Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Obama vs. religious freedom

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AuthorMessage
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/19/2014, 11:35 am

Someone should do a study on how much money Zoeller has flushed down the toilet litigating issues like gay marriage and Obamacare. Indiana Sues To Prevent Its Own Residents From Receiving Obamacare’s Insurance Subsidies
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/25/2014, 12:21 pm

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/get-involved/actions/325-rally-banner.html

GET INVOLVED: NOT MY BOSS'S BUSINESS!

On Tuesday, March 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for a case that would give bosses the right to deny their employees birth control coverage just because they oppose it.
More than 40,000 of our supporters added their names to a banner that will be displayed outside of the SupremeCourt to make sure our voices are heard.



You are 100% correct – your contraception is not your boss’s business.
So why are you insisting that he pay for it?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/25/2014, 1:15 pm

Thousands Brave The Snow To Protest Hobby Lobby’s Supreme Court Case
Quote :
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga argue that complying with Obamacare’s birth control mandate would be a violation of the company owners’ religious beliefs. But women’s rights, public health, and separation of church and state advocates say that a win by Hobby Lobby will set a dangerous precedent, allowing employers to restrict Americans’ health care access based on their personal beliefs. On Tuesday, they rallied in front of the nation’s highest court to make that position known.

“Birth control is not even controversial except for in the minds of a very small — very vocal — but tiny sliver of extremists,” the president of National Organization for Women (NOW), Terry O’Neill, told ThinkProgress at Tuesday’s protest.
“It’s absolutely outrageous that the Supreme Court of the United States would seriously be considering allowing bosses to restrict birth control. It’s ridiculous.”
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/25/2014, 2:23 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
   

But women’s rights, public health, and separation of church and state advocates say that a win by Hobby Lobby will set a dangerous precedent, allowing employers to restrict Americans’ health care access based on their personal beliefs.
.........

“It’s absolutely outrageous that the Supreme Court of the United States would seriously be considering allowing bosses to restrict birth control. It’s ridiculous.”



The employees of Hobby Lobby are free to use as many contraceptives as they choose, as often as they want to use them, and the owners of Hobby Lobby are not in any way attempting to stop them from doing so, nor are they threatening to terminate their employment for doing so.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/25/2014, 7:45 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   He's been gunning for me for years, even going so far as to suggest that I be questioned as a suspect in the fire that killed "Freetime". 

Show me that post.
Coming right up,asshat Very Happy 

Tool wrote:
Do you ever, ever stop lying?

I suggest you look directly into a mirror and keep repeating the above. In fact,keep doing it until you pass out. Maybe you'll fall on that empty head and shake loose a brain cell.

Ignorant troll wrote:
I hope that this is looked into very carefully, and I hope that artie's thread on the n o f r e e. f o r u m o t i o n board is one of the first things they comb through.”

That is a quite reasonable statement to make, and I think that if there is found to be anything at all suspicious about free’s death, any and all conscientious law enforcement personnel (who have been notified, incidentally) looking into her case would be grossly derelict in their duties if they willfully ignored that thread. When there is such an odious public outpouring of hate directed at an individual (who may or may not have died under questionable circumstances – I will freely admit that I do not have that information) on an almost hourly basis during any given business day, I would think that the investigators would look closely at each of the contributors to that thread, and would look especially closely at the hate-filled author of said thread.


I will be happy to provide a link to anyone members here that are not ignorant trolls..AKA:Everyone here but stupid.

We all know that dim bulb will immediately attempt to turn this into another circle jerk. Since I won't be replying to him,he will fail once again. Very Happy Sleep



My apologies - I stand corrected.
And I also stand behind everything I said, including this:


As I stated earlier, I don’t know one way or another whether there was anything suspicious about the fire (and I am certainly neither alleging nor even implying that you had anything to do with it), but if it turns out that there was, don’t be surprised if there is a knock on your door. I’ve heard that policemen like coffee, so it probably couldn’t hurt to have a pot ready to go.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   4/1/2014, 5:41 pm

Hypocrisy Alert! Shocked 
Hobby Lobby invests in contraceptive, abortion drug manufacturers
Quote :
It's peculiar how a group of individuals who are so devoted to their religious beliefs that they demand the very laws of the nation be rewritten to accommodate them can be so lax about those same religious beliefs if ignoring them will net them a little dough.

 
Quote :
Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

   Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

So the company demands it not have to pay for any employee insurance that might purchase such things, but investing in their manufacture? Not a problem.

Oh, but it gets worse. The assertion from Sharia Lobby is that whether or not those contraceptives actually cause abortions, the company owners have a religious belief that they do, so the law must not only be rewritten to eliminate the possibility of the company spending money on abortifacients but rewritten to allow the company to deny insurance for anything that the company feels is an abortifacient. What's still all right, at least from the investor side of things, is actual abortions.

 
Quote :
The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva [...], as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.


So providing workers with health insurance that might provide certain contraceptives is right out, but making a little dough from companies that make actual abortion drugs does not run afoul of those self-same Deeply Held Religious Beliefs, nor investing in the very insurance companies whose original naughtiness was the thing Hobby Horse could not put up with.

I think we all understand each other here. Businesses must be able to lodge religious objections to the medical decisions of their employees, but don't be surprised if that happens to be the one and only Deeply Held Religious Belief a given company might have. And we won't even get into the Made In China part.
Reminds me of Mittens Romney,alleged pro-lifer who happily invests and profits in fetus disposal.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/30/2014, 1:29 pm

From the dissent:

Quote :
Would  the  exemption  the  Court  holds  RFRA  demands for  employers  with  religiously  grounded  objections to the use  of  certain  contraceptives  extend  to  employers  with religiously  grounded  objections  to  blood  transfusions (Jehovah’s  Witnesses);  antidepressants  (Scientologists); medications  derived  from  pigs,  including  anesthesia, intravenous  fluids,  and  pills  coated  with  gelatin  (certain Muslims,  Jews,  and Hindus);  and  vaccinations  (Christian Scientists,  among  others)?31    According  to  counsel  for Hobby Lobby,  “each  one  of  these  cases . . .  would  have  to be  evaluated  on  its  own  . . .  apply[ing]  the  compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.”  . . . Not  much  help  there  for  the  lower  courts  bound  by today’s decision. 

. . .

There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” . . . or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield . . . by its immoderate reading of RFRA.

Thank Jebus someone gets it.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/30/2014, 3:42 pm

Fewer avenues for women to obtain contraceptives means more abortions are on the way. Yippee! cheers Mission accomplished religious wackjobs!
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/30/2014, 10:45 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
Fewer avenues for women to obtain contraceptives means more abortions are on the way. Yippee! cheers Mission accomplished religious wackjobs!



No one is preventing anyone from obtaining contraceptives.

Constitution - 1
Barry - 0
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/2/2014, 11:37 pm

http://michellemalkin.com/?p=157388

Another law signed by Bill Clinton comes back to bite the Dems?

By Doug Powers  •  June 30, 2014 02:19 PM
**Written by Doug Powers
Recently, Democrats were celebrating the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act that was enacted in 1996. Bill Clinton congratulated himself for helping lead the recent fight to overturn the law that some guy named Bill Clinton signed.
Fast forward to this morning when the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby. The majority ruled that Hobby Lobby fell under the umbrella of theReligious Freedom Restoration Act. Who signed that bill? Bill! The RFRA was sponsored in the U.S. Senate by some right-wing Republican named Chuck Schumer.
Today could mark the beginning of 21st century Bill Clinton’s latest battle to undo the damage caused by 20th century Bill Clinton before Hillary kicks off a possible 2016 bid. Back to the future!

Update:
Hillary Clinton is troubled because the Democrats stepped into another trap her husband set over 20 years ago:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/483755538589556736
Update II:
I totally forgot about Clinton’s “don’t ask don’t tell” reversal. Add that to the list.





Sobby Lobby: Harry Reid, Patty Murray whine about consequence of legislation they supported

By Doug Powers  •  July 1, 2014 10:21 AM
**Written by Doug Powers

In 1993, Sens. Harry Reid and Patty Murray both voted to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was also sponsored by Chuck Schumer. The bill went on to be signed into law by then President Clinton.
Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in favor of Hobby Lobby was based on the RFRA, and Harry Reid thought it was a horrible thing:
“Today’s decision jeopardizes women’s access to essential health care. Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors. This ruling ignores the scientific evidence showing that the health security of millions of American women is strengthened by access to these crucial services,” Reid said. “If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will. We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room.”
Keep your boss out of the exam room — that’s where Harry Reid should be! How dare anybody question the entity that runs the VA. And besides,Koch Brothers! Koch Brothers! Koch Brothers!
Patty Murray agrees with Reid, and is looking for a way around the SCOTUS decision:
Sen. Patty Murray, a member of the Democratic leadership, signaled in a statement she was open to both options.
“Your health care decisions are not your boss’s business – period. Since the Supreme Court decided it will not protect women’s access to health care, I will,” the Washington Democrat said in a statement. “In the coming days I will work with my colleagues and the Administration to protect this access, regardless of who signs your paycheck.”
Only in lefty la-la-land is dictating exactly what a business owner has to provide employees “not a boss’s business.”
It’s amazing what the media allows the Democrats to get away with. Nobody’s blocking anybody’s “access to health care” — this is all about who pays for it. And few in the mainstream media ever see the necessity to disclaimer the blanket Dem claim that Hobby Lobby “denies coverage of birth control” by pointing out that they currently cover 16 types of contraception. Media bias is most evident not in what they do report, but what they don’t.
The big picture irony is that the “who’s going to pay for it” argument all revolves around something called the Affordable Care Act.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/6/2014, 6:25 pm

Heretic wrote:
From the dissent:

Quote :
Would  the  exemption  the  Court  holds  RFRA  demands for  employers  with  religiously  grounded  objections to the use  of  certain  contraceptives  extend  to  employers  with religiously  grounded  objections  to  blood  transfusions (Jehovah’s  Witnesses);  antidepressants  (Scientologists); medications  derived  from  pigs,  including  anesthesia, intravenous  fluids,  and  pills  coated  with  gelatin  (certain Muslims,  Jews,  and Hindus);  and  vaccinations  (Christian Scientists,  among  others)?31    According  to  counsel  for Hobby Lobby,  “each  one  of  these  cases . . .  would  have  to be  evaluated  on  its  own  . . .  apply[ing]  the  compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.”  . . . Not  much  help  there  for  the  lower  courts  bound  by today’s decision. 

. . .

There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” . . . or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield . . . by its immoderate reading of RFRA.

Thank Jebus someone gets it.
I wonder how the right-wing slugs on SCOTUS would vote if this was the issue? affraid 
George Takei: What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?
Quote :
Former Star Trek actor George Takei blasted Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court allowing the craft store Hobby Lobby to opt out of the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

In a post on the website for his new play, Allegiance, the openly gay Takei called Monday’s decision “a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.”

“The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” he continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”
As long as their investing in companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control,why not go a step further and invest in one of those fetus disposal companies? They're quite profitable according to Mittens Romney
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 9:34 am

Artie60438 wrote:
What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?




















































It’s not. And Hobby Lobby is not “imposing” anything on anyone, so the comparison is ludicrous.

Artie60438 wrote:
Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare.


No, and in this case, they don’t.


Artie60438 wrote:
“…. Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,”

Once again, Hobby Lobby is not imposing its beliefs on its employees or anyone else.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 11:24 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?  
It’s not. And Hobby Lobby is not “imposing” anything on anyone, so the comparison is ludicrous.
So you don't have no answer for "What if",do you? HL is imposing their wacky religious belief that women should not use contraception.

Artie60438 wrote:
 Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare.  
happy jack wrote:
No, and in this case, they don’t.
When a Dr decides that a woman needs contraceptives and HL refuses to cover it they are clearly putting their beliefs before the health and wellness of the woman.
Artie60438 wrote:
“…. Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,”    
happy jack wrote:
Once again, Hobby Lobby is not imposing its beliefs on its employees or anyone else.
Really? Then explain why they felt the need to opt out of the ACA mandate that contraceptives be covered? What exactly was their reason?

When the XYZ company owned by Jehovah Witnesses decides that they don't want to pay for blood transfusions because it's against their religious beliefs you'll be OK with that,right?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 12:05 pm

Hobby Lobby is not imposing a “wacky religious belief that women should not use contraception.”
They provide coverage for 16 different types of contraception.
Stop lying.


Hobby Lobby does not refuse to cover contraceptives.
Stop lying.

They do cover contraceptives.
Stop lying.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381952/hillary-leads-lies-hobby-lobby-deroy-murdock

JULY 3, 2014 4:21 PM
Hillary Leads the Lies on Hobby Lobby
Leftists can’t stop repeating blatant untruths about the case.
By Deroy Murdock

It still is stunning to watch someone prominent and powerful flat-out lie on TV. Like an Olympic gymnast’s perfect dismount from the parallel bars, it leaves you breathless.
Responding to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobbydecision on Monday, Hillary Clinton told the Aspen Institute’s Walter Isaacson: “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health-care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”
Clinton did not daintily spin, dissemble, or mislead. She told a big, fat, shining lie.
Advertisement
iSponsored Ads
It is holistically false for Clinton to claim that Hobby Lobby “doesn’t think she [the sales clerk] should be using contraception.”
As I documented Monday, Hobby Lobby’s health plan includes 16 different categories of birth control. They are available on a non-co-pay basis, so employees get them at no out-of-pocket cost. The Food and DrugAdministration’s official list of approved contraceptives includes small drawings for each of 20 types of birthcontrol. I assembled these sketches into two graphic illustrations. The first shows the contraceptive cornucopia available to Hobby Lobby’s workers, courtesy of the alleged barbarians who own that company.


Hobby Lobby offers its health-insured employees these 16 different forms of FDA-approved birth-control, for free. Graphic illustrations compiled by Deroy Murdock.
These products are, from left to right and top to bottom:
1. Male condoms
2. Female condoms
3. Diaphragms with spermicide
4. Sponges with spermicide
5. Cervical caps with spermicide
6. Spermicide alone
7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill”)
8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“the Mini Pill”)
9. Birth-control pills (extended/continuous use)
10. Contraceptive patches
11. Contraceptive rings
12. Progestin injections
13. Implantable rods
14. Vasectomies
15. Female sterilization surgeries
16. Female sterilization implants
Hobby Lobby does not cover four drugs and devices that it considers abortifacients. If staffers want those items, they are free to purchase them with their own money. In the second graphic, these are, left to right:

Hobby Lobby disapproves of these four abortifacients, but employees are free to buy them with their own money.
1. Plan B (“the Morning After Pill”)
2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
3. Copper intra-uterine device
4. IUD with progestin
Utterly impervious to these facts, Clinton described the Hobby Lobby decision as if five imams had imposed a fatwa under sharia law. “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism.”
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Josh Earnest launched his own mortar attack on the truth. As he told journalists Monday, “There are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views that are held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses.”
Lie!


Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 2:37 pm

happy jack wrote:
Hobby Lobby is not imposing a “wacky religious belief that women should not use contraception.”

Hobby Lobby disapproves of these four abortifacients, but employees are free to buy them with their own money.
1. Plan B (“the Morning After Pill”)
2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
3. Copper intra-uterine device
4. IUD with progestin
HL is not a Dr. Therefore they should have no right to intercede in what a Dr prescribes for their patient.

Btw,Weren't all you wingnuts screaming bloody murder and constantly chanting that "the ObamaCare Health law puts government in between patients and doctors"?

Yet when a corporation like HL does it using religious BS ,everything is fine. Nice to see that the War on Women is alive and well.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 3:46 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Hobby Lobby is not imposing a “wacky religious belief that women should not use contraception.”

Hobby Lobby disapproves of these four abortifacients, but employees are free to buy them with their own money.
1. Plan B (“the Morning After Pill”)
2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
3. Copper intra-uterine device
4. IUD with progestin
HL is not a Dr. Therefore they should have no right to intercede in what a Dr prescribes for their patient.

Btw,Weren't all you wingnuts screaming bloody murder and constantly chanting that "the ObamaCare Health law puts government in between patients and doctors"?

Yet when a corporation like HL does it using religious BS ,everything is fine. Nice to see that the War on Women is alive and well.



Hobby Lobby is in no way 'interceding' between a patient and doctor. To the contrary, Hobby Lobby is simply staying out of the way by not involving itself at all.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 7:35 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Hobby Lobby is not imposing a “wacky religious belief that women should not use contraception.”

Hobby Lobby disapproves of these four abortifacients, but employees are free to buy them with their own money.
1. Plan B (“the Morning After Pill”)
2. Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
3. Copper intra-uterine device
4. IUD with progestin
HL is not a Dr. Therefore they should have no right to intercede in what a Dr prescribes for their patient.

Btw,Weren't all you wingnuts screaming bloody murder and constantly chanting that "the ObamaCare Health law puts government in between patients and doctors"?

Yet when a corporation like HL does it using religious BS ,everything is fine. Nice to see that the War on Women is alive and well.



Hobby Lobby is in no way 'interceding' between a patient and doctor. To the contrary, Hobby Lobby is simply staying out of the way by not involving itself at all.
If a Dr prescribes one of those procedures or drugs and HL refuses to cover it and the patient cannot afford it they certainly are interceding.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/7/2014, 8:34 pm

Reid: Senate Will Act In Response To Hobby Lobby Ruling
Quote :
The Senate will act "in the coming weeks" to counteract the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on Monday.

"We're going to do something about the Hobby Lobby [decision] we need to correct," he said, also mentioning the highway bill, manufacturing legislation and Export-Import bank reauthorization as issues that the Senate will address in the coming weeks.

Democrats, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), are weighing legislative options
to fix the contraceptive coverage gap created by the Court's ruling, which lets closely held corporations with religious owners opt out of the birth control coverage requirement under Obamacare.

A legislative "fix" is very unlikely to pass because Republicans, who strongly support the ruling, have the votes to filibuster it.
Expect the wingnuts to double down on their war on women by blocking it. Then let them explain it come election time. Very Happy 
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5954

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/8/2014, 9:36 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

Hobby Lobby is in no way 'interceding' between a patient and doctor. To the contrary, Hobby Lobby is simply staying out of the way by not involving itself at all.
If a Dr prescribes one of those procedures or drugs and HL refuses to cover it and the patient cannot afford it they certainly are interceding.



“Interceding” requires a positive action. Hobby Lobby is not taking any positive action to prevent anyone from obtaining contraceptives.
Pay attention.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   7/9/2014, 10:43 am

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/20/2015, 10:27 am

Pediatrician wouldn't care for baby with 2 moms

Quote :
Sitting in the pediatrician's office with their 6-day-old daughter, the two moms couldn't wait to meet the doctor they had picked out months before.

The Roseville pediatrician — one of many they had interviewed — seemed the perfect fit: She took a holistic approach to treating children. She used natural oils and probiotics. And she knew they were lesbians.

But as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat their baby because they are lesbians.

Freedom to discriminate. Yay! America!
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1887

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/20/2015, 8:50 pm

Heretic wrote:
Pediatrician wouldn't care for baby with 2 moms

Quote :
Sitting in the pediatrician's office with their 6-day-old daughter, the two moms couldn't wait to meet the doctor they had picked out months before.

The Roseville pediatrician — one of many they had interviewed — seemed the perfect fit: She took a holistic approach to treating children. She used natural oils and probiotics. And she knew they were lesbians.

But as Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat their baby because they are lesbians.

Freedom to discriminate.  Yay!  America!

This is really a fucking outrage. What the hell does a parent's sexual orientation have to do with treating a baby?
Back to top Go down
chuckmo48

avatar

Posts : 282

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/17/2015, 5:41 pm

So it looks like the religious freedom bill will pass...Can't wait until I ask any person working on my property if they are catholic! Sorry won't condone your religion...NEXT!
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/23/2015, 7:51 pm

Arkansas Republican has creepy plan to stop single, low-income mothers from having more kids

Quote :
A new Arkansas bill would enable the state to pay low-income single mothers to stop having children for at least five years, RH Reality Check reported.

“Often young people make decisions and they get a sense that they don’t want to make that decision again for a while,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Kim Hammer (R). “We need to give them a little bit of a breather to think about their life decisions that are affecting us as taxpayers.”

The measure, House Bill 1868, would allow single mothers who are receiving Medicaid benefits and have only one child to receive a “surgically implanted contraception device” that would be effective for at least five years.

Think Rush et al are gonna give him a pass or our we gonna see some Sandra Fluke level outrage from the GOP and religious organizations who lost their minds over contraception in the ACA?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   9/4/2015, 12:27 am

Hillary Clinton On Jailed KY Clerk: 'Officials Should Be Held To Their Duty'
Quote :

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined her 2016 rivals in weighing in on the decision by a federal judge to hold a Kentucky clerk in contempt of court for not issuing gay marriage licenses.

Marriage equality is the law of the land. Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law—end of story. https://t.co/9WfxgULBga

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015

Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, has stopped issuing marriage licenses to all couples after the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
She's spot on. If you're in a government job and you can't separate your official duties from your religious bias then it might be time to look for anther job.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   

Back to top Go down
 
Obama vs. religious freedom
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 6 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: