...Federal district Judge John J. Kane of Colorado on Friday issued a temporary injunction blocking the mandate from being applied to Hercules Industries, a family-owned manufacturer of air-conditioning products.
Obozo's house-bigot, Holder, was slammed hard by the judge.
...Making clear that such an injunction can only be issued before full consideration of the case if the plaintiff has “a likelihood of success on the merits” and risks a “threat of irreparable harm,” Kane still imposed what he termed this “extraordinary remedy” to block implementation of the mandate against Hercules Industries.
...Citing precedent, Kane wrote that the weakness of the mandate’s legal position looks “serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful” based on statutory grounds alone, without even considering the significant constitutional challenges raised by Hercules. As Kane summed it up, the government’s stance amounted to an assertion that “a for-profit, secular employer… cannot engage in an exercise of religion.” This is poppycock – and dangerous poppycock at that. It amounts to a claim that an individual employer, or a closely-held family corporation, does not enjoy the right to religious exercise unless those rights are channeled through a church in a formal worship setting.
...In the text or footnotes of his decision, Kane used strong language against various arguments put forth by the Obama administration. As in: “I reject it out of hand.” And: “a distinction without substance.” Another argument is “irrelevant in this context.” And “the balance of the equities tip strongly [my emphasis added] in favor of injunctive relief.”
That would be a pretty strong condemnation of the ObozoBoyzzzz.
11 comments:
the government’s stance amounted to an assertion that “a for-profit, secular employer… cannot engage in an exercise of religion.” This is poppycock – and dangerous poppycock at that.
In other words, Hercules can feel free to not do business with interracial couples or Jews if they believe that doing so inhibits their free exercise of religion?
The ruling says what it says--not what Jimbo says it says, Jimbo.
Apparently Hercules can freely exercise its religion by deciding that it is immoral for an employee to use contraceptives and at the same time denying their employees the free exercise of theirs.
It's not a huge leap to figure Hercules can also deny its customers the free exercise of their religion.
The ruling says what it says.
Apparently Hercules can freely exercise its religion by deciding that it is immoral for an employee to use contraceptives and at the same time denying their employees the free exercise of theirs.
Since when did free exercise of religion = getting someone to pay for your birth control?
When you and the Obama admin made it up. That's when.
Are the employers at Hercules going to employee's houses and searching for birth control? No. All they're asking is that THEY not be forced to pay for their employee's bedroom habits. There's nothing any rational person could point to that indicates any religious employer is forcibly stopping their employees from buying their own contraception.
Unlike the gay community, which specifically targets Christian run businesses in an effort to gin up public outrage (which worked so well in the case of Chick-Fil-A, by the way), my guess is most employees who work for a religiously-affiliated employer 1) know what they're getting into and 2) have an understanding of that employer's religious beliefs.
If I went to work for an orthodox Jewish organization, I'd make sure to leave the ham sandwiches, cheeseburgers, and shrimp salad home out of respect for my employers' deeply held religious beliefs.
If I worked for a Catholic institution and didn't support their view on contraception, I'd pay the $4 at Target, Wal-Mart, etc. to buy my own.
But that's what separates conservatives from liberals: genuine tolerance.
Jimbo's analysis of the situation is wrong (as usual).
Hercules does NOT "decide" what is an immoral practice for its employees.
They simply decided what is--and is not--paid for by the Company in its benefit package. No different from orthodontic coverage. Some have it, others don't.
Hercules decided NOT to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives due to their OWN moral code.
Forcing them to do otherwise is ....totalitarian.
Since when did free exercise of religion = getting someone to pay for your birth control?
The rule is not that someone else pays for a person's contraception. The rule is that there is no copay. Since employees are either paying for a portion of their health care premiums and that they are otherwise receiving lower salaries in lieu of premium support, the employee ends up paying for their contraceptives one way or another. So it should be their choice to use contraceptives they are paying for or not use them if they have a religious objection.
All they're asking is that THEY not be forced to pay for their employee's bedroom habits.
So once again it's the Sex Nazi thing: "No sex for YOU!"
Are Mormons going to be able to withhold a portion of their imbibing employees' wages which may be used for purchase and consumption of alcohol?
I'd make sure to leave the ham sandwiches, cheeseburgers, and shrimp salad home out of respect for my employers' deeply held religious beliefs.
By that logic you should also stop using contraceptives if you work for a Catholic employer, you know, out of respect for their deeply-held religious beliefs.
But that's what separates conservatives from liberals: genuine tolerance.
Horse pucky.
No different from orthodontic coverage.
Orthodontic coverage is not preventative care.
Hercules decided NOT to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives due to their OWN moral code.
If they pay their employees and their employees purchase contraceptives, then Hercules has paid for them, unless of course Hercules stipulates in their hiring contract that no portion of wages be used for "bedroom habits". And IF they can enforce it.
The rule is not that someone else pays for a person's contraception.
Obviously, you've never heard of "self-funded" plans, Jimbo.
After you've looked that up and understand the term, you'll realize that NOW Hercules IS being "forced" to pay for abortifacients. Before this, they had a self-funded plan which did NOT do so.
Self-funded plans are very common, by the way.
Before this, they had a self-funded plan which did NOT do so.
Unfortunately, you are not getting it. Regardless of whether the cost of contraception is covered by insurance, self-funded insurance, or is not covered at all, Hercules is providing the funds for their employees who acquire them. (unless of course the women employees raise money from bake sales and lemonade stands to pay for them).
If Hercules doesn't want to "kill babies", they should probably make employees sign a promise that they will either:
1) Never have sex
2) Use the rhythm method and hope
3) Agree to keep having babies as long as they wish to continue having sex
Of course, Hercules may already be asking their prospective employees what their family plans are and hiring accordingly. Clearly Hercules has a huge stake in their employees' "bedroom habits".
Since employees are either paying for a portion of their health care premiums and that they are otherwise receiving lower salaries in lieu of premium support, the employee ends up paying for their contraceptives one way or another.
I'll leave that up there as a monument to your inanity.
So once again it's the Sex Nazi thing: "No sex for YOU!"
Hilarious. When did we say no sex? And since when does paying for one's contraception = permitting sex?
You've lost this argument, Jim.
But if you keep trying, I'll keep being amused.
You've lost this argument, Jim.
Hardly. The Sex Nazi thing comes from another blog on which the author's basic position is if you are not married (to a person of the opposite sex) you should not be having sex of any kind. And if you are married and do not want to have babies, you should only have sex when conception is unlikely.
Thanks for re-posting my comment, Dad. Hopefully it will start to sink in.
Wages and salaries are compensation for work performed by the employee. Health benefits are ALSO compensation for work performed by the employee. If YOUR employer gives you occasional statements of your "total compensation" they will include the amount they are contributing to your health insurance premiums. Employees are willing to accept lower wages as a trade off for health care benefits.
Employees trade work for compensation. Conversely they "pay" for compensation with work.
Whatever the employee uses their compensation for, they have paid for it with their work. Anybody who chooses to use contraception is not getting it for "free".
The employee makes the "moral" decision whether or not to use contraception. That is a free exercise of their religion. If they do use it, they have paid for it. It's not "free".
Hercules' position appears to be that they should be able to decide how their employees use their compensation. Similarly, Jewish employers should be able to decide that their employees must not purchase pork. Mormon employers should be able to decide that their employees must not drink alcohol.
There is a simple solution here. Hercules can provide/subsidize health insurance to their employees by telling their health insurance company to offer policies that comply with ACA. Period. Then the employees can exercise their freedom of religion and decide which features of the policy that they have paid for they will or will not use. And Hercules does not have to concern itself with the morals or "bedroom habits" of their employees.
Post a Comment