Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[JakeStarkey]

The extremes like Sallow and bripat here are laughable, period.

Alito's ruling preserves the religious liberties of a family or narrowly defined group with a track record of religiosity and clearly identified spiritual beliefs and who jointly own the business.

The ruling does not cover giant or tiny businesses that cannot fit that pattern.

In the make up of this court, Roberts demonstrates that he intends to preserve congressional legislation wherever possible while protecting religious or business interests.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If my boss is Jehovah's Witness, will the insurance he provides have to cover blood transfusions? If my boss is Southern Baptist and my child needs stem cell therapy, will the insurance he provides be required to cover it?

The Conservatives are crowing about this Hobby Lobby decision. Well, crowing right up until they are forced to realize that the religious knife cuts deeper than contraceptives.

Before this ruling there are people with cancer that purchased obamacare that cannot find a dr to get needed treatment. There are also obamacare policies that are now refusing to cover ms medications because of their cost. Not being able to get abortion drugs is not such a BIG deal to many with much bigger problems.
Where is your outrage when it comes to what is already being done to those that are in need of cancer or ms treatment??
I smell Faux outrage using a what if instead of what already is


No, You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare - Forbes
Alarming news: TX largest cancer treatment centers will not accept ACA patients

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

So, let me get this straight. Religious business owners can't "enforce their dogma" on their employees, but the government can force it's own on them? Why?

And just a burning question, how does not having an abortion kill the woman if she is fully capable of giving birth to the child? This only proves liberals want abortive rights for those women who would like to be afforded the convenience, not the necessity of having an abortion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Maybe when Republicans win, we can amend ObamaCare so that you have to start the day by exercising and praying?

Id rather we amend Obamacare out of existence.

Roberts has made clear the options above are not options.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If my boss is Jehovah's Witness, will the insurance he provides have to cover blood transfusions? If my boss is Southern Baptist and my child needs stem cell therapy, will the insurance he provides be required to cover it?

The Conservatives are crowing about this Hobby Lobby decision. Well, crowing right up until they are forced to realize that the religious knife cuts deeper than contraceptives.

Doubtful. The Jehovah's witnesses have never tried to stop others from receiving blood. That religious rule only applies to them. It is MUCH different than contraception where those people believe that it is murder.

What the heck are you talking about?

This ruling does create conditions that that very scenario illustrates.

Effectively, the Supreme Court has opened the door to theocracy.

No they haven't.

 

[depotoo]

You're pretty good at asking for answers.

Answering simple questions: Not so much;

I'll ask again:

Why would a woman, knowing she may not receive a promotion because she is a woman, choose to work for your hypothetical Muslim Company?

ill answer, because sometimes that's all they can get at the moment.

Someone on facebook said this was only

" It's fact-specific and applies to BC only."

, but i disagree, people will still try because now they have a foothold to go off of.

Can of worms has been opened, and i for one can't wait for a Muslim centric company to go to court over things like this. So i can watch these same people applauding this loose their heads because of sharia law.

It would appear that there is now precedent for doing so; if the court has now recongnized that companies can have a religion.

No, just as with Citizen's United, it once again shows companies are not companies without their persons, ie owners.

And their religious beliefs cannot be stomped upon.

 

[007]

Maybe this means the companies fags were trying to force make a cake,do their pictures for their "wedding" and do their floral arrangements can tell the state and the faggots to take a hike. HOPEFULLY and I am not a religious person but I agree with this decision.

You are religiously bigoted against gay Americans.

Where did he say anything against happy Americans?

 

[Luissa]

Yeah, then so was the Obamacare ruling and what did your side say???? let me think??? I believe you said tough shit.

So people can't have an opinion on whether or not they agree with a ruling?



What is wrong with you?

Right... just like the left is so tolerant of heterosexuals and their opinion that homosexuality is disgusting and perverted... just like that.

You have the right to your opinion, we have the right to call you a bigot. See how that works? Your bigoted views however should not decide the rights of another. See how that works?

 

[usmcstinger]

That's a profoundly terrible ruling.

Does not matter what you think. Live with it.

 

[Ibentoken]

In a way the decision is a very narrow one considering that Hobby Lobby was only opposed to the "day after" types of birth control and will allow their female employees to buy other kinds.

Two things I'm wondering about though. How will this affect their female employee's and their right to make personal decisions with their physicians regarding their own bodies (will they be threatened with termination if they buy birth control on their own or if the government pays for it?) and how that affects their own first amendment rights.

We'll see...

They aren't going to fire anyone for buying BC on their own. They're going to burn them at the stake. Duh!!

 

[Sallow]

The extremes like Sallow and bripat here are laughable, period.

Alito's ruling preserves the religious liberties of a family or narrowly defined group with a track record of religiosity and clearly identified spiritual beliefs and who jointly own the business.

The ruling does not cover giant or tiny businesses that cannot fit that pattern.

In the make up of this court, Roberts demonstrates that he intends to preserve congressional legislation wherever possible while protecting religious or business interests.

Like I pointed out before, narrow decisions seldom remain narrow.

First? Because it's unfair. Laws should apply to everyone. And Corporations will demand this "right".

Second? Because people are constantly in the business of pushing the envelope.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Effectively, the Supreme Court has opened the door to theocracy.

What they've open the door to is what does the guy at the top of a non-publicly held family corporation think you should be doing in the bedroom? The other aspects of your life are soon to follow, there's no reason why they wouldn't. Any deeply held religious conviction to any normally medical procedure will now need to be looked at. Makes me wish I went to law school. You can bank this nonsense...

 

[Sallow]

That's a profoundly terrible ruling.

Does not matter what you think. Live with it.

Naw..it kinda does matter what I think.

I pay taxes and I vote.

 

[Ibentoken]

The employees now have to turn over their children to Hobby Lobby to be baptized, huh.

 

[007]

So people can't have an opinion on whether or not they agree with a ruling?

What is wrong with you?

Right... just like the left is so tolerant of heterosexuals and their opinion that homosexuality is disgusting and perverted... just like that.

You have the right to your opinion, we have the right to call you a bigot. See how that works? Your bigoted views however should not decide the rights have another. See how that works?

No, I see you acting like a dumbass.

If ever there was a better example of IRONY on this board, you just laid it out, Luie. What a moron.

You ARE what you profess to HATE.

Move along... you really are too stupid to speak.

 

[Nosmo King]

Before this ruling there are people with cancer that purchased obamacare that cannot find a dr to get needed treatment. There are also obamacare policies that are now refusing to cover ms medications because of their cost. Not being able to get abortion drugs is not such a BIG deal to many with much bigger problems.
Where is your outrage when it comes to what is already being done to those that are in need of cancer or ms treatment??
I smell Faux outrage using a what if instead of what already is


No, You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare - Forbes
Alarming news: TX largest cancer treatment centers will not accept ACA patients

This decision says companies can impose their 'religious' dogma on their employees thus walling them off from medical coverage. It says the employer's 'religious' rights are protected, yet the employee's religious rights can take a back seat so long as they draw a paycheck.

Surely there are aspects of Obamacare that badly need adjusting. But this decision makes a claim of 'religion' strong enough to harm or kill an employee and call it regrettable, but "God's" will.

So, let me get this straight. Religious business owners can't "enforce their dogma" on their employees, but the government can force it's own on them? Why?

And just a burning question, how does not having an abortion kill the woman if she is fully capable of giving birth to the child? This only proves liberals want abortive rights for those women who would like to be afforded the convenience, not the necessity of having an abortion.

An employer has no place, let alone 'right' imposing his [articular religious dogma on employees. You sign on for a paycheck in exchange for labor or services, not religious indoctrination. And if that religious dogma says one cannot have particular lifesaving medical treatment, let the employer die from ignorance. Don't take out the innocent employees there just to do a job.

 

[Valerie]

i wonder how they define 'closely held' corporations...??

What did the court rule?

The court rejected the government’s claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. “Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies,” Alito wrote.

Alito: “As applied to closely held corporations the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA." Alito wrote that “RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for profit corporations like Conestoga and Hobby Lobby” and the “The HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion."



What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?

“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.





What did Ginsburg's dissent say?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.

In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :”Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of “Me, too” questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices.”

...

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court - ABC News

 

[mudwhistle]

That's a profoundly terrible ruling.

Only for Jack-booted government thugs.......

 

[Erand7899]

That's a profoundly terrible ruling.

Only for the left wing agenda of creating an entitlement state.

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe when Republicans win, we can amend ObamaCare so that you have to start the day by exercising and praying?

Id rather we amend Obamacare out of existence.

Roberts has made clear the options above are not options.

I highly doubt Justice Roberts can or would prevent Congress from amending Obamacare out of existence.

 

[Ibentoken]

The extremes like Sallow and bripat here are laughable, period.

Alito's ruling preserves the religious liberties of a family or narrowly defined group with a track record of religiosity and clearly identified spiritual beliefs and who jointly own the business.

The ruling does not cover giant or tiny businesses that cannot fit that pattern.

In the make up of this court, Roberts demonstrates that he intends to preserve congressional legislation wherever possible while protecting religious or business interests.

Like I pointed out before, narrow decisions seldom remain narrow.

First? Because it's unfair. Laws should apply to everyone. And Corporations will demand this "right".

Second? Because people are constantly in the business of pushing the envelope.

Because it's unfair...... Nope. It's constitutional. You lost fair and square. God Bless America.