Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby...

@AmazonTreeBoa: Muslims are exempt from the Affordable Health Care Law.

You're well within your rights to be proud of the Church's stance on birth control, but the Church's view on this matter shouldn't interfere with public policy in this country.

People are missing, or ignoring, the broader implications of this ruling. It goes beyond contraceptives. Essentially the Supreme Court has made, as Justice Scalia put it in Employment Division v Smith, "the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." (Though I suppose that was different, since in that case the religious beliefs in question were non-Christian). Now that has opened that door we can expect employers who are Jehovah's Witness claim religious beliefs to refuse to cover blood transfusions on their employee's insurance. Likewise for Scientologists and psychiatric treatments.

As an aside isn't in funny that Hobby Lobby had no qualms covering plan B and the other disputed contraceptives just prior to filing suit? Isn't it funny that they heavily invest in the same companies that manufacture these contraceptives? isn't it funny that they purchase most of their cheap shit from China, which pretty much forces abortions on its citizens? Religious objections my ass. This was politically motivated, not religious.

The corporations involved in this decision were family-owned corporations. Now a publicly-traded corporation that sells stock on the stock market might be a different story, since such a corporation would have multiple owners who probably aren't all members of the same religion. I wonder how WWE would fit in here, it's technically publically-traded, but from what I read the McMahon family has about seventy-something percent of the stock and 96% of the voting power.

In any case, Serraph and Comp, if you disagree with this ruling as it pertains to Hobby Lobby, how do you feel about small businesses? Do small businesses have religious rights? Obviously religious groups like the Archdiocese of New York and the Little Sisters of the Poor have such rights, and if Obama can't prevail over businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, he's not likely to do so against those type of groups (really though he should leave the Little Sisters alone, they take care of numerous elderly people and the fine the gov't would levy on them for non-compliance with the mandate would be equal to 40% of the Little Sisters of the Poor's total annual revenue).

imo people have religious rights, not legal entities which, while may be owned by people, are not people. should other property have religious rights? a car or a house?

part of the reason people form corporations/LLCs in the first place is legal protection/separation of themselves from their business. just because our laws afford religious protection to no-human entities like churches doesn't mean they are humans and thus any non-human entity should be afforded the same thing.

Hey my car is a devout catholic, it use to be a devout believer in State Farm, but it recently saw more potential for protection in Catholicism.

My claims aren't opinion, which is why I call your lazy ass lazy. Because I am using the same google as you and can find plenty of examples. Trying to get a answer out of me by saying "act like an adult" is the saddest attempt I have ever seen. Sorry kid, but that's not going to get much of a reaction out of me like you wish. And it is "you're", not Yu're".

When you do this it feels like what you really want is for us to google something and come back to say what we found offensive so that you can turn around and agree with it.

A debate/agreement could actually be made if you simply state specifics about what you are upset about.

increases the chance of employment for women.... with me at least

being of a religion that resents every imposition.

also being raised catholic makes it real so ha!

Yep and it's a fvcking travesty.. Even if you have qualms towards abortion or contraception, you should at very least realize that this was a travesty that sets a massive precedent in which corporations are taking over and we the people are losing even more.

Please tell that to the women who suffer from painful ovarian cysts if they are not on birth control.. I love it when people who have no clue what their talking about some how think they should open their mouths on the subject matter.. Or wait should we start not covering chemo therapy.. Afterall it is making the body do a completely "unnatural" thing and actually harming it in multiple ways..

1) Look at how the Vatican views sex and you can see they don't understand it from a biological stand point or a societal one. The fact that they demand celibacy for themselves is arbitrary and insane in and of itself. We're talking about an organization that had previously recommended that people NOT use condoms as they helped 'spread AIDS' in sub Saharan Africa. If that isn't criminal enough for you, then I'd question your humanity.

The fact that they disapprove of contraception says that they flat out don't understand ANYTHING about sex.

2) Indeed it is.

.......... Not sure what you are talking about, I am specifically talking about the outcome of this supreme court decision..

and sole proprietorships and partnerships.

Looks to be reasonable to me.

@thegerg: you're saying my medical condition disturbs the employer so much that they can refuse to pay for health insurance? How the hell does that make any sense? You can not impose your own views and basicly say how they have to live their lives... That's discrimination not freedom...

You're being sarcastic right?

This essentially forces the Employers religious views onto the Employee with no regard to the Employees beliefs or wishes.

Now employers can cherry pick what healthcare they can provide to their employees. That strengthens their involvement.

@HoolaHoopMan: 1) Look at how the Vatican views sex and you can see they don't understand it from a biological stand point or a societal one. The fact that they demand celibacy for themselves is arbitrary and insane in and of itself.

That's a choice made by those who choose to become part of the Church, voluntarily accepting celibacy as part of their dedication to God. And not all positions in the hierarchy require you to be celibate; deacons, for instance can marry and serve the Church.

I understand its voluntary. That still doesn't excuse it from being weird and unneeded.

I have seen talking head after talking head call this everything from the "Apocalypse for Women" to the "The Lord's Joyous Second Coming." The truth is that its neither, break down as follows:

1) Ruling applies to "closely held corporations only" (CHC), this is a legal distinction (and one verified by the IRS) that you own a business in where 50% plus of the shares are owned by less then 5 people (relatives) and not a publically traded company. People who are saying this means that Corporations everywhere are suddenly "going to find Jesus" are overly simplifying it, mainly because the loss of profit for a public corporation to go CHC (from no longer having public shareholders, loss of big corp tax breaks, etc.) would be substantially more than the savings of not covering those contraceptives. The legal paperwork alone would cost a pretty penny while the contraceptives themselves would not be as expensive (and if there is one thing corporations can be counted to do is find the way to maintain profit). Hobby Lobby is religious and so is willing to pay the costs of fighting for their beliefs.

2) The ruling only exempts Hobby Lobby from providing 4 of the 20+ contraceptive options mandated by Obamacare. Specifically the two Morning after pill types and two types of IUD's. The remaining contraceptives (including the Pill) actually make up 80% of the contraceptives used in the US. People who say that millions of women will now be without contraceptives (like I heard someone say this morning) fail to see that most people will continue to have access to the contraceptives they use the most.

3) The vote was along the usual ideological lines, 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, one swing vote (Justice Kennedy). I had someone tell me this was some vast misogynist conspiracy because all the women voted against it. I told her that if you gender reassigned every person on the bench they would still vote according to their entrenched ideology. Now the justices on both sides will say otherwise but the truth is they probably already had their minds made up when they granted the writ of certriari (permission for case to go to Supreme Court). Except Kennedy, that guy votes on whatever side of the bed he wakes on.

4) I've heard some of the supporters of the ruling saying this would finally free them from having to provide for the "abortion" drugs. It wont, President Obama has already said he plans to work around the ruling, maybe requiring that the Fed gov pay for these contraceptives, which means we the tax payer will still be stuck paying for it. (Quite the irony for those Hobby Lobby supporters eh?)

5) The gist of the ruling is basically the government, through Obamacare, did not use the "least restrictive means" to regulate an activity that interferes with the practice of religion. Freedom of Religion is a "Fundamental Right (found in the Constitution) while the right to contraceptives is a "prenumbra right" (a right that was later found by the courts in the "shadow" of the Constitution). Take a guess which has priority.

6) Finally the ideological divide is whether you can use you freedom of religion rights in this case. Liberals say that your religious rights apply only in your home or designated place of worship, conservatives say you can take it anywhere. Doing business in the economy is the big gray area with court rulings for both sides. Please realize this before you start saying this is all some conspiracy or vendetta etc.

7) People are saying this is a big can of worms legally and it is. However a can of worms can go anywhere, including in the opposite direction the can is open in. And all of it is tempered by the speed of our court system, which is about as fast as an actual worm. I would wait and see how this plays out before saying that we have reverted to a third world country (seriously?)

In the end will anyone get everything they want? Nope. Some women will not get every single conceivable birth control they want on demand included in their job perks and some hyper religious people will still have to pay for "abortion" drugs when the Fed gov uses their tax dollars for it. Still the media, politicians, and others will make a scene for their respective teams.

Anyway, its up to you to make up your own mind on the matter.

I've been saying for a while now that the fundamentalists wouldn't stop at reproductive rights and here they are attacking birth-control now. I just can't wait to see what is next. And letting religious beliefs trump all other rights is setting up a dangerous slippery slope. So now religious people could say they don't believe in equal pay for women. They could discriminate against LGBT people, members of other religions, atheists, etc... This religious fundamentalism is getting out of control in our country and we need to actually do something about it while we still can.... Or pretty soon we'll wake up and find out we're now living in theocracy.

Oh by the way, could any of these christians tell me where in the bible it says birth control is wrong? Is it in the same part where jesus supposedly speaks out against homosexuality, supports the rich over the poor and says that everyone should own their own arsenal of weapons? ;O) *cough*

EDIT: And I think it hilarious that they have no problems with viagra being covered....

This topic really shows the true colors of some people. They'll cheer on the store because it's christian, but it'd bet you they'd all be signing a different tune if it was, say, a muslim or sikh or buddhist store doing the same thing. Say it was a muslim store that made its employees wear head coverings and played islamic hymns over the instore PA system (Hobby Lobby plays christian hymns over theirs, and also is pushing bible classes for public schools). This isn't about religious freedom, it's religious freedom for christians to push their ideas on everyone else.

First of all, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm a fox news link?

Second, this...

Democratic leaders blasted the court's decision on Monday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tweeting: "It's time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women."

...is a gross simplification, Harry Reid. Don't get your panties in a knot now. The statement also generalizes women as being fully against the decision when in reality, there were plenty of women that supported the decision too, so you can forget trying to say that all women aren't happy about it.

Where exactly in that statement does it say "all women aren't happy about it"?

TLDR: **** Christianity!

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

If Employers have a religious objection to women taking contraceptives, and women are no longer able to get the medically diagnosed contraceptives they need due to their employers religious objection, then those beliefs are being forced on the employee as they now have to abide by the employers standard on Contraceptives, and it is directly involving their healthcare as they can no longer get the medicine they have been prescribed.

Take of those right wing glasses son, stop spinning

No kid, I do not have to support my claim. I couldn't care less what you do or do not believe. What you think is completely irrelevant to me. But you know what kid, you keep on trying, you keep on trying.

First I have to ask so that I know how to respond. Are you stupid or just playing the part for this thread? I really don't know whether to take you serious and look at you are stupid or take you as joking and have a good laugh. So which is it, huh?

Where do you get the money to pay for your meals from?

It's not weird or unnecessary at all. Advocates see clerical celibacy as "a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbor."

Most that enter priesthood have a "calling" to do so, therefore voluntarily abstaining from sexual intercourse. It may seem weird to you, but to them it's completely natural as they've dedicated their lives to the Church and its teachings.

And by forcing their employees to pay for their contraceptives full fare rather than with a co-pay they are discouraging their employees from buying contraceptives, human behavior is dictated by incentives. Hobby Lobby management doesn't want their employees to be using these medical products, that's why they wasted so much time and money on this in court. By not offering coverage for these products it will have the intended effect of fewer Hobby Lobby employees using contraceptives.

@-Sun_Tzu-: By not offering coverage for these products it will have the intended effect of fewer Hobby Lobby employees using contraceptives.

The case was only about banning 4 of the 20 available contraceptives on the plan...4 that were related to abortive methods or "plan B". To say that fewer employees would be using contraceptives is silly. Unless Hobby Lobby employs a lot of irresponsible females, I just don't think this is the case.

Again, human behavior is dictated by incentives. There's a reason why ~80% of the people in this country get their insurance through their employer, because its incentivized for employers to offer insurance and its incentivized for employees to enroll in the insurance that is offered rather than going through the individual market. This isn't about Hobby Lobby "forcing" their employees from not taking advantage of other insurance programs. That's a very lazy analysis of the employer-employee relationship, especially in regards to health care. People are generally less likely to buy something if its more expensive, that shouldn't be a concept that's hard to grasp.

And no one but Hobby Lobby management knows the true reason for why they don't want to cover these products but I choose to take them at their word rather than engage in baseless speculation. These people have serious moral objections to the use of certain contraceptives and they don't want their employees using them.

They are forcing their beliefs on their employees by disincentivizing the acquirement of certain health products simply because they have a moral objection to them. I'm not going to repeat myself on this point again.

I agree with you that we shouldn't have an employer-based health care system, but we do as of now so the government, short of completely transforming the US health care system overnight, is compelled to acknowledge the realities on the ground when enacting certain public policy reforms.

Why are you doing this to yourself?

You pay a premium for your insurance. How exactly does that equate to "someone else paying for it"?

The silence is deafening. ;O)