[dave from deland]

Good Point.

[The Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by The Mountaineer

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]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

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]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

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]

Originally Posted by The Mountaineer

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]

Originally Posted by The Mountaineer

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.

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

[dirtbanker]

Originally Posted by CraigC

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 )

[Taltarzac725]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

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

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]

Originally Posted by dirtbanker

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 )

and i am quite sure they feel the same

[44Ruger]

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.

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

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by 44Ruger

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]

Originally Posted by 44Ruger

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?