Supremes: Hobby Lobby wins

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Oddly enough, neither did anyone with a penis.

 

[Coyote]

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?

It's all medical needs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Not at all, we are against the government forcing people to directly pay for something they have a personal objection to. Oddly enough, our objections means hat the government cannot force you to tithe to a church.

You, on the other hand, want the government to have the power to tell you you have to pay for my Bible, something that completely boggles my mind.

 

[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?

It's all medical needs.

So you think that the fetus is a cancer a tumor that must be prevented and removed.

Typical Taliban mentality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey Joe, have you noticed that Kosh isn't answering any questions?

Why do you notice anything Kosh says? He is the functional equivalent of a chatbot from the BBS days of the internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 @Coyote
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.

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

One flaw in that theory, HIV/AIDS is not caused by homosexuality. I might wonder why you don't know that, but it is easier to assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a lengthy answer, but - I don't see HOW it would prevent or address the case that I mentioned. A business could still have religious objections to homosexuality and refuse to cover treatment for AIDS on religious grounds.

Rather than maintaining that health care is between a worker and his doctor, they are inserting their religious beliefs in what will or what won't be covered - not on medical grounds or even financial grounds, but solely religious grounds. Since benefits, like healthcare are part of the entire compensation package a worker contracts for with his employee - it ought to be treated like salary. Is it acceptable for an employer to dictate to an employee how he may use his paycheck?

You can always treat an individual's health care plan like auto insurance, simply allow that person to purchase the type of coverage they want and carry it with them from employer to employer - separate from (and out of the hands of) that business. Just purchase the plans on your own and leave the business participation to be the provider of your health care out. This way you don't have to worry about what the employer believes, and you can take your health care plan everywhere you go and never be without it. Problem solved.

Except for cost...

Transfer the tax benefits given to employers to the employees.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

by ruling business should be to discriminate on anything based on their religion.


How is this different from saying anyone who is black can't healthcare because being blacks getting healthcare is a sin in my religion

There was no such ruling.

 

[Siete]

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?

Not at all, we are against the government forcing people to directly pay for something they have a personal objection to. Oddly enough, our objections means hat the government cannot force you to tithe to a church.

You, on the other hand, want the government to have the power to tell you you have to pay for my Bible, something that completely boggles my mind.

good for you. Be against it (specifically, ACA) until you pass out and have a stroke. All the carping "we" do has absolutely NO effect on the LAW. As a matter of fact, be against it until House Republicans defund the law, oh say 55 times or so, and let me know how much effect Congress had being against it ..

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to transfusions for OTHERS, or only for themselves?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Not at all, we are against the government forcing people to directly pay for something they have a personal objection to. Oddly enough, our objections means hat the government cannot force you to tithe to a church.

You, on the other hand, want the government to have the power to tell you you have to pay for my Bible, something that completely boggles my mind.

good for you. Be against it (specifically, ACA) until you pass out and have a stroke. All the carping "we" do has absolutely NO effect on the LAW. As a matter of fact, be against it until House Republicans defund the law, oh say 55 times or so, and let me know how much effect Congress had being against it ..

Actually, without Obamacare, I would have been getting treatment for my cancer within a week. Because of it, it took me a month.

But, please, keep telling a guy that knows exactly what Obamacare is like how wonderful it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to transfusions for OTHERS, or only for themselves?

They say it is a matter of conscious for each person.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well no. And the government does that all the time.

This is an extremely bad ruling because now it opens the floodgates for religious discrimination.

This is just as bad as the "Citizen's United" decision.

Conservatives have shown what they want is a Theocracy with this decision and a government that is ruled by the very rich..

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.

Yet another stupid rule. (Likely not a LAW, just a fiat by an unelected bureaucrat.)

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=4748]Care4all[/MENTION]

1. Who says if the tax law wasn't there at all,
that workers and management couldn't set up their company to
incorporate health care as part of the cooperative services
and leave govt out of it at all?

The ONLY reason tax laws exist is by people CONSENTING to them.
If you don't consent, the laws get pushed to be changed, or it's "taxation without representation' which always causes political unrest; people will not be satisfied
until they are represented, especially if they are taxed!

2. so if companies and workers CONSENT to a Tax Law
that isn't the same as this, where the complainants DIDN'T consent to be forced into the loop between the consumer's choices and what the insurance/govt plans were.

The underlying issue about "religious freedom" is CONSENT.
HL consented to provide insurance that included other means of birth control,
but did NOT consent to these others.

So if I consent to a govt policy that is different than if I don't.
Consent of the governed is the basis of law.

And yes, this is violated all the time, which is why people like you can't tell the difference if people are really consenting, dissenting or just complaining politically. There are SO many violations going on constantly, it's like crying wolf and we can't hear each other's real complaints over the noise going on. It all sounds like political whining, so the real objectives get lost.

Yep, the ONLY reason employers can deduct health care costs for their employees from their taxes, IS BECAUSE by a law, it IS considered the salary, (c0mpensation) of their employee.

Because of the constant noise in the media, with all sides complaining,
people can only be HEARD and taken seriously if they sue in "collective numbers"
like if it involves a popular enough group that they can get legal help to argue.

If you notice, the INDIVIDUALS who sue for individual freedom of choice
aren't winning cases, only the bigger groups with bigger influence/resources/protection.

So this STILL isn't consent based govt. The concept of civil liberties and consent of the governed is lost where individuals are still being overruled by govt and politics, and only if
you can AFFORD lawyers like Hobby Lobby did can you get your freedom recognized.

The same FREEDOM OF CHOICE belongs to ALL PEOPLE but
it took a company suing to get the attention of govt that has ignored the "little people."

The people who interpret this as win for All People
should use this as a precedent to interpret it that way. All people have that freedom,
and govt cannot deprive us of liberty without our consent but must use "due process."

This business of having to fight corporate politics with more corporate politics is sad, if people are missing the point: no one should have to sue to get rights back we should already have as inalienable.

If to get "federal govt to force companies to pay for insurance that requires X Y Z drugs" requires a Federal Law to pass, that is NOT "inalienable" but an unnatural right.

The rights like "free exercise of religion" and "free speech" due process etc.
are INALIENABLE so the laws clarify Govt cannot take these away.

But because unconstitutional unnatural laws were passed forcing unnatural regulations that violated free exercise of religion, which is a natural spiritual law; then people have to go through Corporate lawyers (and find a case that affects a big enough company where the contested fine would be in the millions) to sue in Federal Court to restore these Naturally Existing Rights that the unconstitutional laws overrode.

 

[emilynghiem]

Didn't the safety of the microwave affect your bar business directly?
(And if the regulations were excessive YES you and other businesses
can and should stand up and demand the reforms be changed, and
not support some "political conflict of interest" the govt had which you oppose on ethics grounds)

You weren't asked to buy a microwave that was made using
materials that violated the limits of your religious tolerance for diversity.
You were FINED for wanting to buy THIS model that met your business requirements
vs THAT model that had "nothing to do with your business."

How does the govt regulations on REQUIRING "access to certain birth control"
affect the business services of the company?

I can see the connection between microwave ovens and food services provided to customers through your bar.

But this is like if you or other bar owners don't believe in "govt requiring you" to pay for discount food services for your staff, but you did it anyway and put up with all kinds of choices you don't care for but others do. But then the govt added additional requirements and fines you DID object to, such as pork products that you object to religiously, and wanted that taken off the list without getting fined.

The option turned requirement of paying part of the food services for staff
is NOT directly tied to your business function. YES the food services and discounts COULD be set up another way besides going through Govt. If so, people could choose as they wished. But because this system forces "everyone under the same system through Govt" then complaints are coming out about how to make the coverage Uniform when people disagree what should be covered or not. SOLUTION: take it back out of govt that requires it be uniform, and put it back in the hands of the people to dictate their own choices.

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.

NOTE: I AGREE with you that if EVERYONE agreed that ALL employers and ALL employees should be under EQUAL govt policies to provide uniform insurance and medical access,
YES this would be discrimination to start nitpicking and let SOME companies opt out and not others.

However, that whole premise is flawed to begin with.
Not every BELIEVES that is lawful or constitutional or ethical to force that through federal govt. And people have a RIGHT to their beliefs that is still not fully recognized here.

So that is why we have these conflicts.
The premise is contradictory from the start, and this was just one sign of the problem.

Thanks for pointing that out [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

[MENTION=11865]Luissa[/MENTION]
I agree that drug and also criminal addictions can be treated and cured for cheaper.

I would rather fund health care reform using that route, and convert all these billions dollar prison contracts (that waste tax money on failed systems that make people sicker) into teaching hospitals and clinics for training interns and resident doctors while providing public health services on a sustainable basis.

This whole ACA is a diversion from that.
Maybe if the exchanges can be used to register the immigrant and prison populations, we can take the given system and let each state use it to convert prison funding into health care facilities and services for more people.

The same methods that heal drug addiction cure mental and criminal illness, and deeper methods of spiritual healing have been applied to cure cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. But since these deeper methods have been used to heal homosexuality they have been rejected politically and pushed to be banned. So we need to focus on the proper application of such natural healing methods to address ALL medical and mental illnesses that can be cured this way, and quit fighting politically for control.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to transfusions for OTHERS, or only for themselves?

They say it is a matter of conscious for each person.

JW don't vote, run for office, or get involved in politics or enlist in military.
They will accept the govt policy as given as "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

For children the law requires not withholding lifesaving treatment.
For adults, they will work through educational means, and try to set up alternatives to blood related procedures, but will not fight legislatively or politically.

What bothers me is JW don't believe in spiritual healing, which could prevent the need for emergency measures in some cases. So I find that dangerous to teach avoidance of natural healing methods. The secular do so out of ignorance, but when religious groups teach this wrong, or groups reject this for political reasons in opposition to religions, that is dangerously wrong to deny natural knowledge that could help people and save lives.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

If I wasn't laughing so hard after reading this piece of whit opinion I would have to neg you for criminal stupidity.

Let me make a prediction, Obama will write an EO giving closely held corporations the same out he gave to non profits. They will need to file a form stating their objections to the mandate, and what it is they refuse to cover. This will then trigger a clause that causes the insurance companies to cover these contraception methods.

The best part is that you will end up looking like the complete idiot you are because employers won't be the ones telling their employees what they can't have, it will be the government. You will then float along in your delusional bubble that all is right with the world because the government is in charge of all your decisions.

We are going to get single payer at some point, regardless. This awful decision will probably just hasten the demise of the status quo.

Meanwhile, I think you guys on the right fail to realize just how badly SCOTUS has screwed you guys on this one.

Here's what Obama SHOULD do. He should go back to Congress and propose a sensible amendment to the RFRA that your Religious Beliefs cannot be applied to your employees. You see, SCOTUS' finding was based on RFRA, not the Constitution.

Then you will have all these Republican Senators trying to explain why they think it is that your boss should be able to tell you what kind of birth control you should have.

Because, honestly, nothing looks more stupid than old white men telling young women how their va-jay-jays should be monitored.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

If I wasn't laughing so hard after reading this piece of whit opinion I would have to neg you for criminal stupidity.

Let me make a prediction, Obama will write an EO giving closely held corporations the same out he gave to non profits. They will need to file a form stating their objections to the mandate, and what it is they refuse to cover. This will then trigger a clause that causes the insurance companies to cover these contraception methods.

The best part is that you will end up looking like the complete idiot you are because employers won't be the ones telling their employees what they can't have, it will be the government. You will then float along in your delusional bubble that all is right with the world because the government is in charge of all your decisions.

We are going to get single payer at some point, regardless. This awful decision will probably just hasten the demise of the status quo.

Meanwhile, I think you guys on the right fail to realize just how badly SCOTUS has screwed you guys on this one.

Here's what Obama SHOULD do. He should go back to Congress and propose a sensible amendment to the RFRA that your Religious Beliefs cannot be applied to your employees. You see, SCOTUS' finding was based on RFRA, not the Constitution.

Then you will have all these Republican Senators trying to explain why they think it is that your boss should be able to tell you what kind of birth control you should have.

Because, honestly, nothing looks more stupid than old white men telling young women how their va-jay-jays should be monitored.

lol, something else for joeb to get his panties in a knot over. face it joe, guns are here to stay, you liberal lunatics will get the boot from congress in November and this pathetic downhill rollcoaster ride your side has been taking us un will come to an end.

 

[Silhouette]

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

If we are talking about the 14th Amendment, the looney far left actually has a point. What this Ruling has done was to lay the foundation for teasing out discrimination against behaviors vs race, religion, country of origin or gender. And they should be worried.

You've all heard I assume about the various appeals about gay wedding cakes and photographers objecting to shooting gay weddings? Those are both grounded in religious objections to LGBT behaviors.