birth control issue is just an artifact of that law. Am I right?

So two questions for you tonight, the personhood of a corporation and is your principle issue Obamacare.

Suggest removal:

39dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

My employers are Jainist Digambaras. Their religious beliefs require them to go without clothes. They wear the "environment". They refuse to give me a uniform or uniform allowance because it is against their religion. I'm actually okay with it though.

Suggest removal:

40dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I guess in all actuality, these business owners already pay for everyone to have free birth control, as long as they are paying taxes. As 76 pointed out, you can go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control funded with taxpayer money.

Suggest removal:

41Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

So, if tax revenues are supporting planned parenthood and planned parenthood provides birth control and abortion services then shouldn't hobby lobby and Freshway refuse to pay taxes?

Would they be right to refuse to pay taxes because some portion of that money is being used in direct conflict with their religious beliefs?

Suggest removal:

4276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Elf2: Most large employers are self-funded health care plans. Their claims are administered (processed) by a third party. The employees pay a portion of the health care cost through payroll deductions. The employer provides benefits using its own funds.

Suggest removal:

43dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@76. You didn't answer Elfs question.... You said taxpayers pay for birth control through planned parenthood. Birth control is against their religion, should they not have to pay taxes then?

Suggest removal:

4476Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Wasteful spending, lavish trips, studying the mating habits of the fruit fly, foreign aid to our enemies...all paid for by tax dollars. I'll just put a little handwritten note on my tax return to ask that my money doesn't go to those things, mine can be put in the pot for education, defense, social security and other safety net programs.

Dontbeafool, Let's say you own a business. A business that by the way, you built from the ground up. Your business is built with the foundation of your Christian beliefs and your mission statement is all about social responsibility and giving back to the community. You are not open for business on Sunday because you feel strongly that your employees should spend Sunday with their families. (Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby). You have not mandated that your employees do not practice birth control, but you feel strongly that funding birth control through the employee health plan that you pay for would go against your moral beliefs. Sounds like the government would rather put them out of business thus preventing their employees the right to work than to allow the exception.

The POTUS should have just waived his magic wand over this and gave the exception just like he's done on so many other ACA rules that have been changed, bent, extended and removed by him.

Suggest removal:

45dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Stated like a politician. You said a lot but still didn't answer the question.

Suggest removal:

46dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Employers need to just provide insurance if they are going to provide it. Let the decisions for treatment and care be private between the employee and their doctors. It is a bad precidence to allow religion into these decisions. What if an employer's religions doesn't believe in Western medicine, but only in natural healing through herbs? Just provide the flipping insurance and run your business. Hours of business is all up to them.

Suggest removal:

47Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

My mother was a devoted Quaker, believed that all war was evil.
Should she be excused from taxation because she knew some portion of her money was to be used to fund the defense department?

Suggest removal:

48Sanjay1976(42 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Maybe she could put a note in her tax return that her tax money only go towards funding the SNAP program.

Taxpayers don't get to pick and choose what their funds are used for.

I suspect that the same is true with healthcare premiums.

I may not like that some of my premium dollars are being spent on benefits for obese or drug rehab, but can't very well tell my insurer to refuse benefits to other folks in my plan because I don't agree with their lifestyle.

Suggest removal:

49dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Why would they give money to the hungry? That would be thoughtful and compassionate.

Suggest removal:

5076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Sanj: Obesity and drug rehab may be social issues but they are not moral issues.

Do you consider an abortion drug to be preventive?

Suggest removal:

51dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

76, you are asking questions before you answer the ones asked towards you. Their taxpaying money is going to free clinics/ Planned parenthood which provides procedures which go against their religion, a point that you brought up. SO SHOULD THEY NOT PAY THEIR TAXES?

Suggest removal:

52Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Willful abuse of one's body is considered sinful in my religion.

Gluttony, drunkeness, drug abuse are moral issues.

Maybe religion and moral beliefs should not be considered when healthcare insurance is being determined.

Suggest removal:

5376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: There is quite a debate whether you have to pay income taxes and it's widely reported that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax.

Suggest removal:

5476Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Sanj: Do you consider an abortion drug to be preventive?

What the media doesn't report is the definition of contraceptives under the mandate. We're not simply talking about condoms. The coverage extends to drugs which abort the pregnancy.

Interesting to note is that for women, sterilizations are covered, but for men, services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, like vasectomies are not covered.

Suggest removal:

55dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@76, are you sure you aren't a politician? There is a debate whether you should pay taxes? And I know a percentage of people don't pay taxes because their deductions outweigh their income, or large corps get special tax incentives, etc... My SPECIFIC question to you is should businesses who are required to pay taxes refuse to pay them because their tax dollars go towards things that go against their religious beliefs? It isn't a hard question, nor does it need statistical data or news articles. It just requires a yes or no answer based on your beliefs/opinion.

Suggest removal:

56dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Because idiots are exempt. Stupid comment.

Suggest removal:

57Sanjay1976(42 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@76Ytown: if you can name a specific drug that you would consider an abortion drug, then we can consider if it has a preventative role.

Norlevo, the "morning after pill" PREVENTS pregnancy by delaying ovulation.

Mitepristone, destroys a fertilized egg, terminating the pregnancy. It is a prescription only drug that is administered under the supervision of a physician.

That creates a dilemma for folks who insist that the government should not interfere in the doctor patient relationship but also want the government to prevent doctors from prescribing this drug.

@ eivo.... Go back under the bridge with the trolls

Suggest removal:

5876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: "should businesses who are required to pay taxes refuse to pay them because their tax dollars go towards things that go against their religious beliefs"?

My answer: In this discussion we're debating the issue of whether businesses should be allowed to bypass the birth control mandate. I think the question of paying taxes is a whole different issue.

Suggest removal:

59dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@evil, all you do is insult people on here. Now you want to use the "I'm rubber and your glue" approach when someone insults you? Funny. You can dish it out, but can't take it. Make some reasonable comments on here and someone might take you seriously. Until then, you are a joke. Troll is used with your name frequently, but quite frankly, I find it offensive to trolls.

Suggest removal:

60SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Actually 76 you brought up the taxes/birth control matter about two weeks ago in this thread.

Now you want to avoid that conversation?

Suggest removal:

61Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

The Supreme Court has decided to take up two cases:

In June, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Denver, ruled for Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned by a family whose members have said they try to run the business on Christian principles. The company objected to a requirement in the health care law requiring large employers to provide their workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for contraception.
Hobby Lobby told the justices that it had no problem with offering coverage for many forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery. But drugs and devices that can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb are another matter, and make it complicit in a form of abortion, the company said.

In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled against the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, which manufactures wood cabinets and is owned by a Mennonite family that had similar objections to the law. The Third Circuit concluded that “for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise.”

I think that fundamental to both these claims is the question of the "personhood" of a corporation.

In my view, a owner incorporates to separate himself from the corporation, by creating a new legal entity. That entity is not baptized, does not worship God, receives no communion, does not pray or seek salvation. The corporation does none of those things we usually associate with exercise of religion.

Suggest removal:

6276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

SheDevil: Yes I did say that you can get birth control from planned parenthood which is funded by our taxes in response to Ms. Cooper's claim that to employers need to give employees have access to contraception. Employers are not preventing people from obtaining contraception, it's still their choice. Religious beliefs associated with contraception are very deep and very personal and not to be taken lightly.

Health plans pay for sickness and injury. They have expanded the benefits to include preventative screenings. To say that the prevention of pregnancy is "healthcare" is a stretch. Insurance companies pay for contraception as a cost saving measure not to keep you healthy. Vitamins keep us healthy, why didn't the ACA mandate that vitamins be reimbursed by your health plan? Gym memberships and weight loss programs keep us healthy. Where do we stop? Should we keep the list going to included every possible benefit for every single person or do we go back to what insurance was intended to do...protect you against financial loss in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury.

The current issue is whether the employer must pay for expenses that they consider to be against their moral beliefs. dontbeafool would like to extend the debate to include "are businesses required to pay taxes if the money funds things against their religious beliefs". These are 2 different issues.

Suggest removal:

6376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Elf2: "The Third Circuit concluded that “for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise." How far will our government take this? If the founders of these companies are unable in their conscience to follow the mandate who will win if they close their doors?

Companies like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A have a principal foundation based on their religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby: http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/

At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.

Donations & Ministry Project: http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company...

Chick-fil-A: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/FAQ#?categ...

Q: What is the Corporate Purpose of Chick-fil-A, Inc.?
A: To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

Q: Why is Chick-fil-A closed on Sunday?
A: Our founder, Truett Cathy, made the decision to close on Sundays in 1946 when he opened his first restaurant in Hapeville, Georgia. He has often shared that his decision was as much practical as spiritual. He believes that all franchised Chick-fil-A® Operators and Restaurant employees should have an opportunity to rest, spend time with family and friends, and worship if they choose to do so. That's why all Chick-fil-A Restaurants are closed on Sundays. It's part of our recipe for success.

Giving back: http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/Hi...
Over the past three years, Chick-fil-A, Inc. and its franchised Restaurant Operators have given more than $68 million in contributions to over 700 educational and charitable organizations and have provided millions of dollars in food donations all across America. Take a look below to see the impact of our giving, how we give, and how giving has always been a part of our company culture. Chick-fil-A focuses its giving in three key areas:

You may not share in those beliefs and no one will force you to shop where you do not feel comfortable with those beliefs. You also have the right to choose whether you work for a company that does not have all of the benefits that you would like.

Suggest removal:

64dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@76, you directed the convo that employees could go to tax funded Planned Parenthood as an alternative, but since you painted yourself in a corner, you don't want to continue down that road, and then you actually blame me for making the comparison. My point is, business owners want to use their religious beliefs to not pay for things that they are already paying for through taxes, so what is the difference? Seems like a fair point. Thanks for not answering the question though. eivo, you are dead to me. I won't even read another ludacris comment from you.

Suggest removal:

6576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: As I've answered above, employee health benefits and taxes are two separate issues. Employers should not be forced to fund their health plan to pay for something that goes against their conscience. Granted, taxes paid by a company or an individual go into the pot that funds the military or planned parenthood but as a taxpayer I can justify that the money I pay is going toward causes I believe in.

Suggest removal:

66dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@76, if your rational is that because part of your tax money is going towards stuff you believe in, then it is okay to pay your taxes even though that part of your taxes go to Planned Parenthood, it doesn't make sense. I'm sure employers paying for this medical coverage believe in some good things in the medical coverage they are paying for, such as hospital visits and medicine, but they aren't going pay for the insurance because of one of the aspects they don't like. My whole point in this is if their beliefs are so strong, then they should refuse to pay anything that they believe is against their religion. I don't think it makes sense that they can take a stand on medical coverage, but on the same hand, pay taxes when some of their money goes towards the same things they have issues with in the medical coverage. It just makes me question that their motives are based more on political or monetary issues rather than religious ones. I respect your views on the topic of abortion, I have similar views, although believe in some exceptions in extreme cases.

Suggest removal:

6776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: I stand on my belief that a company paying taxes is a different issue from requiring a company fund their health plan from their pocket to pay for something that they consider to be morally wrong. If they mandate contraceptives what's next? Physician aid in dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont. Should they also mandate that companies pay for drugs for euthanasia under the health plan?

I also have a problem with the definition of contraceptives being "women's health". Contraceptives do not prevent disease they simply preventing reproduction. Pap smears, mammograms, colonoscopies and prostrate exams for early detection of health problems and vaccines for prevent illness.

Suggest removal:

6876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: I stand on my belief that a company paying taxes is a different issue from requiring a company fund their health plan from their pocket to pay for something that they consider to be morally wrong.

If they mandate contraceptives what's next? Physician aid in dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Vermont. Should they also mandate that companies pay for drugs for euthanasia under the health plan?

I also have a problem with the definition of contraceptives as "women's health". Contraceptives do not prevent disease they simply preventing reproduction.

Suggest removal:

69dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

The case could be used in the other direction as well. What's next, my insurance through my employer won't cover a certain procedure because it is against my employers offbeat religious beliefs? There is freedom of religion, ALL religions, not just the one that you believe in, so be careful. I think that once you go into a public business, you need to provide a standard medical coverage plan and let your employee and their doctor determine what is best for them. And last I heard contraception such as condoms do protect against some disease.

Suggest removal:

70SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

76, Ok, the notion of each taxpayer cherrypicking those things they are willing to fund is an argument you want to avoid now.

Hobby Lobby wants to cherrypick coverage for their employees. This is plain in their lawsuit.

Do you also believe that employees of Christian Science Monitor should be refused coverage for blood transfusions?

Why are these situations different?

Suggest removal:

7176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: You are free to work somewhere else if you don't like the benefits they provide. If you don't get 3 weeks vacation in your first year of employment, accept another job with that benefit. If you don't like working nights or weekends, accept a day job.

Standards of health care include hospital, doctor, labs, diagnostic services and usually but not always, RX. Health plans already cover these standards. Government is affecting the standards of our care by creating an environment where access to the very best doctors and hospitals is limited due to restrictions in the ACA plans. By saying contraception should be included as a standard benefit there is virtually no limit to what else we should pay for.

By the way, you are not free to purchase any drug you wish under your current healthplan or the ACA model healthplans. Even Medicare has quantity limits, pre-authorization and step therapy rules.

Anyone else out there curious to know why that vasectomies are not covered by the ACA's preventative benefits? No concern for "men's health"?

Suggest removal:

7276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

SheDevil: (shudder) I take it that you do not agree that if religious rights should be extended to companies such as Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not, and could not, require individual employers to abandon their religion. Accommodation of a religious belief or practice works both ways.

Suggest removal:

73SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

First sentence doesn't make sense. Please try to restate

Suggest removal:

7476Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

correction: I take it that you do not agree that religious rights should be extended to companies such as Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A.

Suggest removal:

75Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

From the nation's founding until today, the Constitution's protection of religious liberty has been seen as a personal right, inextricably linked to the human capacity to express devotion to a God and act on the basis of reason and conscience.

Business corporations, quite properly, have never shared in this fundamental constitutional tradition for the obvious reason that a business corporation lacks the basic human capacities -- reason, dignity and conscience -- at the core of the right to free exercise of religion. Obviously not "persons" in the usual sense of the word, these corporations are also not religious organizations, which have historically received some constitutional protection and are, in fact, given exemptions from the contraception mandate.

-- www.constitution.org

Suggest removal:

76dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Good comment Elf. And I can tell some people on here haven't been employed in awhile. You sound like jobs are abound around here. If you don't like this or that, just go get another job. All I hear is you complain that people don't work, now you want them to find a job that pays enough to pay the bills, has the preferred shift that they want to work, and now find one that has a medical plan that suits not only them, but their employers religious beliefs. Unreal. I guarantee neither one of you currently work, and probably haven't worked in a while. Prove me wrong and state your current occupations.

Suggest removal:

77SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I don't not believe that a for-profit corporation engaged in a secular business (like selling chicken or craft supplies) should be treated as a person with the religious rights conferred by the Constitution.

Suggest removal:

78Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Kyle Duncan, general counsel for Hobby Lobby said: “ The Green family and Hobby Lobby do not have any religious objection to birth control per se. Their plans have covered preventive contraceptives and will continue to do so”.
What Hobby Lobby objects to is a specific kind of drug he explained, that drug is called Plan B and Levonelle, otherwise known as "the morning-after pill".

What the Hobby Lobby suit fails to recognize is that this drug acts only to delay ovulation, allowing the sperm to die between coitus and ovulation. Consequently there is no zygote, and without a zygote there is no pregnancy and no abortion is possible.

Hobby Lobby just has the science facts wrong.



Take note that, according to their attorney, Hobby Lobby HAS covered contraceptives and WILL continue to do so.

Suggest removal:

7976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

SheDevil: Read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and get back to me


(a) The term “person” includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-­stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under Title 11 [originally, bankruptcy ], or receivers.

Suggest removal:

80dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@elf. I guess the employees of Hobby Lobby are glad that the owners aren't Catholics or else they wouldn't even get contraceptives. Or maybe the owners are, and that would open up a whole other discussion since contraceptives are coverered.

Suggest removal:

81SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Read the words of the act just before your quote:

" For the purposes of this subchapter-"

The definition applies only to the civil rights act, not universally.

For purposes of constitutional right to free exercise, the "person" status of a corporation is still up to question.

Suggest removal:

82dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Pittsburgh Post Gazette poll I happened to stumble upon. Doesn't mean much, just seen it.

Should corporations be given the same religious rights as individuals?
I'm not sure.

Suggest removal:

8376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

SheDevil: " For the purposes of this subchapter-"

Yes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding "Definitions"

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not, and could not, require individual employers to abandon their religion. Accommodation of a religious belief or practice works both ways.

To try to include coverage for women's contraception under sex discrimination discriminates against males since female sterilization is covered by the ACA, male is not.

Suggest removal:

84SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

So the definitions used in the Civil Rights Act are spelled out..... I don't get the connection between that and the ACA.

Are you arguing for vascectomies under a Civil Rights provision or ... exactly what is your point?

Suggest removal:

85Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago


The Civil Rights Act referred to employment practices as it pertains to religion.

76 probably means RFRA, and the courts are divided on it's application to closely held businesses.

That's where you will find "accomadation". And even then there is no absolutism, as 76 seems to be suggesting.

76 would be better off to let the Hobby Lobby legal team to make the argument. Because the Civil Rights argument is nonsense.

Suggest removal:

86dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Obama hates men! The sky is falling...the sky is falling!

Suggest removal:

8776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Civil Rights laws protect persons from religious discrimination in the workplace and persons is defined in the law.

The First Amendment’s explicit protection of the “free exercise” of religion was intended to protect a basic right of human dignity and conscience.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA courts are divided in their decisions.

So the Supreme Court will decide whether a company has the right to exclude contraception from their employer funded health plan. We'll just have to patiently wait to hear what they decide

Suggest removal:

88Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

You've finally concluded "So the Supreme Court will decide ...."

That's what I said 4 days ago.

I'll make a prediction that if the Tenth circuit is reversed, or the case returned and the Third Circuit decision is confirmed the response by the convervatives will be that SCOTUS has no authority to legislate.

If the Tenth Circuit is confirmed and the 3rd Circuit is reversed, the conservatives will respond with....SCOTUS is doing a good job.

Suggest removal:

89dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I agree Chicken Little. He may even have them executed.

Suggest removal:

90Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

More to the point, Perhaps someone will be asking David Green about child labor (paid his 7 and 9 year old children to work for Hobby Lobby)

Suggest removal:

91Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

you sound like a angry, peevish, grumpy, nasty, 60-ish child.

Are you gonna accept medicare? And if so, splain to me why I should pay for your medicare.

Suggest removal:

92dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

He isn't going to turn away ANY gorverment money, incentives, tax breaks, unemployment, disability, tax loopholes, etc... Just complain like a grumpy old man. Everything posted by him is negative. Someone could poop him a gold bar and he would complain that is only 14k. I'm sure he is the guy who won't let the trick or treaters walk on his grass. Shoot, he probably just turns off the light.

Suggest removal:

93dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Wow, have employers contribute into a employee's HSA fund, even part timers at fast food joints? If a Democrat suggested that, it would be called an attack on small businesses or better yet, a TAX! They would say Dems are causing job loss because of the extra financial burden on the business owner. And why do most Repubs want to change "entitlement programs" such as Social Security and such after people like us who have paid into it for 30-50 years? Lets raise the age to 70, hopefully you will die before you can collect. Doesn't that make you mad that they promise something, now try to change the rules? Of course it doesn't matter to the politicians, because most of them are living off of their Daddy's inheritence anyway.

Suggest removal:

94dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

no, you are a Rushaholic... Asking small businesses to contribute more money to even part time employees for medical. I'm all for it. I'm just saying that would be called a tax if Dems wanted it. You are crazy if you think other wise. And BTW, RIP Mr. Mandela.

Suggest removal:

9576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dontbeafool: The concept of paying into a fund is actually a republican Obamacare alternative. http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/...

Also if you listen past the democrat sound bite that the Republicans want to throw Grandma off the cliff, you would understand that the current SS recipients or those 55 or older would not be affected by a change and for those under age 55 it is completely voluntary. If you participate, and reach retirement age, you can fall back on the SS plan if that benefit will net more than your savings.

see: retirement security http://roadmap.republicans.budget.hou...

Throughout your lifetime you and your employer have paid 12.4% social security tax and 2.9 medicare tax into the system. This is 15.3% of your income. Imagine what this can build up to in a lifetime invested pre-tax. Imagine if that amount that is held by you, owned by you, inheritable and to be used if you decide to retire early or later instead of a promise by the govt to pay you a monthly benefit when you retire.

Suggest removal:

96Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Where did your medicare contributions go?

I know that my medicare taxes were given to my grandpa, and my grandma.

You are getting close to medicare age. If my generation stops paying into the medicare system, where you gonna get your benefits?

Suggest removal:

97dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I would be for it, but that couldn't be the sole Health Care system, only a supplement, just because not everyone has a job, or can work. Then you would be in a similar situation of paying for those who have no insurance. And like I said before, YOUR BUDDIES wouldn't go for it because it would require BUSINESSES TO PAY MORE, thus hurting job growth and such. They would call it a tax. Well, if they had the idea, it might be okay, if the dems came up with it, it would be a tax.

Suggest removal:

98dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I thought you were against big Government programs such as Medicare? And who pays for all of the unemployed people who go to the emergency room whenever they get the sniffles? You do realize how much more expensive it is to go to the emergency room, rather than a Dr visit don't you. Then if they need emergency surgery, heart surgery lets say, who pays for that? I'm sure that your answer will be screw them, let them die because they don't have a job. Another great plan from you buddy.

Suggest removal:

99dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@Chicken Little. This is your previous post- I would be for it too, not as just a supplement, but rather as the whole healthcare system. Those that can't work could go to Medicaid AND THOSE WHO AREN'T WORKING WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SAFETY NET OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM. (end)
I didn't say that anyone would be turned away from the emergency room, you said the ER would be used as a safety net for the unemployed. I am saying that under your plan, those who don't work, would not have a personal HSA because they don't work. They would be using the ER as the safety net as you stated. Who would pay for it? Now in your last post, you are saying the the unemployed COULD use their HSA for their health care. How do they have a HSA if they don't have a job to put money into it? Are they going to use the HSA's that other working people paid into? Wouldn't they then be freeloaders that you mention in every one of your posts? You talk out of both sides of your head. It is okay for government to give out handouts, but handouts would be exactly what would be happening under your terrific health care plan.

Suggest removal:

100Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Five weeks ago a poster named eivo stated:
"The government has no business in healthcare".

That sure sounds like an opposition stance to Medicare.

This thread is about the birth control mandate. Medicare and ACA is being discussed on another thread.

Suggest removal:

101dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@ Chicken Little, I cannot win a debate with someone who is on both sides of the fence. Your idiocracy is well documented in your previous posts for all to read.
@Cosmo, my apologies for getting off topic. Commenting on both threads, I sometimes forget which one I am on and just respond to others.

Suggest removal:

102dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

dude whatever, your going to be late. Don't you have an appointment to go kick a homeless person or something?

Suggest removal:

103Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

@dont be,
It's eivo that keeps pulling off topic, and you follow.
Standard tactic of those who can't present an sustainable argument is to misdirect the thread.

@eivo, Do you know who David Green is?

Suggest removal:

104dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

yeah, I have noticed when he can't, or doesn't want to answer a point, he goes off topic. BTW evil, I currently work 50-60 hours per week, I have worked since age 15 with no laps in employment, never received any disability or any gov assistance whatsoever. I consider myself fortunate to have a decent, middle class job. I just don't mind helping out the less fortunate.

Suggest removal:

105Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

How easily eivo forgets. Up to post 17 the discussion was about religious beliefs and ACA.
Then evio is of and running on his "freeloader" theme with his comment "As an employee, I feel that my employer should give me a free TV set and a smart phone too."

Serial off-topic poster, typical of trolls

Suggest removal:

106Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

And you don't think that comment isn't how you run off topic to your "freeloaders" meme?

Just can't control youself, can you?

Suggest removal:

107Elf2(75 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Eivo just can't "srop" himself.

Suggest removal:

108Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Couldn't get back to answer your question about me being a "freeloader" because I've been working.

Actually I'm one of those "federal employees" that are so easily ridiculed as being useless and lazy.

Often when people see me in uniform they say: "Thank you for your service!"

Suggest removal:

109dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Sane, what do u do, or are you referring to the military?

Suggest removal:

110Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

If he or she is military, he/she should not answer.

(interesting that those who fight for our freedom of speech are not allowed free speech themselves, or are not supposed to identify themselves as military)

Do you know who David Green is?

Suggest removal:

111dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Cosmo I served, although awhile ago, and was never told that I was never allowed to say if I was military or not (unless somewhere hostile). You don't go bragging about it, but it isn't a problem when asked. Anyway, I just wondered if he was uniformed or civilian.

Suggest removal:

112Cosmo19(53 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Social media is a whole different matter today. The "rules" have shifted.

Suggest removal:

113Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

no comment

Suggest removal:

114Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Now I understand why you thought I digressed from the topic.

You got to know the players. David Green is the CEO of Hobby Lobby, he is at the crux of the legal wrangle over the HHS mandate.

So mention of David Green's history is very much on topic

Suggest removal:

115Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago


The mandate is government involvement with healthcare.
Medicare is government involvement in healthcare.

See the linkage? Same topic - government involvement with healthcare.

You have said that the government has no business being involved with healthcare. Perfectly reasonable quest to ask if you are going to participate in the program that you suggest shouldn't be.

Suggest removal:

11676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Sane1: The government is involved in just about every aspect of our lives to some degree but the ACA mandates have taken government control to a new level never before seen. It dictates what will be covered, who will be covered, penalizes you if you do not comply, creates a data hub for sharing of our personal information and encompasses 1/5 of our entire economy. A power grab at the very least.

Medicare is paid for through trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury and funded by payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed. Obamacare will be paid for by new taxes and the $716 billion raid on Medicare.

Suggest removal:

117Sane1(24 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

yes, it's a difficult logic to grasp for the impaired.

Suggest removal:

118stoutmaster(29 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

What the writer is missing is tolerance and the lack of respect for the US Constitution. If this violates the employer's religious beliefs, they should have a right not to pay for it and that religious belief should be respected by the employee. The employees do not have a right to free birth control. Last I checked it's not in the constitution nor the bill of rights. Employees have choices. The employers are not PROHIBITING their employees from getting it. The employees can still get the birth control on their own. Many places do offer it for free such as unplanned parenthood and others or they can just pay for it out of their own pocket. My wife is employed by a Catholic business. I have no problem paying for it on my own as I respect their religious beliefs.

Suggest removal:

119SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago


1) Will you accept the Supreme court decision on this matter, regardless how it comes out?

2) Follow your logic for a moment. Say you work employer who suddenly decides to become a Christian Scientist. As a result of his "conversion" he decides that that he will not pay for his employee's medications, or hospitalizations as that would be an affront to HIS religious beliefs.

As you say above, he is not preventing you from getting services, he just won't fund your services.

Since there is no restriction to do so, your employer can alter his religious beliefs as often as he chooses. Does that mean that the employees coverage can shift each time an employer alters HIS beliefs?

Are you OK with that, and do you think that is an appropriate model for employer sponsored healthcare insurance?

3) You say that your wife is employed by a Catholic business. Unless she is employed by a business that business that is dedicated to preaching Catholicism (and thereby exempt from the HHS mandate), I really think you mean that she is employed by a secular business whose owners happen to be Catholic.

Suggest removal:

120dontbeafool(1365 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

This is just a loophole for employers to reduce benefits.

Suggest removal:

121Jerryl(105 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago


Got Courage?

SeriouslyNow is calling you out over on this thread,


Suggest removal:

122Jerryl(105 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

I read the thread over there, you gave him one example of a limbaugh like talk hack who said Cheny should go to the promised land.

That's not the same as threatening annihilation.

He probably didn't like the answers, because they weren't answers.

Suggest removal:

123YtownParent(472 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

Wow did this thread diverge. The court arguments aren't over the merits of obamacare or insurance regulations. The whole argument hinges on can a business owner claim to be exempt from a regulation because it goes against his personal religious beliefs. The good, bad or ugly of the regulation whether it's a birth control mandate or a safety regulation are immaterial.

The business owners are now claiming that the business is their own personal property and they shouldn't be required to use their personal property to violate their religious beliefs. They are right in thinking no one can be forced to use their personal property to violate their beliefs, but the very act of incorporating a business changes the nature of a private company. It ceases to be the owners personal property. That is exactly why the owners went to court and filed articles of incorporation and other documents stating that the business was no longer their personal property, so they can't be held liable and forced to use their personal property to cover damages and debts the business might incur. Nor can the company be held liable for any damages or debts the owners might incur with their personal property.

As for obamacare, it sucks, but I think all health insurance violates capitalism and distorts the free market. Without insurance doctors would charge what people can pay and wages could be increased and save employers money at the same time. It would also give employers a more stable forecast of labor costs. As long as the insurance industry is involved in healthcare costs will go up, quality of care will go down and wages will remain stagnant.

Suggest removal:

124SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

@ YtownParent,
Re: diverge- Yes,eivo tends to run off track and pull others with him.

Re: business owners - I agree completely.

Re: Obamacare - I disagree somewhat, but that is not what this thread is about. That discussion is more appropriate in the "Americans may accept Obamacare..." thread. See you there, if you dare!

Suggest removal:

125SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 year, 6 months ago

So easy to get eivo to chase after shiney thingees !

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes