The ruling itself, or really the "clarification" issued the next day is really an affront to the establishment clause. Even if one likes the outcome for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products, they expanded the ruling to cover all contraceptives because the Catholic Church says that they're no-nos (I am Catholic, as are four of the five majority-ruling justices on this decision).
But the real kicker is that they also explicitly stated that those are the ONLY coverage exemptions allowed. So if you're a by-the-numbers Catholic, great. If you're a Jehovas Witness (blood transfusions), a Scientologist (psychology/psychiatry), a Christian Scientist (a lot of medical procedures) you're out of luck.
That cannot stand, even though I'd dislike rulings that favored those points of view as well, because it is preferential to one brand of religion.
This state uses sales tax to offset our low personal income tax and property tax rates, because sales taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Fine... that's how we do things. Our average sales tax rate is 18th in the nation, hardly "one of the highest in the nation." Source: http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and…
Way to prove your own point about using misleading language.
That being said, I voted for the capital improvement projects tax in Berkeley county years ago with Clements Ferry road widening and improvement as a main bullet point and, sure enough it is still a two-lane parking lot every morning and afternoon of the school year. The state has dragged their heels on that and Berkeley County has done little to force the issue, although the projects in Monck's Corner of course are completed.
Pay for it yourself! Nobody has denied you anything, you can get it all you want, when you want.
If your idea of contraception is keeping your clothes on, does that mean you are entitled to have someone buy them for you?
This article is totally ignorant. The Hobby Lobby family accepted 16 of the FDA approved contraceptives. It has no problem with contraception or even paying for it. It does have deeply held religious beliefs which oppose the remaining 4 types of contraception commonly referred to as "Plan B" which destroy a fertilized egg. This is made crystal clear in the Court of Appeals decision at 723 F3rd 1114. They believe, as many people do, that life begins as conception. Such overboard statements as this are harmful to the public understanding of the issues. By the way, it wasn't just five men on the US Supreme Court. The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals which issued an en banc opinion in favor of Hobby Lobby. This means that all of the judges in that circuit participated and not just the usual three judge panel. The decision is very narrowly phrased. It would help public discourse and understanding of constitutional government if media people would not rant and rave but would confine their opinions to the facts in the case.
I've never met any serious person of any political persuasion that advocates "no tax" or is opposed to reasonable taxation. I pay state and federal income taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and sales taxes.
The issue is when those funds aren't allocated to proper purposes, like infrastructure (among other things), and get spent on stupid and wasteful line items.
And then fools advocate that we either borrow money or raise taxes or even better, both.
I think women should be able to get abortions up to the 2nd trimester. Obviously contraception should be available to those that want it.
However, nothing here prevents either. Neither abortion nor contraception are denied. It's just that your employer doesn't have to pay for them.
If my employer won't pay for LASIK, I'm not being denied good vision.
Of course, where does this end? What if my employer is one of those nutjobs that doesn't believe in modern medicine at all?
Any time the Court issues such a narrow ruling, it's always a political calculation. They are essentially saying "don't ever use this as precedent because this was political." If the legal principle were sound then closely held companies would be able to refuse to cover ANY medical care they have religious objections to providing, the popular example being blood transfusions.
Of course the Obama administration opened this can of worms in the first place when they created the exemption for religious non-profits.
BiLo really sucks.Harris Teeter rules.
The SCOTUS really screwed this up. They cannot even follow the constitution themselves. The First amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but that is exactly what this ruling does. So not even the SCOTUS can be trusted to do the right and fair thing. It appears that they now only cater to the repuglican establishment instead of the constitution and citizenry as a whole. Instead of blocking the mandate based on "closely-held religious beliefs", they should have blocked the mandate to ALL businesses to be FAIR to all. This ruling is going to lead to the further erosion of all human's rights and countless and costly lawsuits are sure to follow. Once you grant one religious exemption, the precedent is set for any corporation to discriminate against anyone based on these "beliefs". And many organizations are going to convert to this type of a corporation just so they can "judge" based on the fact they believe they are better than everyone else - including their own employees.
Hahaha Mat C. thats def true. The more property you own and the more money you have, the more republican you become. Until one day, when you amass sooooo much money, you can become like the Bass, Rockefeller, Busch and Ziff families and be both political parties....covering all bases.
If corporations are people, they need to sign up for Selective Service.
The Constitution is a mess and should be entirely rewritten.
Ima, you realize that this ruling - like so many others in the last 100 years - merely elevates corporations to the legal status of persons, right? It's like a "libertarian" wet dream to allow the power of business to run ramshod over actual living, breathing people.
To what end? Because they can. Because subjugating and subdividing people into bickering cliques arguing over rights is good for business, because it keeps us distracted from what these plutocrats and oligarchs are really doing.
But, hey, your generation "ended Vietnam", so you're done, right? Well, good for you.
Yawn. Piggly Wiggly was not "local" by any stretch of the imagination. A chain is a chain is a chain.
When hippies get old, they become Republicans. This is true.
BTW, Leah are you the daughter Alison keeps talking about?
Again, SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the Constitutionality of any law in question. While it is pure Polyanna (look it up) to think the Justices are totally unbiased in their interpretations, the system is stacked to get the most objective rulings possible. While the uneducated may believe a ruling is targeted specifically at them or a subset they belong to, the opinions are made as to how the law adheres to the tenets of the Constitution itself. Unfortunately, America has become a population of whining ego-centrics and professional martyrs who refuse to recognize this.
A completely wrong interpretation. One of local government's primary obligation is maintenance of infra-structure. Obviously the money must come from taxes, but Knee-Jerk Conservatives scream all taxes are bad, regardless of their purpose. "Penny tax" sounds much less intrusive than just "tax increase" and is one of the few ways to get approval to fund projects that must be done.
The irony of "No Tax" Conservatives is they refuse to fund anything yet at election time they hammer incumbents for doing nothing.
Yes, and Constitutionality be damned.
You lost me at "university" poll and "first among Dems". This entire article has absolutely no meaning... was this written by a kid or something?... Do your research and provided REAL sources. It's because of immature, pothead nonesence like this that the world is going down the shitter.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2014,
Charleston City Paper