Werthless wrote:Benefits vary greatly from company to company....

drsmooth wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Bottom line: you don't want to provide health insurance that includes access to birth control? Then don't run a business. No one is putting a gun to your head. If you run a business, you will of necessity have contact with people who did not share your religious beliefs, and your right to yours should not and should never permit you to affect someone else's legal choices about their own lives.

Or don't get a job there. No one is putting a gun to your head to work there.

Additionally, no one is affecting their legal choices about their lives. That is such a bogus argument. They can still go to Target and get what they need, they just have to fork over like 8 bucks. You can disagree with the ruling, that's perfectly fine, but they arent denied anything under the law.

the conversation here has taken the same errant turn found in the broader public shouting about this case.

Despite it being "about" contraception, this case is rather more "about" a legal artifice's magical endowment with religious - spiritual - sentiments. A business, a commercial enterprise, has tender, 'heartfelt' (albeit literally heartless) religious yearnings. It's enough to make a rational person shudder.

I know that's crazy, you know that's crazy, we all know that's crazy - all but a clutch of glassy-eyed supreme court justices.

NYTimes wrote:Iraq Says "Terrorists" Seize Chemical Weapons Site

Iraq has informed the United Nations that the Islamic State extremist group has taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad where 2,500 chemical rockets filled with the deadly nerve agent sarin or their remnants were stored along with other chemical warfare agents.

And though the GOP’s business is winning the next presidential contest — and not necessarily putting on a first-rate convention — Dallas organizers admitted they were miffed that the decision appeared to turn on factors largely out of their control.

“We were told early on in the process that it was a business decision,” Jones said. “You look at the reasoning behind the decision to select Cleveland, and it was clearly political.”

pacino wrote:Republicans pick Cleveland for 2016 convention, Dallas upset:

And though the GOP’s business is winning the next presidential contest — and not necessarily putting on a first-rate convention — Dallas organizers admitted they were miffed that the decision appeared to turn on factors largely out of their control.

“We were told early on in the process that it was a business decision,” Jones said. “You look at the reasoning behind the decision to select Cleveland, and it was clearly political.”

A Colorado judge on Wednesday struck down the state's same-sex marriage  ban, but the decision will not take effect until it works through the appeals process.

This is just the latest in a chain of victories for LGBT advocates after the US Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriages . Most recently, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and judges in Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Oregon ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

Utah officials on Wednesday announced they will appeal the same-sex marriage case that's most advanced in the US court system. If the US Supreme Court accepts the appeal, the nation's highest court could decide the issue of same-sex marriage on a national level in 2015.

pacino wrote:Republicans pick Cleveland for 2016 convention, Dallas upset:

And though the GOP’s business is winning the next presidential contest — and not necessarily putting on a first-rate convention — Dallas organizers admitted they were miffed that the decision appeared to turn on factors largely out of their control.

“We were told early on in the process that it was a business decision,” Jones said. “You look at the reasoning behind the decision to select Cleveland, and it was clearly political.”

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I know you can be pretty even handed on things, but don't you ride pretty hard for the party whose main focus for the last few years has been standing in the way of the kind of solution you're talking about?

(democrats suck too yadda yadda yadda)

TomatoPie wrote:Of all the things wrong with American health care, the notion of employer as the provider of health insurance may top the list. Seemed like a good idea to start - a tax-advantaged option to attract and keep good workers. But it led to an absurd sense of entitlement, and fostered the notion that "someone else" ought to pay for my health care. And when the consumer of a service does not pay for the service, he becomes an indiscriminate and inefficient user of the free services. Would you drive a Kia if your employer's benefits package provided you a Lexus?