So it doesn’t do nothing, like you said above. It does something, right?
You’re an angry dipshit, but you’re consistent. And I guess that’s something.
According to 5/9ths of the SCOTUS, and I agree they’re final. But those men, addled by the same angry cult that you’re a member of, decided it. Let’s not pretend that it’s an obvious or clear as day decision. It’s a split.
So, only a few birth control items, and they can buy them at the Piggly Wiggly. I think most people know that.
However, once some cunt Catholic decides that all birth control… well that’s okay too. Because the right of some cunt Catholic to decide that their delusional devotion to a misogynistic Babylonian Storm God is such that an employee taking something they provide as compensation and using it in a way they don’t like is somehow, perhaps by transubstantiation, a burden on their faith, well Jumpin’ Jesus on the Cross, this must be dealt with!!1
Your side won because the five Catholic men on the SCOTUS think, like you do, that it isn’t a woman’s business how she reproduces. Well praise be to Jeesus and pass the plate!
And to get to that result, they had to carve out exceptions and invent new definitions that went against the clear intent of the law, but that’s all right too because those things were only “modest” and didn’t count as a precedent, at least until the very next day.
Note to self: Making employers pay for Health Insurance is fraught with problems. Find a better way. Because there is no intrinsic reason that employers should pay for Health Insurance. You might was well require that they pay for food and then require that 16 different vegetables are paid for in addition to cold water fish, organic chicken and no beef.
Of course it’s stupid for employers to pay for health care.
The trouble, is that because of the standing filibuster by the GOP, exactly sixty votes were needed in the senate.
Which means no such huge change to our system is possible, because you had to placate the very most conservative of the Democrats to get anything passed.
So, what I’m trying to say, is you’re right, but you might as well be bitching about a drought. In the real world we live in the ACA is what was possible and it only got past the line by an onion skin.
So go ahead, bitch about the drought. It isn’t gonna help, but yeah, sure is dry.
It’s simple. Whenever the court rules in favor of white right wing conservative male rich people, and against anyone else - including the employees (along party lines of course), then the court is acting correctly. Whenever it goes the other way, it’s those no good liberal activist judges.
Or to look at it another way, money has more and better religion than “not money”.
There is no such effect, is, what I believe the lying pig said. In that, the lying pig was referring to Hobby Lobby blocking women’s access to birth control. The lying pig further says, that the bill does nothing, because there is no effect to a woman’s access to birth control.
So, lying pig, does it have an effect, or does it not? Oink?
Why, does losing this hard hurt your bitch ass? Maybe you should pray.
I just love how corporations are now the guardians of “our” immortal souls and are “religious” all of a sudden, BUT whenever talk turns to taxes (not paid) or obscene CEO bonuses, or benefits/retirement funds raided, or jobs are “outsourced” to some foreign shit hole, or land/people get poisoned to save a few pennies, all of a sudden THEN the sole purpose of the same damn company is to make money for its stockholders.
Insurance is part of one’s wages so one can use any money spent at Hobby Lobby and use it to supply woman with Contraception that way the women would be compensated. They are in a way forcing women who don’t share their beliefs to have children they don’t want, can’t care for and add to the welfare roles…
Which brings up another question: did Hobby Lobby pay its own legal bills in their entirety, or did they get some assistance from well-funded persons who share their questions and concerns about the moral integrity of the ACA?
Insurance is a benefit. It’s not “part of one’s wages.” It’s an additional benefit provided to induce people to work for the company. Free coffee in the employee breakroom is not part of one’s wages. Neither is the shuttle bus from the nearest subway station to the workplace.
Women employees, and employees in general, do not have any right to demand that their employers buy them insurance.
Now, it’s true that the government recently passed a law that says IF you buy your employees insurance, then you must include certain things in that insurance. But they also passed another law, one that adds, “…unless doing so would burden your exercise of religion.”
So you can’t claim Hobby Lobby is not complying with the law. They are. You can’t claim Hobby Lobby somehow owes their employees insurance coverage for contraception. They don’t.
Technically, the law requires them to provide insurance coverage for sixteen of the twenty different contraceptives, because providing coverage for those sixteen does not burden their exercise of religion.
Hobby Lobby is not bereft of cash. They are the “well-funded person.” I believe they paid their own way, as well as contributing to the Beckett Fund, which in turn helped finance other HHS/ACA cases, like Little Sisters of the Poor.
First strawman: The decision in question simply says that corporations have a legal right to religious exercise, and that means simply that the corporation’s exercise of religion is protected in order to protect the religious exercise rights of its officers, directors, and shareholders. So your characterization of the opposing side as arguing that corporations are guardians of your soul is a blatant strawman.
Second strawman: the argument is not that the “sole” purpose of a corporation is to make money. Certainly a purpose of a corporation is to make money. But corporations have other purposes as well. And one such purpose s to exercise the religious rights of its officers, directors, and shareholders.
The owners of a Christian bookstore certainly want to make money. But that’s not their sole purpose. If it were, they’d make more money selling other things. They want to make some money, and support their view of Christianity.
The owners of a kosher supermarket certainly want to make money. But that’s not their sole purpose. If it were, they’d make more money by ceasing costly rabbinical supervision of slaughter and stocking non-kosher items. They want to make some money, and provide a place for the Jewish community to get food that observes the commandments of their faith.
So your characterization of the opposing side as arguing that corporations’ sole goal is to make money is a blatant strawman, too.