God came to me in a dream last night and said it was his will that I should expel all non-whites' date=' homosexuals and heathens from my workforce.[/quote']

 

This ruling does not give free reign. It was very specific.

God came to me in a dream last night and said it was his will that I should expel all non-whites, homosexuals and heathens from my workforce.

 

Still arguing apples and oranges here. More like apples and :poop: being argued here.

This ruling does not give free reign. It was very specific.

The ruling is an invitation to discriminate based on something other than the law, i.e., "religious liberty."

....I didn't realize pregnancy was a disease.

One would assume Hobby Lobby is still covering the cost of Viagra for men?

Still arguing apples and oranges here. More like apples and :poop: being argued here.

 

I will say this: Contraceptive drugs are NOT merely for preventing pregnancy. There are a host of other medical issues and conditions that contraceptives can treat and control.

 

With that said, I still don't have an issues with this ruling today, in light of the alternative opportunities to procure insurance coverage that includes such coverage.

 

TTP does raise an interesting question, though...is Viagra covered? If so...the ultimate in irony, IMO.

One would assume Hobby Lobby is still covering the cost of Viagra for men?

Apples and oranges again...

Don't know but I would certainly support all plans not covering Viagra.

The ruling is an invitation to discriminate based on something other than the law, i.e., "religious liberty."

 

Again, that was addressed. Give me an example that concerns you.

HL already covers some forms of birth control. They chose 4 specific forms that they felt were abortifacients. Some argue that the SCOTUS did not use science as its basis and didn't use the medical definition of "abortion" in making its ruling.

TTP does raise an interesting question, though...is Viagra covered? If so...the ultimate in irony, IMO.

 

 

I don't see it as being relevant. It doesn't end a pregnancy.

Again, that was addressed. Give me an example that concerns you.

The following from a Politico story:

 

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of ANY LAW (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

 

(Capitalization emphasis from me, not the story.)

I will say this: Contraceptive drugs are NOT merely for preventing pregnancy. There are a host of other medical issues and conditions that contraceptives can treat and control.

 

With that said, I still don't have an issues with this ruling today, in light of the alternative opportunities to procure insurance coverage that includes such coverage.

 

TTP does raise an interesting question, though...is Viagra covered? If so...the ultimate in irony, IMO.

 

You make a valid point about some contraceptive drugs being used for matters other than just preventing pregnancy. Regardless, I agree that today's decision was a good one.

 

As for Viagra and the like, I would say a few things. First, I would have absolutely zero problem with employers not being required to cover that. Second, most fertility treatments aren't covered by health insurance...why should ED treatments be? Whether or not they're happy about it, people can live a healthy life without being able to get pregnant as a female or get an erection as a male. Those items rightfully fall under "elective coverage". Lastly, this is over religious freedom. I don't know of many religions that have taken official positions on Viagra (some may have, but I've never heard about it). There are many church organizations that have taken long-standing moral positions against certain or even all types of contraception due to their belief that it ends life. To the best of my knowledge, there is never any question as to whether or not the ability to achieve an erection will end a life. If an employer's religious views oppose contraception and are fine with ED medications, and if that same employer's health coverage does cover ED medications, then so be it. It's a religious freedom and I won't object.

The Viagra / BC argument is interesting but irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

 

Unless Rome or other recognized religious institutions publish a stance on ED. Since they have not, this line of argument can be discussion fodder....but not related to the legal side.

The Viagra / BC argument is interesting but irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

 

Unless Rome or other recognized religious institutions publish a stance on ED. Since they have not, this line of argument can be discussion fodder....but not related to the legal side.

Tell that to female voters in two years. Five old men really handed a peach of a campaign issue to Hillary and the Democrats today.

The following from a Politico story:

 

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of ANY LAW (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

 

(Capitalization emphasis from me, not the story.)

 

From what I've read the court said that a)this is not a blanket statement on "religious freedom" and it is SPECIFIC to this particular issue and b)Religion cannot override Constitutional rights held by employees.

 

Without question there will be other challenges in the future.