Forum Thread

SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 40 of 40 Prev 1 2 3
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The only thing that this ruling seems to restrict is that the employer is no longer obligated pay for the birth control measures, so in essence ,the ruling does not stop women from obtaining the measures only that they must now pay for it themselves.
    This is not a limited ruling whatsoever. You keep saying that, but you've already been proven incorrect regarding what this ruling does and doesn't say.

    The Court used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a crazy Clinton era law, as their justification in this ruling. That is a dangerous precedent and one that I'm excited for people of various faiths to start exploiting. We will see how your whole religious freedom argument stands when a Muslim owner makes their workers follow Sharia law, or when a black nationalist owner uses the religious freedom argument to refuse to hire white people.

    It will be interesting to see how the court reacts when non right-wing Christian groups use the guise of religious freedom to discriminate against others. Will they stand up for that black nationalist or Muslim owner and protect their religious freedoms or will they backtrack and prove they only care about right wing Christian business owners?

    This court has opened up a Pandora's box that I hope will be fully exploited by non-Christians to show the conservative majority's and the Christian right's true hypocrisy.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As I said before , after reading the AP story ,I've since came to realize that this ruling is not just limited to the couple of items I mentioned earlier, however, as I also stated earlier that this restriction does not prevent women from getting and using any type of a birth control measure they want, only now the employer is no longer obligated to pay for them.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The only thing that this ruling seems to restrict is that the employer is no longer obligated pay for the birth control measures, so in essence ,the ruling does not stop women from obtaining the measures only that they must now pay for it themselves.
    They are paying for it themselves anyway. They are paying monthly insurance premiums and deductibles. Doesn't matter whether or not they are getting the coverage through Hobby Lobby or through a private company.
  • Independent
    Mobile, AL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    hmm...my employer is now allowed to take MY insurance payments and dictate what insurance coverage I get based on HIS religious beliefs? One of the disavowed methods of birth control (IUD) is one of the few truly effective methods available for women who can not take the pill...it has been in common use for over 40 years and NOW it violates HL's religion? I've heard people talking about women who expect 'free' birth control...sorry folks, but if Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs included paying a liveable wage to their employees, they would not be eligible for ACA credits (which makes as much sense as complaining about the working poor being welfare bums). Justis Baeder is right when she calls it a slippery slope...we are going to start seeing people using this ruling to file for everything from trying to reinstate Jim Crowe laws to allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation...all based on someone's fundamentalist religion. Note to gwb's supremes: there ain't enough room in any womb for you guys, politicians and preachers...so stay out of it!
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    When I watched CNN they mistakenly pointed out the 2 types of birth control saying that it stopped a fertilized egg from progressing to full term.
    For those who feel that HL is wrong....... Do as PGR has said and pull your business. Money talks. I stopped going to Chick filet after their religious based - homophobic statements about 4 years ago.

    Edit/Add
    And more importantly, e mail them to advise why you're pulling your patronage/money. Let them know that they can save money and lose money at the same time **************** Then maybe they'll see that your stance can jeopardize your business ! **************
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So what so many are saying is that the ruling does not stop women from seeking birth control measures just who is going to pay for them, is this correct?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: So what so many are saying is that the ruling does not stop women from seeking birth control measures just who is going to pay for them, is this correct?
    Not exactly. Even if these specific birth control products were available through insurance provided by Hobby Lobby, the women would still be paying for them with their monthly premiums and deductibles. Hobby Lobby would just be providing the avenue. Women can still get a single payer plan outside of Hobby Lobby to gain access to these through an insurance company.

    The issues is that Hobby Lobby isn't a church. Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It's a business, a large one. As a business it should be required to comply with all the applicable laws, especially those of equality and non-discrimination. A boss should not have say over its employee's healthcare.

    The point of a corporation is to create an entity separate from the owners to limit legal liability of the owners. So Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, enjoys all the limited liability benefits that are given to corporations. Because of Citizens United, it also is considered a person and enjoys rights that are normally reserved for people. And now, because of this latest ruling, it has opened the door for it to begin getting benefits reserved for non-profit and religious organizations. The ruling is extremely dangerous and opens the door for a long list of abuses. How can it rationally be considered all three?
  • Independent
    California
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To the question of the "startling breadth" of the decision. There has been much talk about the possibility that now any company can refuse any sort of healthcare based on any sort of religious view; i.e. Christian Scientist companies could argue they should not be compelled to provide healthcare at all.

    A parallel that has not yet been drawn is to the Selective Service. When enrolling, U.S. men can claim Conscientious Objector status on religious (or other) grounds. However, there is NO blanket acceptance of this religious objection. Men claiming C.O. status must appear before a Board and ably demonstrate their conscientious objection.

    If companies are claiming a religious objection to providing certain types of health care, shouldn't they have to prove that their company indeed upholds the religious beliefs leading to said objection? If not, why not?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well, let's see ---- IF a Corporation is legally going to insist it can hold "religious beliefs" and using those beliefs, it can deny a female employee certain personal rights that "other" corporations and entities manage to endure, without undue moral trepitude, or unsustainable grief --- then maybe we have a "right" to ask Them to EXHIBIT their sincere avowed Faith in a more explicit & tangible manner. Let them have to demonstrate a visible proof of such over-powering faith, of such intensity and rigor, that it actually causes them physical pain & mental anguish if any of their employees get birth control.

    They must testify under oath in a court of law, (with doctor's corroboration) that if any female employee takes progesterone, she projects into the atmosphere an immediate aura of sinful corruption, which contaminates the entire workplace with wanton lust & seductive abandon.

    The corporate masters of Hobdy Lobdy obviously cannot contain their libido under these circumstances, & find themselves giving in to the devil and doing various auto-erotic acts prohibited by the Christian Church. So they forsooth must prohibit any useage of hormonal contraceptives within the confines of Hobdy Lobdy. Additionally, their "incorporated morality" induces them to prohibit any expenditures for the purchase thereof.

    The Supreme Court suggests that a study be made of any "Investments" made by Hobdy Lobdy corporate Officers, to see if they are in (for example) any Weapons manufacturers, Pesticides, Environmental Pollutants, Wine and Liquor enterprises, Casino operations, & any other "immoral" businesses. Just so they are not harming their "moral" corporate image with frivolous exploits & nefarious ponzi schemes.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    EF you make more sense than those five old white Catholic guys ever have!