emilynghiem
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 24
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-support-hobby-lobby/signatures.html
^ Last time I checked, this online petition needed less than a dozen signatures to reach the 10K mark. ^
"I support the right of Hobby Lobby and other companies, schools, and organizations to not be forced to comply with the HHS mandate.
No company, school or organization should be forced to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs for their employees.
Therefore, I urge the Supreme Court to declare the HHS mandate unconstitutional and protect Hobby Lobby's conscience rights and religious freedoms."
=====================================================
NOTE: someone else gave me this quote from Scott Lemieux below (is this correct):
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...on-non-mandate
Originally Posted by Scott Lemieux
there is no contraception “mandate.” Hobby Lobby is not legally required to compensate its employees with health insurance at all. The regulations imposed by the ACA are on insurance plans, not on the corporations per se. What is erroneously described as a “mandate” simply means that if corporations choose to take advantage of the tax benefits for compensating employees in health insurance rather than wages, the insurance has to meet minimum coverage standards. As is often the case with specious religious freedom arguments, the corporation wants it both ways, to get the tax benefits without providing the full benefits to employees. And if the corporation wanted to argue they have no practical choice but to offer coverage, then according to the logic of their own arguments, the religion of the managers is not being burdened; they’re not paying for the contraception or making the decision to include it in insurance plans.
================
Note: I am a prochoice progressive Democrat, who believes in enforcing "free choice" principles consistently for ALL views and beliefs equally, to be fully Constitutional and inclusive of diversity, in keeping with Democrat Principles. I do NOT believe in discriminating against or excluding people for their views, and especially NOT abusing law or govt to do so.
I ask everyone to join in enforcing a higher standard for EQUAL protection and inclusion of religious AND political beliefs
WITHOUT discrimination by creed, including political party. If we cannot agree on principles, we should be civil enough to separate our policies and programs, and pursue these independently by Party, and keep our agenda OUT OF GOVT.
EMILY NGHIEM: "Right to Health Care" is a political belief as is "Right to Life" and both should be equally protected by law without discrimination. Our govt should remain neutral with political beliefs as with religious beliefs, and not be abused to impose partisan agenda, on either side! Govt should support consensus decisions that include and protect all views equally. The govt should never take sides in disputes over "beliefs" or it discriminates against the people of opposing beliefs. All conflicts should be resolved, so there is an agreement on policy, or else people should agree to separate policies and quit imposing on each other. Govt should never be abused to impose one view over another in cases of religious disputes, or it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
^ Last time I checked, this online petition needed less than a dozen signatures to reach the 10K mark. ^
"I support the right of Hobby Lobby and other companies, schools, and organizations to not be forced to comply with the HHS mandate.
No company, school or organization should be forced to pay for birth control or abortion-causing drugs for their employees.
Therefore, I urge the Supreme Court to declare the HHS mandate unconstitutional and protect Hobby Lobby's conscience rights and religious freedoms."
=====================================================
NOTE: someone else gave me this quote from Scott Lemieux below (is this correct):
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/...on-non-mandate
there is no contraception “mandate.” Hobby Lobby is not legally required to compensate its employees with health insurance at all. The regulations imposed by the ACA are on insurance plans, not on the corporations per se. What is erroneously described as a “mandate” simply means that if corporations choose to take advantage of the tax benefits for compensating employees in health insurance rather than wages, the insurance has to meet minimum coverage standards. As is often the case with specious religious freedom arguments, the corporation wants it both ways, to get the tax benefits without providing the full benefits to employees. And if the corporation wanted to argue they have no practical choice but to offer coverage, then according to the logic of their own arguments, the religion of the managers is not being burdened; they’re not paying for the contraception or making the decision to include it in insurance plans.
================
Note: I am a prochoice progressive Democrat, who believes in enforcing "free choice" principles consistently for ALL views and beliefs equally, to be fully Constitutional and inclusive of diversity, in keeping with Democrat Principles. I do NOT believe in discriminating against or excluding people for their views, and especially NOT abusing law or govt to do so.
I ask everyone to join in enforcing a higher standard for EQUAL protection and inclusion of religious AND political beliefs
WITHOUT discrimination by creed, including political party. If we cannot agree on principles, we should be civil enough to separate our policies and programs, and pursue these independently by Party, and keep our agenda OUT OF GOVT.
EMILY NGHIEM: "Right to Health Care" is a political belief as is "Right to Life" and both should be equally protected by law without discrimination. Our govt should remain neutral with political beliefs as with religious beliefs, and not be abused to impose partisan agenda, on either side! Govt should support consensus decisions that include and protect all views equally. The govt should never take sides in disputes over "beliefs" or it discriminates against the people of opposing beliefs. All conflicts should be resolved, so there is an agreement on policy, or else people should agree to separate policies and quit imposing on each other. Govt should never be abused to impose one view over another in cases of religious disputes, or it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
