HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Judge Halts Contraceptive...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:22 PM

Judge Halts Contraceptive Mandate for Mich. Firm

Source: AP (via ABC)

A federal judge has ruled a property management company owned by the founder of Domino's Pizza doesn't have to immediately implement mandatory contraception coverage in the health care law.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday in favor of Tom Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corp., near Ann Arbor. Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn't health care but a "gravely immoral" practice.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-halts-contraceptive-mandate-mich-firm-18101722#.UOHXUW80V8E



grrrr......

5 replies, 1389 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge Halts Contraceptive Mandate for Mich. Firm (Original post)
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 OP
Paulie Dec 2012 #1
Igel Dec 2012 #2
DallasNE Dec 2012 #3
Panasonic Dec 2012 #4
Fresh_Start Dec 2012 #5

Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:31 PM

1. WTF

The stupid....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:36 PM

2. This is (I think) the third case I've heard about involving this.

They've broken 2-1 in favor of suspending the requirement.

One thing they've had in common is that if the complaint's filed by the corporation as the corporation then it's turned down. Apparently corporations have free speech rights but not freedom-of-religion rights. Not unreasonable--the corporation itself is an amalgamation, a legal fiction to use a legal tactic for pooling resources and sharing/avoiding risk.

The other thing they have in common is that if the complaint includes the name of a majority shareholder then the court views the corporation as just the tool that an individual has choosen to use to enter the marketplace. The individual has free speech and freedom of religion/conscience, and since the corporation is just an extension of the individual then the individual's freedom of conscience has to be considered.

In one case that was the explicit rationale given. A court had ruled against the corporation, but then on appeal a court said that the lower court had only considered the effect on the corporation and failed to notice that an 88% shareholder (I think I have the # right) was also a plaintiff and that his/her rights had been ignored.

I wanna watch this play out at SCOTUS. I always think that dueling personal rights are more interesting than a lot of the other cases and I'm always disappointed when the court does the convenient thing and finds technical reasons to not hear the case, remand the case down the food chain for further deliberation, or finds some piddly detail on which to rest the case's carcase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:08 PM

4. Further appeals from DoJ will remove the order of Zatkoff and order him to fuck off on women's body.

 

Stupid.

And order Monoghan to shut down Ave Maria and force him to eat the cost of the completion of the shutdown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:09 PM

5. I'd like the firm to prove its religious sincerity.

Does it go to church every week?
Does it donate to charity?
Does it break any of the commandments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread