Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[emilynghiem]

What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Dear [MENTION=19170]Coyote[/MENTION]
by keeping health care and insurance decisions private,
and out of govt hands to dictate to businesses/individuals,
all these scenarios can be prevented.

the whole premise of govt mandating insurance requirements
when these are personal health care decisions is FLAWED at the start.

in court, the lawyers have to stick to arguments they can prove
and cite references for, so they pick what they can argue legalistically.

The whole bill is argued as govt overreaching in its authority to regulate.
and what you list are more examples of the problems that can go wrong.

This is WHY conservatives and Constitutionalists have been arguing to
keep health care decisions private and local to the people; and not
drag federal govt into more and more regulations that cannot police every single case.

or someone from coming in carrying a gun and refusing them service. oh wait, they already do that and people are fine with it.

Yes [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION]
Govt cannot be expected to mandate and dictate every detail of our lives.

There are general rules about not abusing, harassing, threatening, assaulting,
or committing a breach or disruption of the peace.

It is always up to the people to decide what constitutes enough
of a threat to warrant certain actions.

as for what constitutes unlawful discrimination,
obviously not everyone agrees on what is free choice
and what govt can regulate. that is why we are having these discussions.

To decide where to draw the lines, so we can all agree on the rules.
The main rule always applies -- the Golden Rule of Reciprocity.

If you respect people they tend to respect you.
If people don't respect others, that is the problem in common
in all these scenarios: people wanting equal rights and protections
for them, but not recognizing the same for others, so it is a conflict.

As we learn to resolve our own conflicts by mutual respect,
then we won't have all these issues with laws and "running to
courts and govt" to decide for us. We can work it out directly
ourselves, issue by issue, case by case, and figure it out without passing more laws.

 

[SuMar]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

but if we are going to be basing an argument on someones rights being infringed we best keep all rights in mind.

You have the right to shop somewhere else.

 

[Vigilante]

Here's one of the money paragraphs in the TIME magazine story: "Legal observers say it would not be difficult for the [Regime] to resolve the situation unilaterally. The Department of Health and Human Services has already taken unilateral executive action to ensure that women employed by religious nonprofits get contraception coverage in cases where the employer declines to pay."

What enabled Hobby Lobby to deny those contraceptives was a law signed by Bill Clinton, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government was found to be in violation of its own law, a Clinton law, and yet the Clintons are out ripping their own law here. So it was that the SCOTUS decided a statutes question, and had nothing to do with it being unconstitutional!

 

[Spoonman]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

but if we are going to be basing an argument on someones rights being infringed we best keep all rights in mind.

You have the right to shop somewhere else.

and a gay guy has a right to buy his wedding cake somewhere else or a black guy has the right to but his car somewhere else. lets just keep the playing field even

 

[Spoonman]

...which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision...

but if we are going to be basing an argument on someones rights being infringed we best keep all rights in mind.

This case is about religious rights. Period.

ah yes, religious rights. the little thing the first amendment says congress shall make no laws regarding. pretty clear to me government has already way overstepped its boundries

 

[Kosh]

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. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Show where Hobby Lobby is against someone using BC Pills for medical needs?

 

[Silhouette]

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Show where Hobby Lobby is against someone using BC Pills for medical needs?

This Ruling was only about them providing abortion pills. They still provide birth control.

 

[Politico]

Hey liberhoids! suck it

Yes, five old men just told the women of America that their employers can dictate what they do with their Lady Parts.

This is a great day for Conservatives.

It tells working women what is in store for them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

No they told Americans that employers and government have no business in their examination rooms. Nice fail though.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

Equal "Protection"? Wow, now that's classic! The left will try and stretch anything when they're throwing a fit

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

My dad is a corporation.. He owns a business.. He's not entitled to say no to something that goes against a sacred belief because your belief system is what?? More important than his????

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

His belief system shouldn't supersede yours? Ever hear of the blue law? Why do you think business were told to close on Sunday, you don't actually think the union was behind that one do you?

 

[JoeB131]

Here's one of the money paragraphs in the TIME magazine story: "Legal observers say it would not be difficult for the [Regime] to resolve the situation unilaterally. The Department of Health and Human Services has already taken unilateral executive action to ensure that women employed by religious nonprofits get contraception coverage in cases where the employer declines to pay."

What enabled Hobby Lobby to deny those contraceptives was a law signed by Bill Clinton, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The government was found to be in violation of its own law, a Clinton law, and yet the Clintons are out ripping their own law here. So it was that the SCOTUS decided a statutes question, and had nothing to do with it being unconstitutional!

That tells me we need to repeal RFRA, because it was an awful law. Half the lawsuits filed in prisons are RFRA appeals by guys claiming that their religion allows them certain privilages in prison.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey liberhoids! suck it

Yes, five old men just told the women of America that their employers can dictate what they do with their Lady Parts.

This is a great day for Conservatives.

It tells working women what is in store for them if the GOP ever gets back into power.

No they told Americans that employers and government have no business in their examination rooms. Nice fail though.

Not even close. The employer can now veto a doctor on the best course of treatment if the employer's Imaginary Sky Pixie thinks a certain birth control is like abortion because they don't understand the science.

And oddly, no one with a vagina on the court actually subscribed to that logic for some reason.

 

[JoeB131]

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. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Well put. But let's even go a step further.

What if your child has hemophilia, but your employer is a Jehovah's Witness who is against blood transfusions?

 

[Noomi]

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Show where Hobby Lobby is against someone using BC Pills for medical needs?

They don't support the use of the pill.

 

[Noomi]

That's a strawman. Aids doesn't always afflict homosexuals. Thus such reasoning is preposterous. To say that anyone would use their religion to deny anyone with aids the treatment they need is nothing but argumentum ad baculum. Plenty of heterosexual people who have aids need treatment too. Such a view is naturally counterproductive.

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Well put. But let's even go a step further.

What if your child has hemophilia, but your employer is a Jehovah's Witness who is against blood transfusions?

Well damn, your child can just suffer and die, or you can pay for that transfusion yourself because I ain't going against what my Jehovah preaches!

 

[mudwhistle]

Yup, we're back in the Dark Ages again (According to the Left) because they lost the right to trounce all over everyone's religious beliefs.

Guess it's back to leeches and blood-letting.


Well, at least we aren't supporting Sharia Law yet. Not yet. Stay tuned.

 

[JoeB131]

Yup, we're back in the Dark Ages again (According to the Left) because they lost the right to trounce all over everyone's religious beliefs.

Guess it's back to leeches and blood-letting.


Well, at least we aren't supporting Sharia Law yet. Not yet. Stay tuned.

So let me get this straight.

You are okay with people overruling medical professionals as long as it's based on YOUR ancient book of superstitions, but not THEIR ancient book of superstitions?

Businesses don't have religious beliefs. You guys want to have it both ways. You want to legal protections of incorporation (people can't personally sue the Greens for what Hobby Lobby does, such as selling lead-based toys from China), but then you want to grant them individual rights?

 

[Kosh]

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Show where Hobby Lobby is against someone using BC Pills for medical needs?

They don't support the use of the pill.

Again the propaganda laced response is wrong and not based on fact!

Got any other propaganda you would like to use?

 

[Kosh]

It's not a strawman.

For example, looking at birth control - IUD's are prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (help control irregular bleeding). Plenty of people use IUD's or the pill for that matter to treat diseases like endometriosis.

So the fact that there is a prescribed use for them other than birth control doesn't matter. What would prevent a group with religious objections to homosexuality (who consider AIDS to be a punishment by God on immorality) - to refuse to provide coverage?

Well put. But let's even go a step further.

What if your child has hemophilia, but your employer is a Jehovah's Witness who is against blood transfusions?

Well damn, your child can just suffer and die, or you can pay for that transfusion yourself because I ain't going against what my Jehovah preaches!

Predictable and boring!

Got anything else?

 

[Kosh]

Yup, we're back in the Dark Ages again (According to the Left) because they lost the right to trounce all over everyone's religious beliefs.

Guess it's back to leeches and blood-letting.


Well, at least we aren't supporting Sharia Law yet. Not yet. Stay tuned.

So let me get this straight.

You are okay with people overruling medical professionals as long as it's based on YOUR ancient book of superstitions, but not THEIR ancient book of superstitions?

Businesses don't have religious beliefs. You guys want to have it both ways. You want to legal protections of incorporation (people can't personally sue the Greens for what Hobby Lobby does, such as selling lead-based toys from China), but then you want to grant them individual rights?

Incredibly super stupid boring!

Got any other boring far left propaganda you want use?