Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[Erand7899]

Luissa confuses libertine with liberty.

It has nothing to do with morals etc.. Countries that have legalized most drugs or decriminalized them have seen a drop in addiction. Instead of throwing drug offenders in jail, we should treat their addiction. For one it would be cheaper.
Our prisons are over populated with non violent drug offenders. That isn't liberty or freedom.

I agree with you. Drugs should never have been prohibited in the first place, and that should be corrected at the earliest possible time. However, just like alcohol prohibition and repeal, it will take the country half a century to get over the hangover.

I also agree that non violent drug offenders should not be in prison. In fact, no non violent offenders, of any kind should be in hard prison. Home arrest, alternative programs, and prison farms should suffice for them. Then, we need to bring back hard labor to the hard prisons, and shorten the sentences there. Few immates would be looking for trouble after 10 to 12 hours on the rockpile turning big rocks into small rocks with a sledge hammer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doesn't matter. The corporation can believe whatever religion they want.

They can believe in a religion called "Corptopia" that believes that workers shouldn't get paid for their work and no benefits whatsoever. With this ruling, they can do that. That's the "freedom" the right is raving about. Now they have the right to believe that and can challenge federal law like minimum wage, workers compensation, and others and say they don't have to follow those law because their closely held religious beliefs forbids them to do that.

Now the courts can't question the legitimacy of the ruling because everyone is allowed to believe whatever religion they want. Then other companies follow suit and believe the same thing.

That's the reality of this ruling. I hope it doesn't get that bad but this ruling opened that door.

The funny thing is that SCALIA ruled against an individual when he got fired for practicing his religion. He basically said that religious practices cannot circumvent the law.

This ruling is a complete reversal of that decision.

Unless, of course, this makes a business a "super citizen".

The liberal template has just surfaced........"smear the opponent".


Well played, sallow

You have Saul Alinsky to thank for that.

 

[Luissa]

Well, now that we know that corporations have authority to make decisions regarding their employees, based on their religious beliefs, I guess that Mormon corporations can start firing people who have had their Temple Card withdrawn by the church, because they are no longer in good standing with the church...for failure to tithe 10% of their income, for instance.

Way to go, supporting liberty, conservatives!

I can't help but notice how upset liberals are. Plus, I don't think you have any place lecturing folks on liberty. I mean, you want to deny the religious liberty of a business owner, you want to rob someone of the right to purchase the healthcare they want.

And you are against a woman's right to choose, and same sex marriage. Your point?

 

[Sallow]

I probably missed it, but what other product does the Federal government require me to buy or be fined?

I guess you've never owned a business, have you?

When I owned a bar I was forced to purchase "Commercial" quality appliances or be fined. I couldn't even have a personal microwave on the premises.

I think the point of this issue escapes you.

Well no..it didn't.

Since I came up with a pertinent example that addressed the post.

 

[rightwinger]

Have to see what the scope of the ruling is

On the surface, it can go well beyond birth control

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous.

Doesn't matter

Why can't Hobby Lobby refuse to cover drugs that treat AIDS? They can have religious convictions against sexually transmitted disease

What if they firmly believe AIDS is gods punishment?

 

[Luissa]

WORKING IN THE COAL MINE - LEE DORSEY 1966. - YouTube

BTW this makes the 13th time this administration has lost before the Supreme Court. Historically the Department of Justice win 75% of cases before SCOTUS, but this administration has lost the vast majority of cases.



Ineptitude combined with extreme positions that favor the power and will of the government over the individual has caused this administration to favor so poorly.

This administration isn't "inept" in the slightest.



What we are seeing is something conservatives use to hate.



Legislation by Justices.



And Scalia, Alito and Thomas are by far the worst judges ever to sit on the court.



Scalia is especially bad since he seems to know better.



Alito and Thomas are bumps on the log.

Ruling on Constitutional rights is not re-writing the law.

Justice Roberts re-wrote the Affordable Health Care Act. That's Legislation by a Justice.

Kind of like confusing what Plan B is?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, now that we know that corporations have authority to make decisions regarding their employees, based on their religious beliefs, I guess that Mormon corporations can start firing people who have had their Temple Card withdrawn by the church, because they are no longer in good standing with the church...for failure to tithe 10% of their income, for instance.

Way to go, supporting liberty, conservatives!

Go back to the ruling and show all of us where the ruling is as broad as you claim, Okay....I'll be waiting.

I certainly don't know why not. If a Utah corporation believes that their religions beliefs are against financial outlay to someone who is an avowed atheist, I figure that this ruling will give them the right to tell the atheist to find another job, just like telling another employee that the corporation is not going to violate their religious beliefs by encouraging and facilitating their employees use of an abortion pill. It is not a big step. Corporations have, for years, refused to hire someone who uses tobacco.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Not a single one of the drugs HL is not covering is life saving or disease controlling drug so your argument is worthless beyond words....

In this particular case. But when a Jehovah Witness employer refuses to provide health coverage for blood transfusions because that procedure is against his religion, what will you say? When a Southern Baptist employer refuses to provide health coverage that covers stem cell therapy because that procedure runs counter to his 'religious' belief, where will you turn?

This decision puts the religious rights of employers above the religious rights of employees. Corporate Sharia Law is upheld by SCOTUS.

And Conservatives think this is a victory for freedom? How?

Well, here's a little new flash for ya: while the scope of the decision was in fact limited to declaring that the government does not have the right to impose the Sharia Law of statist bootlicks like you on others in regard to the concerns of reproduction and abortion, private concerns don't have to employ you nor do you have to work for them if you don't like how they roll.

That's liberty. That's freedom. That's choice. That's free-association.

Anything other than that is some punk demanding that the government impose his ideology on others. Idiot! Natural and constitutional law don't prohibit the people from exercising the prerogatives of ideological liberty and free-association, only tyrannical governments do that. Dummy.

As far as I'm concerned employers shouldn't have to provide healthcare at all . . . precisely because of punks like you who can't or won't grasp the arbitrarily nature of the very proposition in and of itself in the first place. But those who choose to do so, do in fact have the natural right to preclude blood transfusions, stem cell therapy and the like . . . and screw the Court if it ever rules otherwise.

Yes. That's freedom. You're the thug. You're the imposer. You're the tyrant. You're the fascist. You're the Marxist, collectivist, statist bootlick.


I'm sorry. But, really, I'm done with you fools, with you mindless dweebs. There's is nothing nuanced or enlightened about your ideology. It is self-evident relative to the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human conscience that relativism, the ultimate essence of everything that is leftist, is arbitrary, inherently contradictory and self-negating.

DUH. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR ONTOLOGY AND SUBSEQUENT WORLDVIEW.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Luissa confuses libertine with liberty.

It has nothing to do with morals etc.. Countries that have legalized most drugs or decriminalized them have seen a drop in addiction. Instead of throwing drug offenders in jail, we should treat their addiction. For one it would be cheaper.
Our prisons are over populated with non violent drug offenders. That isn't liberty or freedom.

I agree with you. Drugs should never have been prohibited in the first place, and that should be corrected at the earliest possible time. However, just like alcohol prohibition and repeal, it will take the country half a century to get over the hangover.

I also agree that non violent drug offenders should not be in prison. In fact, no non violent offenders, of any kind should be in hard prison. Home arrest, alternative programs, and prison farms should suffice for them. Then, we need to bring back hard labor to the hard prisons, and shorten the sentences there. Few immates would be looking for trouble after 10 to 12 hours on the rockpile turning big rocks into small rocks with a sledge hammer.

To the bolded.

Stop. Just what on earth does this have to do with the Supreme Court decision?

 

[Meister]

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous.

Doesn't matter

Why can't Hobby Lobby refuse to cover drugs that treat AIDS? They can have religious convictions against sexually transmitted disease

What if they firmly believe AIDS is gods punishment?

Sounds like it would have to go to the SC again, because this ruling wouldn't begin to cover that.

 

[blackhawk]

Good for them nice to see the federal government pulled in a bit.

 

[Sallow]

WORKING IN THE COAL MINE - LEE DORSEY 1966. - YouTube

BTW this makes the 13th time this administration has lost before the Supreme Court. Historically the Department of Justice win 75% of cases before SCOTUS, but this administration has lost the vast majority of cases.

Ineptitude combined with extreme positions that favor the power and will of the government over the individual has caused this administration to favor so poorly.

This administration isn't "inept" in the slightest.

What we are seeing is something conservatives use to hate.

Legislation by Justices.

And Scalia, Alito and Thomas are by far the worst judges ever to sit on the court.

Scalia is especially bad since he seems to know better.

Alito and Thomas are bumps on the log.

Ruling on Constitutional rights is not re-writing the law.
Justice Roberts re-wrote the Affordable Health Care Act. That's Legislation by a Justice.

Well yeah it is.

Additionally, one of the judges that voted in favor of this decision, effectively reversed a previous court decision regarding this very topic.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, now that we know that corporations have authority to make decisions regarding their employees, based on their religious beliefs, I guess that Mormon corporations can start firing people who have had their Temple Card withdrawn by the church, because they are no longer in good standing with the church...for failure to tithe 10% of their income, for instance.

Way to go, supporting liberty, conservatives!

Go back to the ruling and show all of us where the ruling is as broad as you claim, Okay....I'll be waiting.

I certainly don't know why not. If a Utah corporation believes that their religions beliefs are against financial outlay to someone who is an avowed atheist, I figure that this ruling will give them the right to tell the atheist to find another job, just like telling another employee that the corporation is not going to violate their religious beliefs by encouraging and facilitating their employees use of an abortion pill.

Then you've completely missed the issue.

 

[jknowgood]

Corporations don't have religion because "You cannot serve both money and God."

Your butt hurt is music to my ears. Lol

 

[mudwhistle]

Have to see what the scope of the ruling is



On the surface, it can go well beyond birth control

It makes me wonder. Suppose they have a religious objection to homsexuality. Can they refuse to cover drugs to treat aids?

I wonder if they will deny Viagra to single men, or men who's partner has gone through menopause?

I'll play your game.

When has Viagra ever killed a fetus?

 

[Erand7899]

You sure wasn't bitching when Roberts legislated from the bench when he stated obummbercare was a tax. You didn't bitch, did you?

But the right did, called him a trader/rhino, claimed he had a medical condition etc.. Where is all that now?

Well, yeaaaaaah, His job is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.....which is exactly what he did.

No one was calling it a tax, until Roberts legislated it, Luissa.

The problem with that ruling is that it makes Obamacare an illegal law. The Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, and tax bills have to originate in the House. That is why the Democrats were so careful not to use the word "tax" in the bill.

 

[Faun]

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

My wife works for Hobby Lobby and receives contraception under the insurance they provide. They did not want to provide ABORTION causing drugs. The so-called morning after pill.

The left is obsessed with abortion. It is the holy sacrament.

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill, moronN. They shouldn't have to cover it, but at least be honest.

Semantics asshole. I consider it an abortion-inducing drug, and guess what ASSHOLE so does Planned Parenthood.

[ame=http://youtu.be/0U20nhWCzJ0]The Abortion Pill - Planned Parenthood - YouTube[/ame]

DIPSHIT

Holyfuckingshit!

The "abortion pill" mentioned in that video is Mifeprex, more commonly known as RU-486. It is an abortion pill in that it can terminate a pregnancy.

You are confusing that with the morning after pill, Levonorgestrel, which prevents a pregnancy from occurring. It does not terminate an abortion and is not an "abortion pill."

 

[Meister]

Well, now that we know that corporations have authority to make decisions regarding their employees, based on their religious beliefs, I guess that Mormon corporations can start firing people who have had their Temple Card withdrawn by the church, because they are no longer in good standing with the church...for failure to tithe 10% of their income, for instance.

Way to go, supporting liberty, conservatives!

Go back to the ruling and show all of us where the ruling is as broad as you claim, Okay....I'll be waiting.

I certainly don't know why not. If a Utah corporation believes that their religions beliefs are against financial outlay to someone who is an avowed atheist, I figure that this ruling will give them the right to tell the atheist to find another job, just like telling another employee that the corporation is not going to violate their religious beliefs by encouraging and facilitating their employees use of an abortion pill. It is not a big step. Corporations have, for years, refused to hire someone who uses tobacco.

If you truly believe this, and I'm sure you do, please show the part of the ruling that would justify what your premise is.

 

[Luissa]

It has nothing to do with morals etc.. Countries that have legalized most drugs or decriminalized them have seen a drop in addiction. Instead of throwing drug offenders in jail, we should treat their addiction. For one it would be cheaper.
Our prisons are over populated with non violent drug offenders. That isn't liberty or freedom.

I agree with you. Drugs should never have been prohibited in the first place, and that should be corrected at the earliest possible time. However, just like alcohol prohibition and repeal, it will take the country half a century to get over the hangover.

I also agree that non violent drug offenders should not be in prison. In fact, no non violent offenders, of any kind should be in hard prison. Home arrest, alternative programs, and prison farms should suffice for them. Then, we need to bring back hard labor to the hard prisons, and shorten the sentences there. Few immates would be looking for trouble after 10 to 12 hours on the rockpile turning big rocks into small rocks with a sledge hammer.

To the bolded.

Stop. Just what on earth does this have to do with the Supreme Court decision?

Please don't respond to a discussion that is going on, unless you have read the whole discussion. Now carry on.

 

[LockeJaw]

I agree with both of you to an extent. The only place where we differ is that I would hope st some point that hard drugs wil be eradicated, and hopefully it is done by voluntary societal consensus & not government coeercion. I'm fine with marijuana, smoke it every once in awhile myself.

Luissa confuses libertine with liberty.

It has nothing to do with morals etc.. Countries that have legalized most drugs or decriminalized them have seen a drop in addiction. Instead of throwing drug offenders in jail, we should treat their addiction. For one it would be cheaper.
Our prisons are over populated with non violent drug offenders. That isn't liberty or freedom.

I agree with you. Drugs should never have been prohibited in the first place, and that should be corrected at the earliest possible time. However, just like alcohol prohibition and repeal, it will take the country half a century to get over the hangover.

I also agree that non violent drug offenders should not be in prison. In fact, no non violent offenders, of any kind should be in hard prison. Home arrest, alternative programs, and prison farms should suffice for them. Then, we need to bring back hard labor to the hard prisons, and shorten the sentences there. Few immates would be looking for trouble after 10 to 12 hours on the rockpile turning big rocks into small rocks with a sledge hammer.