Bob R/CAThis has nothing to do with insurance companies, this is about employers. You have to understand the issue, to debate it. And that specious argument can be used about anything - "seems your argument should be with illegal aliens who hide there, not the politicians who declare 'sanctuary cities'"
Legally, corporations have what is called the "corporate veil." This occurs because a corporation is a legally constructed person, and this separates the owners from having to back all of the liabilities of the corporation with all of their assets. This veil should also prevent owners of a corporation from imposing their religious beliefs on their legally created entity.
Or as Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked, "If religious shareholders can do it, why can't creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?"
This post is also a criticism of our Supreme Court. They are amateurs at the law, because this is just not that hard to understand. If you want to incorporate your business, you limit your liability, but you also need to limit the expression of your personal views through that corporation.
Or as 44 law professors wrote in a "friends-of-the-court" brief:
(Quote)
Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.
The reaction highlighted the broader strategy Capitol Hill Republicans have adopted when it comes to the president's tendency to wage rhetorical war against their own or incite other controversies: don't engage in public no matter how anxious they may be in private.
That approach grows riskier with each passing crisis — exposing congressional Republicans to culpability for the actions, some with potentially grave global consequences, of an unpredictable and contentious president.
"They should prepare to be the ones who shoulder the blame if Trump does something truly, absolutely catastrophic," said Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist and vocal Trump critic. He later added: "They forgot what moral courage looks like."
Bob R/CAPerhaps one of the bitterest ironies is how Trump has waged a campaign accusing those who protest police violence are "unpatriotic." Republicans (almost) universally seem unable to put principle before politics, and patriotism before party.
The last presiden...See MoreNo, I cannot spot the sociopath and neither can you - other than they all may be sociopaths. The problem is, most sociopaths are also good liars and can put on a good act. If you look at what Clinton, Bush, and Obama did to America, they all sold out the average American and served the desires of the rich in this country.
The last president to give a crap about the average American was the much-maligned Pres. Jimmy Carter.
Here is why we are screwed from studies done at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder and UCLA. The following are the consequences of using 0.05% of the US-Russian nuclear stock pile or 100 Hiroshima bombs as in a war between India and Pakistan. Remember the Hiroshima bomb was in kilotons! Most bombs now are in megatons (a thousand times larger)!
If we used less, the effects would be less. That is little consolation!
1. 20 million people die from the direct effects of the weapons.
2. 1 to 5 million tons of smoke from burning cities quickly rise 50 km above cloud level into the stratosphere and the effects on temperature would be twice as large as those which followed the largest volcanic eruption in the last 500 years, in 1816, which caused "The Year Without Summer."
3. 25-40% of the protective ozone layer would be destroyed at the mid-latitudes, and 50-70% would be destroyed at northern high latitudes. Massive increases of harmful UV light would result, with significantly negative effects on human, animal and plant life.
4. These changes in global climate would cause significantly shortened growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere for at least years. It would be too cold to grow wheat in most of Canada.
5. Some medical experts predict that ensuing food shortages would cause hundreds of millions of already hungry people, who now depend upon food imports, to starve to death during the years following the nuclear conflict. Countries with food would stop all exports!