Jump to content
goxfiles

Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case!

Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/

Supreme Court rules ObamaCare provision can't force some employers to cover contraception

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign.

"Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News.

The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." The court's four liberal justices dissented.

Response from fellow members of the Christian community...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Mike Spero

THANK YOU SWEET, BELOVED JESUS!!! COMMON SENSE IS RETURNING AT LAST!!! TTuTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good news. Forcing people to pay for things they find immoral when you can do it yourself without going bankrupt is a ridiculous idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much good news. :) There are other ways to get the birth control you want. I really don't see the issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, joy. Corporations are people even though they obviously aren't and five men on the Supreme Court decided that our health is subject to the capricious whims of the religious dictates of our employer. 

 

Nevermind how dangerous this is ("My religion says fornication is a sin. Pregnant before you're married? NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU" "I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Need a blood transfusion? NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU" "I'm in the Church of Scientology. Need coverage for your mental health? EXCUSE YOU, THAT IS AGAINST MY RELIGION"). Nevermind that birth control is used for more than just not having babies, but hey. Screw those women who use it to regulate periods, treat actual medical conditions, help ease serious PMS symptoms, am I right? Contraception isn't healthcare... Except for when it is, but even then, they won't cover it!

 

And I bet they still cover viagra and penis pumps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, joy. Corporations are people even though they obviously aren't and five men on the Supreme Court decided that our health is subject to the capricious whims of the religious dictates of our employer. 

 

Nevermind how dangerous this is ("My religion says fornication is a sin. Pregnant before you're married? NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU" "I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Need a blood transfusion? NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU" "I'm in the Church of Scientology. Need coverage for your mental health? EXCUSE YOU, THAT IS AGAINST MY RELIGION"). Nevermind that birth control is used for more than just not having babies, but hey. Screw those women who use it to regulate periods, treat actual medical conditions, help ease serious PMS symptoms, am I right? Contraception isn't healthcare... Except for when it is, but even then, they won't cover it!

 

And I bet they still cover viagra and penis pumps.

So it's not an option for people to work elsewhere or pay for stuff their employer opposes on their own? Corporations may not ontologically be people, but they are run by, funded by, and worked by people, and these people have consciences that are more sacred than insurance.

Imagine if it were law that your business had to fund its employees' pro-life activism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not an option for people to work elsewhere or pay for stuff their employer opposes on their own? Corporations may not ontologically be people, but they are run by, funded by, and worked by people, and these people have consciences that are more sacred than insurance.

Imagine if it were law that your business had to fund its employees' pro-life activism.

Pro-life activism is not the same as healthcare, Nicene, and it's a bit worrying that you think it's acceptable to equate the two. And no, for many people it is not an option to just quit. Have you seen the job market these days? 

 

And why should men have viagra and penis pumps covered, but women can't have potentially life-saving medicine covered because their employers don't like it? That's ridiculous.

 

You believe someone's conscience is more "sacred"/important that someone else's health and wellbeing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yay, hurrah for the one-sided obsession over female purity!

What does this have to do with female purity? (i'm honestly asking not trying to be antagonistic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see the Supreme Court still recognizes that people posses religious liberty when it comes to following their religious beliefs to in everyday life (though with other religious rights vs. personal rights issues this can be a tricky balancing act). I'm almost even more glad to see another pro-life decision. I might add this isn't a Catholic run organization who didn't want to provide any contraception to its employees because of RCC doctrine (either because they couldn't do it good conscience or because they want Catholic employees who share doctrines of the RCC). Though I of course would still support their right to religious liberty. But Hobby Lobby doesn't care if its employees are having sex or having (heterosexual) sex with contraception. Neither is Hobby Lobby opposed to paying for its employees contraception. It's only opposed to paying for abortifacient pills.

 

Oh, yay, hurrah for the one-sided obsession over female purity!

 

No. Hobby Lobby has no objection to covering 16 of the 20 types of contraception (for women obviously) that the HHS Mandate requires employees to cover. Only two types of IUDs, Plan B (The Morning After Pill), and Ella (The Week After Pill) are not covered. Those are birth control pills that keep a zygote from implanting, that is they cause early abortions. All 16 other birth control methods Hobby Lobby covers for their female employees. 

 

And also IUDs are rarely if ever used for hormonal regulation or other non-birth control purposes. Their main purpose is to prevent pregnancy from happening (pre-conception) or continuing for long (post-conception). And Plan B and Ella are supposed to be one time things, not regular methods of birth control, methods of hormonal regulation, or for other non-birth control purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind how dangerous this is ("My religion says fornication is a sin. Pregnant before you're married? NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU" "I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Need a blood transfusion? NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU" "I'm in the Church of Scientology. Need coverage for your mental health? EXCUSE YOU, THAT IS AGAINST MY RELIGION"). Nevermind that birth control is used for more than just not having babies, but hey. Screw those women who use it to regulate periods, treat actual medical conditions, help ease serious PMS symptoms, am I right? Contraception isn't healthcare... Except for when it is, but even then, they won't cover it!

QFT

 

This is the problem I have with the ruling. Now anyone can basically force their religious views on their employees through healthcare. Like there are quite a few churches that rely solely on faith healing. So should their employees get no healthcare because of their employers beliefs? And a lot of people have been saying this might turn into a slippery slope. Like if the owner is Sikh should he be able to force all male employees to wear turbans. Or if a Muslim forced all women to wear a hijab or burka. And to have freedom of religion you must also have freedom from religion.

Edited by Auren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QFT

 

This is the problem I have with the ruling. Now anyone can basically force their religious views on their employees through healthcare. Like there are quite a few churches that rely solely on faith healing. So should their employees get no healthcare because of their employers beliefs? And a lot of people have been saying this might turn into a slippery slope. Like if the owner is Sikh should he be able to force all male employees to wear turbans. Or if a Muslim forced all women to wear a hijab or burka. And to have freedom of religion you must also have freedom from religion.

"Slippery slope" isn't the right term. This sets a dangerous precedent.

 

Now, it's on record that it's okay for business to withhold coverage based on the owner's beliefs. So yeah, congratulations. You won. But now you've literally opened the door for any denial of healthcare based on religion. Any religion. You work for a Scientologist? Better hope they don't decide to push this and deny you or our family aren't diagnosed with a mental illness, because it's against their religion to use anti-psychotics, and you better believe those are incredibly expensive. You work for a Jehovah's Witness? Better hope you never need a blood transfusion.

 

And like Auren said, there are people who believe the only medical care you should get is from prayer. Guess they have the legal right to completely deny people health coverage?

 

You start treating corporations like people, and the ones that get hurt are people. Actual people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QFT

 

This is the problem I have with the ruling. Now anyone can basically force their religious views on their employees through healthcare.

 You're not forced to work for a business if you do not like their healthcare benefits work somewhere else. (general you, not you personally :P)

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You're not forced to work for a business if you do not like their healthcare benefits work somewhere else. (general you, not you personally :P)

 

But it's extremely hard to find a job these days. You can't just quit and expect to find a job elsewhere immediately. It takes months and sometimes years. So that's not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's extremely hard to find a job these days. You can't just quit and expect to find a job elsewhere immediately. It takes months and sometimes years. So that's not an option.

To quote It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia: Why don't I just strap on my job helmet and squeeze down into a job cannon and fire off into job land, where jobs grow on little jobbies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's extremely hard to find a job these days. You can't just quit and expect to find a job elsewhere immediately. It takes months and sometimes years. So that's not an option.

Depends on where you are and what you're willing to do. My reasoning stands either way. When considering a job a person considers the benefits.

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia: Why don't I just strap on my job helmet and squeeze down into a job cannon and fire off into job land, where jobs grow on little jobbies!

 

Basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically.

Really? I quit my job and had another in less than a week.

 

Unless a person is in a backwoods Podunk town where healthcare probably isn't provided in the first place my point stands. If a person doesn't like the benefits find another. The argument both you give against this is comical as it would apply to wages too. It doesn't matter how long it takes if you don't like the benefits or even the wage/salary of a job what do people do? Job hunt.

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people who are cheering for this realize that this opens an extremely dangerous door for allowing businesses to deny employees anything based on the business' "religious beliefs". This is not "common sense". This is not a "victory". This is not a "win". This is allowing businesses to potentially bypass anti-discrimination laws. They can deny medical coverage for single mothers because "sex outside of wedlock is a sin". They can use this as an excuse to avoid all kinds of obligations.

 

This extends far beyond contraception. This is dangerous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope people who are cheering for this realize that this opens an extremely dangerous door for allowing businesses to deny employees anything based on the business' "religious beliefs". This is not "common sense". This is not a "victory". This is not a "win". This is allowing businesses to potentially bypass anti-discrimination laws. They can deny medical coverage for single mothers because "sex outside of wedlock is a sin". They can use this as an excuse to avoid all kinds of obligations.

 

This extends far beyond contraception. This is dangerous. 

He he, this is exactly how I think businesses ought to work. Allowed legally to have complete control over who they will or will not hire and what benefits they will or will not give, no matter how grossly discriminatory they become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He he, this is exactly how I think businesses ought to work. Allowed legally to have complete control over who they will or will not hire and what benefits they will or will not give, no matter how grossly discriminatory they become.

That's disgusting.

 

That's the Industrial Revolution. That isn't something we should aspire to, that was child labor and poverty and people getting fired because they lost a limb due to poor safety regulations.

 

Employees deserve better than that.

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's disgusting.

 

That's the Industrial Revolution. That isn't something we should aspire to, that was child labor and poverty and people getting fired because they lost a limb due to poor safety regulations.

 

Employees deserve better than that.

 

It doesn't really matter what people deserve in this context. Don't business owners, being normal human beings, have the right to spend their money as they please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×