Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hobby Lobby ahole threatens to close all stores [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)84. You don't get to say what does and does not violate his beliefs.
If you're so confident in your position then change the law to allow insurance companies to offer policies without BC but allow policy purchasers to buy policies from whatever provider they choose. Nothing will stop an employee from buying BC while the employer need only pay what they would normally offer for benefits on their own terms. As I've stated in another post, there are some policy features I would prefer to not pay to receive because they will never be applicable to me.
If people are genuine about supporting my being pro-choice then they should be serious, not situational.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I guess this is several weeks old. I saw a bunch of references to it this AM.
BlueStreak
Aug 2013
#1
Seems his problem is specifically with providing emergency contraception, not ACA in general.
Gidney N Cloyd
Aug 2013
#14
If I have a problem with a particular ulcer medication, should I be able to force my insurance co
BlueStreak
Aug 2013
#17
I don't follow that argument. Nobody is telling people they have to use contraceptives
BlueStreak
Aug 2013
#22
So a corporation owned by Jehovah's Witnesses can decide their insurance doesn't cover
gollygee
Aug 2013
#29
They are entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to force them upon others
BlueStreak
Aug 2013
#44
You can govern YOUR BODY as you choose. If you are an employer, you do not have the right
BlueStreak
Aug 2013
#52
Yes, he is paying for it and the law forces him to do so under threat of legal penalty.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#46
I'm deliberately ignoring your appeal to costs because it is immaterial.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#77
So if the government were to reimpose prayer in public schools that's be OK too?
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#62
USSC decisions get overturned. Yesterday's Dred Scott is tomorrow's Brown v Board.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2013
#79
I'm sure he isn't Catholic, since he has given tens of millions to Liberty University and
Tanuki
Aug 2013
#87
"run business according to Xtian principles"?!1 I'm sure the Acts of the Apostles
UTUSN
Aug 2013
#16
Thank you, I wanted to say what you said but I couldn't get them out.
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel
Aug 2013
#88
This guy essentially thinks he has the right to tell his employees how to spend their money.
RedCappedBandit
Aug 2013
#31
Yeah, because we all know buying private insurance is an entirely valid option for the majority of
RedCappedBandit
Aug 2013
#105
The law also tells him he must buy fire extinguishers and build wheelchair accessible bathrooms
jmowreader
Aug 2013
#85
his religious conviction means he doesn't want to pay for birth control
ProdigalJunkMail
Aug 2013
#93