Skip to comments.
Companies Can Refuse To Cover Contraception, Supreme Court Says
NPR ^
| June 30, 2014
| Bill Chappell
Posted on 06/30/2014 7:22:28 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
One small step for man...
2
posted on
06/30/2014 7:23:03 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
To: 2ndDivisionVet
And Obama swings again...AND ANOTHER STRIKE!
4
posted on
06/30/2014 7:23:39 AM PDT
by
apillar
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Religious can breathe for another day
5
posted on
06/30/2014 7:23:44 AM PDT
by
yldstrk
( My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Watch for a very active PEN and PHONE day ... Obama has warned us!
To: 2ndDivisionVet; Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; ...
7
posted on
06/30/2014 7:24:05 AM PDT
by
NYer
("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I believe I saw that the definition of “closely held” is that 5 or fewer people hold a majority of the ownership.
8
posted on
06/30/2014 7:24:21 AM PDT
by
kevkrom
(I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
9
posted on
06/30/2014 7:24:24 AM PDT
by
Raycpa
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Sandra Fluke is sad that she might have to spend $9 of her own money to get contraception.
10
posted on
06/30/2014 7:24:39 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Someone who knows please tell us what this means in the larger sense. Does this give standing to others to exempt themselves from the ACA on other grounds?
11
posted on
06/30/2014 7:24:41 AM PDT
by
skeeter
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Good. A punch in the chops for 0 bummer. He can take a flying leap at a rolling donut and hope the POS hits the hole. F him.
12
posted on
06/30/2014 7:24:50 AM PDT
by
Arrowhead1952
(The Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt. It IS a right to shoot tyrants.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Roberts trying to make amends.
To: NYer
5-4 opinion, guessing Kennedy and traitor Roberts swung the right way, for a change.
However it broke, thank GOD!!!
15
posted on
06/30/2014 7:25:35 AM PDT
by
Marathoner
(What are we waiting for? Where are the Articles of Impeachment?)
To: kevkrom
Shareholders of a company should be able to say that they have religious beliefs regardless of whether it is closely held by 5 or fewer people.
16
posted on
06/30/2014 7:25:38 AM PDT
by
impimp
To: 2ndDivisionVet
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Supreme Court's war on women.
/sarc
18
posted on
06/30/2014 7:25:55 AM PDT
by
Jagdgewehr
(It will take blood.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.
Which means bend over ...
19
posted on
06/30/2014 7:25:57 AM PDT
by
11th_VA
(Decriminalize Tax Evasion)
To: skeeter
What does this do for EWTN? Didn’t a state supreme court recently rule that the network had to comply even though it was against their closely held doctrine?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson