Slippery slope fallacy. No one is saying the religious institutions don't have to provide insurance coverage. They are saying that they should not have to pay for services that violate their religion.

Why should you have the right to force your boss to violate his beliefs? No one is forcing you to work for a religious boss.

Because the average healthcare consumer doesn't really have any choice, putting all the power in the hands of corporations.

The customer is the employer that is paying for the coverage. They have lost choice by this law. Again, I have no problem with the insurance companies being forced to offer a particular coverage. I think that is a great idea. I have a problem with the customer being forced to buy it.

A lot of people neither want nor need public schools, they pay for them anyway.
This is a local issue, not a federal one. Schools are paid for by local and state taxes.

I believe that happened. And now the corporations are bitching.
No, the customers are bitching because they are being forced to pay for services that violate their religion.

It isn't a religious thing explicitly - it's a cynical "conservative" ploy to attack and undermine the ACA by using religion as a means to cut out parts of coverage. Note, of course, that this all simply means that these services are covered and must be paid for if utilized, this attack on the ACA is about pushing to make sure it's not available at all.
Yes, in this particular case, this is a religions thing. And again, I have no problem with the patient paying for contraceptive coverage, if they so choose. I have a problem with both the patient and the employer paying for coverage even if they do not want it.
You are basically saying that the government decides what coverage needs to be provided and not the people.

No, they are forcing the customer to pay for services they don't need. The employee is not the customer. The company paying for the insurance is. If the employee wanted to forgo the insurance plan offered by the employer and pay for their own, contraceptive providing coverage, there is nothing the employer could say about it.

No one is saying that believers are "above the law". What we are saying is that the ACA is not above the law.. The law I'm speaking of is this one:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By forcing "believers" to provide something they oppose, Congress is "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion. I don't understand why people find this confusing. The same law that allows "believers" to practice their religion is the same law that prevents government from forcing you to be a believer. If you start making exceptions to that law, you are paving the way for other laws (rights) to be violated in the same way in the future.

So health insurance should not cover pre-natal care for pregnant women? Colonoscopies for middle-aged men?

Of course health insurance should cover prenatal care for pregnant women. That's not the argument. That's called a "straw man".

Should it cover prenatal care for pregnant men? It does and that's why it's stupid.

In other words, there are no standards and no concept of consumer protection. Corporations are just free to run roughshod over you. This could be your fundie employer or your crass insurance company that has an obvious conflict of interest.

Since when is consumer choice allowing corporations "to run roughshod over you"? So, in order to fix your non-existing problem, you are forcing people to pay for something they neither want nor need. In essence, in order to prevent corporations from running "roughshod over you", you are allowing government to run "roughshod over you". Wouldn't it have made more sense to pass a law that says insurance companies must offer contraceptive coverage to the customers that want it? That way, you protect the consumer while still preserving their freedom of choice.

Rather than considering to a religious thing, think of it from a liberal point of view; you are forcing gay men to pay for contraception and maternity coverage that they obviously don't need.

So typed the guy from a notebook while a camera is pointing at his face.

You can relax. Those Glass people are probably not recording you. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not that interesting. Even if it were on, you would more than likely be the part that is fast-fowarded over or simply edited out.

All these people so worried about being recorded in public are already being recorded in public!!! Look around you. Do you see that camera in the corner that is always on and always recording? Other than mobility and the fact that user has to audibly say, "record" on Glass, what's the difference?

Maybe you should less worried about the camera on a private citizens glasses that can only run for a few hours at a time and more worried about the government owned cameras on every street corner and the business's cameras in every corner of every building that run and record 24/7.

I remember that. For whatever reason 3d0g would get me out of it. I was just a kid and had no idea what to do with the gibberish that the assembler would spit out at me. I just knew how to get out and back to my prompt.

You mean places like California?

ID's for the purpose of voting are free if you can't afford them, and they'll even register you to vote at the same time. So tell me again how they stop the poor from voting?

Actually, the space craft is running perfectly. It's solar powered and was running low on fuel. It's filling up before moving on..

How do you know how many people are voting under assumed names if you are not ID'ing them?

Fraud is the only viable reason for fighting against voter ID laws. Your opposition proves the need for such laws.

Apple's effective tax rate: 14%

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html?_r=1&