Supreme Court: Unions can NOT force dues, Hobby Lobby, Obamacare can NOT force companies to provide birth control.

99% of companies in the United States are privately held and more than 70% of employed people work for a privately held company.

Hello, hello, hello?

Link? Just turn on the tv or go on the internet.

[link to hosted.ap.org]

Last Edited by Dr. Drunk Uncle on 06/30/2014 11:06 AM

Agreed.

I'm pleasantly surprised.

That it had to go to court just....

*sigh*

Right, and 5-4 even...

Every American deserves death huh?

I don't see how this is even enforceable ..many companies have shed their regular insurance because under the terms of Obamacare they were "required" to have a certain "level" of care in their policies.

So how are they going to jump through that loop hole?

Agreed. Big day indeed!

Then fck off, & go live somewhere else.



We should all just show up to this guys house.

Thank you for the thread, OP - this is good news. What I find amazing are the critics of this decision saying that it is an infringement on the "reproductive rights" of employees - but completely ignore how forcing companies to pay for their employees' birth control is an infringement on their religious rights.

Unfortunately, it proves that almost half of the supremes have no idea what the Constitution says, or what their jobs are. Four of them don't know what the first amendment is!

Yup!

Freaking scary right there.

4 pro-constitution rulings in 4 days.

Anyone else feel like they've slid into the twilight zone?

Don't get me wrong but... where's the other shoe that's going to drop?? WHAT ARE WE MISSING?

who has the signature line - someone, it's great:


Liberal logic: Insisting the government stay out of your bedroom and insisting they pay for your abortions.

Women discrimination, that's all it is,politic bable that affects the people again

Lame attempt at shillery.

Personally, I'm loving it. Gives me hope.
SC is starting to kick some *utt.

A family member I know will be thrilled about this!

She has to take care of a disabled adult child, and HAD to pay these dues.

She can not work outside the home (ended up giving up her FT well paying job) and could not qualify for the medical insurance under this union because she couldn't work enough hours.

Why? Well Illinois only allows in-home state caregivers so many hours a month (which is not FT, even if they are caring for the disabled person 24/7).

So she couldn't earn enough hours to qualify for the union's health insurance, even though she was working as a caregiver 24/7.

She was only paid, if I recall correctly, 25 hours a week, that was the max IL would pay her (allow her to work for them). Rules may be different for others, don't know, just know what she went through.

But she damn well had to cough up those union dues & she got absolutely ZERO in return, not even union representation. That's messed up.

It's nice that the state allows people to do in-home care, and it's a savings, a big savings to the state/taxpayers, but damn, you're forced to pay union dues and can't even get any of the alleged benefits? That's BS.

If the caregivers were to place these children/adults in state sponsored homes, it would cost the state a WHOLE lot more, so you would think they'd extend the union in home caregivers the option to enroll in the healthcare plans even if they are limited to only getting paid (working) 25 hours a week...but no, the unions just took the money and ran.

This was, IMO, a very fair ruling, and just.

Last Edited by InTheGLPHood on 06/30/2014 03:53 PM

G-G-Guh... GAY MARRIAGE... there, I said it.

Chalk up one for the good guys. Let the libtards whine and cry.

Yep....and you can be damn sure the Marxist Muslim and his band of Marxist Czars are now going to make EVERY EFFORT to fill some seats on the Supreme Court before they leave in the next few years.


:marxistrev: