Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[dblack]

Conservatives in this thread are acting like this decision won't open Pandora's box.

What sort of cascade do you foresee?

It's all about precedent. It's the same reason I hate Obamacare. This ruling sets a present that can cause a further grief. How many other religions, both new and old, will now start claiming exemptions from certain business laws based on the grounds of "religious freedom".

Hell, all I have to do is get whatever religion I can dream up acknowledged by the state, and I can ignore whatever business laws I fucking want.

What I don't get is why the Court will respect the freedom of an employer to choose insurance coverage (or not) for their employees for religious reasons, but not for personal conscience. Does claiming "the man in the sky told me" make our decisions untouchable?

The freedom of religion wasn't established to give religious people special privileges and exemptions. It was established to prevent government persecution of religions. To be clear, I do think the contraceptive mandate is a violation of religious freedom, but more importantly, it's a violation of general freedom and should be struck down for everyone, not just those who subscribe to a government recognized religion.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Just trolling again, darlin'?

You know how narrow this ruling has been written.

i know what it says, and i know you aren't smart enough to understand what it means, "darlin'"

I fully understand it's perimeters, you don't have to have a mail order lawyer certificate to understand it, darlin', could you run and get me a cup of jo and a ham sammich please?

 

[Luissa]

I feel the same way about same sex marriage. What's next......bi sexual who wants to marry a man and a woman?



Having said that...this ruling is so narrow it doesn't leave much wiggle room to be able to run with it.

thanks for your "expertise".

It rates as good as your expertise....well maybe better....your expertise is acting like a nine year old and only capable of trolling. Bless your heart, darlin'.

I am guessing a law degree puts her a little ahead.

 

[TemplarKormac]

thanks for your "expertise".

It rates as good as your expertise....well maybe better....your expertise is acting like a nine year old and only capable of trolling. Bless your heart, darlin'.

I am guessing a law degree puts her a little ahead.

A law degree doesn't come in a Cracker Jack box. I don't doubt she has one, but it doesn't do her any good if she uses it to pervert the meaning of the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

thanks for your "expertise".

It rates as good as your expertise....well maybe better....your expertise is acting like a nine year old and only capable of trolling. Bless your heart, darlin'.

I am guessing a law degree puts her a little ahead.

I'm guessing you've falled for the fake lawyer routine.

 

[The Rabbi]

It rates as good as your expertise....well maybe better....your expertise is acting like a nine year old and only capable of trolling. Bless your heart, darlin'.

I am guessing a law degree puts her a little ahead.

A law degree doesn't come in a Cracker Jack box. I don't doubt she has one, but it doesn't do her any good if she uses it to pervert the meaning of the law.

She doesnt have a law degree. You can't buy those at Alexander's, to my knowledge.

 

[Agit8r]

Excellent!

Libs losing double. It's a good day.

Doesn't that mean that Obamacare gets tossed onto the scrap heap?

It does not. It means that Hobby Lobby etc will have to sign the same thing that the Little Sisters of the Poor do.

Also worth noting that this is yet another time that the law was NOT found to be unconstitutional. The court merely interpreted existing legislation (1993 RFRA) as being in conflict with it.

 

[Spoonman]

Closely held corporations can have a religious viewpoint.

looks like the conservative point of view was right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Quote where they were addressed.

You can't.
You won't.

I really don't have to, the RFRA has existed since Clinton signed it in March of 1993, and not a single corporation has ever tried to bring suit based on your absurd positions.

That said.

But, of course, the Supreme Court doesn’t exist to issue opinions that will only apply to future cases presenting the exact same facts and issues. (Unless, maybe, you are talking about Bush v. Gore.) Or does it? Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom we often think of as the pivotal vote in high-profile decisions, agreed with both the majority’s reasoning and its result, but he also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he seemed to be emphasizing that this decision is indeed “a ticket for one day only.” Thus, although the Court held that the contraception mandate does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, he made clear that it was able to do so primarily because the government was already accommodating other employers who did not want to cover birth control, proving that there was an easier way to balance the companies’ interests and those of its female employees.

Court rules in favor of for-profit corporations, but how broadly? In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Quote where they were addressed.

You can't.
You won't.

I really don't have to, the RFRA has existed since Clinton signed it in March of 1993, and not a single corporation has ever tried to bring suit based on your absurd positions.

That said.

But, of course, the Supreme Court doesn’t exist to issue opinions that will only apply to future cases presenting the exact same facts and issues. (Unless, maybe, you are talking about Bush v. Gore.) Or does it? Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom we often think of as the pivotal vote in high-profile decisions, agreed with both the majority’s reasoning and its result, but he also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he seemed to be emphasizing that this decision is indeed “a ticket for one day only.” Thus, although the Court held that the contraception mandate does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, he made clear that it was able to do so primarily because the government was already accommodating other employers who did not want to cover birth control, proving that there was an easier way to balance the companies’ interests and those of its female employees.

Court rules in favor of for-profit corporations, but how broadly? In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

Interesting too, Clinton did sign this bill. His party signed on to it too. Now you hear them screaming bloody murder when it actually gets used to protect someone's religious beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A person shouldn't force the person giving them their paycheck to give them free abortive care. In fact, the best and most effective way of abortion is to keep those legs closed and wait until the time is right. But hey... 'war on women' and all that stuff.

The morning-after pill makes it so a microscopic cluster of cells cannot implant in the lining of a woman's womb. I offer that a woman is not pregnant until the fetus is attached to her body. That is the definition of pregnant. The morning-after pill makes the lining of the uterus not right to accept that implantation. So no pregnancy occurs.

I sometimes wonder if the Supreme Court even bothers to examine the hard science behind the decisions they make? Or if the christian right has looked into what actually happens...that a woman isn't even pregnant yet when the morning-after pill has done its magic.

Decades ago they had this pill for animals and livestock. They'd simply give it to them if an improper or unwanted mating occured. We used to marvel at what a perfect solution it was to the whole horror of unwanted pregnancy vs abortion.

Once again, a perfectly sensible idea gets canned by people who are ignorant of how well it works and what it actually does in practice. This country really is devolving into Judge's "Idiocracy"..

"Moment of conception" is the religious arguement

Except for when it is a medical argument.

Am I pregnant?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals in this thread are acting as though we young women don't have access to birth control or can't afford it somehow??

Conservatives in this thread are acting like this decision won't open Pandora's box.

Liberals in this thread are ignoring the fact that the RFRA has been in the books for over 20 years and that box is still closed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libruls act as though something changed today within the US Constitution.. it didn't... that's the beauty of today.. The Justices upheld the right to freedom of religion.. it was your boy King who tried to destroy that basic and cherished freedom.

Again, it's about what could occur down the road. Will it happen? I don't know I can't predict the future. However, the precedent that Corporations can have religious beliefs is scary to me.

Take it up with the guy you voted for that signed the law that SCOTUS upheld today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I really wish some right wingers would learn what they are fighting against, and not just listening to what they are fed.

I am fighting against government oppression, what are you fighting against?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No but his belief system doesn't supersede mine either. However, today's ruling beg the differ.

How is my dad infringing on your religious beliefs by not paying for what he would consider to be, an abortion, ie the morning after pill? Tell me and do be specific.

Well let's say my religious beliefs say that my employer should pay for a woman's contraception and abortions. So if a woman with the same religious belief as I have works for your dad, wouldn't your dad be infringing on her religious beliefs?

Remember that the 1st amendment grants a person the ability to practice whatever religion they want or no religion at all.

You are free to try to sue on that basis, just don't expect to win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's what really gets me about this FAUX outrage.. you can get an IUD or morning after pill at Planned Parenthood, the Health Dept.. This isn't about anything other than libruls demanding to squash freedom of religion.. I am a young woman who uses birth control.. I have MULTIPLE avenues to do that..I've yet to hear from ONE, just one liberal woman who will say she does not have any access to birth control.. SPEAK UP SANDRA FLUKES.. let's hear it.

We should be able to have the health insurance we work and pay for cover our birth control, just like it covers other medications we need.

It does, so stop crying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm still waiting for any ovulating liberal woman to tell me she has no access to birth control.

^^^^^

idiot who doesn't understand the decision or what is at stake.

i can't wait til some employer says he doesn't believe in G-d so you can't go to church or you lose your job.

oh wait... you'd actually have to have a job first

What part of the decision is it she doesn't understand? Can you explain it, in detail?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well let's say my religious beliefs say that my employer should pay for a woman's contraception and abortions. So if a woman with the same religious belief as I have works for your dad, wouldn't your dad be infringing on her religious beliefs?

Remember that the 1st amendment grants a person the ability to practice whatever religion they want or no religion at all.

Let's pretend money grows on trees.. REALLY?? REALLY?? What the fuck religion says you have to have an abortion paid for and birth control? Don't waste my fucking time by making up shit and make believe religions to try and fit a square peg in a round hole..

oh we dont have to make anything up. All we have to do is wait till the first muslim group want exempt from something because of their faith because they dont like a current law.

It will happen, and you will flip you mind because of it, and i will laugh my ass off at you people. Once again you are too busy thinking short term win to even consider the long term affects.

this is why you people are dangerous.

Actually, the same law firm that brought suit today is probably going to win a law suit they brought on behalf of a Muslim that wants to be exempted from something, but don't let facts change your bigoted mind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

thanks for your "expertise".

It rates as good as your expertise....well maybe better....your expertise is acting like a nine year old and only capable of trolling. Bless your heart, darlin'.

no it really doesn't except in your fantasy world,

now from an intelligent man who actually understands this case, unlike theocrats like you:

from the Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy:

If the high court adopts the narrow-minded approach of the religious right, the religious and legal landscape will become almost unrecognizable. What happens when the rights traditionally reserved for individuals are extended to corporations? Left up to the religious whims of employers and private individuals, the civil rights advancements for racial and religious minorities, women and the LGBT community will most certainly be eviscerated. Private establishments could be granted the right to refuse service to customers who have been divorced or have had abortions, who commit adultery or fail to live up to a limitless number of potential religious standards. Nearly any business regulation could be challenged on religious grounds, and judges will be forced to make ecclesiastical evaluations or allow our entire legal code to crumble.

A Truly Conservative View of Religious Freedom*|*Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy

now run along, troll.

Wow, you might consider the fact that a reverend is not an expert on law before using one to prove that a legal decision is bad.

Did you know that Congress deliberately wrote a law that gave corporations religious rights, and that law was signed by Clinton?

Congress provided protection for people like the [owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood] by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people(including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations’ financial well-being. And 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 companies….
​

The fundamental point here is that people organized as corporations are people too. Even the dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg partially recognizes this, since she accepts that RFRA does apply to nonprofit religious corporations, such as those established by churches. The latter, of course, are no more natural “persons” than for-profit corporations are. In modern society, people routinely use corporations for a wide range of activities. Numerous employers, churches, schools, newspapers, charities, and other organizations use the corporate form. When they do so, their owners and employees should not have to automatically check their constitutional and statutory rights at the door.

<em>Hobby Lobby</em> and the legal rights of people organized as corporations - The Washington Post

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, it's supposed to be a narrow ruling applying ONLY to "some kinds" of birth control...

And I've got swampland in Florida to sell you.

I feel the same way about same sex marriage. What's next......bi sexual who wants to marry a man and a woman?

Having said that...this ruling is so narrow it doesn't leave much wiggle room to be able to run with it.

No, it would be polygamists wanting to do that and that has nothing to do with gays having equal access to civil marriage. Bisexuals still usually fall in love with only one person at a time, just like the rest of us...they are just lucky enough not to care much about the package that love comes in.

Wow, you don't know much about human beings, do you?