News & Politics

Featured Posts
jcrew6
Domino’s Pizza owner wins injunction on birth control mandate
by jcrew6
January 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM
A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the Obama administration’s birth-control coverage policy for Tom Monaghan, the Catholic billionaire who founded Domino’s Pizza.

Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff issued the decision Sunday, less than two days before the policy would have taken effect and exposed Monaghan to fines for non-compliance.

“Plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion,” Zatkoff wrote.

“The government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. … This factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/275015-judge-halts-birth-control-policy-for-dominos-founder

Replies

  • -Celestial-
    January 2, 2013 at 10:17 PM
    I wonder if they will offer paid maternity leave.
  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    January 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM
    How might maternity leave go against religious beliefs?


    Quoting -Celestial-:

    I wonder if they will offer paid maternity leave.

  • 29again
    by 29again
    January 2, 2013 at 11:22 PM

    I wonder if the owners of Hobby Lobby can use this in ANY way to support their case?  The fact that 2 businesses have the same issue, and get 2 different responses from 2 different judges just shows me how flawed the whole law is....  as if I needed proof of that.  But there it is!

  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    January 2, 2013 at 11:30 PM
    They lost an emergency injunction. They have a "regular" injunction, like this one, pending.


    Quoting 29again:

    I wonder if the owners of Hobby Lobby can use this in ANY way to support their case?  The fact that 2 businesses have the same issue, and get 2 different responses from 2 different judges just shows me how flawed the whole law is....  as if I needed proof of that.  But there it is!


  • coupon_ash_back
    January 2, 2013 at 11:49 PM
    Good for them. (No sarcasm)
  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    January 2, 2013 at 11:50 PM
    And here we have an example of "part of the problem" for hobby lobby. Region?



    Quoting coupon_ash_back:

    Good for them. (No sarcasm)


  • coupon_ash_back
    January 2, 2013 at 11:51 PM
    Why? I'm guessing you have opposing views.

    Quoting jcrew6:

    And here we have an example of "part of the problem" for hobby lobby. Region?






    Quoting coupon_ash_back:

    Good for them. (No sarcasm)



  • 29again
    by 29again
    January 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM

    OK.  So, Dominos is not subject (at this time) to the fines, but Hobby Lobby IS.  But they both have injunctions pending.  Is that correct?

    Quoting jcrew6:

    They lost an emergency injunction. They have a "regular" injunction, like this one, pending.


    Quoting 29again:

    I wonder if the owners of Hobby Lobby can use this in ANY way to support their case?  The fact that 2 businesses have the same issue, and get 2 different responses from 2 different judges just shows me how flawed the whole law is....  as if I needed proof of that.  But there it is!



  • jcrew6
    by jcrew6
    January 2, 2013 at 11:59 PM
    I think it's great for dominos. But I think we need to be honest and look at the problem. I was adding on to your comment. 5 out of 6 injunctions have been awarded. Why was hobby lobby denied? But dominos awarded? Do we need to have a serious look at those who denied the injunction? Perhaps we should analyze the political interest of those who are awarding and denying. The inconsistency on the


    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    Is astonishing in these matters.


    Quoting coupon_ash_back:

    Why? I'm guessing you have opposing views.



    Quoting jcrew6:

    And here we have an example of "part of the problem" for hobby lobby. Region?









    Quoting coupon_ash_back:

    Good for them. (No sarcasm)





  • coupon_ash_back
    January 3, 2013 at 12:01 AM
    I see. It should definitely be equal..

    Quoting jcrew6:

    I think it's great for dominos. But I think we need to be honest and look at the problem. I was adding on to your comment. 5 out of 6 injunctions have been awarded. Why was hobby lobby denied? But dominos awarded? Do we need to have a serious look at those who denied the injunction? Perhaps we should analyze the political interest of those who are awarding and denying. The inconsistency on the





    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."



    Is astonishing in these matters.




    Quoting coupon_ash_back:

    Why? I'm guessing you have opposing views.





    Quoting jcrew6:

    And here we have an example of "part of the problem" for hobby lobby. Region?












    Quoting coupon_ash_back:

    Good for them. (No sarcasm)






News & Politics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts