SB1062, Hobby Lobs...Religious Exemptions Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

[The Rabbi]

Hobby Lobby's position is absurd. They're making a religious objection to being required to provide an insurance policy that an employee can choose to acquire birth control with, but,

Hobby Lobby is also required to PAY their employees, who can just as easily use their PAY to purchase birth control.

Either way Hobby Lobby in exchange for their labor has given them the means to buy birth control, or an abortion for that matter.

Why does Hobby Lobby claim that one is a serious matter of religious conscience and not the other???

Congrats. You've just made the argument FOR Hobby Lobby's position. Employees can use their own money to make their own choices. The gov't doesnt need to coerce HL into something they are morally opposed to.

 

[paperview]

Hobby Lobby's position is absurd. They're making a religious objection to being required to provide an insurance policy that an employee can choose to acquire birth control with, but,

Hobby Lobby is also required to PAY their employees, who can just as easily use their PAY to purchase birth control.

Either way Hobby Lobby in exchange for their labor has given them the means to buy birth control, or an abortion for that matter.

Why does Hobby Lobby claim that one is a serious matter of religious conscience and not the other???

Add to that -- they are claiming religious objections to what they think what might be a fertilized egg implanting.

Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the womb; they object to a hormone used to primarily prevent ovulation and though no studies show they prevent implantation, they in some rare instance, may -- which is also what regular birth control pills do as well, and Hobby Lobby is OK with their insurance providing those.

It's based on denying women their health insurance benefit (which the employee pays for) from receiving what think is abortion inducing drugs -- Emergency contraception, Plan B., etc - are not abortion inducing drugs.

Then the topper: Much of Hobby Lobby's products come from sweatshop China factories -- and a country that has a forced abortion policy -- so they are doing business with people who force abortions on women. Irony squared.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hobby Lobby's position is absurd. They're making a religious objection to being required to provide an insurance policy that an employee can choose to acquire birth control with, but,

Hobby Lobby is also required to PAY their employees, who can just as easily use their PAY to purchase birth control.

Either way Hobby Lobby in exchange for their labor has given them the means to buy birth control, or an abortion for that matter.

Why does Hobby Lobby claim that one is a serious matter of religious conscience and not the other???

Add to that -- they are claiming religious objections to what they think what might be a fertilized egg implanting.

Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the womb; they object to a hormone used to primarily prevent ovulation and though no studies show they prevent implantation, they in some rare instance, may -- which is also what regular birth control pills do as well, and Hobby Lobby is OK with their insurance providing those.

It's based on denying women their health insurance benefit (which the employee pays for) from receiving what think is abortion inducing drugs -- Emergency contraception, Plan B., etc - are not abortion inducing drugs.

Then the topper: Much of Hobby Lobby's products come from sweatshop China factories -- and a country that has a forced abortion policy -- so they are doing business with people who force abortions on women. Irony squared.

It's irony only if you're a partisan-blind moron.
Which you are.

 

[paperview]

Yow!

Andy Nappy proves once more what a total shit fer brains he is:

Fox News legal ?expert?: Hobby Lobby case is about ?euthanasia and abortion?

On Monday night, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed (incorrectly, though probably willfully) that “abortion and euthanasia” are part of the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act currently being challenged by Hobby Lobby.


“As everybody knows, the Affordable Care Act requires anybody that employs 50 or more people to provide health care for them that includes contraceptive services,” Napolitano told Megyn Kelly. “Contraceptive services means contraception, euthanasia, and abortion.”


As everybody knows, Napolitano is completely wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hobby Lobby's position is absurd. They're making a religious objection to being required to provide an insurance policy that an employee can choose to acquire birth control with, but,

Hobby Lobby is also required to PAY their employees, who can just as easily use their PAY to purchase birth control.

Either way Hobby Lobby in exchange for their labor has given them the means to buy birth control, or an abortion for that matter.

Why does Hobby Lobby claim that one is a serious matter of religious conscience and not the other???

Congrats. You've just made the argument FOR Hobby Lobby's position. Employees can use their own money to make their own choices. The gov't doesnt need to coerce HL into something they are morally opposed to.

You dodged my points, for obvious reasons.

Hobby Lobby is not morally opposed to it. It's an absurd, concocted position that has no basis in logic.

Hobby lobby is not morally opposed to giving employees MONEY to pay for abortions. Thus they have conceded that they are not morally opposed to giving employees insurance that could be used to pay for birth control.

The end result is exactly the same. The employee for his labor is given compensation that can be used to pay for birth control, or an abortion;

Hobby Lobby's objection is fractured and irrational.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hobby Lobby's position is absurd. They're making a religious objection to being required to provide an insurance policy that an employee can choose to acquire birth control with, but,

Hobby Lobby is also required to PAY their employees, who can just as easily use their PAY to purchase birth control.

Either way Hobby Lobby in exchange for their labor has given them the means to buy birth control, or an abortion for that matter.

Why does Hobby Lobby claim that one is a serious matter of religious conscience and not the other???

Congrats. You've just made the argument FOR Hobby Lobby's position. Employees can use their own money to make their own choices. The gov't doesnt need to coerce HL into something they are morally opposed to.

You dodged my points, for obvious reasons.

Hobby Lobby is not morally opposed to it. It's an absurd, concocted position that has no basis in logic.

Hobby lobby is not morally opposed to giving employees MONEY to pay for abortions. Thus they have conceded that they are not morally opposed to giving employees insurance that could be used to pay for birth control.

The end result is exactly the same. The employee for his labor is given compensation that can be used to pay for birth control, or an abortion;

Hobby Lobby's objection is fractured and irrational.

Which is why it made it to the Supreme COurt? Maybe you shoulod be a judge instead of a loud mouth lo-lo loser on a message board.
There is a difference between providing a salary an employee can use any way he wants vs being forced to provide something you are morally opposed to.
HL probably opposes drinking alcohol, but they know their employees will likely go out and buy it if they want it. Because they are free to do so.
Only statist fools like you oppose freedom.

 

[paperview]

The scene from DC #lnplive : pic.twitter.com/OCRXLfTMht

 

[The Rabbi]

The scene from DC #lnplive : pic.twitter.com/OCRXLfTMht

^^
Rabble.

 

[paperview]

Another insightful article:

"On the other hand, a vote in favor of Hobby Lobby requires the chief justice to do at least three things that threaten major disruptive consequences and present serious downstream risks for the Court as an institution.



First, he must conclude that corporations have the same rights to religious freedom as living, breathing humans—something that the Supreme Court has never done.



Second, he must unsettle centuries of well-established corporate law practice—a move at loggerheads with the Roberts Court’s (and John Roberts’s own) pro-corporate leanings.


And, third, he must extend unprecedented protections to a secular employer, therefore opening the floodgates to new religious freedom challenges to countless other laws. In short, a vote for Hobby Lobby means endorsing a radical departure from well-settled precedent—perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in the realm of religious freedom."


Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case: A Crucial Test for John Roberts

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the compromise:

1. Re-configure the insurance policy with birth control coverage as an OPTION.

2. Price the 2 policies accordingly.

3. Since the policy without the option will be cheaper, but since the employee by law is entitled to the policy with the birth control coverage,

require Hobby Lobby to make a supplemental CASH payment to each employee that the employee can choose to use either for the optional coverage,

or keep as cash, to buy whatever he or she desires.

4. Allow this optional configuration to be available ONLY to companies that claim, and can demonstrate, a legitimate religious objection to the standard policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another insightful article:

"On the other hand, a vote in favor of Hobby Lobby requires the chief justice to do at least three things that threaten major disruptive consequences and present serious downstream risks for the Court as an institution.



First, he must conclude that corporations have the same rights to religious freedom as living, breathing humans—something that the Supreme Court has never done.



Second, he must unsettle centuries of well-established corporate law practice—a move at loggerheads with the Roberts Court’s (and John Roberts’s own) pro-corporate leanings.


And, third, he must extend unprecedented protections to a secular employer, therefore opening the floodgates to new religious freedom challenges to countless other laws. In short, a vote for Hobby Lobby means endorsing a radical departure from well-settled precedent—perhaps nowhere more strikingly than in the realm of religious freedom."


Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case: A Crucial Test for John Roberts

It's a crucial test if Roberts wants to remain the darling of left wing media.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Congrats. You've just made the argument FOR Hobby Lobby's position. Employees can use their own money to make their own choices. The gov't doesnt need to coerce HL into something they are morally opposed to.

You dodged my points, for obvious reasons.

Hobby Lobby is not morally opposed to it. It's an absurd, concocted position that has no basis in logic.

Hobby lobby is not morally opposed to giving employees MONEY to pay for abortions. Thus they have conceded that they are not morally opposed to giving employees insurance that could be used to pay for birth control.

The end result is exactly the same. The employee for his labor is given compensation that can be used to pay for birth control, or an abortion;

Hobby Lobby's objection is fractured and irrational.

Which is why it made it to the Supreme COurt? Maybe you shoulod be a judge instead of a loud mouth lo-lo loser on a message board.
There is a difference between providing a salary an employee can use any way he wants vs being forced to provide something you are morally opposed to.
HL probably opposes drinking alcohol, but they know their employees will likely go out and buy it if they want it. Because they are free to do so.
Only statist fools like you oppose freedom.

There's no difference between providing an employee a piece of paper called a paycheck, that can be used to buy contraception,

and a piece of paper called an insurance policy, that can be used to buy contraception.

And in case you don't know this, the employee CHOOSES whether or not to acquire the actual contraception in both cases.

 

[bedowin62]

You dodged my points, for obvious reasons.

Hobby Lobby is not morally opposed to it. It's an absurd, concocted position that has no basis in logic.

Hobby lobby is not morally opposed to giving employees MONEY to pay for abortions. Thus they have conceded that they are not morally opposed to giving employees insurance that could be used to pay for birth control.

The end result is exactly the same. The employee for his labor is given compensation that can be used to pay for birth control, or an abortion;

Hobby Lobby's objection is fractured and irrational.

Which is why it made it to the Supreme COurt? Maybe you shoulod be a judge instead of a loud mouth lo-lo loser on a message board.
There is a difference between providing a salary an employee can use any way he wants vs being forced to provide something you are morally opposed to.
HL probably opposes drinking alcohol, but they know their employees will likely go out and buy it if they want it. Because they are free to do so.
Only statist fools like you oppose freedom.

There's no difference between providing an employee a piece of paper called a paycheck, that can be used to buy contraception,

and a piece of paper called an insurance policy, that can be used to buy contraception.

And in case you don't know this, the employee CHOOSES whether or not to acquire the actual contraception in both cases.

one is wages the employee earned by his or herself; the other comes from a pool paid into by many. of course there is a difference

you're too stupid for words

 

[paperview]

some early news filtering in:

• More from Justice Kagan: She said Mr. Clement’s arguments would take an “uncontroversial law” like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and turn it into something that would place “the entire U.S. code” under high constitutional scrutiny for possible burdens to corporate religious rights. Companies, she suggested, would be able to object on religious grounds to laws on sex discrimination, minimum wage, family leave and child labor.
• • 11:15 am
  
  Justice Kagan and Justice Antonin Scalia offered conflicting views from the bench about what Congress thought it was doing when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the law at the center of the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg then jumped in to note that the law was passed overwhelmingly with support from both political parties. She said it “seems strange” that the law could have generated such support if lawmakers thought the legislation was going to confer religious rights to corporations.
• • 11:10 am
  • by Brent Kendall
  Mr. Clement said every type of objection would have to be analyzed on its own. The government, he suggested, might have a stronger case in other circumstances separate from the contraception question.

Live Blog: Contraception Cases at the Supreme Court -- Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[bedowin62]

You dodged my points, for obvious reasons.

Hobby Lobby is not morally opposed to it. It's an absurd, concocted position that has no basis in logic.

Hobby lobby is not morally opposed to giving employees MONEY to pay for abortions. Thus they have conceded that they are not morally opposed to giving employees insurance that could be used to pay for birth control.

The end result is exactly the same. The employee for his labor is given compensation that can be used to pay for birth control, or an abortion;

Hobby Lobby's objection is fractured and irrational.

Which is why it made it to the Supreme COurt? Maybe you shoulod be a judge instead of a loud mouth lo-lo loser on a message board.
There is a difference between providing a salary an employee can use any way he wants vs being forced to provide something you are morally opposed to.
HL probably opposes drinking alcohol, but they know their employees will likely go out and buy it if they want it. Because they are free to do so.
Only statist fools like you oppose freedom.

There's no difference between providing an employee a piece of paper called a paycheck, that can be used to buy contraception,

and a piece of paper called an insurance policy, that can be used to buy contraception.

And in case you don't know this, the employee CHOOSES whether or not to acquire the actual contraception in both cases.

toilet paper and money are both pieces of paper you can use to wipe your ass..
here take my toilet paper and give me the cash in your pocket; i want to wipe my ass with it ok?

 

[paperview]

Moe:

• Justices Sotomayor and Kagan shifted to a different line of questioning. Companies objecting to the contraception requirement aren’t being forced to provide health coverage, they said. Companies could avoid the contraception issue by deciding not to offer health care coverage and choosing to pay the tax penalty instead.
  
• • 11:25 am
  Justice Sotomayor raised a line of questioning highlighted by a dissenting judge in a lower court. How are courts, she asked, supposed to know whether a corporation holds a particular religious belief? And what happens to the minority members or shareholders of a corporation who may not share the majority’s belief? How much of a corporation’s business has to be dedicated to religion?
  Mr. Clement said those issues would go to questions about whether a corporation was being sincere in asserting religious claims.
  Justice Sotomayor responded that the court has always resisted engaging in the tricky proposition of trying to measure the depth and sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs.
  

 

[paperview]

"Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s conservatives, jumped in to question Justice Kagan’s comments. In all the years since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed, has any litigant attempted to make these types of claims, he asked. Mr. Clement responded that very few claims have been brought, or have been successful. Justice Kagan responded that if Mr. Clement’s position wins the day, then courts could see “religious objectors come out of the woodwork” to make such claims."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/25/live-blog-contraception-cases-at-the-supreme-court/

 

[JakeStarkey]

As long as Corporations as taxed as persons, then they have the rights afforded them as persons.

Their personhood is a legal fiction that was invented to be able to tax them.

Businesses may be taxed, whether they are corporations or not.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Shame on corporate America for not towing the democratic line eh paperview?

 

[paperview]

• Justice Kagan said that while she was sure Mr. Clement’s clients were good employers, Congress has determined that the type of health-care plans they want to offer are inadequate. Congress, she said, made a determination that health plans must include a range of preventative-care coverage for women. When employers seek to deny that coverage on religious grounds, women are “quite tangibly harmed.”
  

• Mr. Clement said Hobby Lobby would face harms if it didn’t offer health care to its employees. It would to be harder to attract workers, he said, adding that the company believes that providing health care to its employees is important. Justice Scalia offered supporting comments. If Hobby Lobby chooses not to provide health insurance, it’s going to have to raise wages instead, he said.