Hobby Lobby: the Supreme Court's Decision

[Bonanza]

Just wondering what the public-at-large (here in TV, of course)
thinks about the Supreme Court's decision
that says it's okay for Hobby Lobby to
not cover insurance for any type of birth control
for women in their employ.

Your thoughts, please..

[njbchbum]

ANY type or just the four claimed to potentially result in abortion? They are still covering 16 of the 20 contraceptive methods required by the ACA. Are they not?

[NYGUY]

From what I know, the decision was very limited, in that it only applies to "for profit companies" with private ownership (i.e. family or limited ownership). That seems appropriate as a freedom of religion exception for individuals and not the general public (public companies).

[VT2TV]

ANY type or just the four claimed to potentially result in abortion? They are still covering 16 of the 20 contraceptive methods required by the ACA. Are they not?


I think you are right-not sure on the details, but heard that they were covering the majority of the birth control, with the exception of the meds considered abortion drugs, or the morning after pills, etc.

[KeepingItReal]

ANY type or just the four claimed to potentially result in abortion? They are still covering 16 of the 20 contraceptive methods required by the ACA. Are they not?


Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control
So much for Justice Alito's "narrow" opinion.
—By Patrick Caldwell | Wed Jul. 2, 2014 8:32 PM EDT

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

[MikeV]

Good decision - If we had one more liberal judge the results would have been very different. It always alarms me that 9 supposedly intelligent judges seem to vote ideologically instead of legally. So our Supreme Court decisions are political and not based on the rule of the Constitution. Saddens me.

[KayakerNC]

Good decision - If we had one more liberal judge the results would have been very different. It always alarms me that 9 supposedly intelligent judges seem to vote ideologically instead of legally. So our Supreme Court decisions are political and not based on the rule of the Constitution. Saddens me.

Depends on if you think corporations are people....and religious people at that.

[MikeV]

Depends on if you think corporations are people....and religious people at that.


2010 Supreme Court decision said corporations can be considered as an individual.

[jrandall]

Good decision. Hobby a Lobby was againstpaying for 4 abortive contraception drugs.

[blueash]

five catholic supreme court judges decided that the concerns of a corporation which holds a religious view which happens to be exactly the view of the catholic church must be respected. However these same five catholic judges went out of their way to say that the religious views of others which are not shared by the catholic church are specifically not included in their decision.. transfusions and vaccination are supported by the catholic church but not be some very common faiths in this country. the majority went out of its way to state that those other religions objections don't count. So this was not a decision based on freedom of religion but rather another decision based on the personal religion of the judges. The exact opposite of what separation of church and state is supposed to represent.

[njbchbum]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control
So much for Justice Alito's "narrow" opinion.
—By Patrick Caldwell | Wed Jul. 2, 2014 8:32 PM EDT

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception)

Great idea to have "appeals court rehear the cases in light of the Hobby Lobby decision." Gives the appeals court the opportunity to confirm their initial decision because the cases are so much more broad and lack the "numerous qualifiers" that the Hobby Lobby case met.

[CFrance]

And Hobby Lobby has no problem buying scads of goods from China, a country with forced birth control and sometimes forced abortion, to the point that many baby girls are abandoned by the side of the road to die because they were girls and not boys.

How horribly hypocritical. It has nothing to do with religion, in my opinion. The bottom line is money. They don't want to pay for this stuff, and they don't care that the supreme court put the onus of the cost back on the insurance companies, who will now raise premiums to employees to cover the cost.

There's frequently something unethical behind the closed doors of these so-called religious corporations. They have the same lawyers as everyone else.

[njbchbum]

And Hobby Lobby has no problem buying scads of goods from China, a country with forced birth control and sometimes forced abortion, to the point that many baby girls are abandoned by the side of the road to die because they were girls and not boys.

How horribly hypocritical. It has nothing to do with religion, in my opinion. The bottom line is money. They don't want to pay for this stuff, and they don't care that the supreme court put the onus of the cost back on the insurance companies, who will now raise premiums to employees to cover the cost.
There's frequently something unethical behind the closed doors of these so-called religious corporations. They have the same lawyers as everyone else.

CFrance -
How will insurance companies increase premiums to cover the cost of products that will not be covered in the employee's insurance plan?

Maybe it is too late for me to be up and trying to figure that out. Don't rush to explain - I'm gonna head to bed! C'yall l8r!

[CFrance]

CFrance -
How will insurance companies increase premiums to cover the cost of products that will not be covered in the employee's insurance plan?

Maybe it is too late for me to be up and trying to figure that out. Don't rush to explain - I'm gonna head to bed! C'yall l8r!

I'll find it and let you know tomorrow, NJBB. I read it in the news or heard it on NPR.

[redwitch]

I find it extremely frightening. What next -- privately held corporations will once again be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, people of color, women, etc.? Oh,wait, this ruling does allow a company to discriminate against women since birth control is not a male issue.

[44Ruger]

I find it extremely frightening. What next -- privately held corporations will once again be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, people of color, women, etc.? Oh,wait, this ruling does allow a company to discriminate against women since birth control is not a male issue.

You are so spot on. What a slap in the face of women this decision applied. Once again, religion takes precedence over common decency and the LAW. Shame on the court. When decisions are split between liberal and conservative lines, that shows prejudicial bias from both sides.

[Bonanza]

I find it extremely frightening. What next -- privately held corporations will once again be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, people of color, women, etc.? Oh,wait, this ruling does allow a company to discriminate against women since birth control is not a male issue.

It's interesting to note that with all the hullabaloo about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay insurance for birth control for women,
they will pay for a man's Rx to take Viagra, Cialis, etc.

Somehow, I find that rather strange. Hmmmm . . .
If you'll excuse me for being graphic,
that means that it's okay for a man to put it in,
but women . . . well . . . okay ladies . . .
roll the dice and take your chances!
:shrug:

[BarryRX]

To,label Plan B and IUD's as abortifacients is bad science. I guess our daughters will have to consult their bosses instead of their doctors about birth control. This is part of the dissent from Justice Ginsburg.
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

[graciegirl]

It's interesting to note that with all the hullabaloo about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay insurance for birth control for women,




they will pay for a man's Rx to take Viagra, Cialis, etc.

Somehow, I find that rather strange. Hmmmm . . .
If you'll excuse me for being graphic,
that means that it's okay for a man to put it in,
but women . . . well . . . okay ladies . . .
roll the dice and take your chances!

:shrug:



Just to be fair, I understood that NOT all Birth Control was at issue, only the ones that caused abortion. Like the morning after pills. I am a moderate, and a person who supports Rowe Wade, and believes in the separation of church and state. I think it is very possible for people to hold sincere beliefs on the subject of abortion and I understand them, even if I don't agree with them. I can see both sides.

Although I struggle with faith I would never condemn those with faith or without faith for sincerely held beliefs. I don't think a business would make an issue like this for Greed because the potential to lose business is very real when you take a stand like this. Who knows?

We look at this as we look at all other things, because of our life experiences and our education and our inate personalities. Which means our firmly held beliefs.

Vote on issues you CAN vote about. It feels like that isn't much anymore. It feels like the folks in Washington don't send many choices our way. I am concerned about checks and balances. Immigration will further change the vote. I feel powerless.

[Challenger]

To,label Plan B and IUD's as abortants is bad science. I guess our daughters will have to consult their bosses instead of their doctors about birth control. This is part of the dissent from Justice Ginsburg.
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

As our society grows more pluralistic , the issues of sectarian religion will become more and more vexing.

This decision is troubling to me as it is only a precursor to many more troubling issues that we will face. A mine field for sure.

The words of Jesus, " Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God, That which is God's"

[gomoho]

Please understand it is not all contraception that is being denied - that is a liberal lie being told to boost the "war on women" concept. The owners of Hobby Lobby believe life begins at conception; therefore, to take or use something that would cause that viable egg to be destroyed is against their religious beliefs. Why should these private owners have to pay for something they don't believe in? What about their rights to religious beliefs? They are not telling women how to live their lives - they still have the option to buy on the open market something that will terminate the pregnancy. And let's get down to personal responsibility - if you can't afford to get pregnant or pay for the morning after pill than use you brain and don't get in that position.

If you feel so strongly that your business should pay for this option for a woman than you should put your money and time and family life on the line and open a business next door and then those that want this coverage can come work for you. Stop already
with the whining and the "I'm entitled bs".

[44Ruger]

As our society grows more pluralistic , the issues of sectarian religion will become more and more vexing.

This decision is troubling to me as it is only a precursor to many more troubling issues that we will face. A mine field for sure.

The words of Jesus, " Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God, That which is God's"

Agree. Too many over zealous fanatics to allow one belief to dictate to all Americans.

[rubicon]

Corporations are organized to serve peoples needs utilizing people (employees) to execute such commerce. so to me corporations are people.

I had detected some real religious bias in some of the posts. and it is not surprising to find that those who believe abortion is right will not be pleased with the courts opinion.

I will skip over all of that and focus on two factors economics and freedoms.

I am very concerned that the government is using economics to continually shrink our freedoms. i am very concern that our government actually would have us believe they should be paying for someone's birth control or those blue pills that create the need for birth control. Medicare now says taxpayers will support transgender operations.

It has been reported that all of the major health carriers will be increasing premiums around 20%-25% for the 2015. Many retiree health plans have been dropped or employers have established a stipend type arrangement.
Employers shop benefits on a continuum and they are well aware of what is facing them and they do not want the burden.

Hint: an insurance policy can be made to cover anything. The catch is that an actuary is going to calculate the cost vis a vis the likelihood of a loss
So if folks want a health policy to cover everything fine but like the man said pay me now or pay me later.

In summary I am leary of Greeks bearing gifts. Clearly big government is destroying this country because every segment of its society has their hands out creating crony capitalism and serfs who serve their lord who is quickly regulating every aspect of your life. We need to break this addiction.

[Taltarzac725]

Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby: 5 Things You Should Know - Law and Daily Life (http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/06/supreme-court-on-hobby-lobby-5-things-you-should-know.html)

If you want to dig into the ramifications of this decision which only affects the Federal Government's response to these drugs not the States http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_case_law/2014/07/how-will-hobby-lobby-affect-californians.html check out Findlaw's blogs as well as various Constitutional Law professor's diaries (blogs) and the like.

http://onward.justia.com/2014/06/30/justia-resources-and-commentary-on-hobby-lobby/

This is a very interesting solution to this problem presented by Street Signs' Jake Novak -- http://www.cnbc.com/id/101807865#.

Of course, this all comes back to the free market. Back in 2001, Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman studied the health-care market and showed how the biggest problems with access and pricing were due to third parties getting involved in the process. Friedman determined that whether it was Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance companies or employers, anyone getting between the consumer and the treatment was likely to drive prices higher, reduce supply or both.

[Cedwards38]

I did see a curious post on the internet relative to this SCOTUS decision. The main points were:

(1) If your employer is a Jehovah's Witness, can they now refuse to provide insurance that will pay for blood transfusions due to religious convictions?

(2) If your employer is a Scientologist, can they refuse to provide insurance that will pay for doctor visits due to religious convictions?

My apologies in advance to all Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists as I know little about your religious beliefs.

[buggyone]

Do not forget about the ones who do not believe in vaccinations.

As Justice Ginsberg said, " this is entering a minefield" of what can be brought up.

Bad decision.

Well, we stopped going to Hobby Lobby over a year ago anyhow based on their lunatic fringe idealogy.

[graciegirl]

We may as well be out on the back porch talking to the dog. We aren't ever going to change anyone's mind on religion or politics but we are going to ruin someone's day.

The amount of days left on this earth is diminishing.

Good Morning everyone.

[shcisamax]

I muddled this for a couple days and this is what I came up with:

If HL were truly committed to its principles, they would opt for funds in their portfolio such as the Catholic Value Fund which screens for any conflicts rather than purchase pharmaceutical funds that manufacture life ending drugs. They would resist purchasing product from countries like China that not only supports but monetarily rewards abortion as population control. You can't have it both ways.

Churches are exempt but not outreach of churches or other church business activity which I think is wrong. We have separation of church and state and that should be respected in all aspects. If it is church activity, it should be exempt.

However, at the end of the day, HL is not in the business of religion and therefore should not be exempt.

[perrjojo]

Hobby Lobby is a family owned corporation. I have no stand on abortion but let's look at it this way. Hobby Lobby looses millions of dollars every year by being closed on Sunday. They are one of the few large corporate businesses that close on Sunday. They close on Sunday in order to stay stead fast to their religious principles. It seems they should also have the right to other things that they hold important to be true to their faith. They have also said they would close their business if forced to provide the drugs they oppose. I don't believe they are bluffing. This is just a very important issue to them.

[44Ruger]

Hobby Lobby is a family owned corporation. I have no stand on abortion but let's look at it this way. Hobby Lobby looses millions of dollars every year by being closed on Sunday. They are one of the few large corporate businesses that close on Sunday. They close on Sunday in order to stay stead fast to their religious principles. It seems they should also have the right to other things that they hold important to be true to their faith. They have also said they would close their business if forced to provide the drugs they oppose. I don't believe they are bluffing. This is just a very important issue to them.

When looked at in that way, you make a perfect excuse. I still feel we are looking at discrimination and that is a bad thing. Should they be allowed to require all new employees to convert to their specific beliefs to obtain employment.

[njbchbum]

Do not forget about the ones who do not believe in vaccinations.

As Justice Ginsberg said, " this is entering a minefield" of what can be brought up.

Bad decision.

Well, we stopped going to Hobby Lobby over a year ago anyhow based on their lunatic fringe idealogy.

I keep shopping at Hobby Lobby because their personal beliefs have no impact on my life but their great products and sales do have great impact on my finances!.

Ginsberg/minefield - rotflmao
From the decision:
"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."
[http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/06/30/13-354_olp1.pdf]

[perrjojo]

When looked at in that way, you make a perfect excuse. I still feel we are looking at discrimination and that is a bad thing. Should they be allowed to require all new employees to convert to their specific beliefs to obtain employment.
No, they should not and do not make such a requirement. Hobby Lobby pays twice the minimum wage and provides good benefits except for birth control. If that is an issue for a woman, she may not want to apply for at job at Hobby Lobby. I'm not saying their stand is right or wrong. I just think they have a right to decide.... Just as they have a right to decide to close on Sunday when that is also outside the norm.

[44Ruger]

Do not forget about the ones who do not believe in vaccinations.

As Justice Ginsberg said, " this is entering a minefield" of what can be brought up.

Bad decision.

Well, we stopped going to Hobby Lobby over a year ago anyhow based on their lunatic fringe idealogy.

Agree, we need not turn into a secular nation like so many in the Middle East. This is one more way of chipping away at the freedoms Americans love. Leave my guns and my way of worship alone.

[njbchbum]

I find it extremely frightening. What next -- privately held corporations will once again be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, people of color, women, etc.? Oh,wait, this ruling does allow a company to discriminate against women since birth control is not a male issue.

How do you get from a privately owned family business which is held only by a few family members [rather than is publicly traded] and who provides insurance to its employees for 16 of 20 contraceptive measures to this being discriminatory against women?

How do you even question the potential to discriminate against the laundry list of people you cited when THIS case is about 4 forms of contraception?

[NYGUY]

No, they should not and do not make such a requirement. Hobby Lobby pays twice the minimum wage and provides good benefits except for birth control. If that is an issue for a woman, she may not want to apply for a job at Hobby Lobby. I'm not saying their stand is right or wrong. I just think they have a right to decide.... Just as they have a right to decide to close on Sunday when that is also outside the norm.

That's right, and just how they have a right to ignore there own beliefs and buy much of their product line from China, which promotes abortion as a means of population control.

[Challenger]

Agree, we need not turn into a secular nation like so many in the Middle East. This is one more way of chipping away at the freedoms Americans love. Leave my guns and my way of worship alone.

Which countries in the Middle East are Secular?:shrug:

[njbchbum]

Please understand it is not all contraception that is being denied - that is a liberal lie being told to boost the "war on women" concept. The owners of Hobby Lobby believe life begins at conception; therefore, to take or use something that would cause that viable egg to be destroyed is against their religious beliefs. Why should these private owners have to pay for something they don't believe in? What about their rights to religious beliefs? They are not telling women how to live their lives - they still have the option to buy on the open market something that will terminate the pregnancy. And let's get down to personal responsibility - if you can't afford to get pregnant or pay for the morning after pill than use you brain and don't get in that position.

If you feel so strongly that your business should pay for this option for a woman than you should put your money and time and family life on the line and open a business next door and then those that want this coverage can come work for you. Stop already
with the whining and the "I'm entitled bs".

:bigbow: :agree:

[biker1]

Check the facts of the case. This was about 4 forms of abortion-inducing birth control. Hobby Lobby did provide and will continue to provide 16 other forms of birth control.

It's interesting to note that with all the hullabaloo about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay insurance for birth control for women,
they will pay for a man's Rx to take Viagra, Cialis, etc.

Somehow, I find that rather strange. Hmmmm . . .
If you'll excuse me for being graphic,
that means that it's okay for a man to put it in,
but women . . . well . . . okay ladies . . .
roll the dice and take your chances!
:shrug:

[njbchbum]

I did see a curious post on the internet relative to this SCOTUS decision. The main points were:

(1) If your employer is a Jehovah's Witness, can they now refuse to provide insurance that will pay for blood transfusions due to religious convictions?

(2) If your employer is a Scientologist, can they refuse to provide insurance that will pay for doctor visits due to religious convictions?

My apologies in advance to all Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists as I know little about your religious beliefs.

If the employers can stand up to and meet the numerous limiting qualifiers established in this decision - most likely yes. What do you think the odds are that one of those employers is going to test that possibility?

[biker1]

Hobby Lobby did provide and will continue to provide birth control except for 4 forms (out of 20) that are abortion-induing. To say that they are not proving birth control benefits is just wrong. Also, nothing is stopping Hobby Lobby employees from purchasing abortion-inducing forms of birth control.


No, they should not and do not make such a requirement. Hobby Lobby pays twice the minimum wage and provides good benefits except for birth control. If that is an issue for a woman, she may not want to apply for at job at Hobby Lobby. I'm not saying their stand is right or wrong. I just think they have a right to decide.... Just as they have a right to decide to close on Sunday when that is also outside the norm.

[rubicon]

Everyone keeps talking about freedoms but what Hobby Lobby is about is not FREEDOMS but ENTITLEMENTS.

The government can mandate for you to secure birth control courtesy of your insurance policy which an employer is paying for and subsidized by tax payers
So isn't it a short hop to enforcing women to giving birth to only one baby or forcing a woman to abort a pregnancy government feels might result in a not so perfect human being in order to control insurance costs and cut down on over use of medical facilties.

From a personal point of view our government is way out of line and as did communist with Eastern Europe this government will take away our freedoms one slice at a time and its causing me great concern for succeeding generations of Americans

[redwitch]

From a personal point of view our government is way out of line and as did communist with Eastern Europe this government will take away our freedoms one slice at a time and its causing me great concern for succeeding generations of Americans

The freedoms we have lost and given up truly frighten me. We've given up free speech and privacy for security. We are willing to waive the right to be protected from search and seizure and even a right to a fair trial so that we're safe from terrorists. We're encouraged to report friends and neighbors. The separation of church and state is seriously dwindling. Roe v. Wade is almost out of the door. Even Miranda has been diluted. It seems like individual freedoms are going by the wayside for the "greater good."

And I'm on the verge of getting seriously political, so I guess better get my fingers off the keyboard and go do something constructive.

[onslowe]

Gracie is correct to say that none of us will persuade the other in this type of topic, and it only goes to the ruination of one's day.

However, I, as a practicing and praying Christian, don't like phrases like 'lunatic fringe ideology' tossed about at religious people. That's a broad insult and says a lot about the genuine fear ruling some people's lives. Religion is not the same as 'ideology' but the latter is certainly the more attention grabbing word especially for those who live by sound bytes and quick slogans.

Rubicon and Gomoho have very well stated what they, and I believe, that this is all about dubious 'entitlements' and the slippery slope of smiley faced government fascism regardless of political party.

[perrjojo]

That's right, and just how they have a right to ignore there own beliefs and buy much of their product line from China, which promotes abortion as a means of population control.
I understand your logic but if they did not buy products from China they would have nothing to sell. Look at the labels on your clothes and everything else in your home. What percentage is made in the USA? I try to buy American made but is almost impossible.

[Taltarzac725]

I understand your logic but if they did not buy products from China they would have nothing to sell. Look at the labels on your clothes and everything else in your home. What percentage is made in the USA? I try to buy American made but is almost impossible.

Buddhist Perspectives on the Abortion Debate (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/abortion.htm)

I was thinking about the religion in China and discovered this interesting article.

[rubicon]

The freedoms we have lost and given up truly frighten me. We've given up free speech and privacy for security. We are willing to waive the right to be protected from search and seizure and even a right to a fair trial so that we're safe from terrorists. We're encouraged to report friends and neighbors. The separation of church and state is seriously dwindling. Roe v. Wade is almost out of the door. Even Miranda has been diluted. It seems like individual freedoms are going by the wayside for the "greater good."

And I'm on the verge of getting seriously political, so I guess better get my fingers off the keyboard and go do something constructive.

redwitch: the problem is not that we are getting too political its that folks are so divided that they don't seek understanding they seek agreement only. We have become so divided that we can tell a person's politics by asking which news station do you view and /or which corporation/business do you hold in disfavor.

[44Ruger]

I understand your logic but if they did not buy products from China they would have nothing to sell. Look at the labels on your clothes and everything else in your home. What percentage is made in the USA? I try to buy American made but is almost impossible.

So it's OK to support abortion if you can make a profit, but not just to allow your fellow Americans freedom of choice. This is nothing more than forced religious prejudice.

[perrjojo]

[/B]

redwitch: the problem is not that we are getting too political its that folks are so divided that they don't seek understanding they seek agreement only. We have become so divided that we can tell a person's politics by asking which news station do you view and /or which corporation/business do you hold in disfavor.

I like the way you note the difference between understanding and agreement. We do not all need to agree, we just need to at least try to understand.

[44Ruger]

[/B]

redwitch: the problem is not that we are getting too political its that folks are so divided that they don't seek understanding they seek agreement only. We have become so divided that we can tell a person's politics by asking which news station do you view and /or which corporation/business do you hold in disfavor.

I am a FOX follower, but on contraception, I say it is only between the woman and her God.

[Tennisnut]

I assume that a Catholic owned "corporation" could advance this to the Supreme Court and reduce the methods of birth control to one. Then they would only support health care that would provide the "rhythm method" of birth control. The slippery slope continues!

[Taltarzac725]

[/B]

redwitch: the problem is not that we are getting too political its that folks are so divided that they don't seek understanding they seek agreement only. We have become so divided that we can tell a person's politics by asking which news station do you view and /or which corporation/business do you hold in disfavor.

I try to look at a variety of news channels (CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, BBC, etc) before making a decision and my voting record is all over the board.

We do need to start deciding things for ourselves rather than listening to what the media feeds us. And the Internet is a great tool for that.

And, despite whatever the Supreme Court of the US might say about some issue there are always various other checks and balances.

The Supreme Court itself just recently made a ruling in favor of our right of privacy with respect to stuff on our cell phones. Many people I am acquainted with use their cell phones to do research on many topics.

[buggyone]

Everyone keeps talking about freedoms but what Hobby Lobby is about is not FREEDOMS but ENTITLEMENTS.

The government can mandate for you to secure birth control courtesy of your insurance policy which an employer is paying for and subsidized by tax payers
So isn't it a short hop to enforcing women to giving birth to only one baby or forcing a woman to abort a pregnancy government feels might result in a not so perfect human being in order to control insurance costs and cut down on over use of medical facilties.

From a personal point of view our government is way out of line and as did communist with Eastern Europe this government will take away our freedoms one slice at a time and its causing me great concern for succeeding generations of Americans

There is absolutely nothing that states a woman is mandated to secure birth control from any source. If she does not want birth control, no one is forcing her to use it.

No, it is not a short step to require only one child or to force abortions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There are no "freedoms" being taken away one slice at a time.

There are freedoms being formed similar to the civil rights freedoms of the 1960's that show courage.

[44Ruger]

There is absolutely nothing that states a woman is mandated to secure birth control from any source. If she does not want birth control, no one is forcing her to use it.

No, it is not a short step to require only one child or to force abortions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There are no "freedoms" being taken away one slice at a time.

There are freedoms being formed similar to the civil rights freedoms of the 1960's that show courage.

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.

[perrjojo]

So it's OK to support abortion if you can make a profit, but not just to allow your fellow Americans freedom of choice. This is nothing more than forced religious prejudice.
You know that's not what I said at all. Made in America is a whole new thread.

[perrjojo]

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.
A woman is still free to use whatever contraception she chooses. She just has to pay for it. She is also free to NOT work at a business that will not provide the birth control drug she desires.

[biker1]

As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting. What most people fail to realize is that Obamacare, by mandating that insurance companies provide birth control, has almost certainly increased the price for birth control and therefor the insurance premiums that we pay either directly or indirectly through taxes to cover subsides. This is what happens when the gov gets involved in anything. A case in point is college tuition: the gov being involved in student loans has directly resulted in tuition prices rising much faster than the rate of inflation over the past 30 years. It used to be that "health insurance" was designed to cover serious, and therefore expensive, illnesses. I never thought of pregnancy as a disease. Welcome to the entitlement era where the gov mandates, controls, and forces us to pay for whatever the bureaucrats think people should be receiving and anyone who disagrees is called names.

Just wondering what the public-at-large (here in TV, of course)
thinks about the Supreme Court's decision
that says it's okay for Hobby Lobby to
not cover insurance for any type of birth control
for women in their employ.

Your thoughts, please..

[gomoho]

So it's OK to support abortion if you can make a profit, but not just to allow your fellow Americans freedom of choice. This is nothing more than forced religious prejudice.

No one's freedom of choice is being taken away - they can do what the hell they want to do at their own expense. Why is this such a difficult concept to get. And what about the owners of Hobby Lobby's choice to freedom of religion. You don't seem to have a problem denying them their right to practice as they choose.

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=biker1;902640]As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting."

Negatory, good buddy(as we used to say on the CB radio). The Supreme Court has told all lower courts to re-hear all cases regarding all forms of birth control. This is the minefield that Justice Ginsberg was referring to in her dissent. It very well might push into other healthcare issues such as transfusions, vaccines, mental health, or preventive medicine.

[buggyone]

A woman is still free to use whatever contraception she chooses. She just has to pay for it. She is also free to NOT work at a business that will not provide the birth control drug she desires.

I wonder if Hobby Lobby would give paid sick leave to an employee if she needed some extra recovery days after having an abortion that she paid for? :shrug:

[44Ruger]

[QUOTE=biker1;902640]As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting."

Negatory, good buddy(as we used to say on the CB radio). The Supreme Court has told all lower courts to re-hear all cases regarding all forms of birth control. This is the minefield that Justice Ginsberg was referring to in her dissent. It very well might push into other healthcare issues such as transfusions, vaccines, mental health, or preventive medicine.

Yes, why is this so. Hard to understand. I am center neutral on all issues. This one is slanted to far to the right of center for me. I lean right, but not when it comes to discrimination against women. I love my wife too much to tell her what she can or cannot do.

[Bavarian]

It is not a duty of a Corporation to provide Health Care. And it is only recently, say early '90s that Health Insurance morhed into prepaid Health care. Before that people paid their own way and the Health Insurance was for big, catastrophic cases.

A Corporation's job is not to provide Health Care or Health Insurance,or jobs, it's job is to make money for its owners. Employer provided Health Insurance started during the '30s as a way to attract better employees.

If one wants to kill her baby, they is no reason why that person can't get her own poison pills.

Comparing Viagra to abortion is "Nuts" as Dr. Ablow would say, only abortion stops a beating Heart. If one does not want the baby their are plenty of us who would have adopted it.

I have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra.

[Warren Kiefer]

Just wondering what the public-at-large (here in TV, of course)
thinks about the Supreme Court's decision
that says it's okay for Hobby Lobby to
not cover insurance for any type of birth control
for women in their employ.

Your thoughts, please..

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form:cus::spoken:. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

[Warren Kiefer]

Please understand it is not all contraception that is being denied - that is a liberal lie being told to boost the "war on women" concept. The owners of Hobby Lobby believe life begins at conception; therefore, to take or use something that would cause that viable egg to be destroyed is against their religious beliefs. Why should these private owners have to pay for something they don't believe in? What about their rights to religious beliefs? They are not telling women how to live their lives - they still have the option to buy on the open market something that will terminate the pregnancy. And let's get down to personal responsibility - if you can't afford to get pregnant or pay for the morning after pill than use you brain and don't get in that position.

If you feel so strongly that your business should pay for this option for a woman than you should put your money and time and family life on the line and open a business next door and then those that want this coverage can come work for you. Stop already
with the whining and the "I'm entitled bs".

I take issue with you regarding your use of the "egg" and totally omitting the value of the sperm. Why is it that destroying the egg by a morning after pill can be ojectional but destroying the sperm with the same morning after pill is OK.

[44Ruger]

I take issue with you regarding your use of the "egg" and totally omitting the value of the sperm. Why is it that destroying the egg by a morning after pill can be ojectional but destroying the sperm with the same morning after pill is OK.

How many eggs at ovation? Normally one or two.
How many sperm at ejaculation? 180 million.

Now who's more guilty of interfering with the birth of a child?

[blueash]

It is not a duty of a Corporation to provide Health Care. And it is only recently, say early '90s that Health Insurance morhed into prepaid Health care. Before that people paid their own way and the Health Insurance was for big, catastrophic cases.

A Corporation's job is not to provide Health Care or Health Insurance,or jobs, it's job is to make money for its owners. Employer provided Health Insurance started during the '30s as a way to attract better employees.

If one wants to kill her baby, they is no reason why that person can't get her own poison pills.

Comparing Viagra to abortion is "Nuts" as Dr. Ablow would say, only abortion stops a beating Heart. If one does not want the baby their are plenty of us who would have adopted it.

I have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra.

Sorry, but there is so much misinformation in that post that it should not be left unanswered. Start with the obvious that you have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra. You might start with Medicare and then check every other health insurance policy in America. I doubt you will find hardly any that do NOT cover drugs for ED.

In fact it is a duty for corporations to provide health care to their employees if those corporations are large enough to be covered by the ACA. And the corporation gets to take a huge tax deduction equal to the cost of those non-Cadillac plans so in fact the corporation is providing it at a very discounted rate. The law, affirmed by the court, sets minimum standards as to what that insurance must cover to be in compliance with the ACA requirement. A company is free to offer some less useful insurance if it chooses but the company pays a penalty for failing to provide adequate insurance. The insurance must cover preventive care, vaccinations, and all the components of care everyone would expect as being usual and customary.

So to say that the corporation exists in a vacuum with no social responsibility ignores decades of law. Corporations would make more money if we let them pollute, ignore safety and employee work conditions, exploit children, the list is endless. So corporations are interwoven into our society as much more than income generating tools. We give corporations special rights in exchange for their role.

The history of health insurance differs from your presentation. Coverage was driven by unions, yes unions, negotiating with large employers as a way to increase the benefits to workers without raising their earned income. If the employee got a raise then bought insurance the income was first taxed thus the insurance was bought with after tax dollars. Wages controls during WW2 limited the wage increases employers could offer but did not limit the health insurance benefits. If the corporation used before tax dollars the employee was ahead and the corporation got a tax deduction. So it could spend a dollar on salary or a dollar on insurance, a wash for the corporation. And health insurance has been paying for outpatient non catastrophic care for decades before the 90's.

[buggyone]

And what about the owners of Hobby Lobby's choice to freedom of religion. You don't seem to have a problem denying them their right to practice as they choose.

Hobby Lobby is a For Profit Corporation. Their owners can practice religion whatever way they want as a private family but it was a bad decision to include a For Profit Corporation as an exclusion to part of the healthcare law.

[njbchbum]

Hobby Lobby is a For Profit Corporation. Their owners can practice religion whatever way they want as a private family but it was a bad decision to include a For Profit Corporation as an exclusion to part of the healthcare law.

A "for profit corp" with "numerous qualifers" and that meets the RFRA of 1992.

[njbchbum]

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form:cus::spoken:. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

1. Vasectomies do not have the potential to cause abortions as do the 4 specific contraceptives sited by Hobby Lobby.
2. Re vaccinations, etc - the decision specifically states that is does not in any way deal with those issues.
3. I am confident the judicial system would have to deal with any allegation of "sincerely religious" AS WELL AS the other "numerous qualifiers" set forth in the decision.
What owners do you see "suddenly becoming "saved" over night." who meet the criteria set forth in the decision?

[buggyone]

A "for profit corp" with "numerous qualifers" that meet the RFRA of 1992.

A bad decision is still a bad decision. Anyhow, let's just hope this does not morph into some For Profit Corporations getting exclusions on vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health care,or preventive healthcare.

I don't think those should be excluded. Are we in agreement?

[njbchbum]

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.

What rights?

[njbchbum]

[quote=buggyone;902650]

Yes, why is this so. Hard to understand. I am center neutral on all issues. This one is slanted to far to the right of center for me. I lean right, but not when it comes to discrimination against women. I love my wife too much to tell her what she can or cannot do.

What discrimination?

[njbchbum]

A bad decision is still a bad decision. Anyhow, let's just hope this does not morph into some For Profit Corporations getting exclusions on vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health care,or preventive healthcare.

I don't think those should be excluded. Are we in agreement?

Buggyone - I do not see this as a bad decision. I see Justice Ginsberg as an alarmist reaching for straws because she has nothing solid upon which to base her fantasy assumptions. Has she NOT, at her age and status in life learned what happens when one assumes?

Again I refer to the exact words in the decision:
"(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice."

I count on the court to abide by those words. Of course, remembering some of the actions of the "Warren" Court can send shivers up and down my spine!

[perrjojo]

This is obviously a thread where some agree with the decision and some don't and never the twain will meet. That is why the decision was 5/4. Majority rules. I would imagine ( but do not know) that the 5/4 pretty much represents the USA population. Is this a great country or what?

[Justjac]

Good decision. Hobby a Lobby was againstpaying for 4 abortive contraception drugs.
I did a little research myself rather than rely on the news stations. While Hobby Lobby is against the four forms of birth control, I found it interesting that their 401K plan offered to their employees invests in a variety of birth control companies, including the four forms the store is against offering insurance.

... it's okay to invest in and profit from something you are religiously against using... Forgive me, God...but some days it just doesn't add up.

[Deseylou]

I'm going to be hated here, but I am in agreement with the SCOTUS
I'm not going to defend my point of view
I worked for Chick Fil A
You know what type of company it is when you choose to work there
You may work for a variety of reasons, but no one makes you stay
So,if having that type of coverage is important to you. ....LEAVE

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I don't understand how the government has the right to tell private companies what they must provide for their employees. Somewhere along the line, we somehow lost sight of our constitution which was written to place restrictions on our federal government.

[kittygilchrist]

I don't understand how the government has the right to tell private companies what they must provide for their employees. Somewhere along the line, we somehow lost sight of our constitution which was written to place restrictions on our federal government.

We'll said.

[Tennisnut]

Sorry, but there is so much misinformation in that post that it should not be left unanswered. Start with the obvious that you have never heard of a Health Insurance covering Viagra. You might start with Medicare and then check every other health insurance policy in America. I doubt you will find hardly any that do NOT cover drugs for ED.

In fact it is a duty for corporations to provide health care to their employees if those corporations are large enough to be covered by the ACA. And the corporation gets to take a huge tax deduction equal to the cost of those non-Cadillac plans so in fact the corporation is providing it at a very discounted rate. The law, affirmed by the court, sets minimum standards as to what that insurance must cover to be in compliance with the ACA requirement. A company is free to offer some less useful insurance if it chooses but the company pays a penalty for failing to provide adequate insurance. The insurance must cover preventive care, vaccinations, and all the components of care everyone would expect as being usual and customary.

So to say that the corporation exists in a vacuum with no social responsibility ignores decades of law. Corporations would make more money if we let them pollute, ignore safety and employee work conditions, exploit children, the list is endless. So corporations are interwoven into our society as much more than income generating tools. We give corporations special rights in exchange for their role.

The history of health insurance differs from your presentation. Coverage was driven by unions, yes unions, negotiating with large employers as a way to increase the benefits to workers without raising their earned income. If the employee got a raise then bought insurance the income was first taxed thus the insurance was bought with after tax dollars. Wages controls during WW2 limited the wage increases employers could offer but did not limit the health insurance benefits. If the corporation used before tax dollars the employee was ahead and the corporation got a tax deduction. So it could spend a dollar on salary or a dollar on insurance, a wash for the corporation. And health insurance has been paying for outpatient non catastrophic care for decades before the 90's.

Thank you. Maybe there is a role for Federal oversight? Very well said!

[perrjojo]

I'm going to be hated here, but I am in agreement with the SCOTUS
I'm not going to defend my point of view
I worked for Chick Fil A
You know what type of company it is when you choose to work there
You may work for a variety of reasons, but no one makes you stay
So,if having that type of coverage is important to you. ....LEAVE
Amen!
No hate from me..I agree. I believe in birth control. I took birth control pills. No body paid for it but me. No one is denying your right to birth control. If you work there, you know what the benefits are.

[biker1]

Nonsense - this is absolutely not true. Check your facts.


[QUOTE=biker1;902640]As has been already noted, the ruling only affects 4 abortion causing forms of birth control, out of 20. I suspect that the vast majority of people whining about the Hobby Lobby decision don't know the facts of the case or the law that the ruling was based on and almost certainly didn't read the decision but based their opinion on biased and disingenuous "news" reporting."

Negatory, good buddy(as we used to say on the CB radio). The Supreme Court has told all lower courts to re-hear all cases regarding all forms of birth control. This is the minefield that Justice Ginsberg was referring to in her dissent. It very well might push into other healthcare issues such as transfusions, vaccines, mental health, or preventive medicine.

[biker1]

This is nonsense. The rights of women are not being affected. Nobody is saying they can't get whatever birth control they want. Hobby Lobby just doesn't want to pay for abortion inducing forms of birth control.

Hummmm. I like way you talk paleface. It's not taking away the freedom from the owner of Hobby Lobby. It's allowing him to take away the rights of hundreds of women.

[biker1]

This is not rocket science. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to be involved in paying for abortion-inducing forms of birth control. Vasectomies are not abort-inducing. Hobby Lobby has and will continue to pay for non abortion-inducing forms of birth control. Why is it so difficult to see the distinction? This is not really all that difficult to understand.

Here are a couple of the problems with the stupid Supreme Court decision..First, the insurance plan provided to Hobby Lobby employees has coverage for vasectomies ( a form of birth control) yet they will now deny certain birth control methods for women. Is this not discrimination ???
Secondly and more important is the fact that there are thousand of religous sects in America who own busineses. Some sects are major religous groups that oppose any medical intervention in any form:cus::spoken:. These are interventions such as vaccinations. blood transfusions, transplants, and surgeries. Does this decision now allow these religious owned businesses to now deny coverage for such medical procedures??
And thirdly, the "Decision" uses th term "sincerely religous" owners of specific businesses. Whe is to decide who meets this provision.
I can forsee a couple of owners suddenly becoming "saved" over night.

[Halibut]

It's interesting to note that with all the hullabaloo about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay insurance for birth control for women, they will pay for a man's Rx to take Viagra, Cialis, etc.

That seems consistent with what I understand their beliefs to be, no? They're not against birth control per se, but against drugs that act once conception has taken place.

I'm not saying their stand is right or wrong. I just think they have a right to decide.... Just as they have a right to decide to close on Sunday when that is also outside the norm.

But corporations also must abide by all applicable Federal and State laws, so they don't have the right to fully decide how to run their businesses. The Hobby Lobby owners felt strongly enough about this to pursue it and get the law changed, and I personally don't have a quarrel with it except for the "can of worms" aspect as noted by Judge Ginsburg.

Not to put words in Redwitch's mouth, but this may be what she was alluding to -- that this opens the door for any privately-held company owned by zealots of any stripe to claim that they shouldn't be forced to comply with XYZ law because of their own religious or moral beliefs. And their beliefs could be any danged thing. I don't think that's gonna happen because, well, judicial bias comes into play again.

[Gah, sorry to rehash. I just realized I missed a page of posts, so some of this has already been said.]

[wendyquat]

We may as well be out on the back porch talking to the dog. We aren't ever going to change anyone's mind on religion or politics but we are going to ruin someone's day.

The amount of days left on this earth is diminishing.

Good Morning everyone.

We'll said Gracie but to get my 2% in, I love Hobby Lobby and admire their stance! I don't expect everyone to agree with me, even though I'm right!:pepper2:

[dbussone]

When looked at in that way, you make a perfect excuse. I still feel we are looking at discrimination and that is a bad thing. Should they be allowed to require all new employees to convert to their specific beliefs to obtain employment.


They have no expectation for employees to convert to their beliefs; just for the government not to expect HL to convert to Obama's beliefs.

[dbussone]

That seems consistent with what I understand their beliefs to be, no? They're not against birth control per se, but against drugs that act once conception has taken place.



But corporations also must abide by all applicable Federal and State laws, so they don't have the right to fully decide how to run their businesses. The Hobby Lobby owners felt strongly enough about this to pursue it and get the law changed, and I personally don't have a quarrel with it except for the "can of worms" aspect as noted by Judge Ginsburg.

Not to put words in Redwitch's mouth, but this may be what she was alluding to -- that this opens the door for any privately-held company owned by zealots of any stripe to claim that they shouldn't be forced to comply with XYZ law because of their own religious or moral beliefs. And their beliefs could be any danged thing. I don't think that's gonna happen because, well, judicial bias comes into play again.

[Gah, sorry to rehash. I just realized I missed a page of posts, so some of this has already been said.]


There is a legal difference between a publicly traded corporation and a closely held family corporation. That was a key determinant of this case.

[gomoho]

I think what all this really comes down to is what one believes an employer is responsible to provide in your life. I never really expected much more than a fair wage for a fair day's work. Anything else was a bonus.

[perrjojo]

I think what all this really comes down to is what one believes an employer is responsible to provide in your life. I never really expected much more than a fair wage for a fair day's work. Anything else was a bonus.

I agree 100% but it seems, .....the times! they are a changin.

[Carl in Tampa]

I take a different approach to analyzing this decision.

1. Critics of the decision object to the view that a corporation should be regarded as a "person." However, it is long established law that a corporation has legal standing as a person.

2. As I understand it, the decision relied heavily upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Clinton, which applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."

The law is aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

Apparently the writers of Obamacare failed to "explicitly exclude" application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Obamacare, so the rights of the "person" (Hobby Lobby) were preserved in this case.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Hobby Lobby's insurance does provide for sixteen different methods of birth control. What they objected to paying for was four methods that destroy a fertilized egg, which they regarded as abortion, contrary to their religious beliefs.

The issue was not about birth control, but about abortion.

3. People who object to the decision based upon concerns about employers whose religious beliefs might make them object to paying for insurance that provides blood transfusions, etc. miss the point.

The point is that the law as currently written was followed. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to decide.

What might the court decide in a future case about other closely held corporations with different religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could take years for a similar case to work its way up through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

If it is foreseen that the law as currently written and enforced could have extremely negative consequences in the future it is the duty of the Congress to change the laws, not of the Supreme Court to make a decision contrary to current law.

.

[Halibut]

There is a legal difference between a publicly traded corporation and a closely held family corporation. That was a key determinant of this case.
We're certainly familiar with those. :)

[perrjojo]

I take a different approach to analyzing this decision.

1. Critics of the decision object to the view that a corporation should be regarded as a "person." However, it is long established law that a corporation has legal standing as a person.

2. As I understand it, the decision relied heavily upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, signed into law by President Clinton, which applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."

The law is aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

Apparently the writers of Obamacare failed to "explicitly exclude" application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Obamacare, so the rights of the "person" (Hobby Lobby) were preserved in this case.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Hobby Lobby's insurance does provide for sixteen different methods of birth control. What they objected to paying for was four methods that destroy a fertilized egg, which they regarded as abortion, contrary to their religious beliefs.

The issue was not about birth control, but about abortion.

3. People who object to the decision based upon concerns about employers whose religious beliefs might make them object to paying for insurance that provides blood transfusions, etc. miss the point.

The point is that the law as currently written was followed. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to decide.

What might the court decide in a future case about other closely held corporations with different religious beliefs remains to be seen. It could take years for a similar case to work its way up through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

If it is foreseen that the law as currently written and enforced could have extremely negative consequences in the future it is the duty of the Congress to change the laws, not of the Supreme Court to make a decision contrary to current law.

.
At last soeone who really understands and has the ability to verbalized what many of use have failed to articulate. Thank you Carl.

[Bonanza]

Check the facts of the case. This was about 4 forms of abortion-inducing birth control. Hobby Lobby did provide and will continue to provide 16 other forms of birth control.

It's obvious that you are a man.

Four forms of birth control that they will not cover, eh? Well, one of them is an IUD and according to everyone BUT Hobby Lobby, it is NOT a form of abortion; it is a medically approved form of birth control!

So the Supreme Court sez in so many words (my version, short and sweet) . . . Okay, Hobby Lobby must be correct. We can't take the word of the medical profession or scientists. If HL says it's a form of abortion, it must be. :eek:

I have an idea! Hobby Lobby should pay for vasectomies for all their male employees. Let them help to correct the issue before it even happens, okay? Furthermore, that should be a requirement for any male with whom they do business, including all the Chinese who probably supply 80% of their stores' inventory. We all know how the Chinese feel about female babies, don't we???

Yes -- pretty stupid. Well, it's as stupid as not providing full medical coverage to a woman. I am tired of men making decisions for women. Women have been maligned for too many reasons and too many years. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby has no right to bring that kind of religious belief into the workplace. They are a commercial business and not a monastery, convent or church. Being closed on Sunday harms no one.

The ONLY reason this got through the Supreme Court is because of the religious beliefs of five of them, and that is shameful! Obviously, the separation of church and state no longer exists.

Trust me. This is only the beginning. We haven't heard the last of this one!

[njbchbum]

Bonanza - Would you be so good as to provide the website where you read the supreme court decision that allowed you to form the opinions you stated in post #92. I would like to read it and try to understand where your thoughts were formed.

Would also like to know which IUD does NOT prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Thanks

[Bonanza]

Bonanza - Would you be so good as to provide the website where you read the supreme court decision that allowed you to form the opinions you stated in post #92. I would like to read it and try to understand where your thoughts were formed.

Would also like to know which IUD does NOT prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

On a serious note, I have read so many articles online and heard so many national news broadcasts, I couldn't even guess where I heard or read any of them. If you Google Hobby Lobby I'm sure you will be able to read most of the articles I've read.

I'm not sure what thoughts or opinions of mine you are referring to, but I would be happy to expand if you let me know specifically, what you mean.

I am not in the medical profession so I couldn't possibly go into detail about any of the many IUDs in use today. But if an egg is fertilized, it is already "implanted," no?

My bottom line is that I am angry -- very angry, at the way women are treated in this world. It's everything from getting the same pay for the same job as a man, to women who are stoned to death because they married a man their family did not choose for them, to a woman's right to choose, to female Chinese babies left on the side of the road, to Hobby Lobby's stand on incomplete health insurance for women. The list could go on and on ad infinitum. THAT is where I am coming from.

[biker1]

OK, lets go point-by-point.

1) IUDs actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and are therefore as much of a form of abortion as the morning after pill.

2) Abortion is a form of birth control, not one that is acceptable to the owners of Hobby Lobby.

3) I suspect that vasectomies are covered by Hobby Lobby's health insurance plan. It is not a form of abortion.

4) The Supreme Court made a ruling based on an existing Law - The Religion Freedom Restoration Act. That is what the Supreme Court does - they interpret the existing laws. They don't make new laws - that is the role of Congress. If you want Hobby Lobby to have some specific requirements to do business with the Chinese you should right your Congressman and Senator because the Supreme Court has nothing to do with that.

5) According the Law and the interpretation of the Law by the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby has every right to decide not to pay for abortions. If you don't like the Law, write your Congressman and Senator.

6) Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court are not making any decisions about woman's health. They are simply saying that when it come to abortion inducing forms of birth control they aren't going to pay for them. An employee of Hobby Lobby is free to purchase those on their own.

It's obvious that you are a man.

Four forms of birth control that they will not cover, eh? Well, one of them is an IUD and according to everyone BUT Hobby Lobby, it is NOT a form of abortion; it is a medically approved form of birth control!

So the Supreme Court sez in so many words (my version, short and sweet) . . . Okay, Hobby Lobby must be correct. We can't take the word of the medical profession or scientists. If HL says it's a form of abortion, it must be. :eek:

I have an idea! Hobby Lobby should pay for vasectomies for all their male employees. Let them help to correct the issue before it even happens, okay? Furthermore, that should be a requirement for any male with whom they do business, including all the Chinese who probably supply 80% of their stores' inventory. We all know how the Chinese feel about female babies, don't we???

Yes -- pretty stupid. Well, it's as stupid as not providing full medical coverage to a woman. I am tired of men making decisions for women. Women have been maligned for too many reasons and too many years. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby has no right to bring that kind of religious belief into the workplace. They are a commercial business and not a monastery, convent or church. Being closed on Sunday harms no one.

The ONLY reason this got through the Supreme Court is because of the religious beliefs of five of them, and that is shameful! Obviously, the separation of church and state no longer exists.

Trust me. This is only the beginning. We haven't heard the last of this one!

[Taltarzac725]

Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision: Alito’s argument is stronger than Ginsburg’s. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_hobby_lobby_decision_alito_s_argumen t_is_stronger_than_ginsburg.html)

Here's an article by a U of Chicago Law Professor that discusses the Hobby Lobby case.

I would like to see one written by a female Law Professor though.

Here are some more opinions by leaders in the Law Profession on this decision-- http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/30/reactions-to-the-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-ruling/

[njbchbum]

On a serious note, I have read so many articles online and heard so many national news broadcasts, I couldn't even guess where I heard or read any of them. If you Google Hobby Lobby I'm sure you will be able to read most of the articles I've read.

I'm not sure what thoughts or opinions of mine you are referring to, but I would be happy to expand if you let me know specifically, what you mean.

I am not in the medical profession so I couldn't possibly go into detail about any of the many IUDs in use today. But if an egg is fertilized, it is already "implanted," no?

My bottom line is that I am angry -- very angry, at the way women are treated in this world. It's everything from getting the same pay for the same job as a man, to women who are stoned to death because they married a man their family did not choose for them, to a woman's right to choose, to female Chinese babies left on the side of the road, to Hobby Lobby's stand on incomplete health insurance for women. The list could go on and on ad infinitum. THAT is where I am coming from.


Thanx for that response, Bonanza, it explained everything I needed to know. Since you know as little about the Hobby Lobby decision as you know about women's reproductive health, perhaps you might try reading this pdf file of the decision: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/06/30/13-354_olp1.pdf [copy/paste the link into your browser]

It probably won't change your mind but it should change your awareness of what the real issues were in reaching the decision. The Judges words are the facts as opposed to the sound bites and rants of the talking heads you have listened to. The Judges were playing to the law - talking heads are playing to an audience they want to attract and/or keep.

[PS If you believe H.L. provides incomplete health ins for women because it will not pay the premium for 4 types of contraceptive care, know that the ACA also then provides incomplete health ins for women since it requires coverage for less than all of the contraceptive medications that are available to women.]

[blueash]

I am not an attorney. My understanding of the decision is not that it was in any way at all as claimed by post Carl an abortion case. It was a case that said the provisions of the ACA requiring all qualifying insurances to cover a particular list of services including woman's health services should or should not be enforced. The law Carl mentions giving religious exemptions was narrowly constructed and was passed before the very recent and very controversial (and I believe wrongly ) Citizens United finding that corporations are people for purposes well beyond what had been anticipated. Of course the RFRA did not include language saying anything about corporate religions as no one anticipated such a need. For a cogent explanation of the over-reach of the Robert's court in using the Religious Freedom act to set aside not only earlier Supreme Court findings but several cases that have been heard since that law, see
After Hobby Lobby, there is only RFRA. And that’s all you need. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/after_hobby_lobby_there_is_only_rfra_and_that_s_al l_you_need.html)

And of course that narrowly made Hobby Lobby ruling that Alito said was made only because the Federal government already had made religious accommodations for what I will call "real" religious institutions like the catholic church by providing a separate mechanism for getting women's health covered without the employer having to provide it. Well it took an entire 24 hours for the court to completely ignore that declared important point. I am going to block quote a very significant explanation. It is clear why all three women on the court are furious

" The court didn’t say that the government could never require a company to do something that violated its religious beliefs, but rather that the government had to use the “least restrictive alternative.” That means that if there is a slightly less burdensome way to implement the law, it needs to be used. To prove that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate was not the “least restrictive alternative,” the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease. Having explicitly promised that Hobby Lobby would go no further than Hobby Lobby, the court went back on its word.

If you wish to better understand the issue in Wheaton here are some links:
Wheaton College injunction: The Supreme Court just sneakily reversed itself on Hobby Lobby. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/wheaton_college_injunction_the_supreme_court_just_ sneakily_reversed_itself.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html?_r=0

In Hobby Lobby the court held that a corporation with a religious objection because that corporation would tell the government it did not want to cover services and then the government would provide the way to get those services covered outside of the corporation's insurance. In Wheaton the court held that an organization can not be compelled to even notify the government that it is not providing the ACA mandated services thus there is no way for the government to alternatively provide women's services. A complete reversal of reasoning.

[njbchbum]

blueash - Wheaton is not a determination as is Hobby Lobby; Wheaton was granted an injunction so that Wheaton does not have to provide the notification while the case works its way thru the legal process. And it is not to be said that Wheaton will receive the same consideration and decision. "Yesterday’s order and others sending cases back to appeals courts for reconsideration does not mean that companies are going to get blanket exemptions, as dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in Hobby Lobby, from any law “they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” " [http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/07/04/hobby-lobby-decision-begins-to-contort-under-its-own-logic/]

Do you have any resources from the conservative side or a middle-of-the-road opinion for analysis or just the left wing side of the issue? It would be interesting to read those points of view. The sources you cite fail to highlight the numerous qualifiers that are part of the Supreme Court decision in making this decision one of very limited scope.

[rubicon]

There is absolutely nothing that states a woman is mandated to secure birth control from any source. If she does not want birth control, no one is forcing her to use it.

No, it is not a short step to require only one child or to force abortions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There are no "freedoms" being taken away one slice at a time.

There are freedoms being formed similar to the civil rights freedoms of the 1960's that show courage.

Hi buggyone: past is prologue to the future. From the Civil rights Act of 1964 to The Endangered Act to the Dept of Education, Energy, EPA IRS ad nauseam government has through tax policies and regulations stepped on our freedoms so much so that I find myself singing "Do You Hear The People Sing"?

Powerful forces have said out loud that people are bad at choosing and so we must choose for them.

While HL ended up denying a selected few abortion pills/remedies it left available birth control RX.

From an economic position i don't want to pay for someone's birth control and more importantly I don't want the government to tell anyone it has to be paid/covered under a policy of insurance. Because if the government can do that then in time they will nimble away until they can force someone to abort.
You say no the explain ACA

I want government out of my life and out of my back pocket because everything they touch turns to :yuck:

Opportunist will paint this HL decision as the war on women. and the unfortunate truth is that the electorate is so divided or so unsophisticated
that they buy in to propaganda .

Freedom is a very delicate balance and far too many Americans take it for granted

[Bonanza]

I think what all this really comes down to is what one believes an employer is responsible to provide in your life. I never really expected much more than a fair wage for a fair day's work. Anything else was a bonus.

In today's world, health insurance is very much a part of a person's salary.

A bonus is a whole 'nother story..

[gomoho]

In today's world, health insurance is very much a part of a person's salary.

A bonus is a whole 'nother story..

I was fortunate to work for a large company that provided my health insurance, not health care - I paid for my on birth control pills. That is my only point. Didn't expect them to be responsible for my sexual activities.

And I can promise you with Obamacare that insurance provided by companies will not be so available - in some cases costs less to pay the penalty than provide the insurance.

[njbchbum]

In today's world, health insurance is very much a part of a person's salary.

A bonus is a whole 'nother story..


Bonanza - I guess you forgot the headlines like these:
UPS to drop 15,000 workers' spouses from insurance, blames Obamacare - Aug. 21, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html) and
UPS, UVA Drop Health Care Coverage for Spouses of Employees - California Healthline (http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/8/22/ups-uva-drop-health-care-coverage-for-spouses-of-employees) and
Target to Drop Health Insurance for Part-Time Workers - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-21/target-to-drop-health-insurance-for-part-time-workers.html)

There are lots more stories about companies in "today's world" who are revising their company offered health insurance benefit coverage DOWNWARD; you can read them if you do an internet search on 'drops health insurance'. So It seems there are 'salary' decreases in store for lots of folks.

[Bonanza]

Thanx for that response, Bonanza, it explained everything I needed to know. Since you know as little about the Hobby Lobby decision as you know about women's reproductive health, perhaps you might try reading this pdf file of the decision: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/06/30/13-354_olp1.pdf [copy/paste the link into your browser]

It probably won't change your mind but it should change your awareness of what the real issues were in reaching the decision. The Judges words are the facts as opposed to the sound bites and rants of the talking heads you have listened to. The Judges were playing to the law - talking heads are playing to an audience they want to attract and/or keep.

[PS If you believe H.L. provides incomplete health ins for women because it will not pay the premium for 4 types of contraceptive care, know that the ACA also then provides incomplete health ins for women since it requires coverage for less than all of the contraceptive medications that are available to women.]

I don't know it all and don't know everything. I can be enlightened in many areas. However, I DO know about the Hobby Lobby fiasco. I don't need to read your PDF to know what the decision is. I do know about IUDs and contraception. So please don't demean yourself by saying I don't.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. But what (also) doesn't sit well with me is that the ruling won because 5 Supreme Court MEN agreed with Hobby Lobby. These 5 Supreme Court MEN also happen to be CATHOLIC. Hmmmmm . . . Interesting, no???

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ruling is solely based on opinion. The decision was not unanimous; they did not all agree. So it's the Catholic men who made the decision. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that picture. :eek:

I will say again and always will: Too many things hapening in this world are against women. It needs to stop!

[Bonanza]

I was fortunate to work for a large company that provided my health insurance, not health care - I paid for my on birth control pills. That is my only point. Didn't expect them to be responsible for my sexual activities.

And I can promise you with Obamacare that insurance provided by companies will not be so available - in some cases costs less to pay the penalty than provide the insurance.

Let's leave Obamacare out of this conversation.

Companies don't offer health "care."
Most of them provide health insurance only.
Big difference.

So you think it's okay for a man to receive insurance
that pays for his Viagra,
but it's not okay for a woman to choose a type of birth control,
even if it's recommended by her physician,
and be covered by insurance for that???

Interesting .

[perrjojo]

Let's leave Obamacare out of this conversation.

Companies don't offer health "care."
Most of them provide health insurance only.
Big difference.

So you think it's okay for a man to receive insurance
that pays for his Viagra,
but it's not okay for a woman to choose a type of birth control,
even if it's recommended by her physician,
and be covered by insurance for that???

Interesting .
I am a career woman who began her career in the early 60s. It was really rough for women to get ahead then..virtually impossible. Bonanza, I have learned that anger gets you nowhere. Work and be proactive towards to end you hope to achieve.

[blueash]

Bonanza - I guess you forgot the headlines like these:
UPS to drop 15,000 workers' spouses from insurance, blames Obamacare - Aug. 21, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html) .

and here is the important line from your link:

In an undated memo to employees, UPS (UPS) said it will discontinue coverage for all working spouses who are eligible for insurance with their own employer


This stops the practice of a spouse having double coverage via their own and their spouse's employer both being available. If the spouse is either not employed or not eligible for employer based health insurance then spousal coverage is provided by UPS Thus no one is loosing coverage. No one.

and
UPS, UVA Drop Health Care Coverage for Spouses of Employees - California Healthline (http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/8/22/ups-uva-drop-health-care-coverage-for-spouses-of-employees) .
and from that one:

, both will stop providing health care coverage to employees' spouses who can obtain insurance through their own employer

and
Target to Drop Health Insurance for Part-Time Workers - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-21/target-to-drop-health-insurance-for-part-time-workers.html) .

and from the Bloomberg article a very careful explanation that fewer than 10% of its part time workers signed up for Target health plans and that was significant as under the ACA if you are eligible (not if you are covered) for an employer plan you cannot get the subsidy that is used for lessening the cost of insurance via the exchange. So the whole story is that many millions of Americans who were uninsured now have health insurance because of the ACA. Some lost double coverage. Overall that sounds like a great big win for America

[njbchbum]

I don't know it all and don't know everything. I can be enlightened in many areas. However, I DO know about the Hobby Lobby fiasco. I don't need to read your PDF to know what the decision is. I do know about IUDs and contraception. So please don't demean yourself by saying I don't.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. But what (also) doesn't sit well with me is that the ruling won because 5 Supreme Court MEN agreed with Hobby Lobby. These 5 Supreme Court MEN also happen to be CATHOLIC. Hmmmmm . . . Interesting, no???

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ruling is solely based on opinion. The decision was not unanimous; they did not all agree. So it's the Catholic men who made the decision. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that picture. :eek:

I will say again and always will: Too many things hapening in this world are against women. It needs to stop!


LOL, Bonanza! This post just emphasizes the fact that you really do need to read the decision! Justice Alito did write the decision - based on law and not on personal opinion.

Will not converse with you further on this topic for fear of raising your blood pressure and because the talking heads have already filled your head with their talking points. Ciao.

[njbchbum]

blueash - Yes, those are important points. Not having the spouse's coverage as secondary coverage therefore places a greater stress on the spouse for having to pay more money out-of pocket for medical expenses. And that reduces their disposable income for other things that families need. Not a big win for them, eh? How many practitioners accept ONLY the amount that an insurance plan pays and does not bill the patient for the remainder of their customary costs.

And then there is the fact that more Americans have health insurance under obamacare because of the expansion of medicaid, or they were forced off their employer's coverage and had to subscribe to an exchange plan [some of the latter group paying higher deductibles and copays]. Or, as a part of the 'whole story' re coverage, they did obtain coverage because of the benefit of a subsidy.

Now go and do that internet search and read more of the

[CraigC]

Let's leave Obamacare out of this conversation.

Companies don't offer health "care."
Most of them provide health insurance only.
Big difference.

So you think it's okay for a man to receive insurance
that pays for his Viagra,
but it's not okay for a woman to choose a type of birth control,
even if it's recommended by her physician,
and be covered by insurance for that???

Interesting .

I don't know where you keep coming up with the statement that it's OK for a man to receive insurance that pays for his Viagra. It you are talking about Medicare or ACA, that is ABSOLUTELY false. Medicare specifically excludes all drugs for erectile dysfunction, and the ACA does not mandate coverage for ED. My bet is that drug coverage for ED medications is either rare or non-existent under any insurance policies and certainly not government mandated like ACA mandated birth control.

hwww.planprescriber.com/medicare-part-d/viagra/

Does Medicare Cover Viagra Cialis? - 2014 Insurance Library (http://www.insurancelibrary.com/medicare-insurance/does-medicare-cover-viagra-cialis)

[Bonanza]

I am a career woman who began her career in the early 60s. It was really rough for women to get ahead then..virtually impossible. Bonanza, I have learned that anger gets you nowhere. Work and be proactive towards to end you hope to achieve.

You are so right. Perhaps anger isns't the right word but frustration certainly is. Although it certainly is better for women today than it was in the 60s, in looking at the total picture, women are still taking two steps forward and one step back (at best).

If I was (much) younger I would be in Washington lobbying for women's rights in one way or another. But since I am old and poor :a040: I will just have to settle with speaking my mind and writing to my congressmen.

Thanks for your kind and correct words. There are others on this site who could also learn something from you. If they read this, they will know who they are.

[Bonanza]

I don't know where you keep coming up with the statement that it's OK for a man to receive insurance that pays for his Viagra. It you are talking about Medicare or ACA, that is ABSOLUTELY false. Medicare specifically excludes all drugs for erectile dysfunction, and the ACA does not mandate coverage for ED. My bet is that drug coverage for ED medications is either rare or non-existent under any insurance policies and certainly not government mandated like ACA mandated birth control.

hwww.planprescriber.com/medicare-part-d/viagra/

Does Medicare Cover Viagra Cialis? - 2014 Insurance Library (http://www.insurancelibrary.com/medicare-insurance/does-medicare-cover-viagra-cialis)

No, I am not speaking about Medicare. I never mentioned Medicare.

I am speaking about insurance provided to employees under their company's insurance plan. If you had read more, you would know that Hobby Lobby is providing coverage for Viagra, Cialis, etc., to their employees -- male, of course!

[Bonanza]

LOL, Bonanza! This post just emphasizes the fact that you really do need to read the decision! Justice Alito did write the decision - based on law and not on personal opinion.

Will not converse with you further on this topic for fear of raising your blood pressure and because the talking heads have already filled your head with their talking points. Ciao.

It isn't necessary for you to converse more with me about the Supreme Court's decision. It also doesn't matter who "wrote" the decision.

Any ruling made by a member of the Supreme Court is how that person interprets the law. THAT creates their opinion. Have you noticed that not everyone votes the same way? Well, that is their opinion on how they interpret the law.

In the case of Hobby Lobby, what matters is who voted and how they voted. You really don't think the only votes that supported Hobby Lobby, were made by 5 Catholic men and that didn't have something to do with their decision??? :a040:

[CraigC]

No, I am not speaking about Medicare. I never mentioned Medicare.

I am speaking about insurance provided to employees under their company's insurance plan. If you had read more, you would know that Hobby Lobby is providing coverage for Viagra, Cialis, etc., to their employees -- male, of course!


Since this thread was about the Supreme Court's ruling I assumed you were talking about government mandated birth control and ED medications. I'm not sure that Hobby Lobby's religious views exclude sex, so I don't see your statement as particularly relevant to this thread. What Hobby Lobby chooses to insure beyond the government mandate is their business.

[Bonanza]

Since this thread was about the Supreme Court's ruling I assumed you were talking about government mandated birth control and ED medications. I'm not sure that Hobby Lobby's religious views exclude sex, so I don't see your statement as particularly relevant to this thread. What Hobby Lobby chooses to insure beyond the government mandate is their business.

Spoken like a true man!

:bigbow:

[Carl in Tampa]

Spoken like a true man!

:bigbow:

If that's the best you can do, I think this thread has about run its course.

How the justices reached their opinion has been fully documented, quoting the law.

Resentment toward the winners is just whining.

.

[CraigC]

Hobby Lobby is a For Profit Corporation. Their owners can practice religion whatever way they want as a private family but it was a bad decision to include a For Profit Corporation as an exclusion to part of the healthcare law.

Spoken like a true man!

:bigbow:

And very proud to be one! I was BlueAsh's post (#65) that said that Medicare covered Viagra. I confused it with your similar statement. I noticed that you didn't bother to correct BlueAsh, but I understand - you had so many of your own misstatements to correct.:laugh:

[nitakk]

Bonanza, bravo! I have always been offended that a man has any say in what I do with my body, including abortion. It is my decision, not a corporation's or even the Supreme Court. My generation fought too hard for the rights my daughter and granddaughter enjoy to let us slide back. This has all come about because of the members of the Supreme Court and women would be wise to consider this in presidential elections. In my opinion, men should have absolutely no say in my reproductive rights. It is ironic that conservatives are forever talking about individual rights but hide behind religion like a shield.

[biker1]

People continue to confuse the Supreme Court ruling with woman's rights. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court only said that Hobby Lobby is not required to provide 4 (out of 20) forms of birth control that are considered to be abortions. Employees of Hobby Lobby are free to use those 4 forms of birth control. Nobody has said anything about or restricted your reproductive rights. Lets get a grip on the facts. The fact that someone doesn't want to pay for something is far different than not being allowed to do something. Got it? You can take abortion-causing drugs. I am sorry if you feel so entitled that other people must pay for aspects of your life, such as abortions. I personally am offended that my tax dollars are used (via subsides to Obamacare) to pay for contraception and abortions. People should pay for their own recreational activities. And while we are on the subject, please don't equate ED drugs with abortion-causing drugs. ED is a disease that is treatable. Pregnancy is not a disease.


Bonanza, bravo! I have always been offended that a man has any say in what I do with my body, including abortion. It is my decision, not a corporation's or even the Supreme Court. My generation fought too hard for the rights my daughter and granddaughter enjoy to let us slide back. This has all come about because of the members of the Supreme Court and women would be wise to consider this in presidential elections. In my opinion, men should have absolutely no say in my reproductive rights. It is ironic that conservatives are forever talking about individual rights but hide behind religion like a shield.

[Tennisnut]

People continue to confuse the Supreme Court ruling with woman's rights. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court only said that Hobby Lobby is not required to provide 4 (out of 20) forms of birth control that are considered to be abortions. Employees of Hobby Lobby are free to use those 4 forms of birth control. Nobody has said anything about or restricted your reproductive rights. Lets get a grip on the facts. The fact that someone doesn't want to pay for something is far different than not being allowed to do something. Got it? You can take abortion-causing drugs. I am sorry if you feel so entitled that other people must pay for aspects of your life, such as abortions. I personally am offended that my tax dollars are used (via subsides to Obamacare) to pay for contraception and abortions. People should pay for their own recreational activities. And while we are on the subject, please don't equate ED drugs with abortion-causing drugs. ED is a disease that is treatable. Pregnancy is not a disease.

People should pay for their own recreational activities. If they have ED and can't participate in their recreational activities, they should pay for their own treatment. In fact, ED would aid in birth control and reduce the cost of health care for terminating the pregnancy or carrying it to term.

NOT!

[dave from deland]

Good Point.

[The Mountaineer]

Good decision - If we had one more liberal judge the results would have been very different. It always alarms me that 9 supposedly intelligent judges seem to vote ideologically instead of legally. So our Supreme Court decisions are political and not based on the rule of the Constitution. Saddens me.

I agree that it is disturbing that Supreme Court judges vote their ideology, not the Constitution. I don't care whether it's 5-4 liberal or 5-4 conservative, the Supreme Court should not be deciding cases based on its ideology.

By the way, the Hobby Lobby ruling applies to 90% of the companies in
America, so it does not affect only a few companies. Since 85% of larger companies provided contraception coverage before Obamacare, I'm not sure how many people actually will be affected.

But it's fair to debate why corporations are not held to the same standards as individuals. We can't be anti-semetic, gay basher, racist or anti-Muslim without risking hate-crime laws coming down on us (as it should be), but a corporation can go against the law on religious grounds.

While we're at it, why should churches NOT be taxed? There's all that free land and buildings and even income that bring in no tax dollars, so the rest of us, even if we don't belong to a church, have to make up the difference. The original intent was to avoid having the government punish a specific religion through taxation, but that may not apply any more.

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=The Mountaineer;903203][B]I agree that it is disturbing that Supreme Court judges vote their ideology, not the Constitution. I don't care whether it's 5-4 liberal or 5-4 conservative, the Supreme Court should not be deciding cases based on its ideology.

By the way, the Hobby Lobby ruling applies to 90% of the companies in
America, so it does not affect only a few companies. Since 85% of larger companies provided contraception coverage before Obamacare, I'm not sure how many people actually will be affected."

Actually, the Supreme Court ruling (as bad as it is) applies to family owned or closely held corporations only.

[Carl in Tampa]

I agree that it is disturbing that Supreme Court judges vote their ideology, not the Constitution. I don't care whether it's 5-4 liberal or 5-4 conservative, the Supreme Court should not be deciding cases based on its ideology.

By the way, the Hobby Lobby ruling applies to 90% of the companies in
America, so it does not affect only a few companies. Since 85% of larger companies provided contraception coverage before Obamacare, I'm not sure how many people actually will be affected.

But it's fair to debate why corporations are not held to the same standards as individuals. We can't be anti-semetic, gay basher, racist or anti-Muslim without risking hate-crime laws coming down on us (as it should be), but a corporation can go against the law on religious grounds.

While we're at it, why should churches NOT be taxed? There's all that free land and buildings and even income that bring in no tax dollars, so the rest of us, even if we don't belong to a church, have to make up the difference. The original intent was to avoid having the government punish a specific religion through taxation, but that may not apply any more.

1. I agree that Supreme Court Justices often vote their ideology instead of interpreting the law correctly. It is a real shame.

2. I don't agree that the Hobby Lobby decision applies to 90 % of the companies in America. Although most of our population is employed by small businesses, it is unlikely that these business are "closely held" by a small group of people who all agree on religious principals.

3. Corporations, as "persons" are held to the same standards as individuals. Your logic fails on two levels:

a. We can be anti-semitic, racist, etc. so long as what we are doing is exercising our right of free speech. The hate crime laws relate to physically harming a person because of a demonstrable hatred reason, such as calling him by a racist epithet while assaulting him.

Actually, a corporation has less latitude in this area, particularly if it can be demonstrated that any of the attitudes you listed resulted in failing to hire or promote a person in the protected class.

b. Hobby Lobby did not go against the law. The Supreme Court affirmed that what Hobby Lobby wanted to do complied with the law.

4. Churches are not taxed in compliance with Article One of the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it.

The IRS tax code specifies that in order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. IRS states that churches need not submit the forms. They are automatically tax exempt.

--------- You might want to change this. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. The odds on accomplishing that are extremely low.

.

[Bonanza]

If that's the best you can do, I think this thread has about run its course.

How the justices reached their opinion has been fully documented, quoting the law.

Resentment toward the winners is just whining.

.

No, I'm not whining. All of the justices did not vote the same way which indicates they all did not see the law the same way. That is an obvious fact. And, no, I do not have resentment as you put it, towards the winners.

What I do see is a conflict within church and state and clearly, 5 religious men's personal viewpoint which colored their opinion. That is about as obvious as the nose on your face.

[The Mountaineer]

1. I agree that Supreme Court Justices often vote their ideology instead of interpreting the law correctly. It is a real shame.

2. I don't agree that the Hobby Lobby decision applies to 90 % of the companies in America. Although most of our population is employed by small businesses, it is unlikely that these business are "closely held" by a small group of people who all agree on religious principals.

3. Corporations, as "persons" are held to the same standards as individuals. Your logic fails on two levels:

a. We can be anti-semitic, racist, etc. so long as what we are doing is exercising our right of free speech. The hate crime laws relate to physically harming a person because of a demonstrable hatred reason, such as calling him by a racist epithet while assaulting him.

Actually, a corporation has less latitude in this area, particularly if it can be demonstrated that any of the attitudes you listed resulted in failing to hire or promote a person in the protected class.

b. Hobby Lobby did not go against the law. The Supreme Court affirmed that what Hobby Lobby wanted to do complied with the law.

4. Churches are not taxed in compliance with Article One of the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it.

The IRS tax code specifies that in order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. IRS states that churches need not submit the forms. They are automatically tax exempt.

--------- You might want to change this. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. The odds on accomplishing that are extremely low.

.

The ruling applying to 90% of companies is correct, because most companies are small and closely held. In number of employees affected by Hobby Lobby, I don't know, but I doubt it's more than 10% of the nation's workers, if that. I hope you see the distinction between percentage of closely held companies, which IS 90% according to several news sources, but it, indeed, a very small percentage when you're talking number of workers, not number of companies. It takes a lot of small companies to equal one big company. I hope that clears that issue up. Thank you.

[njbchbum]

The ruling applying to 90% of companies is correct, because most companies are small and closely held. In number of employees affected by Hobby Lobby, I don't know, but I doubt it's more than 10% of the nation's workers, if that. I hope you see the distinction between percentage of closely held companies, which IS 90% according to several news sources, but it, indeed, a very small percentage when you're talking number of workers, not number of companies. It takes a lot of small companies to equal one big company. I hope that clears that issue up. Thank you.

The Mountaineer - Would you happen to recall what those news sources are? I have read and heard more than enough from all sort of media and news outlets, but have not heard that %age tossed about and would like to follow that up. Might you also recall if those news sources also indicated whether those companies were closely held only by family with expressed strong religious convictions? Thanx.

[CraigC]

The ruling applying to 90% of companies is correct, because most companies are small and closely held. In number of employees affected by Hobby Lobby, I don't know, but I doubt it's more than 10% of the nation's workers, if that. I hope you see the distinction between percentage of closely held companies, which IS 90% according to several news sources, but it, indeed, a very small percentage when you're talking number of workers, not number of companies. It takes a lot of small companies to equal one big company. I hope that clears that issue up. Thank you.

I highly doubt that the ACA mandate ever applied to 90% of the companies even before this ruling, since only companies with more than 50 full time employees were required by the ACA to furnish health insurance or face fines. I would guess there are many, many more companies with less than 50 full time employees than there are companies with more than 50 full time employees AND closely held. I would like to see the source of your information.

[gomoho]

[QUOTE=Bonanza;903090][B]IMEN agreed with Hobby Lobby. These 5 Supreme Court MEN also happen to be CATHOLIC. Hmmmmm . . . Interesting, no???

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ruling is solely based on opinion. The decision was not unanimous; they did not all agree. So it's the Catholic men who made the decision. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that picture. :eek:

As a Catholic I am personally offended that you think because someone is Catholic that can't interpret the law correctly.

[dirtbanker]

since only companies with more than 50 full time employees were required by the ACA to furnish health insurance or face fines.

And there is no limit on how many corporations you can have...A possible way to get around the requirement to furnish healthcare (for companies that have more than 50 full time employees)...

As for the ruling; I am disappointed that it appears to be a case of religious beliefs held by the justices influenced the ruling. But, I do feel Hobby Lobby has the right to decline providing abortion drugs in its heath care coverage based on the owner's religious beliefs. (FYI - I do not practice any religion myself and enjoy a respectful and yet spirited debate with the occasional Jehovah Wittiness at my doorstep :jester:)

[Taltarzac725]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. : SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/)

If you really want to dig intro this decision and its ramifications, take a long hard look at this Supreme Court of the United States blog. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. : SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/)

Most of the articles I looked at are easy to read and seem to be written for laymen and not for law students, attorneys, politicians, etc.

[nitehawk]

And there is no limit on how many corporations you can have...A possible way to get around the requirement to furnish healthcare (for companies that have more than 50 full time employees)...

As for the ruling; I am disappointed that it appears to be a case of religious beliefs held by the justices influenced the ruling. But, I do feel Hobby Lobby has the right to decline providing abortion drugs in its heath care coverage based on the owner's religious beliefs. (FYI - I do not practice any religion myself and enjoy a respectful and yet spirited debate with the occasional Jehovah Wittiness at my doorstep :jester:)

and i am quite sure they feel the same

[44Ruger]

What I do see is a conflict within church and state and clearly, 5 religious men's personal viewpoint which colored their opinion. That is about as obvious as the nose on your face.

Voting by faith instead of voting by law of the land is like the Muslims do. We must fight against religious prejudice.

[gomoho]

Voting by faith instead of voting by law of the land is like the Muslims do. We must fight against religious prejudice.

What facts do you have this is the case.

[njbchbum]

Voting by faith instead of voting by law of the land is like the Muslims do. We must fight against religious prejudice.

Would there be no predjudice in forcing Hobby Lobby to go against their religious beliefs?

[buggyone]

Would there be no predjudice in forcing Hobby Lobby to go against their religious beliefs?

As a family, the Green family can do whatever they want. However, as a for profit corporation, they should have to adhere to the law of the land. A narrow decision of the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Let us hope that it does not get further interpreted to include vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health treatment, or preventive wellness based on the same beliefs that were in this bad decision.

[njbchbum]

Bonanza, bravo! I have always been offended that a man has any say in what I do with my body, including abortion. It is my decision, not a corporation's or even the Supreme Court. My generation fought too hard for the rights my daughter and granddaughter enjoy to let us slide back. This has all come about because of the members of the Supreme Court and women would be wise to consider this in presidential elections. In my opinion, men should have absolutely no say in my reproductive rights. It is ironic that conservatives are forever talking about individual rights but hide behind religion like a shield.

nitakk -
What individual rights do you perceive yourself, your daughter and grandaughter losing because of the H.L. decision?

Do you really think that defending the Constitutional right of the First Amendment re freedom of religion is tantamount to "hiding behind religion like a shield."?

[njbchbum]

As a family, the Green family can do whatever they want. However, as a for profit corporation, they should have to adhere to the law of the land. A narrow decision of the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Let us hope that it does not get further interpreted to include vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health treatment, or preventive wellness based on the same beliefs that were in this bad decision.

LOL! buggy - You just are not gonna be happy 'til some Supreme Court rules that some for profit corp does not hafta include coverage for 'vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health treatment, or preventive wellness', are ya? Please son't hold your breath waitin' for that - we want to keep you around here! :)

[biker1]

It is a pretty long jump from excluding 4 out of 16 forms of birth control because they induce abortions to excluding vaccinations, blood transfusions, etc. Irrational fear mongering is a really shameful practice.

As a family, the Green family can do whatever they want. However, as a for profit corporation, they should have to adhere to the law of the land. A narrow decision of the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Let us hope that it does not get further interpreted to include vaccinations, blood transfusions, mental health treatment, or preventive wellness based on the same beliefs that were in this bad decision.

[44Ruger]

What facts do you have this is the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza


What I do see is a conflict within church and state and clearly, 5 religious men's personal viewpoint which colored their opinion. That is about as obvious as the nose on your face.

[perrjojo]

The court was split 5/4.... Just as the posters on this thread are split. That means we all see things from a different view point. Also the opinions given were NOT religious preferences. The opinions were based on the judges interpretation of the law.

[Bonanza]

[QUOTE=Bonanza;903090][B]IMEN agreed with Hobby Lobby. These 5 Supreme Court MEN also happen to be CATHOLIC. Hmmmmm . . . Interesting, no???

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the ruling is solely based on opinion. The decision was not unanimous; they did not all agree. So it's the Catholic men who made the decision. I guess you don't see anything wrong with that picture. :eek:

As a Catholic I am personally offended that you think because someone is Catholic that can't interpret the law correctly.

You should not be offended but rather, should see the situation as it is.

Regardless of what religion a person is, they have been indoctrinated into that religion. Then take the fact that these people are older. They have lived that religion with that upbringing for more than half a century. Go a step farther. They are men. Do most men really care about health care for women, let alone birth control measures? NO!

So in this specific situation you have the 5 men -- professed Catholics. They all voted the same way without deviation. And there you have it in a nutshell without expanding into multi-paragraphs. Again -- no offense meant,

[Bonanza]

Voting by faith instead of voting by law of the land is like the Muslims do. We must fight against religious prejudice.

It's very sad that there will always be religious prejudice.
It has existed as long as religion has been around and
the world will never see the end to it.

The real fact of life is that religion has caused more problems
in this world than anything else.
:sad:

[44Ruger]

It's very sad that there will always be religious prejudice.
It has existed as long as religion has been around and
the world will never see the end to it.

The real fact of life is that religion has caused more problems
in this world than anything else.
:sad:

Also sad is the fact that even though our founding fathers pointed out so clearly that there must be a separation of church and state, it does not stay separate. Our laws and the constitution would be better protected with atheist Supreme Court judges. That would bring more honest decisions with less religious bias.

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=Bonanza;903472][quote=gomoho;903317]

You should not be offended but rather, should see the situation as it is.

Regardless of what religion a person is, they They are men. Do most men really care about health care for women, let alone birth control measures? NO! UNQUOTE.

All the men close to me do. The man who I share my life with who helped raise our two daughters does. My uncles did. my father did. My brother does. My grandfather did. The men friends in our lives now do.

PLUS. The First Amendment of the Constitution PROTECTS our right to religious FREEDOM. Sometimes this thread feels like a lot of people are bent on changing that right. Not all Catholics think alike, nor all Jews, nor all Methodists, nor all atheists. There is the institutional church and then there Is the Catholic community, the Jewish community, the Methodist community. We all don't ALL think, act or believe "ex cathedra". And some of us believe only on several days of the week.

Don't forget why the Pilgrims came here.

[perrjojo]

[QUOTE=Bonanza;903472][quote=gomoho;903317]

You should not be offended but rather, should see the situation as it is.

Regardless of what religion a person is, they They are men. Do most men really care about health care for women, let alone birth control measures? NO! UNQUOTE.

All the men close to me do. The man who I share my life with who helped raise our two daughters does. My uncles did. my father did. My brother does. My grandfather did. The men friends in our lives now do.

PLUS. The First Amendment of the Constitution PROTECTS our right to religious FREEDOM. Sometimes this thread feels like a lot of people are bent on changing that right.

Don't forget why the Pilgrims came here.

:BigApplause: Gracie, I agree.

[44Ruger]

Let's allow sharia law to be consist and fair.

[dillywho]

Also sad is the fact that even though our founding fathers pointed out so clearly that there must be a separation of church and state, it does not stay separate. Our laws and the constitution would be better protected with atheist Supreme Court judges. That would bring more honest decisions with less religious bias.

They simply said that the government cannot create a law to establish a national religion for all its citizens requiring that they abide by it. They must be free to worship as they see fit or to not worship at all, if that is their choice.

Many times this "separation of church and state" is stated but seems to always be directed toward the wrong ones (individuals, schools, etc.), yet why are schools and churches used as polling places? Double standard?? Just askin...

[dillywho]

:BigApplause: Gracie, I agree.

As have the men in my life.

[Tennisnut]

[QUOTE=Bonanza;903472][quote=gomoho;903317]

You should not be offended but rather, should see the situation as it is.

Regardless of what religion a person is, they They are men. Do most men really care about health care for women, let alone birth control measures? NO! UNQUOTE.

All the men close to me do. The man who I share my life with who helped raise our two daughters does. My uncles did. my father did. My brother does. My grandfather did. The men friends in our lives now do.

PLUS. The First Amendment of the Constitution PROTECTS our right to religious FREEDOM. Sometimes this thread feels like a lot of people are bent on changing that right. Not all Catholics think alike, nor all Jews, nor all Methodists, nor all atheists. There is the institutional church and then there Is the Catholic community, the Jewish community, the Methodist community. We all don't ALL think, act or believe "ex cathedra". And some of us believe only on several days of the week.

Don't forget why the Pilgrims came here.

I agree also. The Pilgrims did not come here so someone's religious beliefs could be imposed on them. In this case, someones religious beliefs outweighed an existing law. Although, the detrimental effect of this ruling amounts to a few dollars a year to the affected parties. Besides the the few religious groups you mentioned, hundreds of others could use this to advance that slippery slope

[44Ruger]

[quote=graciegirl;903503][QUOTE=Bonanza;903472]

I agree also. The Pilgrims did not come here so someone's religious beliefs could be imposed on them. In this case, someones religious beliefs outweighed an existing law. Although, the detrimental effect of this ruling amounts to a few dollars a year to the affected parties. Besides the the few religious groups you mentioned, hundreds of others could use this to advance that slippery slope

So true and clear. To allow religion to be the determining factor in our laws (in my opinion) would destroy our democracy. Religions are more like dictatorships.

[njbchbum]

[quote=Tennisnut;903516][quote=graciegirl;903503]

So true and clear. To allow religion to be the determining factor in our laws (in my opinion) would destroy our democracy. Religions are more like dictatorships.

44Ruger - Please explain just how the H.L. decision to allow H.L. to not pay for 4 prescriptions that potentially cause abortion but to still pay for 16 contraceptive scripts 'forces' religion on women employees rather than the decision protecting the rights of H.L. which they have under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Thanks

[njbchbum]

[quote=graciegirl;903503][QUOTE=Bonanza;903472]

I agree also. The Pilgrims did not come here so someone's religious beliefs could be imposed on them. In this case, someones religious beliefs outweighed an existing law. Although, the detrimental effect of this ruling amounts to a few dollars a year to the affected parties. Besides the the few religious groups you mentioned, hundreds of others could use this to advance that slippery slope

Tennisnut - Does a law that requires one to abide by a standard that is totally against their religion not have the impact of imposing religious belief/religion on that party?

[Tennisnut]

[quote=Tennisnut;903516][quote=graciegirl;903503]

Tennisnut - Does a law that requires one to abide by a standard that is totally against their religion not have the impact of imposing religious belief/religion on that party?

No, unless you believe in the "Golden Rule". I have the bucks, so you live to my Religious standard, not the law. I guess that determines who does the imposition.

[janmcn]

No subject is going to unite women more than this one. Why would anyone choose to have this discussion at this point in time? It would be nice to hear from more women of child-bearing age.

[44Ruger]

[quote=44Ruger;903519][quote=Tennisnut;903516]

44Ruger - Please explain just how the H.L. decision to allow H.L. to not pay for 4 prescriptions that potentially cause abortion but to still pay for 16 contraceptive scripts 'forces' religion on women employees rather than the decision protecting the rights of H.L. which they have under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Thanks

It does not force religion on women. It is a way of allowing H.L. To make decisions that will erode laws that have been put in place by a democratic government for the protection of all Americans. HL will become a dictator employer and not a law abiding American company. The rights and needs of the many far out way the desires of one confused individual.

[njbchbum]

no, unless you believe in the "golden rule". I have the bucks, so you live to my religious standard, not the law. I guess that determines who does the imposition.

yikes!

[Bavarian]

Bonanza, bravo! I have always been offended that a man has any say in what I do with my body, including abortion. It is my decision, not a corporation's or even the Supreme Court. My generation fought too hard for the rights my daughter and granddaughter enjoy to let us slide back. This has all come about because of the members of the Supreme Court and women would be wise to consider this in presidential elections. In my opinion, men should have absolutely no say in my reproductive rights. It is ironic that conservatives are forever talking about individual rights but hide behind religion like a shield.

The Unborn Baby is not Your Body! It is a separate Living Being.

The Younger generation is increasingly pro-life. I see them at the Annual March For Life in DC that I attended until I moved to FL. They scold us for not stopping abortion earlier.

Now that said, Hobby Lobby decision is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed unanimously by the House and by 99 votes in the Senate and signed into law by Pres William J. Clinton. That is the act the Supremes used to base their decision.

It is not anti-women as no one is prevented from buying these abortifacient drugs on their own.

[Bavarian]

All of you upset over Hobby Lobby not paying for all baby killing drugs: What do you think of Anne Arundel (co., MD) Medical Center saying that they will not hire anyone who smokes, period. Smokers need not apply. Do you think that is discrimination. They were already banned from smoking on the Hospital Campus.

[Taltarzac725]

All of you upset over Hobby Lobby not paying for all baby killing drugs: What do you think of Anne Arundel (co., MD) Medical Center saying that they will not hire anyone who smokes, period. Smokers need not apply. Do you think that is discrimination. They were already banned from smoking on the Hospital Campus.

No Butts About It: Local Hospital To Stop Hiring Smokers « CBS Baltimore (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/06/19/no-butts-about-it-local-hospital-to-stop-hiring-smokers/)

I had not heard about that. I suppose they will have to ask whether you smoke in applications or interviews then?

[Rags123]

[quote=njbchbum;903523][quote=44Ruger;903519]

It does not force religion on women. It is a way of allowing H.L. To make decisions that will erode laws that have been put in place by a democratic government for the protection of all Americans. HL will become a dictator employer and not a law abiding American company. The rights and needs of the many far out way the desires of one confused individual.


The only eroding of laws are those that the USA refuses to enforce, especially those at the border.

[graciegirl]

In my whole life....living here is the first time I have ever heard anyone so antireligion. I know and love atheists and have in my life people of all faiths, some who practice and some who don't. I SEE all of the GOOD different churches do in their outreach programs, and I know that people who go to church aren't always "good". I believe in the separation of Church and State, but I personally think that religion is a solace and a good guiding force for most people. I struggle with faith myself and I know that not all men and women of the cloth are good examples, but most of them that I have known are. This coldness, and anti church sentiment troubles me and hurts me.

I didn't go to church today. I am no saint. I don't believe or accept or integrate all of the things that the institutional church has taught me but I like people who try to do better and be kinder and hang in there because of their religion. I would NEVER try to talk anyone into my faith. But I would NOT ever tear down someone's faith, no more than I would find it wrong they were born white and heterosexual or brown and homosexual. You ARE WHO you are and most of us struggle to be good, by the standards we believe in. It is better to have something rather than nothing.

And sometimes the nothingness leaps off the page on this forum.

[surething]

[quote=njbchbum;903523][quote=44Ruger;903519]

It does not force religion on women. It is a way of allowing H.L. To make decisions that will erode laws that have been put in place by a democratic government for the protection of all Americans. HL will become a dictator employer and not a law abiding American company. The rights and needs of the many far out way the desires of one confused individual.

HL a dictator? Hobby Lobby founder has strong beliefs about abortion and doesn't want to pay for medications that aid in aborting a fetus, not in preventing conception. Founder David Green raised the minimum wage to $14/hr. in 2013 Green also joined the Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge in 2010, promising to donate half his wealth to good causes by the time he dies.

This question boiled down to religious liberty and RFRA considerations.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was passed in 1993 by an overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT House and Senate, and signed into law by Clinton.
The SCOTUS merely upheld "established law" which did not allow any follow-on law, in this case 0bamaCare, to nullify that existing law.
In this ruling, women are not denied the contraception. Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for it on religious views. Women can go get it anywhere they want, like buy it themselves, perhaps at Target for $9/month. There were really only four drugs or abortifacients Hobby Lobby objected to. You could argue this case was about abortion, because Hobby Lobby objected to providing coverage for abortifacients - medications that would abort a fetus-something that's already conceived, as opposed to a preventative.
No female employee of Hobby Lobby is going to lose coverage of any medication, even after this ruling. Hobby Lobby’s insurance company will fill the gap in coverage left by the religious liberty exemption granted to the company, just like they do for churches and religious-affiliated non-profits

[44Ruger]

In my whole life....living here is the first time I have ever heard anyone so antireligion. I know and love atheists and have in my life people of all faiths, some who practice and some who don't. I SEE all of the GOOD different churches do in their outreach programs, and I know that people who go to church aren't always "good". I believe in the separation of Church and State, but I personally think that religion is a solace and a good guiding force for most people. I struggle with faith myself and I know that not all men and women of the cloth are good examples, but most of them that I have known are. This coldness, and anti church sentiment troubles me and hurts me.

I didn't go to church today. I am no saint. I don't believe or accept or integrate all of the things that the institutional church has taught me but I like people who try to do better and be kinder and hang in there because of their religion. I would NEVER try to talk anyone into my faith. But I would NOT ever tear down someone's faith, no more than I would find it wrong they were born white and heterosexual. You ARE WHO you are and most of us struggle to be good, by the standards we believe in. It is better to have something rather than nothing.

And sometimes the nothingness leaps off the page on this forum.

I agree with this post. Without the fear of god we would have even more criminals among us. My faith not only guides me in my day to day activities, it gives me peace during times of sorrow. This HL action will drive a wedge between the faithful and their trust in our laws. When religious values of one are forced on others, it drives them out of faith. Shame on HL for stirring up such a stink.

[Tennisnut]

In my whole life....living here is the first time I have ever heard anyone so antireligion. I know and love atheists and have in my life people of all faiths, some who practice and some who don't. I SEE all of the GOOD different churches do in their outreach programs, and I know that people who go to church aren't always "good". I believe in the separation of Church and State, but I personally think that religion is a solace and a good guiding force for most people. I struggle with faith myself and I know that not all men and women of the cloth are good examples, but most of them that I have known are. This coldness, and anti church sentiment troubles me and hurts me.

I didn't go to church today. I am no saint. I don't believe or accept or integrate all of the things that the institutional church has taught me but I like people who try to do better and be kinder and hang in there because of their religion. I would NEVER try to talk anyone into my faith. But I would NOT ever tear down someone's faith, no more than I would find it wrong they were born white and heterosexual or brown and homosexual. You ARE WHO you are and most of us struggle to be good, by the standards we believe in. It is better to have something rather than nothing.

And sometimes the nothingness leaps off the page on this forum.

I am afraid not everyone has the same attitude as you do toward tolerance of religious values. As someone said, we need to continue to be a kinder and gentler nation. Almost all religions profess the concepts of being kind and helping our fellow man and that concept is not foreign to atheists as well. However, some of the devotees believe it is their duty to convert others to their religion. This can be as destructive as the Sunis of ISIS in the Middle East or as bothersome as someone distributing the Watchtower. Somewhere in between is HL decision.

[44Ruger]

I am afraid not everyone has the same attitude as you do toward tolerance of religious values. As someone said, we need to continue to be a kinder and gentler nation. Almost all religions profess the concepts of being kind and helping our fellow man and that concept is not foreign to atheists as well. However, some of the devotees believe it is their duty to convert others to their religion. This can be as destructive as the Sunis of ISIS in the Middle East or as bothersome as someone distributing the Watchtower. Somewhere in between is HL decision.

Perfect comparison. It all comes down to this country being a democracy. HL can beleive what they want, but by law they cannot hold anything due the employee for the time the work there. This case from the start has been about forcing religious beliefs down the throat of everyone. Let everyone make decisions for themselves. HL is bullying their employees. If not afraid of the CEO that runs HL they at least protest or strike.

[njbchbum]

Perfect comparison. It all comes down to this country being a democracy. HL can beleive what they want, but by law they cannot hold anything due the employee for the time the work there. This case from the start has been about forcing religious beliefs down the throat of everyone. Let everyone make decisions for themselves. HL is bullying their employees. If not afraid of the CEO that runs HL they at least protest or strike.

Didn't HL do just that - make their own decision? Or can one only make their own decision when it does not impact women/employees? And how is paying $14/hr bullying anyone?

[perrjojo]

I think this whole issue is based on emotions, not facts.

[gomoho]

I give up - some folks are haters and hard headed! Man haters, Catholic haters, religion haters. Wanting to give entitlements to women, but not rights to private business owners afforded to them by law. Forget it - you're beating your head against the wall trying to make them understand. And so it goes...

[graciegirl]

I give up - some folks are haters and hard headed! Man haters, Catholic haters, religion haters. Wanting to give entitlements to women, but not rights to private business owners afforded to them by law. Forget it - you're beating your head against the wall trying to make them understand. And so it goes...


Right once again. Hate is ugly. Getting people all stirred up causes hating feelings. Not helpful, and no one will change anyone's opinion. I am no different than anyone else in trying to make people see it my way.

It is a beautiful day in The Villages. I love a dramatic noisy storm and the hamburgers we just shared. It really is all good and getting all angry and unhappy isn't going to make anything better.

I am glad to be with all of you in this wonderful place.

[perrjojo]

I give up - some folks are haters and hard headed! Man haters, Catholic haters, religion haters. Wanting to give entitlements to women, but not rights to private business owners afforded to them by law. Forget it - you're beating your head against the wall trying to make them understand. And so it goes...

I agree. I see a lot of haters here. It doesn't bring anyone together. I am not Catholic, I am not religious, I am not pro life. I am a woman who has fought hard for women's rights all of my life. I do believe we have lost all tolerance for anyone who believes differently. As a woman, I see no problem with this verdict. As I have said before...if this is a problem for YOU, don't work at HL. I just don't see this as the end of the world as some seem to say. What I do see is a lack of tolerance and understanding of our fellow human beings. We are all different and that is what makes us great. Please stop trying to make us all the same..whatever you think that sameness should be.

[Taltarzac725]

I agree. I see a lot of haters here. It doesn't bring anyone together. I am not Catholic, I am not religious, I am not pro life. I am a woman who has fought hard for women's rights all of my life. I do believe we have lost all tolerance for anyone who believes differently. As a woman, I see no problem with this verdict. As I have said before...if this is a problem for YOU, don't work at HL. I just don't see this as the end of the world as some seem to say. What I do see is a lack of tolerance and understanding of our fellow human beings. We are all different and that is what makes us great. Please stop trying to make us all the same..whatever you think that sameness should be.

I like your reasonable approach. There are things people can do if they feel strongly against the HL decision. Make these products over the counter rather than prescription. A simple solution to Hobby Lobby outrage (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101807865#). Not sure there is a petition for this yet but my guess is that there will be one soon.

[asianthree]

I have worked in a hospital since 1970. They have never covered birth control.

[dirtbanker]

They are men. Do most men really care about health care for women, let alone birth control measures? NO!

What rock did you climb out from under? You have not been hanging out with real men that is for sure! Thanks for the neanderthal stereotype there.

You evidently have not read many of the posts in this 18 page thread prior to posting...Hobby Lobby's objection was towards abortion drugs, not towards birth control drugs.

[Average Guy]

What rock did you climb out from under? You have not been hanging out with real men that is for sure! Thanks for the neanderthal stereotype there.

You evidently have not read many of the posts in this 18 page thread prior to posting...Hobby Lobby's objection was towards abortion drugs, not towards birth control drugs.

You attributed the wrong poster with the quote that you referenced. It was posted by Bonanza.

[Tennisnut]

I agree. I see a lot of haters here. It doesn't bring anyone together. I am not Catholic, I am not religious, I am not pro life. I am a woman who has fought hard for women's rights all of my life. I do believe we have lost all tolerance for anyone who believes differently. As a woman, I see no problem with this verdict. As I have said before...if this is a problem for YOU, don't work at HL. I just don't see this as the end of the world as some seem to say. What I do see is a lack of tolerance and understanding of our fellow human beings. We are all different and that is what makes us great. Please stop trying to make us all the same..whatever you think that sameness should be.

I agree, please Hobby Lobby, you are showing a lack of tolerance and understanding of your fellow human beings. We are all different and that is what makes us great. Please stop trying to make us all the same..whatever you think that sameness should be.

[dbussone]

Right once again. Hate is ugly. Getting people all stirred up causes hating feelings. Not helpful, and no one will change anyone's opinion. I am no different than anyone else in trying to make people see it my way.

It is a beautiful day in The Villages. I love a dramatic noisy storm and the hamburgers we just shared. It really is all good and getting all angry and unhappy isn't going to make anything better.

I am glad to be with all of you in this wonderful place.


I love the smell of the rain and the wet grass this evening.

[dirtbanker]

You attributed the wrong poster with the quote that you referenced. It was posted by Bonanza.
I apologize to Gomoho for that, I used the quote feature and that is what I ended up with.

[njbchbum]

I agree, please Hobby Lobby, you are showing a lack of tolerance and understanding of your fellow human beings. We are all different and that is what makes us great. Please stop trying to make us all the same..whatever you think that sameness should be.

Thank you, SCOTUS, for showing us that the law permits us tolerance of our beliefs.

[Tennisnut]

Thank you, SCOTUS, for showing us that the law permits us tolerance of our beliefs.

That is the Golden Rule. The workers must tolerate Hobby Lobby owner's belief.
He who has the gold rules and forces them to tolerate the owners belief. There is no reciprocation by the owner.