About the same as yours. You've changed your stance over the last 100 pages at least four times. You've been proven wrong numerous times and still hide behind these fictional "papers" which other posters have called you out on. Do you even know what you're arguing for or against anymore?
How is any of this "sexism" other than in the most window-licking myopic sense? How is it sexist for an employer, male *or* female, to be excused from violating their own beliefs to buy something for someone else just because the recipient is a woman? It's not, obviously, other than to fools and demagogues.
You are just demonstrating my point -- that if you don't think the HHS fixing this immediately so the coverage is assured is the answer, all your outrage on behalf of the female employees is just BS posturing and what you're really mad about is being denied the chance to "stick it" to for-profit businesses and religious people in a two-fer.
It's not my assumption, but it IS a reality of human nature. Do I think that's the sole reason that 5 men who are unaffected by the ruling came to their conclusion? No. But I'm not stupid enough, or partisan enough, to believe that it isn't a factor.
And yes, considering the only conservative woman to have had the honor of sitting on the SCOTUS bench gave us the Roe v. Wade majority, I'm comfortable with the argument you're so desperately trying to attribute to me.
Last edited by NYC17; 2014-07-02 at 05:01 PM.
You're equating the legal discretion of HHS to issue a new regulation with a party to a contract making a change that they could only legally make if the other party had consented to their ability to make it, and you're trying to tell me about the law?
It might look like I'm changing because your understanding of the differences between thinks like regulatory authority and contractual rights is so wretchedly tissue thin you think they operate under the same principles, I suppose. Unless you think HHS had no legal authority to issue either the contraception mandate, the religious non-profit accommodation, or both, you can't possibly think it's dirty pool if HHS were to sidestep Burwell by issuing another accommodation (i.e. a similar mandate that insurers provide non-cost-adjusted coverage to make up for the employers with a religious exemption not providing it). So which is it, Interception, was HHS "changing the rules in the middle of the game" unlawfully by issuing the contraception mandate in the first place? By exempting religious non-profits? Either, both?
I would just like to know how the family that owns Hobby Lobby is being denied the right to practice their religion by offering Plan B insurance coverage to their employees?
Religious people should not be allowed to deny people something because it goes against their beliefs. I argue that denying something because it goes against your personal beliefs is in direct contradiction to God. That God gave man free will to make his own choices good or bad. The bad choices were not removed or taken away even in the Garden of Eden God allowed the Apple tree to stand. By allowing it to stand he allowed the choice for Adam and Even to eat from it, so even God knows that choice is a good thing. By demanding that we remove choice we are stating that we know better then the God that allowed us to have free will in the first place.
Okay that is the end of my angry religious rant.
Yes.
That's exactly why this case was about a corporation's right to make religious choices that negatively affect its workforce, regardless of the faiths or lack thereof of those employees.
Free exercise of religion means you should be able to choose, for yourself, on religious grounds. This is why adult Jehovah's Witnesses can make informed choices to refuse blood transfusions, even if doing so costs them their lives. That's their free exercise of religion. They are not free to make the same choice for their children, let alone anyone else. That isn't "free exercise", any more; that's inflicting your religion on another.
And before anyone says this is an unfair comparison because blood transfusions are a bigger deal than 4 types of birth control; my issue is not the specifics of this case, it's the precedent that it sets and the rationale used to justify it.
Last edited by Endus; 2014-07-02 at 05:09 PM.