If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it's very probable that they will.

Obviously, the three female justices will vote against them, and Breyer.

Alito, Scalia, Uncle Tom and Roberts will vote for them.

And that leaves Kennedy. Mr. Swing vote.

The use of the phrase "Uncle Tom" reveals your "argument" as predicated on your boundless ignorance and silly, baseless preconceived notions.

The reason it is LIKELY that the SCOTUS will rule in FAVOR of Hobby Lobby is that the challenged ObumblerCare provision at issue DOES kind of step on a First Amendment right to have the gubmint compel anybody to pay for anything that violates a fundamental religious tenet.

This does not mean that the SCOTUS will strike down ObumblerCare in its entirety. Too bad.

Hobby Lobby pays taxes that fund the same healthcare coverage that they're objecting to providing their employees.

Do they have the right not to pay taxes?

You have the right to think, use it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Logic would ensue that where an employee spends their own money the company has no problems with. It is about taking part of the companies profits and ear marking them for insurance which has the four mentioned articles.

All employers pay their employees in one form or another, besides for FICA and SS I know of no other mandatory deductions. When a company / the government gets to the point where they have the right to tell an individual how to spend an earned paycheck we will all be screaming bloody murder!!

I mean really can you get behind someone telling YOU where or how to spend your money??

The company does not have to buy any employee contraception. They only have to compensate the employee, for his work, in part, with an insurance policy.

Which is the entire problem, in a nutshell. The state has no business dictating how a company compensates employees.

Incorrect.

The Constitution authorizes government to indeed regulate pay and other forms of compensation:

The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the "sweating system," [p399] the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition. The legislature had the right to consider that its minimum wage requirements would be an important aid in carrying out its policy of protection.

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish | LII / Legal Information Institute

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined both necessary and proper by the Constitution, where wages, working conditions, and policies safeguarding consumers are appropriately implanted as a consequence of the capricious and detrimental acts of businesses who exhibit contempt for employees and consumers alike.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, you could let Hobby Lobby employees buy their insurance on the exchanges. Of course then, because of what I'm guessing the average employee there

earns, they would receive substantial subsidies from the government, aka your tax dollars, to buy that insurance, and, they'd be getting the contraceptive

coverage you people are freaking out over, paid by YOU instead of Hobby Lobby.

Sound better, Christians?

The minimum wage at Hobby Lobby is $14 an hour. You really should stop guessing because your guesses are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Isn't having sex for reasons other than reproduction a very normal, healthy human behaviour?

Why then is there any objection to medications used to better manage that behaviour?

Why isn't birth control simply viewed as any other preventative medicine?

Why do you keep making this about sex when it isn't?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, you could let Hobby Lobby employees buy their insurance on the exchanges. Of course then, because of what I'm guessing the average employee there

earns, they would receive substantial subsidies from the government, aka your tax dollars, to buy that insurance, and, they'd be getting the contraceptive

coverage you people are freaking out over, paid by YOU instead of Hobby Lobby.

Sound better, Christians?

pull your pants up NY, your ignorance is showing. You don't even understand what this case is about, but you are pretty good at repeating the dem/lib lies and talking points.

Do you deny that Hobby Lobby is already paying for the birth control coverage they object to,

via their taxes that go into the subsidies that apply to the insurance policies in the exchanges?

Do you deny that you can think?

 

[ron4342]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

There is a transitive property in math that says if A = B and B = C, then A = C. This property can loosely be observed in the real world. If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Some how you wingers cannot handle this simple idea. YOU lack the ability to see from A to C. All that you do see is A, and your vision ends there.
Avatar, you are a perfect example of this lack of vision. Your suggestion that if an employee doesn't like an employer trying to ram their religious beliefs down their throat they should quit is a perfect example of only seeing A. What if no other jobs are available, should they still quit and put themselves on the street or on welfare? What if others are dependent on the employee, should the employee quit knowing the hardship it will bring on others? It is all very well to stand in the pulpit and tell others that if they don't like something they should just quit but it just shows you have a poor grasp of the situation. The bottom line is this, no employer has a right to force their religious beliefs on their employees. Giving them that right then gives them the right to force any of their beliefs on their employees and that moves those people from being employees to being slaves forced to do the bidding of their masters. Giving employers the right to turn their employees into slaves based on the employer's beliefs is an example of going from A leading to C. You just see A.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The company does not have to buy any employee contraception. They only have to compensate the employee, for his work, in part, with an insurance policy.

Which is the entire problem, in a nutshell. The state has no business dictating how a company compensates employees.

Incorrect.

The Constitution authorizes government to indeed regulate pay and other forms of compensation:

The legislature was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the "sweating system," [p399] the exploiting of workers at wages so low as to be insufficient to meet the bare cost of living, thus making their very helplessness the occasion of a most injurious competition. The legislature had the right to consider that its minimum wage requirements would be an important aid in carrying out its policy of protection.

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish | LII / Legal Information Institute

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory measures determined both necessary and proper by the Constitution, where wages, working conditions, and policies safeguarding consumers are appropriately implanted as a consequence of the capricious and detrimental acts of businesses who exhibit contempt for employees and consumers alike.

Blah blah blah blah. The Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby will win. ObamaCare imposes demands on them that are clear violations of their First Amendment rights.

 

[dblack]

The company does not have to buy any employee contraception. They only have to compensate the employee, for his work, in part, with an insurance policy.

Which is the entire problem, in a nutshell. The state has no business dictating how a company compensates employees.

Incorrect.

..[bloviating redacted]

Pompous.

It's an opinion, jackass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Damn, you are an ignorant fuckwad, aren't you?

QM, what's wrong with you? As time has passed, you've been becoming a bigger and bigger asshole towards everyone. You weren't always like this. Is everything okay?

Funny how you edited out the part that proved you were an ignorant fuckwad. Let me repeat the post, in its entirety, so that people can judge for themselves which of us is the bigger asshole.

I don't think HobbyLobby will win. A case of this stature, yet they have _zero_ amicus briefs going along with it. Not one. Cases like this, they should be flooding in. The powers that be, the money, are sending a message that they don't want Hobby Lobby to win this.

Why not? Because it would badly breach the corporate veil. If the SC rules that the religious beliefs of the CEO make the corporation Christian, that shatters the claim that corporations and the people running them are separate entities. And that removes the corporate veil protections. All the owners and CEOs then become liable for lawsuits against corporations. And the corporations really don't want that, hence there's no support for the lawsuit.

So if Hobby Lobby wins, there's a bright side. We'll be able to sue the various ratbastard CEOs personally, and not just their corporations.

Damn, you are an ignorant fuckwad, aren't you? Did you even try to find out about that before you said something so stupid that any kindergarten student could prove you wrong?

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Amicus Briefs

Wowl look at that, you claimed that there were exactly 0 amicus briefs in favor of Hobby Lobby, and my link shows that there are a record number of briefs, more than have even been filed before fpr any case, and that they favored Hobby Lobby by a 3 to 1 margin.

That flat out makes you wrong, which makes me calling you an ignorant fuckwad totally justifiable. In response to being proved wrong, you called me an asshole.

I guess that makes you an ignorant fuckwad asshole.

 

[driveby]

Damn, you are an ignorant fuckwad, aren't you?

QM, what's wrong with you? As time has passed, you've been becoming a bigger and bigger asshole towards everyone. You weren't always like this. Is everything okay?

Funny how you edited out the part that proved you were an ignorant fuckwad. Let me repeat the post, in its entirety, so that people can judge for themselves which of us is the bigger asshole.

I don't think HobbyLobby will win. A case of this stature, yet they have _zero_ amicus briefs going along with it. Not one. Cases like this, they should be flooding in. The powers that be, the money, are sending a message that they don't want Hobby Lobby to win this.

Why not? Because it would badly breach the corporate veil. If the SC rules that the religious beliefs of the CEO make the corporation Christian, that shatters the claim that corporations and the people running them are separate entities. And that removes the corporate veil protections. All the owners and CEOs then become liable for lawsuits against corporations. And the corporations really don't want that, hence there's no support for the lawsuit.

So if Hobby Lobby wins, there's a bright side. We'll be able to sue the various ratbastard CEOs personally, and not just their corporations.

Damn, you are an ignorant fuckwad, aren't you? Did you even try to find out about that before you said something so stupid that any kindergarten student could prove you wrong?

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Amicus Briefs

Wowl look at that, you claimed that there were exactly 0 amicus briefs in favor of Hobby Lobby, and my link shows that there are a record number of briefs, more than have even been filed before fpr any case, and that they favored Hobby Lobby by a 3 to 1 margin.

That flat out makes you wrong, which makes me calling you an ignorant fuckwad totally justifiable. In response to being proved wrong, you called me an asshole.

I guess that makes you an ignorant fuckwad asshole.

I think it was already well known that mamoonbat was an ignorant asshole and liar, this further solidifies that notion........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, you could let Hobby Lobby employees buy their insurance on the exchanges. Of course then, because of what I'm guessing the average employee there

earns, they would receive substantial subsidies from the government, aka your tax dollars, to buy that insurance, and, they'd be getting the contraceptive

coverage you people are freaking out over, paid by YOU instead of Hobby Lobby.

Sound better, Christians?

This well-illustrates the idiocy of Hobby Lobby’s ‘argument,’ and those who agree with it, where the issue has nothing to do with ‘religious liberty,’ and everything to do with the right’s partisan opposition to the ACA.

Which explains why the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness joined in an Amicus brief in favor of Hobby Lobby.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-conten...-13-354-13-356bsacChurchoftheLukumibabalu.pdf

It also explains why there is bipartisan support for Hobby Lobby, but only Democrats support the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not only did they fail miserably, they made the chain stronger than it has ever been.

The Chick-fil-a CEO disagrees with you. He says he regrets taking a public anti-gay position.

Chick fil A CEO Regrets Same-Sex Marriage Debacle - TIME

Dang. Looks like those durn liberals won _again_.

Funny how that doesn't actually say he thinks he was wrong, just that he wants people to know that, despite his personal religious beliefs, the company doesn't discriminate against employees or customers.

Yet you still hate him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you read the article, the CEO is bending over backwards trying to tell everyone how Chick-fil-a isn't anti-gay. His business must have really been taking damage.

Hence, people like Randallflagg and Katz must now flipflop and hate Chick-fil-a, being it's become such a gay-friendly chain.

If you read the article, you will see that Chik-fil-A has never been anti gay, they just had to deal with a bunch of hateful assholes that tried to make them look that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's what THEY call abortion.

You're not denying are you that there are in fact religions that object to preventative contraception, are you?

Their objections would gain the force of law behind them presumably,

if Hobby Lobby wins.

no its not, the morning after pill causes an abortion of a living embrio. You may not agree, but that is what its about

Science and the experts say ---> you're wrong.

Emergency contraception (or IUD's) are not abortifacients.

One more time, the experts are divided on the issue. That does not make your experts right simply because you agree with them. It actually means that honest people can have different opinions, and accept that science is not perfect.

Which explains why you always find the scientists that agree with you, and ignore the ones who don't, you are not honest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of Religion only applies to non-Christians according to liberals...

Does it? Can a Muslim-owned business deny any parts of its employee health insurance coverage that go against Islam? You wouldn't have any problem with that based on the argument of 'religious freedom', correct?

As far as I am concerned, not paying for health insurance is not the same as denying health insurance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.

There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to

vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.

No, the issue is whether or not the government has to obey the law.

 

[BobPlumb]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

There is a transitive property in math that says if A = B and B = C, then A = C. This property can loosely be observed in the real world. If A leads to B and B leads to C, then A leads to C. Some how you wingers cannot handle this simple idea. YOU lack the ability to see from A to C. All that you do see is A, and your vision ends there.
Avatar, you are a perfect example of this lack of vision. Your suggestion that if an employee doesn't like an employer trying to ram their religious beliefs down their throat they should quit is a perfect example of only seeing A. What if no other jobs are available, should they still quit and put themselves on the street or on welfare? What if others are dependent on the employee, should the employee quit knowing the hardship it will bring on others? It is all very well to stand in the pulpit and tell others that if they don't like something they should just quit but it just shows you have a poor grasp of the situation. The bottom line is this, no employer has a right to force their religious beliefs on their employees. Giving them that right then gives them the right to force any of their beliefs on their employees and that moves those people from being employees to being slaves forced to do the bidding of their masters. Giving employers the right to turn their employees into slaves based on the employer's beliefs is an example of going from A leading to C. You just see A.

And likewise, neither the employees nor the government have the right to force their beliefs on the employer by forcing the employer to purchase a product on behalf of of the employee that the employer beleives to be immoral.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They never were anti-gay. You buttholes claimed that.

So we just imagined the tax records showing Chick-fil-A giving millions to some really nasty anti-gay groups?

You can pretend it was about a statement about traditional marriage, but it was always about piles of corporate cash being donated to openly anti-gay groups. Meaning that if you patronized the restaurant, part of your cash ended up going to nasty anti-gay groups.

In a nutshell, yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This issue has nothing to do with abortion. This issue is about whether business owners and can use professed religious beliefs to pick and choose which laws they will obey.

There is religious objection to abortion and abortion funding. There is also religious objection to

vaccinations, blood transfusions, surgery, not to mention ALL artificial birth control.

The HHS mandate requires the family-owned business to provide insurance coverage for the “morning after pill” and “week after pill” contrary to their religious convictions or pay fines to the IRS. The Greens believe that Hobby Lobby cannot fulfill its mission while paying for these drugs (the “morning after pill” and “week after pill”) that conflict with their beliefs. That is why on Wednesday, Sept. 12, Hobby Lobby filed suit in an effort to defend its constitutional freedom to carry out its mission in a way consistent with its owners’ religious principles.

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate and will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four possible life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception, when an egg is fertilized.

The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them. All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.

Does this help clarify HL's stance??

Hobby Lobby pays their employees cash also, which can be used to buy any birth control including outright abortion.

Why don't they object to that?

Could it be because, unlike you, they recognize the difference between their money and other people's money?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For generation upon generation, discrimination was justified on biblical grounds --

Perhaps some reading would fill the bill ...

Title: Defence Of Southern Slavery. Against The Attacks of
Henry Clay And Alex'r. Campbell,
In Which Much Of The False Philanthropy And Mawkish Sentimentalism Of

The Abolitionists Is Met And Refuted. In Which

It Is Moreover Shown That The Association Of The White

And Black Races In The Relation Of Master And Slave

Is The Appointed Order Of God, As Set Forth In

The Bible, And Constitutes The Best Social

Condition Of Both Races, And The Only

True Principle Of Republicanism.

By A Southern Clergyman.

Those same people also used science to support their views. Does that mean we should abolish science, or does it simply mean you have no argument that actually deals with the reality that you might be wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism