Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[Quantum Windbag]

Shocker! The Supreme Court caters to corporations. And the sheeple eat it up.

Shocker, Luissa didn't read anything before she posted.

The ruling only applies to closely held corporations, it won't affect GE or MSNBC.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd love to read the actual ruling, but it was a no brainer for anyone familiar with the First amendment. The idea that the Federal Government can force people to act contrary to their religious beliefs is absurd.

Say what?

Court strikes a blow to religious freedom

In a blow to Native Americans — whose religious traditions predate the U.S. Constitution — the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 17, that there is no constitutional right to use peyote as part of religious rituals. Peyote, which contains the hallucinogenic drug mescaline, is a central part of Indian religious ritual. The federal government and 23 states permit peyote to be used for that purpose.

The Supreme Court case involved two Oregon men, Galen W. Black and Alfred C. Smith, who were denied unemployment benefits after they were fired from their jobs at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. They were fired because they ingested peyote at a ceremony of the Native American Church, of which they were members.

Which inspired Congress to pass the RFRA, which was the basis of this decision.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is.

It has opened the door to religious discrimination.

This was an extremely stupid ruling.

It's nonsense.

I want you to do me a favor. Take this out of the insurance argument.

Let me ask you this: Lets say that someday a company is founded by a Muslim that becomes, lets say, a nationwide chain of car dealerships. As we know, Muslims have a big problem being subordinate to a woman.

Could a company that is completely privately held by a Muslim family, find religious footing to not promote women?

Now?

Of course it could.

This is why this decision is so shockingly bad.

Wrong

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right only wants freedom for themselves, no one else.

wrong again, the right wants freedom for everyone. Opportunity for everyone, Equality for everyone--------------and, personal responsibility for everyone.



What scarres you libs is that real freedom includes both the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. It scares you because deep down inside you know that if the scales are balanced you will always lose, so you need a nanny govt to wipe your sorry ass.

Are you for same sex marriage? You pro choice? How about shorter sentences for non violent crimes? Legalizing marijuana? Or any drug for that matter?

I am for all of that, and more, which is why we need to get government out of all those things and restrict it to enforcing laws that punish people who actually cause harm to others. I am also against the death penalty, and prison in general. We do need to lock up some people, but most of them really don't belong in prison.

 

[Samson]

Companies get sold all the time; should I have to give up my career if my new employers are Muslim? How would I be able to find out if they are Muslim? I don't know the faith of my current company's owners.... In fact, with the exception of my first job, I haven't known the religious faith of any of my employers.

Partnerships have buy-outs all the time too. What if your family-held-business decides they want to convert to Islam; should I have to quit because of their religious beliefs getting in the way of my career?

I'm really not trying to play "gotcha"; I was curious if this opens the door to the Muslim family to employ this argument for not promoting women.

Can you answer it?

I did answer it. I think it was post #98.

The answer is YES, YOU WOULD NEED TO CHANGE JOBS. It's called property rights. You buy something, you own it. Employees have had to change jobs for many reasons, and I'm certain that Unfairness is at the top of each one's excuse.

Grow Up.

Thanks for the clarity. Swallow must be right then. If you're okay with this--that you can be discriminated against--LEGALLY--because of the owner's faith then today is a dark day.

Not so much if the question is contraception but if your career is now jeopardized simply because of your gender and the court approves of it...we are in trouble.

Unless there is a sudden surge in employers that want to piss off all their employees, I think you'll be fine.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why not? This ruling apparently gives license to do so--if your religion's tenants are that men should not be subordinate women as is the case in Islam from the best I can tell.



As far as I know, there is nothing in the religion about males being subordinate to other males who are Christians or Jews.

This ruling does not give carte blanc to companies to abuse employees, and in fact, the ruling simply says that an employee cannot force someone else to pay for specific health needs that violate their own beliefs. It DOES NOT STOP THEM from going out and having those health needs met.

Not in any way, shape or form.

Okay...so you're saying that if I work for ABC Dry Cleaners or XYZ Car Dealership as a counter person or salesperson and one day, the owner sells to someone who practices Islam, they CANNOT use their religious beliefs to avoid promoting me; the belief that I would be supervising men and their religion forbids it (as best I can tell)?

[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION] seems to think that the new owners of ABC Dry Cleaners of XYZ Car Dealership now has that right.

It has nothing to do with contraception or healthcare--my question doesn't anyway.

Again, no "gotcha" being played here. I am curious if this ruling allows such a thing.

Candy you are gold digger;

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People or corporations? Suddenly, through this ruling, we find that corporations have religious rights. Have you ever seen a corporation in your church sanctuary?

Family owned businesses, not Corporations.

Again I ask, if you are employed by a Jehovah Witness, is he required to provide an insurance policy covering blood transfusions? If you are employed by a Southern Baptist, and your child needs stem cell therapy, does the insurance he provides adequate, or can he deny your child life saving medical attention due to his 'religious' beliefs?


Do all your strutting now. Some day, and that day is coming, this tragic decision will kill someone in your own family and call that death regrettable but 'religious'. Ironic, ain't it?

How on Earth will not getting birth control from their employer kill someone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cons to women: We want you bare foot and pregnant.

The dirty little secret is that it's mostly hip liberal men who talk their conquests into hiring someone to kill the unborn life inside them. The Supreme Court merely affirmed the right of the people not to be forced to pay for the carnage.

That isn't what they ruled on. And Plan B is not an abortion pill.

Doesn't matter, Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it if they don't want to. I guess that means that anyone who works for them will have to pay the $25 bucks themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd love to read the actual ruling, but it was a no brainer for anyone familiar with the First amendment. The idea that the Federal Government can force people to act contrary to their religious beliefs is absurd.

People or corporations? Suddenly, through this ruling, we find that corporations have religious rights. Have you ever seen a corporation in your church sanctuary?

Dear @Nosma King:
Had politicians pushing ACA respected religious freedom for individuals,
we wouldn't have this problem, But Democrats passed this bill REGARDLESS of the well established, well documented and expressed OBJECTIONS by people constituents and members of Congress, that were OPPOSED based on beliefs in free market health care, individual free choice, and NOT imposing insurance mandates or fine by federal govt.

The Democrats who voted and support ACA IGNORE the "religious liberty" and "political creed" of half the nation, considering those beliefs INVALID and not defensible by law.

so UNFORTUNATELY NK
it took a legal foundation working with a corporation like HL
to AFFORD to go to court to fight for beliefs and freedom that
SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THE FIRST PLACE

NK: ALL Americans who believe the ACA violates religious freedom of choice in health care and Political Creed
are EQUALLY discriminated and infringed upon by ACA mandates.

ALL of us. BUT NOBODY WOULD LISTEN TO US AND DEFEND OUR BELIEFS.

We just don't have the means to sue in court and fight legally/legislatively
to defend our natural rights and political beliefs that were violated.

We have to wait for "other people and companies" with legal resources to fight
that law using whatever arguments can be proven in court.

the violation already occurred with passing ACA, enforcing it,
and endorsing it as law when it Violates and Discriminates on the basis of CREED.
This is ongoing, but nobody cares to stop it UNTIL a corporation like HL sues.
Some courts have ruled against individuals who sued to defend their liberty; it takes a lot of money and most people don't have that.

If the politicians had respected the PEOPLE'S rights liberties and equal protection of beliefs from discrimination by creed
then it wouldn't take a CORPORATION suing to establish and defend those rights.

there are many other cases, and there would be more if people could afford to sue
I asked around and couldn't find a lawyer or a law firm, and it's too expensive.

My beliefs are abridged and denied by the mandates in this bill
but I have no lawyers to sue so I have to wait on "other people" to win cases
and hope it's enough to prove the bill is unconstitutional on the basis of
discrimination by creed

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you for same sex marriage? You pro choice? How about shorter sentences for non violent crimes? Legalizing marijuana? Or any drug for that matter?

not sure what that has to do with this thread---but



no

no

yes

yes

no

It has to do with your claim you are for freedom. I am yes on all of them. Who is really for freedom here?

I will give you a hint, it isn't the person you see in a mirror. That person wants the government to force her beliefs on everyone else.

 

[candycorn]

It is.

It has opened the door to religious discrimination.

This was an extremely stupid ruling.

It's nonsense.

I want you to do me a favor. Take this out of the insurance argument.

Let me ask you this: Lets say that someday a company is founded by a Muslim that becomes, lets say, a nationwide chain of car dealerships. As we know, Muslims have a big problem being subordinate to a woman.

Could a company that is completely privately held by a Muslim family, find religious footing to not promote women?

No, because the decision already says that the government has a compelling government interest in that area,m which you would know if you actually did a little research.

On the other hand, you did prove you are willing to jump to wild assed conclusions without any evidence to support them.

Just asked a question;

 

[skookerasbil]

The fascist administration gets another kick in the ass from SCOTUS. Hooah

Actually.... a nut sack kick.

Last I checked, the first amendment still existed.


Contraception isn't a right.......how stoopid is that thinking? Nope......women that spread the legs as frequently as I flush my toilet have to take a little responsibility here!!! 9 bucks a month assholes.......you can afford it@!!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Blood transfusions are against the dogma of the Jehovah Witness. Contraceptives are against the dogma of the owners of Hobby Lobby. If Hobby Lobby is no longer required to provide coverage for women's health, why should the Jehovah Witness provide coverage against his particular dogma? Or the Southern Baptist employer and stem cell therapy?

Once you endow companies with the freedom of religion, how can we avoid company imposed religious dogma?

Do you know of any corporations that are owned by Jehovah's Witnesses? The only one I know if the Watchtower, and it only employs JWs, and none of them have a problem with the blood transfusion thing.

Also, since doctors don't usually check to see what the insurance covers before they order a procedure, you will get your transfusion regardless of what your insurance says.

By the way, did you know blood transfusions really aren't necessary in most cases? Doctors use them because they are trained to do it, but the science says that you can survive without them.

Maybe you should stop being afraid of shadows.

 

[Samson]

This ruling does not give carte blanc to companies to abuse employees, and in fact, the ruling simply says that an employee cannot force someone else to pay for specific health needs that violate their own beliefs. It DOES NOT STOP THEM from going out and having those health needs met.

Not in any way, shape or form.

Okay...so you're saying that if I work for ABC Dry Cleaners or XYZ Car Dealership as a counter person or salesperson and one day, the owner sells to someone who practices Islam, they CANNOT use their religious beliefs to avoid promoting me; the belief that I would be supervising men and their religion forbids it (as best I can tell)?

[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION] seems to think that the new owners of ABC Dry Cleaners of XYZ Car Dealership now has that right.

It has nothing to do with contraception or healthcare--my question doesn't anyway.

Again, no "gotcha" being played here. I am curious if this ruling allows such a thing.

Based on racist far left Obama drone propaganda?

Seriously, you should try this as your avatar:

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet you have no problem enforcing your dogma and bigotry on them.

And, yes, it is dogma. You never question your beliefs, and hold them even when the evidence stacks up to prove you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Closely held companies, i.e. non public ones.

so what

So you were wrong when you argued that I didn't understand the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It says no such thing.

 

[Kosh]

Okay...so you're saying that if I work for ABC Dry Cleaners or XYZ Car Dealership as a counter person or salesperson and one day, the owner sells to someone who practices Islam, they CANNOT use their religious beliefs to avoid promoting me; the belief that I would be supervising men and their religion forbids it (as best I can tell)?

[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION] seems to think that the new owners of ABC Dry Cleaners of XYZ Car Dealership now has that right.

It has nothing to do with contraception or healthcare--my question doesn't anyway.

Again, no "gotcha" being played here. I am curious if this ruling allows such a thing.

Based on racist far left Obama drone propaganda?

Seriously, you should try this as your avatar:

So if you don't want these posts to be made then get onto your racist far left Obama drone friends and tell them to stop pushing the droning far left propaganda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Companies get sold all the time; should I have to give up my career if my new employers are Muslim? How would I be able to find out if they are Muslim? I don't know the faith of my current company's owners.... In fact, with the exception of my first job, I haven't known the religious faith of any of my employers.

Partnerships have buy-outs all the time too. What if your family-held-business decides they want to convert to Islam; should I have to quit because of their religious beliefs getting in the way of my career?

I'm really not trying to play "gotcha"; I was curious if this opens the door to the Muslim family to employ this argument for not promoting women.

Can you answer it?

I did answer it. I think it was post #98.

The answer is YES, YOU WOULD NEED TO CHANGE JOBS. It's called property rights. You buy something, you own it. Employees have had to change jobs for many reasons, and I'm certain that Unfairness is at the top of each one's excuse.

Grow Up.

Thanks for the clarity. Swallow must be right then. If you're okay with this--that you can be discriminated against--LEGALLY--because of the owner's faith then today is a dark day.

Not so much if the question is contraception but if your career is now jeopardized simply because of your gender and the court approves of it...we are in trouble.

You are an idiot, the decision addressed all of those issues. You really need to grow up, next thing you will be telling me there are monsters under your bed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, I am gloating, so what. The other side would be gloating if they won.

Are you happy about the spitting on the Equal Protection Clause aspect of the decision?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know that equal protection only applies to actions taken by the government?

Please, feel free to ask another stupid question to show you are one of the dumbest posters on USMB.