SCOTUS......

Hobby Lobby wins their case against [name] cowh healthcare requiring employers to cover contraception rates....cannot be mandated.

Employees can't be required to contribute to Unions....Violates 1st Amendment Rights....

Two correct...common sense rulings.... The healthcare issue may simply come down to 'mandates' being UnConstitutional... Even with the make-up of this court the administration isn't doing so good and that's great for everyone but them...

mediawatcher wrote:

 Hobby Lobby wins their case against [name] cowh healthcare requiring employers to cover contraception rates....cannot be mandated.

  Employees can't be required to contribute to Unions....Violates 1st Amendment Rights....

  Two correct...common sense rulings.... The healthcare issue may simply come down to 'mandates' being UnConstitutional... Even with the make-up of this court the administration isn't doing so good and that's great for everyone but them...

Agree. And the cell phone search being illegal too (in most instances). At least ONE branch of gubment is making the right calls.

Eric wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

 Hobby Lobby wins their case against [name] cowh healthcare requiring employers to cover contraception rates....cannot be mandated.

  Employees can't be required to contribute to Unions....Violates 1st Amendment Rights....

  Two correct...common sense rulings.... The healthcare issue may simply come down to 'mandates' being UnConstitutional... Even with the make-up of this court the administration isn't doing so good and that's great for everyone but them...

Agree.  And the cell phone search being illegal too (in most instances).  At least ONE branch of gubment is making the right calls.

Also got a ruling against about recess appointments... too much going around Congress intentionally... Just am happy to see that not MORE rights are slipping away...

Didn't other presidents make recess appointments?

I kinda thought that the practice was commonly done (well, maybe not commonly), but done when Congress stonewalls presidential appointments.

Eric wrote:

Didn't other presidents make recess appointments?

I kinda thought that the practice was commonly done (well, maybe not commonly), but done when Congress stonewalls presidential appointments.

They have yes, however the appointments BHO made came into question because he made them when HE decided there was a recess. There wasn't. He ignores whatever law he wants to fit his agenda then lets the "little people" sort it all out later. Too bad his brain isn't as big as his ego.......

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

Didn't other presidents make recess appointments?

I kinda thought that the practice was commonly done (well, maybe not commonly), but done when Congress stonewalls presidential appointments.

They have yes, however the appointments BHO made came into question because he made them when HE decided there was a recess. There wasn't. He ignores whatever law he wants to fit his agenda then lets the "little people" sort it all out later. Too bad his brain isn't as big as his ego.......

Just now reported that he [cowh] will bypass Congress and use Exec Orders to begin immigration reform...This could get real ugly and even democrats up for re-election aren't happy with this decision by their leader... Maybe he feels he's impeachment proof and above the law...

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

Didn't other presidents make recess appointments?

I kinda thought that the practice was commonly done (well, maybe not commonly), but done when Congress stonewalls presidential appointments.

They have yes, however the appointments BHO made came into question because he made them when HE decided there was a recess. There wasn't. He ignores whatever law he wants to fit his agenda then lets the "little people" sort it all out later. Too bad his brain isn't as big as his ego.......

Not actually. Yes other presidents used recess appointments just as much as Obama has. W had a whole slew of them. The difference was that Congress wanted to stop the POTUS from making the appointments and even though NO ONE WAS there, they decided to "call congress into Session" once every 3 days or so to keep the POTUS from having the same right Bush had.
It was a Republican maneuver from the get-go and no bills were passed nor discussed during these faux Congressional sessions. They were only done to keep the president from doing the same things W Did.

BTW, the Supreme court did not outlaw recess appointments. They simply said that 3 days was not long enough to claim Congress was not in session. If Congress doesn't call itself into session for 10 days, The POTUS can appoint anyone he wants to. It's Political activism on the part of the court, nothing else.

BTW also, the Hobby Lobby case was decided by FIVE CATHOLIC men who happen to be on the Supreme Court. Talk about injecting your religious beliefs into government, that's the very definition of it.

mediawatcher wrote:

 Hobby Lobby wins their case against [name] cowh healthcare requiring employers to cover contraception rates....cannot be mandated.

  Employees can't be required to contribute to Unions....Violates 1st Amendment Rights....

  Two correct...common sense rulings.... The healthcare issue may simply come down to 'mandates' being UnConstitutional... Even with the make-up of this court the administration isn't doing so good and that's great for everyone but them...

I hate to bust your bubble on the union ruling too, but here is a direct passage from a news article about what happened:

However, the court did not strike down laws -- including one in Oregon -- that requires public employees in union-represented jobs to either pay union dues or support the union through "fair share" fees.

Instead, the court's decision dealt with workers who aren't directly employed by government but are supported by public funds.






Here's what happened. A mother of a disabled child was receiving funds from the state for taking care of her son at home. Since she was receiving funds as a state approved and funded caregiver, she was told she would have to join the union and pay dues. She objected and that's what lead to the ruling. It does not mean people who receive union benefits don't have to pay dues if they are public employees. It simply made is plain that this category of worker is not a public employee, even though she is funded by state tax money. She's a mother taking care of her child. Of course she shouldn't have to join a union. That makes perfect sense.
And that's all the ruling meant.

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

Didn't other presidents make recess appointments?

I kinda thought that the practice was commonly done (well, maybe not commonly), but done when Congress stonewalls presidential appointments.

They have yes, however the appointments BHO made came into question because he made them when HE decided there was a recess. There wasn't. He ignores whatever law he wants to fit his agenda then lets the "little people" sort it all out later. Too bad his brain isn't as big as his ego.......

BTW, the Supreme court did not outlaw recess appointments. They simply said that 3 days was not long enough to claim Congress was not in session.

So you agree with me then. Thanks!

Otter wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

 Hobby Lobby wins their case against [name] cowh healthcare requiring employers to cover contraception rates....cannot be mandated.

  Employees can't be required to contribute to Unions....Violates 1st Amendment Rights....

  Two correct...common sense rulings.... The healthcare issue may simply come down to 'mandates' being UnConstitutional... Even with the make-up of this court the administration isn't doing so good and that's great for everyone but them...

   

I hate to bust your bubble on the union ruling too, but here is a direct passage from a news article about what happened:

However, the court did not strike down laws -- including one in Oregon -- that requires public employees in union-represented jobs to either pay union dues or support the union through "fair share" fees.

Instead, the court's decision dealt with workers who aren't directly employed by government but are supported by public funds.






Here's what happened. A mother of a disabled child was receiving funds from the state for taking care of her son at home.  Since she was receiving funds as a state approved and funded caregiver, she was told she would have to join the union and pay dues. She objected and that's what lead to the ruling. It does not mean people who receive union benefits don't have to pay dues if they are public employees. It simply made is plain that this category of worker is not a public employee, even though she is funded by state tax money.  She's a mother taking care of her child. Of course she shouldn't have to join a union. That makes perfect sense.
And that's all the ruling meant.

'Burst my bubble'?......nope it's a supreme court ruling--no bubble to be burst.... Funny that the argument for [name] cowh healthcare was...the supreme court ruled and it's law...so open wide and take the medicine from these rulings also...And please is it possible NOT to start every disagreement with...."W had a slew of them"....or to blame W?...

Why not blame W? You blame Obama for everything. Also compare Obama's recess appts. to W's. Not even close.

This is the crap that happens when religious people start dictating their religious beliefs onto everyone. If you don't want to use contraceptives...fine. That's your choice but don't start telling people just because they work for you they can't. That's not right.

koolkat wrote:

Why not blame W? You blame Obama for everything. Also compare Obama's recess appts. to W's. Not even close.

This is the crap that happens when religious people start dictating their religious beliefs onto everyone. If you don't want to use contraceptives...fine. That's your choice but don't start telling people just because they work for you they can't. That's not right.

 
     Really?.... The cowh has been there for six plus years...about time for some responsibility/accountability?.... The only criticism/blame that has been mentioned on the cowh is what he's done or allowed to happen... Believe that the 'mandate' factor is more of an issue rather that religious aspect...

So by your post... "That's your choice but don't start telling people just because they work for you they can't".... That's exactly the argument against [name] cowh healthcare... So government can force but the employers are wrong because they felt they shouldn't be forced?...That makes no sense whatsoever and thankfully the SCOTUS ruled correctly in this matter....

koolkat wrote:

Why not blame W? You blame Obama for everything. Also compare Obama's recess appts. to W's. Not even close.

This is the crap that happens when religious people start dictating their religious beliefs onto everyone. If you don't want to use contraceptives...fine. That's your choice but don't start telling people just because they work for you they can't. That's not right.

BHO is president NOW, Bushy has been gone for years. I prefer to live in the present. All Presidents use recess appointments but not all Presidents use them illegally as it has been PROVEN BHO did in the one case in question.

This company didn't say their employees couldn't use contraceptives just that they didn't want to pay for it. BTW, it only involves 2 types - you know the ones that end a possible pregnancy - "morning after", it did not include preventive types.

Amazing.

nochain wrote:

koolkat wrote:

Why not blame W? You blame Obama for everything. Also compare Obama's recess appts. to W's. Not even close.

This is the crap that happens when religious people start dictating their religious beliefs onto everyone. If you don't want to use contraceptives...fine. That's your choice but don't start telling people just because they work for you they can't. That's not right.

BHO is president NOW, Bushy has been gone for years. I prefer to live in the present. All Presidents use recess appointments but not all Presidents use them illegally as it has been PROVEN BHO did in the one case in question.

This company didn't say their employees couldn't use contraceptives just that they didn't want to pay for it. BTW, it only involves 2 types - you know the ones that end a possible pregnancy - "morning after", it did not include preventive types.

Amazing.

Kind of like Sandra Fluke at the Democrat Convention "whining" because she had to pay for contraception and didn't feel that was right....The Dems embraced that type of thinking and made her out to be some kind of poster child... A couple of months ago Ms Fluke was thinking of running for Congress---guess if you want or expect freebies may as well go to the place that grants them....

Matter of fact Hobby Lobby execs have stated in interviews exactly what you've posted and that they did not even want to enter into this discussion until they felt they were forced into this by [name] cowh healthcare.... If not mistaken this issue was not in the original healthcare and the contraception was crafted by then HHS Secretary Sebilius and implemented by one of those executive orders forcing companies....again the SCOTUS made a correct ruling on this...

KoolKat, companies have dictated to their employees for years and it is legal. Take smoking, for instance. If you want to work for Gulf Power, you must be a non-smoker, and you will be tested for nicotine to prove it. You will be expected to provide service in the community as well... to help improve the corporate image. When my wife worked there, she clowned for the special olympics, made "safety city" presentations, and was a toastmaster, among other things.

Some schools have terminated employees for slightly racy pictures on their facebook page, getting pregnant, etc. None of which are illegal, but spelled out as a term of employment.

Of course, Hobby Lobby apparently doesn't require employees to refrain from birth control; they just don't want to pay for it.

Sorry Eric but terminating an employee for getting pregnant and putting racy pictures on their facebook page is an illegal termination which is actionable and a violation of section 7 of the discrimination and collective bargaining laws under section 7.

What if your employer said he didn't like guns and anybody who has an injury from a gun is excluded in your healthcare services? Guns are not protected like religious beliefs and pregnancy.

koolkat wrote:

Sorry Eric but terminating an employee for getting pregnant and putting racy pictures on their facebook page is an illegal termination which is actionable and a violation of section 7 of the discrimination and collective bargaining laws under section 7.

Not so fast, man.  That happens all the time.  What law are you referring to?  County?  State?  Federal?  What is the full name of the law?  Usually, if it is Federal, it is something like Section 7 of 40 CFR, Part 280.  (40 CFR is an environmental rule... CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulation... and usually references a page number in the Federal Register.)  I did a search for the string "discrimination and collective bargaining laws" and got 3 hits and no reference to actual laws, which I should be able to find if they were filed under that title.

EDIT:  I found that there is a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that is probably the "Section 7" you refer to.

Christian schools fire single pregnant teachers.  School boards have fired teachers that show skin on facebook... not even nudity... just showing a pinup type pic.  This HAPPENS in the real world.

See
Montana: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant

Atlanta:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/jarretta-hamilton-teacher_n_1416122.html

Texas: http://jezebel.com/5901178/teacher-fired-for-being-pregnant-wants-public-to-know-shes-not-like-those-other-whorish-single-mothers

http://www.lifediscussions.org/view/?id=4277

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/2005/12/05/the_case_of_michelle_mccusker/page/full

I read where some of the above women are suing the school that terminated them, but can't find ANY case history where they WON their cases.  If they had won their case, there ought to be SOME links to articles touting them winning their lawsuits.  One (the last link above) said the ACLU lawsuit was a poor case on the ACLU/teacher side and they will probably lose.

---

Racy photo firings:

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/colo-teacher-dismissed-over-racy-tweets

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/22/fitchburg-teachers-aide-on-paid-leave-after-racy-modeling-photos-surface/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/tiffani-webb-new-york-hig_n_1947277.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/olivia-sprauer-teacher_n_3230211.html

http://newsfixnow.com/2013/05/10/moonlight-modeling-teacher-fired-over-racy-pics/

http://www.vibe.com/article/teacher-fired-over-racy-bikini-photo

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/4642/20131211/tiffany-shepherd-update-teacher-fired-over-racy-pictures-becomes-porn.htm

http://www.rightwingnews.com/education/teachers-aide-removed-for-racy-pictures-online/

There are countless links for a search on the string "teacher fired for racy photos".  Some have been reinstated, most were not.

I see where one teacher that was artificially inseminated won a lawsuit against the Catholic Church. There are tons of links to this Ohio case.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/jurors-reach-verdict-in-pregnant-teacher-fired-lawsuit/20404848#!76raO

koolkat wrote:

What if your employer said he didn't like guns and anybody who has an injury from a gun is excluded in your healthcare services? Guns are not protected like religious beliefs and pregnancy.

That doesn't make sense.  

Let me say this.  If you agreed to never own a gun as a condition of your employment, and you are caught owning a gun, your employer could fire you.  Employment isn't a right and employers can fire you at their discretion.

If a teacher works for a public school, I can see where they cannot be discriminated against if she gets pregnant.  It is no big deal.

Christian schools, where religion is taught, where sex outside of marriage is forbidden, and where adherence to Christian principles is required as a term of employment, is probably not going to have a strong case in court.

In the case where artificial insemination was the reason for pregnancy, I can see a gray area where a case might be won because there was no sex involved.   Religious schools require teachers with strict moral lifestyles.

Eric wrote:

koolkat wrote:

What if your employer said he didn't like guns and anybody who has an injury from a gun is excluded in your healthcare services? Guns are not protected like religious beliefs and pregnancy.

That doesn't make sense.  

Let me say this.  If you agreed to never own a gun as a condition of your employment, and you are caught owning a gun, your employer could fire you.  Employment isn't a right and employers can fire you at their discretion.

If a teacher works for a public school, I can see where they cannot be discriminated against if she gets pregnant.  It is no big deal.

Christian schools, where religion is taught, where sex outside of marriage is forbidden, and where adherence to Christian principles is required as a term of employment, is probably not going to have a strong case in court.

In the case where artificial insemination was the reason for pregnancy, I can see a gray area where a case might be won because there was no sex involved.   Religious schools require teachers with strict moral lifestyles.

All these examples within the educational world....whatever happened to educating?....

A teacher was fired when he attended a party and a microbrew logo appeared in the background of a photo and it ended up on facebook...It's amazing what may be in the fine print of a contract...especially those ethical clauses...

Here is the pregnancy law. I don't believe religious schools are excluded.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm

As far as the Facebook postings, I think it would be actionable if it wasn't in a company policy book and then I'm not so sure you can regulate off employment behavior for those reasons. However, you can fire someone for any reason as long as it is not illegal.

koolkat wrote:

Here is the pregnancy law. I don't believe religious schools are excluded.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm

As far as the Facebook postings, I think it would be actionable if it wasn't in a company policy book and then I'm not so sure you can regulate off employment behavior for those reasons. However, you can fire someone for any reason as long as it is not illegal.

I read that law twice, koolkat.  Nowhere does it guarantee continued employment of a single parent.  The law seems to pertain to equal treatment of medical benefits and economic things.  It guarantees equal treatment, even if a woman gets pregnant.

I guess if the religious schools fire MEN teachers that father children out of wedlock, it would be equal treatment.  I reviewed a couple of pages of Google results and didn't see where one man was fired... only the pregnant unmarried teachers.  I can see where the burden of proof is much harder for men... their bellies don's swell with an obvious child... proof positive.  I don't know if a school can legally require a paternity test of a single male teacher's child or not.  It is unfair that women are fired and men are not.

One article I read about a lawsuit mentioned that men teachers were not fired, so women shouldn't be fired either.  The courts are pretty strict about the admission of evidence and usually don't allow the pointing of a finger and saying something like "someone else gets away with it, so I should be able to do it as well."  The review I read about that case was that this is a weak argument and probably won't be successful.

I see where plenty of gay men were fired from religious schools (mostly Catholic schools).  A couple of headlines stated the teacher (and a principle in one case) were fired when they announced same-sex wedding plans.  And I read a headline where a transgender person was fired as well.

I would think it also applied to religious discrimination if they applied their moral religious beliefs to a pregnancy.If that were the case all employers could say they object on moral grounds when it really is economic factors. They may be firing people but it doesn't mean their getting away w/ it.

I went 9 years to Catholic schools and they are very strict. Religious discrimination occurs at Catholic schools. You must eat, breathe, and live Catholic principles. It doesn't matter if you are a teacher or a student. You are GONE if you don't tow the line.

Catholic schools are private entities. The discrimination rules that apply to public institutions do not apply to private entities. You cannot go in there and try to change their beliefs or violate them... pure and simple.