# Hobby Lobby Wins



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Scotus decides


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.38m6X3PG.dpuf'


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.38m6X3PG.dpuf


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.38m6X3PG.dpuf


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.38m6X3PG.dpuf


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Score one for religious liberty!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It seems to be a fair and limited ruling. They did not let any slippery slope stuff influence them either way.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Its a very fair decision. This was all about greed and taking religous right. Hobby Lobby offered 16 forms of birth control. 16!! They said no to emergency constraceptives and with every right. Abortion inducing pills shoudl not have to be convered. Wear a 25 cent rubber.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.38m6X3PG.dpuf


What about single proprietors, partners, and llc's?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> What about single proprietors, partners, and llc's?


Those businesses would have the same ruling in regards to birth control. I think.


If we are talking about baking cakes it Is another argument. I can see it going either way. The new twist is that discrimination would be brought into the argument. I think they have laid the basis for those businesses not baking the cake if their policies are posted and adhered to. This ruling would back them up. That is only my opinion.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Dose it define 'religious belief'?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> Dose it define 'religious belief'?


I don't know. Ginsburg dissented though and she thinks it will bring out a lot of people trying to use this and their religion to get a pass on a lot of things.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

It's annoying.
Hobby Lobby's previous insurance plan covered contraception. No worries then.

And their retirement fund is heavily invested in the companies that make the very contraceptive devices and medications they are flipping about now and they make the drugs used for abortions.
So.. they make money off the practices.

Really, really chaps me.
It isn't about religion and it's not about freedom, it's about corporate control issues.
They were just fine with paying for it before...grrrr.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

chickenista said:


> It's annoying.
> Hobby Lobby's previous insurance plan covered contraception. No worries then.
> 
> And their retirement fund is heavily invested in the companies that make the very contraceptive devices and medications they are flipping about now and they make the drugs used for abortions.
> ...


If someone could prove that, then we would have another court case but by they went to court to get a ruling on the law not to prove that.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

chickenista said:


> It's annoying.
> Hobby Lobby's previous insurance plan covered contraception. No worries then.
> 
> And their retirement fund is heavily invested in the companies that make the very contraceptive devices and medications they are flipping about now and they make the drugs used for abortions.
> ...


This is what bothers me the most. If they truly had a deeply help religious belief against contraceptives then they would not be invested in companies that manufacture them. They are nothing but hypocrites looking to save a few bucks. I hope their insurance jacks their rates with pregnancy policies.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> This is what bothers me the most. If they truly had a deeply help religious belief against contraceptives then they would not be invested in companies that manufacture them. They are nothing but hypocrites looking to save a few bucks. I hope their insurance jacks their rates with pregnancy policies.


When you put money in the market it goes out all over the place. They are not directly invested in those companies. People are trying to tie their investments in companies who they themselves are invested in those companies to hobby lobby. It does not work that. If I invest in a good company for their product then thats as far as my ties go to them. If that company I invested in then invest in something different thats their business. Im not invested into what they invest in. Im just invested in their product.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> This is what bothers me the most. If they truly had a deeply help religious belief against contraceptives then they would not be invested in companies that manufacture them. They are nothing but hypocrites looking to save a few bucks. I hope their insurance jacks their rates with pregnancy policies.


Yep, it was all part of a huge scheme. Here's the plot: First off, alienate customers who are pro-choice. Then, invest many thousands of dollars in legal fees. Woo hoo! We won! Now we're saving chump change on our health insurance policy!!

More likely that they did pursue the case as a matter of their beliefs.

As far as being invested in companies who make the "morning after" pills, I highly doubt that was intentional. Like so many others, they probably have their retirement account funds in mutual funds.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

But yet.. they are still invested after having it pointed out months ago.

And again.. their previous employee insurance plan, that they had for ages, happily covered contraception. It wasn't until the ACA came around that they decided to have an opinion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Its a very fair decision. This was all about greed and taking religous right. Hobby Lobby offered 16 forms of birth control. 16!! They said no to emergency constraceptives and with every right. Abortion inducing pills shoudl not have to be convered. Wear a 25 cent rubber.


Very fair indeed. This is a good blow to the most over reaching government to come along in years.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

No one is being denied anything. If your want or need something not covered by your insurance, you can pay for it yourself. This is really are case that should not have happened, IMO. The people that own Hobby Lobby didn't have to provide insurance to begin with. They could simple opt out and pay the fine in a few years. If you don't like the fringe benefits offered to you, find another job, buy your own insurance or pay for what you want out of pocket.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

:duel: :icecream:


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

What's really fun about this case is the precedent and basis for the Court's reasoning. About 25 years ago a couple of guys were fired from their job for using peyote. They were denied unemployment benefits by Oregon and sued on the basis of religious freedom (they were native american and used the drug in their religious ceremonies)

In reaction, the 1993 dem controlled house and senate passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was introduced by two republican reps and signed by a dem president. Some other SCOTUS case said that the RFRA's scrutiny standard was too high so a republican controlled congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which was signed by a dem president.

BTW, Tiempo, that is the definition of religious practice they used, the one from RLUIPA:



> In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the referenceto the First Amendment and defined the "exercise of religion" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief."Â§2000ccâ5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept "be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by theterms of this chapter and the Constitution." Â§2000ccâ 3(g)


Isn't law fun?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> What's really fun about this case is the precedent and basis for the Court's reasoning. About 25 years ago a couple of guys were fired from their job for using peyote. They were denied unemployment benefits by Oregon and sued on the basis of religious freedom (they were native american and used the drug in their religious ceremonies)
> 
> In reaction, the 1993 dem controlled house and senate passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was introduced by two republican reps and signed by a dem president. Some other SCOTUS case said that the RFRA's scrutiny standard was too high so a republican controlled congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which was signed by a dem president.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the background info. It just goes to show that both sides should be wary of passing reactionary laws in the heat of the moment. You never know when they'll come back to bite you.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for the background info. It just goes to show that both sides should be wary of passing reactionary laws in the heat of the moment. You never know when they'll come back to bite you.


 
Totally. 

It also shows that, once upon a time, the two parties actually could be bipartisan on some issues. 

It also shows what suckers the dems were when you waived peyote and native americans in front of their faces, lol.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Well, to be honest, I think it is a great day. Score one for freedom.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Yep, it was all part of a huge scheme. Here's the plot: First off, alienate customers who are pro-choice. Then, invest many thousands of dollars in legal fees. Woo hoo! We won! Now we're saving chump change on our health insurance policy!!
> 
> More likely that they did pursue the case as a matter of their beliefs.
> 
> As far as being invested in companies who make the "morning after" pills, I highly doubt that was intentional. Like so many others, they probably have their retirement account funds in mutual funds.


A. Last time I checked most of their products come from China the land of forced abortions and the 1 child policy which means forced birth control.

B. They are well aware of what their retirement account is invested in and yet they have made no effort to change. Also there are companies who create ethical mutual funds for different groups including Christians who don't want their money invested in abortion causing products. 

So yeah they got an awful lot of publicity which totally gets them more business from the Christian crowd. All while not really caring at all about abortion. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/


> The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by Ms. Reddenâs remarkable reporting:
> These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT -0.1%, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE +0.03%, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer , which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN +0.28%, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET -0.84% and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.​When added up, the nine funds holding the stated investments involve three-quarters of Hobby Lobbyâs 401(k) assets.
> You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobbyâs reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plansâbut I am afraid you would be wrong.
> Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugsâor products such as alcohol or pornographyâreligious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.​


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

While I'm 100% anti-choice - I did read a sobering, logical and very much poignant fact spewed from some "ha! we got 'em" obnoxious liberal. Hobby Lobby sells tons and tons and tons of crap that is made in China - all over this country, six days a week. China's "one child" policy has resulted in millions of dead babies - and many of them wanted. While I am also 100% anti-gov't funding ANYTHING andyesImeananything - it seems rather sanctimonious of them to refuse to fund the murdering of babies here in the US when they have no problem sending money to a country that forces babies be slaughtered every day.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

PrettyPaisley said:


> While I'm 100% anti-choice - I did read a sobering, logical and very much poignant fact spewed from some "ha! we got 'em" obnoxious liberal. Hobby Lobby sells tons and tons and tons of crap that is made in China - all over this country, six days a week. China's "one child" policy has resulted in millions of dead babies - and many of them wanted. While I am also 100% anti-gov't funding ANYTHING andyesImeananything - it seems rather sanctimonious of them to refuse to fund the murdering of babies here in the US when they have no problem sending money to a country that forces babies be slaughtered every day.


Do you buy things from China?


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

Thanks ! I'll share the sentiment !!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> A. Last time I checked most of their products come from China the land of forced abortions and the 1 child policy which means forced birth control.
> 
> B. They are well aware of what their retirement account is invested in and yet they have made no effort to change. Also there are companies who create ethical mutual funds for different groups including Christians who don't want their money invested in abortion causing products.
> 
> ...


Is there any low to moderate priced retail store where much of the product line isn't made in China? I don't know of any. Would it be more ethical to go out of business and let the employees lose their jobs to avoid doing business with China? I'm sure the owners already have enough money to go sit on the beach for the rest of their lives.

I don't think it's realistic to expect their mutual funds to exclude any pharma stocks. Those companies are diversified, they generally make just as many if not more life saving products as "morning after" drugs or IUDs. The fund is managed to get the best return for the employees. It is the employees money, not Hobby Lobby's, so I think criticizing how it is invested is hair splitting.

Abortion is still a very divisive issue, HL stands to lose just as much business as they gain from their stance. I don't believe this whole episode was just a marketing ploy.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I find it ironic that some say "score one for freedom" and "yay for personal freedom" when it's preventing the freedom of their employees to get meds covered under their insurance. Some say they can just pay out of pocket. Sure, the Plan B pill is what, $50? But Hobby Lobby also wants to stop covering IUDs, which is a longer term form of birth control. How much does that cost, out of pocket? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's a good deal more than $50. 

Corporations are not people. This is not a personal freedom win.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Some of these memes are far fetched, but some are spot on. :lookout:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> This is what bothers me the most. If they truly had a deeply help religious belief against contraceptives then they would not be invested in companies that manufacture them. They are nothing but hypocrites looking to save a few bucks. I hope their insurance jacks their rates with pregnancy policies.


You're so sweet.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

chickenista said:


> But yet.. they are still invested after having it pointed out months ago.
> 
> And again.. their previous employee insurance plan, that they had for ages, happily covered contraception. It wasn't until the ACA came around that they decided to have an opinion.


Being MANDATED is the key. VIOLATES "...shall make NO LAW concerning religion..."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> I find it ironic that some say "score one for freedom" and "yay for personal freedom" when it's preventing the freedom of their employees to get meds covered under their insurance. Some say they can just pay out of pocket. Sure, the Plan B pill is what, $50? But Hobby Lobby also wants to stop covering IUDs, which is a longer term form of birth control. How much does that cost, out of pocket? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's a good deal more than $50.
> 
> Corporations are not people. This is not a personal freedom win.


The difference is passing a law that forces one to go outside one's spiritual beliefs. 

What if they passed a one child law, or elderly euthanasia act? The line on how far an individual's conscience will go is not the same for everyone. Some would happily go along with those heinous population control laws.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

The fact that there was / is a situation calling for this kind of court ruling is insane.

Be it a person or a company we all have the right to say No or Yes to whatever comes along.
And to that disgruntled employ of Hobby Lobby, if you are mad that that you can't get your birth control pill free----because the boss doesn't like it-----Then it is way past time for you to move along.........

If you don't like "My" convictions . . .Then I suggest you move along . . . Period.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> I find it ironic that some say "score one for freedom" and "yay for personal freedom" when it's preventing the freedom of their employees to get meds covered under their insurance. Some say they can just pay out of pocket. Sure, the Plan B pill is what, $50? But Hobby Lobby also wants to stop covering IUDs, which is a longer term form of birth control. How much does that cost, out of pocket? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's a good deal more than $50.
> 
> Corporations are not people. This is not a personal freedom win.


You can whine all you like, you still lost. You're going to lose even more because now that the precedent has been set it will be the basis for a whole bunch of similar actions.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Some people do not lose graciouly. They'll just keep knit picking to prove "Their" point and string together unrelated facts or accusations to do so. Makes them kind of pitiful.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> Do you know what a mutual fund is? This is just more bogus lefty BS. Your straw man garbage is so nonsensical only the true Kool-Aid gulpers think it has any meaning at all.


I know quite well what a mutual fund is. I'm invested in a few. Some of the ones I have my money in are are socially conscience funds which channel their investments to companies that support certain values. They're not too hard find.

Now, you're right that this is a none issue. Justice Alito didn't say that the beliefs had to be consistent just that they had to be beliefs. That Hobby Lobby or any other person or entity hiding behind religous beliefs chooses to act in a hypocritical manner is simply par for the course.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> Some people do not lose graciouly. They'll just keep knit picking to prove "Their" point and string together unrelated facts or accusations to do so. Makes them kind of pitiful.


Yeah, like people still sore of Obamacare, or birth certificates...years later.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Some people do not lose graciouly. They'll just keep knit picking to prove "Their" point and string together unrelated facts or accusations to do so. Makes them kind of pitiful.


Some do not win graciously either. I personally thought it was an even and just ruling and thank-fully very narrow.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> You can whine all you like, you still lost. You're going to lose even more because now that the precedent has been set it will be the basis for a whole bunch of similar actions.


Yep, it'll be fun to see the reaction when the Muslim owned company requires all female employees to don the hijab.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Even if you take out the whole part about religious beliefs and birth control options, it upsets me that corporations are trying to act as individuals. They may be *run* or owned by individuals, but they are NOT individuals, they are corporations. A businessman should not be able to incorporate to avoid things such as personal liability and then expect to get personal "rights" or freedoms of an individual.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

How many years will GM spend behind bars for causing the deaths of at least 13 people by not changing a $2 part?


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Yep, it'll be fun to see the reaction when the Muslim owned company requires all female employees to don the hijab.


And you see, that's the beautiful thing about freedom. Let that company require that. By all means. That is the owner's right as it is his company. It is also the right of any individual to choose to work there and any individual to choose to shop there. Besides, how is that different from any company requiring the use of a uniform?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

chickenista said:


> It's annoying.
> Hobby Lobby's previous insurance plan covered contraception. No worries then.
> 
> And their retirement fund is heavily invested in the companies that make the very contraceptive devices and medications they are flipping about now and they make the drugs used for abortions.
> ...


Hobby Lobby will still cover 16 of the 20 forms of birth control.

They previously unknowingly covered 2 of the 4 objectionable drugs/devices. When they discovered this, they immediately stopped covering those 2 as well.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> How many years will GM spend behind bars for causing the deaths of at least 13 people by not changing a $2 part?


Considering that it has been shown to be caused by negligence, I think the people in the company that have causality and have shown malfeasance and gross negligence should be spending time behind bars for their crime.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> Corporations are not people. This is not a personal freedom win.


Agree.

It is absolutely ridiculous that health insurance is tethered to employment.
Health treatments, issues, course of treatments, etc, etc, shouldn't be any employers business. That is completely between a patient and their doctor.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Jade1096 said:


> Agree.
> 
> It is absolutely ridiculous that health insurance is tethered to employment.
> Health treatments, issues, course of treatments, etc, etc, shouldn't be any employers business. That is completely between a patient and their doctor.


Then you are more than welcome to not purchase insurance through your employer and pick one up privately. 

http://www.healthcare.gov


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I know quite well what a mutual fund is. I'm invested in a few. Some of the ones I have my money in are are socially conscience funds which channel their investments to companies that support certain values. They're not too hard find.
> 
> Now, you're right that this is a none issue. Justice Alito didn't say that the beliefs had to be consistent just that they had to be beliefs. That Hobby Lobby or any other person or entity hiding behind religous beliefs chooses to act in a hypocritical manner is simply par for the course.


I will always readily acknowledge leftists expertise in hypocrisy since they wrote the book on it, however, in this case you are just employing the usual leftist tactic of creating a nonsensical, impossible standard which you have decided in your unmitigated arrogance must be imposed on those who disagree with you. Hubris is the overriding characteristic of leftists and this is just another example.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Jade1096 said:


> Agree.
> 
> It is absolutely ridiculous that health insurance is tethered to employment.
> Health treatments, issues, course of treatments, etc, etc, shouldn't be any employers business. That is completely between a patient and their doctor.


Except of course when the government inserts itself into the picture and then you leftists are all for that. Talk about hypocritical double standards, a perfect example.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Even if you take out the whole part about religious beliefs and birth control options, it upsets me that corporations are trying to act as individuals. They may be *run* or owned by individuals, but they are NOT individuals, they are corporations. A businessman should not be able to incorporate to avoid things such as personal liability and then expect to get personal "rights" or freedoms of an individual.


Supreme Court already said you're wrong. Live with it.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Glade Runner said:


> Except of course when the government inserts itself into the picture and then you leftists are all for that. Talk about hypocritical double standards, a perfect example.


But it's ok when the government inserts itself into the picture to ban (or not legalize) gay marriage and abortions?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Glade Runner said:


> Supreme Court already said you're wrong. Live with it.


I'm allowed to disagree. Live with it.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> But it's ok when the government inserts itself into the picture to ban (or not legalize) gay marriage and abortions?


If you would like to get into another discussion about abortion, you might want to start another thread before this one derails completely. If you think opinions about gay marriage are polarized, abortion is a whole new animal.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> Then you are more than welcome to not purchase insurance through your employer and pick one up privately.



You completely missed my point, which was ALL insurance should be completely untethered from employers.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> Except of course when the government inserts itself into the picture and then you leftists are all for that. Talk about hypocritical double standards, a perfect example.


You don't know a ---- thing about me.
I'm not leftist, nor am I for the government inserting itself into my healthcare.


I don't think you want to start throwing stones about hypocrisy.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Lazaryss said:


> Considering that it has been shown to be caused by negligence, I think the people in the company that have causality and have shown malfeasance and gross negligence should be spending time behind bars for their crime.


Also, seems like the co. is fined, not enuf IMHO, but the co. is fined.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> Except of course when the government inserts itself into the picture and then you leftists are all for that. Talk about hypocritical double standards, a perfect example.


How do you arrive at the conclusion that she's a leftist, or that she supports the ACA and government involvement based on that quote? If anything, employer based health insurance is a result of government interference via the tax code (and more historically, WWII wage controls). Restoring health insurance to a true free market (getting rid of the employer tax deductions for providing health insurance) is much more of a right wing/conservative/libertarian position than leftist one.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Lazaryss said:


> Then you are more than welcome to not purchase insurance through your employer and pick one up privately.
> 
> http://www.healthcare.gov


Sometimes you cannot...you're obligated to take their ins. 
Hmmm...now that I'm thinking about that, I believe you have to show proof that you are ins. elsewhere, like thru a spouse's ins. in order to opt out.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Also, seems like the co. is fined, not enuf IMHO, but the co. is fined.


Yeah and the fines imposed are pretty much slaps on the wrist for corporate giants. Perhaps if actual charges were filed and people were faced with prison sentences for things like that, then there might be some changes in the way they work. But I don't hold out hope for that considering how the affluent pretty much walk on charges they receive anyway.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Jade1096 said:


> You completely missed my point, which was ALL insurance should be completely untethered from employers.


This is my view as well. It would be best to uncouple insurance as a direct employment benefit. I think this an example of why a consumption based, rather than income tax is better. If it wasn't for the income tax I don't think health insurance would have become such a universal benefit.

Of course now we also have a federal government which says employers _have_ to provide health insurance. Definitely a giant leap in the wrong direction.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Lazaryss said:


> Considering that it has been shown to be caused by negligence, I think the people in the company that have causality and have shown malfeasance and gross negligence should be spending time behind bars for their crime.


So it's the people in the company and not the company, as an individual, that should be go to jail. So the company can hide behind the corporate veil when it seems neccessary only to peak out and assert its individual rights when it wants? Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> So it's the people in the company and not the company, as an individual, that should be go to jail. So the company can hide behind the corporate veil when it seems neccessary only to peak out and assert its individual rights when it wants? Makes perfect sense.


Do me a favor and try not to put words in my mouth as that is extremely rude to begin with and not at all what I said.

Allow me to clarify for you since you decided you would attempt to twist my wording.

Yes, PEOPLE in the company caused the issue, and those PEOPLE should be held accountable for criminal acts.

The OWNER of the company should have every right to steer the company in the way he/she wishes, including those dictated by his/her religious beliefs.


Now feel free to twist my words again so I can correct you once more.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Shoden said:


> How do you arrive at the conclusion that she's a leftist, or that she supports the ACA and government involvement based on that quote? If anything, employer based health insurance is a result of government interference via the tax code (and more historically, WWII wage controls). Restoring health insurance to a true free market (getting rid of the employer tax deductions for providing health insurance) is much more of a right wing/conservative/libertarian position than leftist one.


Railing against corporations and business is almost always evidence of leftism. Frankly, I've seen enough of them that I know the smell. It's amazing to me how many people like to pretend they are not. Unfortunately a whole lot of so-called libertarians have pretty much the same smell.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

The only one "railing" is you.

Against anyone you perceive as being a leftist, a liberal, a libertarian, whatever.
Because I don't agree with you that corporations are people and shouldn't be granted rights as such and because there are all manner of things I don't believe the government should be involved in, you making sweeping generalizations and rude statements.

You are exactly what is wrong with society today.
No one can even have a conversation with you because you want to rant and rave about what you can label them instead of actually have a discussion.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> Railing against corporations and business is almost always evidence of leftism. Frankly, I've seen enough of them that I know the smell. It's amazing to me how many people like to pretend they are not. Unfortunately a whole lot of so-called libertarians have pretty much the same smell.


Leftists/Liberals are generally in favor of government run safety nets to protect individuals, such as welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, Social Security, etc.

Conservatives/Rightists? are generally in favor of personal responsibility and against government interference.

Are those generalities correct?

Now, consider this:

Corporations are government granted protection of individuals against liability/personal responsibility for the actions of their business. 

Left? Or right?

A person can be against corporations, especially the current crony-capitalism, too-big-to-fail mess that we currently have, and still support business and the free market.


----------



## Jade1096 (Jan 2, 2008)

> My, my, sensitive aren't we.


Pointing out your generalizations and need to label while refusing to actually have a conversation somehow equals sensitivity?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.




> Another unfailing indication.


Ahhh, yes, of course, because you have decided my label. Riiight.



> I'm done with you because you are exactly what is wrong with society today. The blessing of the ignore button.


You've made my point for me. "I don't like what you are saying, so I will label you and then flounce away and refuse to actually have a conversation like an adult would do. "
Good grief. No wonder nothing gets done.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

For those saying corps aren't people, please read up on corporate personhood.

This is not a new thing. Scotus first ruled on it some 200 years ago. Corps are an association of people (remember that const. right of association??) and therefore have many of the same rights as individuals. 

Further, if corps aren't granted this quasi personhood status, they would just be an inanimate thing. You cannot collect taxes from an inanimate thing. You cannot sue an inanimate thing. You cannot hold an inanimate thing accountable for its actions. You cannot contract with an inanimate thing. You cannot hold an inanimate thing accountable for any of the things that you can a person. If a corp is going to suffer the detriments of being a person, it must, necessarily, also reap the rewards...like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. 

And, honestly, this decision is so narrow. The only people it really affects are employers in Hobby Lobby's situation who will now have the same option as churches and religious organizations whose employees get their abortifacients funded through some fancy accounting books shuffling. Hobby Lobby employees will be able to get their Plan B, so all this fuss is just about progs not getting their way.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Lazaryss said:


> Do me a favor and try not to put words in my mouth as that is extremely rude to begin with and not at all what I said.
> 
> Allow me to clarify for you since you decided you would attempt to twist my wording.
> 
> ...


I'm just trying to understand why the company is treated as an individual, with rights to things like free speech and practice of religion in one case, but is immune to punishment in another. If the owner of the company is free to steer the company are they not also liable for what direction it takes?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just trying to understand why the company is treated as an individual, with rights to things like free speech and practice of religion in one case, but is immune to punishment in another. If the owner of the company is free to steer the company are they not also liable for what direction it takes?


They are not immune from lawsuits! Feral Female explained it very well in this thread.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> They are not immune from lawsuits! Feral Female explained it very well in this thread.


But a lawsuit is different than being charged with murder and possibly facing the death penalty, is it not? Most people guilty of even negligent homicide would gladly pay a fine rather than going to prison. I understand the law and I even understand some of the rationale behind it. I don't necessarily like or agree with it.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just trying to understand why the company is treated as an individual, with rights to things like free speech and practice of religion in one case, but is immune to punishment in another. If the owner of the company is free to steer the company are they not also liable for what direction it takes?


Should a parent be liable for the actions of their child if they over 18?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Even if you take out the whole part about religious beliefs and birth control options, it upsets me that corporations are trying to act as individuals. They may be *run* or owned by individuals, but they are NOT individuals, they are corporations. A businessman should not be able to incorporate to avoid things such as personal liability and then expect to get personal "rights" or freedoms of an individual.


The supremes disagree with you and in this ruling said corps are people too. 

Here's the alternatives:

1) I'm a person. I start a business and file as a sole proprietorship using Schedule C. I do not lose my constitutional rights.

2) I'm still a person and start a business and file as a C, S, or LLC corp and you think I suddenly lose my rights. The supremes say otherwise. 

This was a victory for less gov't and individual rights. With this ruling, all parties involved have lost none of their rights. All can still pay for and take what ever pills and medical procedures are allowed by law. All this ruling stops is the forced taking of one man's rights just because he has the audacity to create a job.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Lazaryss said:


> Should a parent be liable for the actions of their child if they over 18?


Why would they be. The adult child is primarily responsible for their own actions. The exception to this might be if the child was acting in some way on the parent's behalf. That is more akin to the employer - employee relationship.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Yep, it'll be fun to see the reaction when the Muslim owned company requires all female employees to don the hijab.



You don't do analogies very well. 

The HL decision says that the employer can not be forced to do something to which it has religious objections. You equate the decision to it giving the company the right to force others to do something to which they have religious objections. 

Freedom to not do is not the power to force others to do. 

Try again.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

chickenista said:


> But yet.. they are still invested after having it pointed out months ago.
> 
> And again.. their previous employee insurance plan, that they had for ages, happily covered contraception. It wasn't until the ACA came around that they decided to have an opinion.


Hillary told a lie yesterday, lots of MSNBC types repeated it, and you're pretty darn close to it. Why the left feels the need to lie about HL and the decision tells me how weak their position really is. 

The HL plan covered contraception before and it covers contraception now.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Why would they be. The adult child is primarily responsible for their own actions. The exception to this might be if the child was acting in some way on the parent's behalf. That is more akin to the employer - employee relationship.


Just as the adult child should be responsible for his/her actions, an employee should be the same. 

If the employee is following a direct order from a supervisor they know is wrong and illegal or will lead to physical harm or death, they made that choice and both parties should be held responsible.

If an employee is not following said direct order, the employee should be solely responsible for the action


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just trying to understand why the company is treated as an individual, with rights to things like free speech and practice of religion in one case, but is immune to punishment in another. If the owner of the company is free to steer the company are they not also liable for what direction it takes?


Are you suggesting a CEO should be charged, like the current situation at GM, because of the actions of an employee outside their control, and beyond their ability to know?

From:http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/dos-and-donts-for-ceos-on-compliance-issues/

The U.S. Department of Justice guidelines[1] state that a corporation may be held criminally liable for the illegal acts of its directors, officers, employees, and agents which are (i) within the scope of their duties and (ii) were intended, at least in part, to benefit the corporation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Are you suggesting a CEO should be charged, like the current situation at GM, because of the actions of an employee outside their control, and beyond their ability to know?
> 
> From:http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/dos-and-donts-for-ceos-on-compliance-issues/
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice guidelines[1] state that a corporation may be held criminally liable for the illegal acts of its directors, officers, employees, and agents which are (i) within the scope of their duties and (ii) were intended, at least in part, to benefit the corporation.


I never spoke of the CEO. I spoke of the corporation, which in the case of GM benefited ( at least short term) from the actions of it's employees and therefor , by your own link, should be held criminally liable for causing the deaths of at least 13 people. How big a fine would you, as a private citizen, be likely to pay for causing the same? How much time would you likely spend behind bars?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You don't do analogies very well.
> 
> The HL decision says that the employer can not be forced to do something to which it has religious objections. You equate the decision to it giving the company the right to force others to do something to which they have religious objections.
> 
> ...


But the standard has been set that closely held corporations can have religous beliefs and they can act on those beliefs. Since employers can enact and enforce dress codes for their employees, even defining proper "business attire" is it such a stretch that the corporation could base its dress code on its religous belief that men put their spiritual existence at risk by working side by side with uncovered women?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> But the standard has been set that closely held corporations can have religous beliefs and they can act on those beliefs. Since employers can enact and enforce dress codes for their employees, even defining proper "business attire" is it such a stretch that the corporation could base its dress code on its religous belief that men put their spiritual existence at risk by working side by side with uncovered women?


Is there any Christian ban against wearing certain clothing? You can't use your religious rights to "not" wear something unless it goes against your religion.

As certain people here always say, if you don't like the job leave.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

FeralFemale said:


> For those saying corps aren't people, please read up on corporate personhood.
> 
> This is not a new thing. Scotus first ruled on it some 200 years ago. Corps are an association of people (remember that const. right of association??) and therefore have many of the same rights as individuals.
> 
> ...












With all credit to Topaz Farm for the icon.
(since I'm giving it to our atty, thought I'd better give the credit  )


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> You don't do analogies very well.
> 
> The HL decision says that the employer can not be forced to do something to which it has religious objections. You equate the decision to it giving the company the right to force others to do something to which they have religious objections.
> 
> ...












Have you ever seen libs who CAN do analogies?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Is there any Christian ban against wearing certain clothing? You can't use your religious rights to "not" wear something unless it goes against your religion.
> 
> As certain people here always say, if you don't like the job leave.


It is always interesting how slippery the slope becomes when discussion of gay marriage comes up yet how firm the footing is of those who wish to defend this ruling. The door has ever so slightly been pried open. What lies behind it only time will tell. Maybe a few more proposed statutes attempting to ban Sharia law are in order?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Have you ever seen libs who CAN do analogies?


Not to quibble but that is the second post of the day awarded for yesterday in this thread alone. I haven't checked all the other threads but I'm now curious to know the criteria. Are there seperate awards available for each thread. Is there a limit on the overall number given across the forum or in any individual thread on any given day? Shouldn't these two be more properly labeled as "co-posts of the day"? Does it devalue them and endanger us from seeing them more as participation awards if they're given out willy nilly? Just asking.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Not to quibble but that is the second post of the day awarded for yesterday in this thread alone. I haven't checked all the other threads but I'm now curious to know the criteria. Are there seperate awards available for each thread. Is there a limit on the overall number given across the forum or in any individual thread on any given day? Shouldn't these two be more properly labeled as "co-posts of the day"? Does it devalue them and endanger us from seeing them more as participation awards if they're given out willy nilly? Just asking.


Post of the minute, is better as often as it is used.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It is always interesting how slippery the slope becomes when discussion of gay marriage comes up yet how firm the footing is of those who wish to defend this ruling. The door has ever so slightly been pried open. What lies behind it only time will tell. Maybe a few more proposed statutes attempting to ban Sharia law are in order?


Everything in government these days is a slippery slope due to both parties intent on pushing to the extreme.

However, this ruling in effect denies government the ability to mandate a certain set of persons to do something which they would find religiously objectionable. You are suggesting this ruling will somehow then allow laws to pass against Sharia law. How does the ruling lead to this? I would think it is upholding the opposite.

I think progressives are upset due to the fact that this ruling *closes* the door slightly on government compensation mandates. Sure it's a slippery slope. Because once you allow people the freedom to negotiate their own compensation they may well come of the mindset that even less government intervention would be better.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Everything in government these days is a slippery slope due to both parties intent on pushing to the extreme.
> 
> However, this ruling in effect denies government the ability to mandate a certain set of persons to do something which they would find religiously objectionable. You are suggesting this ruling will somehow then allow laws to pass against Sharia law. How does the ruling lead to this? I would think it is upholding the opposite.
> 
> I think progressives are upset due to the fact that this ruling *closes* the door slightly on government compensation mandates. Sure it's a slippery slope. Because once you allow people the freedom to negotiate their own compensation they may well come of the mindset that even less government intervention would be better.


Possibly my attempt at irony was misguided. Oklahoma passed a statewide referendum and follow up state laws banning the implimentation of Sharia law. A number of other states and localities have considered similar measures. It would seem from that that many celebrating this as a step in the right direction towards religous freedom are more concerned about their own particular religion than religion as a whole.

I don't speak for all progressives, only me. I am less worried about the compensation issues in this case than I am about conferring rights and priviledges to entities like corporations that I don't feel they should have. I realize the law is against me but none of us likely agree with every law on the books. I have no expectation that corporations will use these new found rights in what I would consider a socially responsible manner. They will do what corporations are designed to do, maximized profits for themselves and their shareholders. No evil intent, nothing illegal, just business as usual.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> The HL decision says that the employer can not be forced to do something to which it has religious objections. You equate the decision to it giving the company the right to force others to do something to which they have religious objections.
> 
> Freedom to not do is not the power to force others to do. ...


That's not what the Supreme Court said.

This is a short analysis from Ann Althouse (Professor of Law). (Added highlights)


> Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, when the federal government imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, it must justify that burden by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. In _Hobby Lobby_, the compelling governmental interest is comprehensive preventive health care for women, and the majority said that *requiring the employer to include coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives in its health care plan was not the least restrictive way to to serve that interest. There are other ways the government could get the cost of contraceptives covered*, ways that wouldn't rope in the employer.
> 
> ...
> 
> Making employers cover particular health needs of employees is tapping them to provide a benefit. The corporation is _not the source_ of the harm. It's the source of _jobs_. Historically, businesses have included health insurance as part of the pay package, and then the employees are getting their personal health-care needs met with this benefit, but *there are other ways that health care could be funded. And that's why the government in Hobby Lobby couldn't show that it had used the least restrictive alternative.*


http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-difference-between-requiring.html


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I don't speak for all progressives, only me. I am less worried about the compensation issues in this case than I am about conferring rights and priviledges to entities like corporations that I don't feel they should have. I realize the law is against me but none of us likely agree with every law on the books. I have no expectation that corporations will use these new found rights in what I would consider a socially responsible manner. They will do what corporations are designed to do, maximized profits for themselves and their shareholders. No evil intent, nothing illegal, just business as usual.


I hear a lot of those same tones from Union leadership. They do not want to think of a company or a corporation as comprised of people. They want it to be an abstract thing. The funny thing is companies and corporations are made up and run by people. They act _just like people_. There are some who will look to abuse whatever power they have, there are very benevolent ones and everything in between.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Thank God for freedom .. looks like the Constitution Obama swore an oath to protect and defend has has to defend itself from him several times recently .. look for more of these kind of rulings...the provisions argued here were not even in the obamacare law that passed..they were added in after the fact ... in any event... buy your own contraception ! Unreal...


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> But the standard has been set that closely held corporations can have religous beliefs and they can act on those beliefs. Since employers can enact and enforce dress codes for their employees, even defining proper "business attire" is it such a stretch that the corporation could base its dress code on its religous belief that men put their spiritual existence at risk by working side by side with uncovered women?


No, it has not. The standard has been set that the OWNER of the corporation, who steers the company, can have his/her religious beliefs and act on them, such as in the case of not having to provide certain forms of contraceptives.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I hear a lot of those same tones from Union leadership. They do not want to think of a company or a corporation as comprised of people. They want it to be an abstract thing. The funny thing is companies and corporations are made up and run by people. They act _just like people_. There are some who will look to abuse whatever power they have, there are very benevolent ones and everything in between.


I fully understand that corporations are compromised of people. To me, that doesn't equate to the same thing as them being a person. That they act like people doesn't do much more to sway me. Computer programs are being developed each day to mimic human behavior. I'm not sure they'll deserve personhood either. And I'm not saying that there are not corporations that act in what I consider ethical and moral fashion. I steer some of my investment dollars expressly towards them. I'm just uncomfortable with the entire concept of corporate "personhood".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Lazaryss said:


> No, it has not. The standard has been set that the OWNER of the corporation, who steers the company, can have his/her religious beliefs and act on them, such as in the case of not having to provide certain forms of contraceptives.


And if he or she is acting on behalf of the corporation in expressing those rights is there any real difference in whether the action is his or the corporation's? The outcome is the same.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Are you suggesting a CEO should be charged, like the current situation at GM, because of the actions of an employee outside their control, and beyond their ability to know?
> 
> From:http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/dos-and-donts-for-ceos-on-compliance-issues/
> 
> The U.S. Department of Justice guidelines[1] state that a corporation may be held criminally liable for the illegal acts of its directors, officers, employees, and agents which are (i) within the scope of their duties and (ii) were intended, at least in part, to benefit the corporation.


If we applied that logic, Obama would be responsible for the deaths at the VA.

LET'S DO IT!


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And if he or she is acting on behalf of the corporation in expressing those rights is there any real difference in whether the action is his or the corporation's? The outcome is the same.


The outcome may be the same, but the decision was the owner's.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> But the standard has been set that closely held corporations can have religous beliefs and they can act on those beliefs. Since employers can enact and enforce dress codes for their employees, even defining proper "business attire" is it such a stretch that the corporation could base its dress code on its religous belief that men put their spiritual existence at risk by working side by side with uncovered women?


If it were up to me, a closely held employer could enforce a religious dress code, and could also discriminate on the basis of what are currently Title 7 restrictions, race, religion, etc. 

And then you and I could gather in front of his store, protest, boycott, and watch his business wither and die.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> It is always interesting how slippery the slope becomes when discussion of gay marriage comes up yet how firm the footing is of those who wish to defend this ruling. The door has ever so slightly been pried open. What lies behind it only time will tell. Maybe a few more proposed statutes attempting to ban Sharia law are in order?


once again you are conflating this ruling which gives religious freedom to not do something with a supposed religious right to force others to do something. Sharia law is forcing others bend to another's religious conviction. Your logic is completely twisted on this.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> That's not what the Supreme Court said.
> 
> This is a short analysis from Ann Althouse (Professor of Law). (Added highlights)
> http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-difference-between-requiring.html


I know my exact words is not what the SCOTUS said, but what you posted is not in anyway contradictory to my oh so short synopsis. HL has been given a freedom to not do something, they have not been given the freedom to force others to do something.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> And if he or she is acting on behalf of the corporation in expressing those rights is there any real difference in whether the action is his or the corporation's? The outcome is the same.


EXACTLY! Now you are getting it. 

You just gave the logic as to why you are wrong when you reject that a corporation = association of persons.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> I know my exact words is not what the SCOTUS said, but what you posted is not in anyway contradictory to my oh so short synopsis. HL has been given a freedom to not do something, they have not been given the freedom to force others to do something.


This case has to do with the "least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest". 

If there was no compelling government interest, Hobby Lobby could offer whatever insurance with whatever restrictions they wanted; but since there is a law that mandates FDA approved birth control, the government had to prove that there was not a less restrictive means of providing the birth control. And we know that the government can choose to pay for it or mandate that the insurance companies provide it for free, so there is a less intrusive option than forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it. 

If there was not a less restrictive means of providing birth control, Hobby Lobby would have had to provide it, even though they claimed it violated their religious beliefs.

All the garbage you see on TV and radio has little or nothing to do with the ruling. The ruling didn't give anyone rights they didn't already have. It simply said in this case, the religious view could be protected by using other means (less intrusive) to pay for birth control. The employees of Hobby Lobby will still have complete coverage, just Hobby Lobby will not have to pay for it in their policy.

I don't think it is a big deal, but Democrats are misrepresenting it so they can use it for fundraising.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Hobby Lobby is a pure example of hypocrisy. Absolutely revolting. They don't want to pay for contraception but they are more than willing to make money from it. Their retirement funds are heavily invested in companies that make contraception. 

Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor. 
Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds. 
At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> Hobby Lobby is a pure example of hypocrisy. Absolutely revolting. They don't want to pay for contraception but they are more than willing to make money from it. Their retirement funds are heavily invested in companies that make contraception.


And this should have any influence on law or the courts ruling how?

BTW, the companies you list in the post also produce some very beneficial drugs as well. Perhaps they support those companies and are hoping to use that support to influence their direction on R&D? That wouldn't be hypocritical.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> Hobby Lobby is a pure example of hypocrisy. Absolutely revolting. They don't want to pay for contraception but they are more than willing to make money from it. Their retirement funds are heavily invested in companies that make contraception.
> 
> Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor.
> Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
> At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.


CNN was really reaching on this one. Hobby Lobby employees can buy any birth control product they wish. If they wish to buy a fund that "may" include companies that manufacture abortive birth control pills, they can do that too. Amazing - the employees are free to buy whatever they want!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Not reaching. A simple fact of hypocrisy. Hobby Lobby does not want its money going into healthcare which includes birth control but are perfectly fine with their money (what they contribute) going into investments with companies that produce birth control.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion and is being twisted/distorted by both political "sides".

For those who say HL is being "hypocritical" by having their retirement funds invested in mutual funds who own pharma stocks, I disagree. HL as a company isn't making money from those investments, the proceeds grow the retirement accounts, which belong to the individual employees. I would presume they offer those particular mutual funds because they have a good track record of making money, so their employees can get the maximum benefit from their investment. If they pulled out of those funds and only invested in "morally compatible" funds that are totally in line with the owners personal beliefs and the employees therefore ended up with a smaller retirement nest egg, they would be raked over the coals for that, too.

Long story short, the ACA forced the company to provide a health insurance plan which included a couple of types of birth control the owners don't believe in. So they spent a lot of money on lawyers to uphold their principles. And, alienated a lot of customers who don't share those same beliefs. That's why I think the action was taken on principle and not as some weird marketing tactic.

In the end, the SCOTUS ruled in their favor. The employees will still have birth control as a health benefit paid for by HL, just not a couple of types. So why the big deal??


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> This case has to do with the "least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest".
> 
> *agreed*
> 
> ...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> Not reaching. A simple fact of hypocrisy. Hobby Lobby does not want its money going into healthcare which includes birth control but are perfectly fine with their money (what they contribute) going into investments with companies that produce birth control.


First, Mo-Cows has it right. The employees make the decisions on how 401(k) money is invested, not the employer. But even if it is hypocrisy, so what? Is that a crime? Does it mean you lose your rights if you are not consistent in your beliefs in every way?

Second, I remind you that ALL Christians are hypocritical, by definition of what it means to be a Christian. Christianity says we should all strive to not commit sins, but that all people will fall short of that goal, and that thru acceptance of Jesus as the Savior, you will be forgiven of your sins. Christians know this, they acknowledge it, they embrace it, many learn from it and better themselves because of it. I'm not trying to make this into another thread on why Xianity is the right path and I'm not asking you to become a Christian, if you are not already. The only point is to merely acknowledge that this whole Christian hypocrisy boogyman is a great big red herring by those who choose to fight against some Christian values and positions. Of course, it is your right to advocate against Xianity all you want, as it is my right to point out the illogic of the particular approach you have chosen.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> Not reaching. A simple fact of hypocrisy. Hobby Lobby does not want its money going into healthcare which includes birth control but are perfectly fine with their money (what they contribute) going into investments with companies that produce birth control.


You are all wet. 

This whole line of reasoning is small minded and rooted in evil's hate of good.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> Not reaching. A simple fact of hypocrisy. Hobby Lobby does not want its money going into healthcare which includes birth control but are perfectly fine with their money (what they contribute) going into investments with companies that produce birth control.


Leftists always resort to one of two things, straw men or racism, both bogus but completely in line with their constant appeals to emotion or crepuscular logic.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> This is what bothers me the most. If they truly had a deeply help religious belief against contraceptives then they would not be invested in companies that manufacture them. They are nothing but hypocrites looking to save a few bucks. I hope their insurance jacks their rates with pregnancy policies.


They are not against birth control (nor was this decision about birth control), they are against 'morning after' solutions that actually abort the embryo.
They have been and will still cover contraception products.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

crepuscular 

I like when I have to lookup a word.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Another point Althouse makes is racial discrimination is illegal, period. It makes no difference if the owner of a company says hiring a "fill in race" violates his religious beliefs. Since the company is the one doing the discrimination, the only means of resolving the violation is the company cannot discriminate. There is no least restrictive action other than to NOT discriminate.

So those throwing out straw man arguments (sharia law, etc) don't understand the ruling.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Another point Althouse makes is racial discrimination is illegal, period. It makes no difference if the owner of a company says hiring a "fill in race" violates his religious beliefs. Since the company is the one doing the discrimination, the only means of resolving the violation is the company cannot discriminate. There is no least restrictive action other than to NOT discriminate.
> 
> So those throwing out straw man arguments (sharia law, etc) don't understand the ruling.


Mostly agreed. I can not believe that the Hillary, a highly educated lawyer, politically experienced in both Congressional and Legislative branches, does not understand the decision. She is lying thru her teeth when she says HL won't allow contraceptives and this case can lead to whatever discrimination, she knows she is lying, but she has an agenda that is better served by the lie.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> Mostly agreed. I can not believe that the Hillary, a highly educated lawyer, politically experienced in both Congressional and Legislative branches, does not understand the decision. She is lying thru her teeth when she says HL won't allow contraceptives and this case can lead to whatever discrimination, she knows she is lying, but she has an agenda that is better served by the lie.


It will be interesting when someone who understands the ruling can question her and have her explain her statements pointing out the inaccuracies. Of course by the time that happens she will have benefited from the deception.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> It will be interesting when someone who understands the ruling can question her and have her explain her statements pointing out the inaccuracies. Of course by the time that happens she will have benefited from the deception.


by the time it happens folks who do not do due diligence and only watch the sound bites will be tired of it and not listening. Then they will vote based on the old inaccurate information.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

HDRider said:


> crepuscular
> 
> I like when I have to lookup a word.


It applies to nearly everything associated with leftism. Can't stand the light of day.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Not to quibble but that is the second post of the day awarded for yesterday in this thread alone. I haven't checked all the other threads but I'm now curious to know the criteria. Are there seperate awards available for each thread. Is there a limit on the overall number given across the forum or in any individual thread on any given day? Shouldn't these two be more properly labeled as "co-posts of the day"? Does it devalue them and endanger us from seeing them more as participation awards if they're given out willy nilly? Just asking.


Oh, my! There's "criteria"???
Feel free to give out any award you please, as I do.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Thank God for freedom .. looks like the Constitution Obama swore an oath to protect and defend has has to defend itself from him several times recently .. look for more of these kind of rulings...the provisions argued here were not even in the obamacare law that passed..they were added in after the fact ... in any event... buy your own contraception ! Unreal...


It is ONLY 4 forms...the ones that inhibit the egg from implanting...ALL other forms are covered! 16 of 'em! FREE b.c. right there!
But the left has to LIE about it & say "Rs' are DEPRIVING ALL women of b.c.
Bwhahaha!

Wish the papers would print in large headlines all the times the SCOTUS shot down the Idioitincharge.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> I know my exact words is not what the SCOTUS said, but what you posted is not in anyway contradictory to my oh so short synopsis. HL has been given a freedom to not do something, they have not been given the freedom to force others to do something.


I'd think you'd be about out of crayons & puppets by now...they do not want to see, they cannot be this dense...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> Hobby Lobby is a pure example of hypocrisy. Absolutely revolting. They don't want to pay for contraception but they are more than willing to make money from it. Their retirement funds are heavily invested in companies that make contraception.
> 
> Like many companies, Hobby Lobby offers its employees a 401(k) plan. Over 13,000 past and present employees have taken advantage of that plan, according to the latest documents filed with the Department of Labor.
> Employees have the option to put their retirement dollars -- and the money that Hobby Lobby contributes on their behalf -- into over a dozen different mutual funds.
> At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions.


Give it up already.
You lost.
"WE WON", to quote a hero of yours.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> Not reaching. A simple fact of hypocrisy. Hobby Lobby does not want its money going into healthcare which includes birth control but are perfectly fine with their money (what they contribute) going into investments with companies that produce birth control.


HL pays for 16 different forms of b.c. You need to stop w/lie that they do not pay for b.c.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Glade Runner said:


> Leftists always resort to one of two things, straw men or racism, both bogus but completely in line with their constant appeals to emotion or crepuscular logic.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Here's what I think:

Since Hobby Lobby is not a Publically traded stock the owners of the Company should be allowed to make thier own decisions of the benefits they provide their employees, without interferrence from the Federal Government. That includes the decision of whether or not to even offer a group health Insurance plan. if the folks that work there don't like the benefits package they should seek employment from a company that provides benefits that are attractive to them. 

See, i have my opinion on abortion but that's not the issue here to me, it's the freedom of a business to run that business in the manner they see fit.


----------



## crazyfarm (Oct 29, 2013)

As far as I'm concerned the awfulness of this ruling is that corporations are people in it.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

crazyfarm said:


> As far as I'm concerned the awfulness of this ruling is that corporations are people in it.


What??????????


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

What's awful anyway? if they want some pills they can go buy them, their choice


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> Is there any low to moderate priced retail store where much of the product line isn't made in China? I don't know of any. Would it be more ethical to go out of business and let the employees lose their jobs to avoid doing business with China? I'm sure the owners already have enough money to go sit on the beach for the rest of their lives.
> 
> I don't think it's realistic to expect their mutual funds to exclude any pharma stocks. Those companies are diversified, they generally make just as many if not more life saving products as "morning after" drugs or IUDs. The fund is managed to get the best return for the employees. *It is the employees money, not Hobby Lobby's, so I think criticizing how it is invested is hair splitting.*
> 
> Abortion is still a very divisive issue, HL stands to lose just as much business as they gain from their stance. I don't believe this whole episode was just a marketing ploy.


So which is it then insurance money is also the employees money (it's a benefit that is technically a part of their wages) so the company has no direct complicity in how it is spent? Or since Hobby Lobby puts in matching money for both the insurance and the 401K they are complicit. Because the same rule has to apply to both.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> So which is it then insurance money is also the employees money (it's a benefit that is technically a part of their wages) so the company has no direct complicity in how it is spent? Or since Hobby Lobby puts in matching money for both the insurance and the 401K they are complicit. Because the same rule has to apply to both.


Only difference i would note is that the Insurance money is for payment for a premium. if it is a 401k I believe there must first be a contribution from the employee that would trigger the matching contribution, if any, by the company. if it is not a Voluntary type plan that would be more of the old type Pension Plans that did not have participation from the Employee.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

rambotex said:


> Only difference i would note is that the Insurance money is for payment for a premium. if it is a 401k I believe there must first be a contribution from the employee that would trigger the matching contribution, if any, by the company. if it is not a Voluntary type plan that would be more of the old type Pension Plans that did not have participation from the Employee.


I don't know of any companies that don't require the employees to also pay into the insurance pool. Both have a certain percentage paid by the company and by the employee. Hobby Lobby refuses to say how much or if the family also has their personal retirement funds in the 401K. My guess would be they do since they refuse to say. Either way their company funds are definitely going into it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Lazaryss said:


> And you see, that's the beautiful thing about freedom. Let that company require that. By all means. That is the owner's right as it is his company. It is also the right of any individual to choose to work there and any individual to choose to shop there. Besides, how is that different from any company requiring the use of a uniform?



Oh I can't wait for this to really happen because you guys will be screaming bloody murder the moment it does!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jade1096 said:


> You don't know a ---- thing about me.
> I'm not leftist, nor am I for the government inserting itself into my healthcare.
> 
> 
> I don't think you want to start throwing stones about hypocrisy.


I wouldn't take it personally some people around here can only reply with childish insults, it's just all they have in their repertoire. I am convinced quite a lot of them never made it past Jr. High.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Is there any Christian ban against wearing certain clothing? You can't use your religious rights to "not" wear something unless it goes against your religion.
> 
> As certain people here always say, if you don't like the job leave.



Yes there is, very conservative Christians have quite a few clothing rules. Women can only wear skirts or dresses, they must have long hair, they must wear a head covering. It's easy to say if you don't like the job leave in a booming economy but the job you have may very well be the only one available these days.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> I don't know of any companies that don't require the employees to also pay into the insurance pool. Both have a certain percentage paid by the company and by the employee. Hobby Lobby refuses to say how much or if the family also has their personal retirement funds in the 401K. My guess would be they do since they refuse to say. Either way their company funds are definitely going into it.


I don't believe either one of those statements is correct. the Employees choose whether or not they want to participate in the group insurance plan. Under current law, if the Company carries a plan they must pay at least 50% of the Employee's portion of the premium for the Insurance. it's not mutually funded, especially under the ACA that has done away with average rating and mandated age bracketed rating. with regard to the 401 K - hobby Lobby doesn't own any of the funds in the 401K other than those they have contributed to an Employee's account that are not yet fully vested.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> So which is it then insurance money is also the employees money (it's a benefit that is technically a part of their wages) so the company has no direct complicity in how it is spent? Or since Hobby Lobby puts in matching money for both the insurance and the 401K they are complicit. Because the same rule has to apply to both.


It is Hobby Lobby's money on the health benefits, because until Obamacare came along they were under no obligation to provide their employees with any benefits. They chose to do this for their employees. 

Now under the ACA they are soon to be mandated by to provide those health insurance benefits, or else pay a penalty. Presto chango, does that make it the employees money? Not according to the SCOTUS.

The retirement fund, it is the employees money all the way. Even though HL may match funds, it belongs to the employee the minute they give it. The company would have set up the retirement plan in the first place, with those funds as their vehicle, granted. Probably on the advice of a financial planning expert to get the best return for the employees investments, and not by taking on the exhaustive research of every product ever produced by any company in those funds! The company makes no profit from those funds, it all goes to the employees retirement accounts. 

And, like I said elsewhere, if HL did change and only offer "morals based" mutual funds and their employees ended up with less for retirement, somebody would be along shortly with a rope to hang them for that, too. 

They stood up for their principles, their religious beliefs, at a pretty high cost. Whether or not I agree with those principles is irrelevant, I will give them credit for doing that.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

crazyfarm said:


> As far as I'm concerned the awfulness of this ruling is that corporations are people in it.


I'm conflicted as to what will be the undoing of the USA. It might be bankruptcy, but more likely it will result from either those too ignorant of the constitution and its protections to care or those more concerned with gathering some benefit at the expense of freedom of all citizens. 

Text of 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Text of 14A, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Together, these two amendments give us freedom of association (see below for a link that explains freedom of association further) and no where in law or constitution does it state that an association of persons formed primarily for commercial purposes voids the rights of those persons who formed the association. Likewise, there is no legal test which states that any perceived hypocrisy on the part of the people of the association is cause to negate their rights. Therefore, closely held corporations, at a minimum, are people in the sense that the rights of the people who own the corporation have rights to political and religious opinions and actions. 

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html
''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> So which is it then insurance money is also the employees money (it's a benefit that is technically a part of their wages) so the company has no direct complicity in how it is spent? Or since Hobby Lobby puts in matching money for both the insurance and the 401K they are complicit. Because the same rule has to apply to both.


it doesn't matter. You are in a red herring's rat hole of inconsequential absolutism. 

I seriously doubt you want to create a system whereby courts get to void the rights of an individual because he failed to pass a test of religious purity. Or perhaps you long for the days of the Inquisition?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I wouldn't take it personally some people around here can only reply with childish insults, it's just all they have in their repertoire. I am convinced quite a lot of them never made it past Jr. High.


Oh the irony


It's been a while for me, was that a Sr High childish insult?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

You know you don't have an argument left when you have to start insulting people.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

rambotex said:


> What's awful anyway? if they want some pills they can go buy them, their choice


16 types of b/c ARE covered. They don't even need to go buy pills.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Majority of voters agree w/SCOTUS on HL.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/vo...mail_job=1576005_07032014&promo_code=dlpjhbl2


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I wouldn't take it personally some people around here can only reply with childish insults, it's just all they have in their repertoire. I am convinced quite a lot of them never made it past Jr. High.


Two more years buddy. I'm done. Goodbye HS and hello big bucks working for $15 an hour as soon as they raise the MW. Woo hoo!


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> It's easy to say if you don't like the job leave in a booming economy but the job you have may very well be the only one available these days.


And rectifying that would be the best thing the federal government could do to help the lower and middle class.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Two more years buddy. I'm done. Goodbye HS and hello big bucks working for $15 an hour as soon as they raise the MW. Woo hoo!


Interestingly enough, Hobby Lobby's starting wage for full-timers is already $14/hour...that should kill the idea they just want to save some money by not paying for birth control.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Oh I can't wait for this to really happen because you guys will be screaming bloody murder the moment it does!


Actually, no I wouldn't. I simply wouldn't shop there, but I would not deny the owner's right to run his business the way he sees fit.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Lazaryss said:


> Actually, no I wouldn't. I simply wouldn't shop there, but I would not deny the owner's right to run his business the way he sees fit.



Exactly. The left these days confuses a right to patronize, or a moral duty to protest, a merchant with a need to apply gov't force to get your way. I won't see a Jane Fonda movie, but that doesn't mean I think the gov't should stop her from making movies. 

As a practical matter, there are businesses that do require a dress code that is a violation of certain individual' religious beliefs. There are a few restaurants out there that hire belly dancers as entertainment. Director's require nude scenes. Some heavy equipment operators require tight fitting clothing that can't get sucked into machinery. I'm guessing your average burka wearing Muslim is not going to get any of those jobs and neither will your average Amish lass. I don't see a problem with any of that. 

If a middle eastern grocer wants to have a staff dresses in costume, that's their right and good luck to them. I'll happily shop there for some of the foods I enjoy. If the same grocer says to his employees to convert to his religion or get fired, then I'll not shop there no matter how good his foods are. 

I'm not sure why the left has become so untrusting of free markets and the goodwill of the common man while at the same time become so incredibly trusting of a big, supposedly benevolent gov't to do only good things, even if it has to use force to make the people bend to it's will.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Exactly. The left these days confuses a right to patronize, or a moral duty to protest, a merchant with a need to apply gov't force to get your way. I won't see a Jane Fonda movie, but that doesn't mean I think the gov't should stop her from making movies.
> 
> As a practical matter, there are businesses that do require a dress code that is a violation of certain individual' religious beliefs. There are a few restaurants out there that hire belly dancers as entertainment. Director's require nude scenes. Some heavy equipment operators require tight fitting clothing that can't get sucked into machinery. I'm guessing your average burka wearing Muslim is not going to get any of those jobs and neither will your average Amish lass. I don't see a problem with any of that.
> 
> ...


Let me suggest an answer. Consider a cheating spouse. A cheating spouse is always suspicious because they cheated, so they expect the same from their spouse. They feel guilty.

Leftist believes that a person only "gives" when it is mandated by law. A leftist believes a person will act in ways that will harm others unless there is an overriding fear of punishment of law. In other words they expect others to act the way they act unless there is a law and the "law breaker" will get what they "deserve" when they get caught.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

HD while I agree for the most part with what you said, I do know some on the left who are decent folks who would not knowingly harm anyone else. 

Just as there are those on the right who would commit granny to steal her land from her.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Let me suggest an answer. Consider a cheating spouse. A cheating spouse is always suspicious because they cheated, so they expect the same from their spouse. They feel guilty.
> 
> Leftist believes that a person only "gives" when it is mandated by law. A leftist believes a person will act in ways that will harm others unless there is an overriding fear of punishment of law. In other words they expect others to act the way they act unless there is a law and the "law breaker" will get what they "deserve" when they get caught.


As Thomas Payne so aptly put it:
They confound government and society and believe them the same thing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MJsLady said:


> HD while I agree for the most part with what you said, I do know some on the left who are decent folks who would not knowingly harm anyone else.
> 
> Just as there are those on the right who would commit granny to steal her land from her.


I know. My statement was made with a very broad brush. 

The leftist in power and in play right now are simply taking everything too far, and I fear destroying so much of what I hold dear.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Oh I can't wait for this to really happen because you guys will be screaming bloody murder the moment it does!


Seems like you think a co. requiring ladies to wear burkas would be like the HL ruling?
How? What LAW are they refuting?
In the HL case, there was a LAW made by the gov't directly going against the Constitution...i.e.the gov't made a LAW going against religion. If someone said you have to wear a burka...what law of our country is that against?
Or can you make analogies at all?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Many companies already have dress codes. 
In general you know the code before you apply for the job.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> Seems like you think a co. requiring ladies to wear burkas would be like the HL ruling?
> How? What LAW are they refuting?
> In the HL case, there was a LAW made by the gov't directly going against the Constitution...i.e.the gov't made a LAW going against religion. If someone said you have to wear a burka...what law of our country is that against?
> Or can you make analogies at all?


My light bulb about the gov't and constitution was years ago. I had to place an ad in the local paper and the paper insisted on certain wording that doubled my expected cost. I complained and got no where, I asked for a supervisor and he was no help. In frustration, I whined something about what ever happened to free speech and he told me I could have all the free speech I want, but I would have to publish my own newspaper. 

That's when it finally sunk in that the constitution doesn't really give me rights. What the CONS does give me is a promise of minimal interference from the gov't when I am exercising my rights. 

You demonstrate this so well above. In the HL case we are celebrating that the gov't will not trample our rights while the left keeps tossing around their fears that a private employer may not respect our rights. The gov't at fed, state, and local levels has well more than 10M employees. Most of them are working to take something from us or control our actions and even thoughts in one way or another. The gov't has the power to make law, change law, ignore law, and enforce law. If we don't comply, they can fine us, take our homes, throw us in jail, even send paramilitary forces to raid our homes, shoot our dogs, and take our children. That's what I worry about.

What do Libs worry about? That a private party may not respect our beliefs by making us wear a religious costume or that by the HL decision an employer can not be forced to give us something that violates their religion. 

The private party has no power over us. Employers can't jail us, shoot us, or forcible take anything from us. We have a million choices to work elsewhere or start our own companies but we can't even leave the country if the gov't objects. And in spite of all that, the Libs worry more getting free contraceptives from an employer than they do about the ever expanding powers of the gov't.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> My light bulb about the gov't and constitution was years ago. I had to place an ad in the local paper and the paper insisted on certain wording that doubled my expected cost. I complained and got no where, I asked for a supervisor and he was no help. In frustration, I whined something about what ever happened to free speech and he told me I could have all the free speech I want, but I would have to publish my own newspaper.
> 
> That's when it finally sunk in that the constitution doesn't really give me rights. What the CONS does give me is a promise of minimal interference from the gov't when I am exercising my rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> My light bulb about the gov't and constitution was years ago. I had to place an ad in the local paper and the paper insisted on certain wording that doubled my expected cost. I complained and got no where, I asked for a supervisor and he was no help. In frustration, I whined something about what ever happened to free speech and he told me I could have all the free speech I want, but I would have to publish my own newspaper.
> 
> That's when it finally sunk in that the constitution doesn't really give me rights. What the CONS does give me is a promise of minimal interference from the gov't when I am exercising my rights.
> 
> ...


Some call that an epiphany.

Brilliant post, simply brilliant.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> And in spite of all that, the Libs worry more getting free contraceptives from an employer than they do about the ever expanding powers of the gov't.



Pretty sure you don't know what the libs are worried about, if you think all they're worried about is "free contraceptives".


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Pretty sure you don't know what the libs are worried about, if you think all they're worried about is "free contraceptives".


Feel free to tell us what you're worried about in regards to the Hobby Lobby case.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I heard a story about a Canadian woman who saw a sign in her doctor's office that he would not write prescriptions for birth control medication. She protested but found the doctor has a right to do this. 
She explained that it was not that she couldn't get the prescription elsewhere but that the doctor's sign made her feel that she was being judged and that was wrong.
So in order for her to feel ok about herself, she requires that the doctor must agree to what he feels is murder.
And there in a nutshell is what liberals seem to feel is the controlling principle- that everyone must support the proper feeling. And, if you 'feel' differently, you must be forced by government to comply because you are wrong and that is hurtful.
Of course, there are plenty of people who feel the opposite- that you may not be permitted to use birth control or get an abortion, no matter what, because your feelings about your health do not matter- that your life is not of the same value as a possible future child.
Bless the US Constitution for it's founding principle of keeping government out of conflicting human values as much as possible.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Pretty sure you don't know what the libs are worried about, if you think all they're worried about is "free contraceptives".


:huh: I have no idea how you got that from what I posted. My words that you quoted are in direct conflict with yours. 

It is sort of like me saying, "I think it is green," and you responding, "how can you possibly call it yellow."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> My light bulb about the gov't and constitution was years ago. I had to place an ad in the local paper and the paper insisted on certain wording that doubled my expected cost. I complained and got no where, I asked for a supervisor and he was no help. In frustration, I whined something about what ever happened to free speech and he told me I could have all the free speech I want, but I would have to publish my own newspaper.
> 
> That's when it finally sunk in that the constitution doesn't really give me rights. What the CONS does give me is a promise of minimal interference from the gov't when I am exercising my rights.
> 
> ...




That is such a fundamental point that I sometimes forget that not everyone gets it.

Every single word in the Constitution is about what gov't can and can't do in regards to people's rights.
While you can't honestly say that there are NO limits to gov't laws on businesses, public or private (slavery would be an example) there are limits nonetheless.
When you get to the point where it's decided that the gov't has done what is required to maintain ALL of it's citizens *rights* (not privileges, not wants, not utopian dreams) then what is left is to be worked out amongst ourselves. 
If life ain't fair, it's up to you to try to do something about it, if possible. If not, learn to deal with it.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> :huh: I have no idea how you got that from what I posted. My words that you quoted are in direct conflict with yours.



Ok, excuse me. I'll change my quote to say, "Pretty sure you don't know anything about what libs think if you think they're *more concerned* with free contraception than the ever expanding powers of the gov't."


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

War on women, binder women, glass ceilings, victimization of women has been a truly major focus of the libs. I view that my rights are equal to men, rich people, poor people, people of other faiths an races. 

I am against murder as that reduces someone else is rights
So I take issue on abortion and political groups using a claim of faith to murder.

Libs focused on feeling good about themselves not on where their rights begin or end. Very Machiavelli.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Ok, excuse me. I'll change my quote to say, "Pretty sure you don't know anything about what libs think if you think they're *more concerned* with free contraception than the ever expanding powers of the gov't."


The two biggest expansions of gov't power during the last 5 years have been Obamacare and the president deciding to ignore constitution and law and change law depending on how he feels at the moment. Since libs as a group are all for Obamacare, mostly ignore Obama's constitutional violations and breeches of Presidential duty, I have to say, yes, libs are more worried about free contraception than the ever expanding powers of the gov't. 

You are free to try to convince me otherwise. You might start by counting the number of messages in HT Politics by libs who are outraged by the HL ruling vs the number of messages where libs are outraged by Obama's actions that eventually resulted in him getting slapped down 9 - 0 by SCOTUS. 

This is one where I hope you are right and I am wrong. I wish we had a bunch of Libs like during the 60s and 70s who were very concerned by a too powerful gov't. Where are they now? Now it is conservatives who protest for less gov't and libs who protest for more gov't giveaways.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Pretty sure you don't know what the libs are worried about, if you think all they're worried about is "free contraceptives".


Ok, in the HL case, what are they worried about? 
Seems they're bent outta shape b/c Obama can't force a co. to go against their religion after all. 
It was HL rights that were violated by the law of ObamaUncare that forces people to give ins. that covers 'abortion-type' drugs. 

All HL employees may receive FREE any of the other 16 types of contraceptives.


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

Ugh... all this really tears at my nerves!

An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. If there is an issue or difference of opinion, then one party or the other should walk away (I hold this view for all employee/employer relations... including the abolishment of labor unions--if an employee doesn't like the working conditions, he is free to leave).

Also, I really don't understand how the owners of Hobby Lobby can claim anything with regards to their religion. "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." Yet, looking at their website, they are open for business on the Sabbath. If they can't follow one simple commandment, how can they claim an exemption for something that's not mentioned, even once, in the bible.

Do the owners of the Hobby Lobby forbid their employees from spending their wages to acquire unclean meat to eat? Eating unclean meat is expressly forbidden in the Bible. There's another commandment found in the bible that most so-called christians do not follow.

I do not like the ACA (ObummerCare), but so-called christians fighting it based on their faith is silly in the extreme when they do not even follow the rules of their own faith themselves.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

The government nor the employees should be able to force their bosses to go against their religion either. Same goes for dealing with customers. The government does not have the right to force a business to break it's owners Faith rules in whom they serve. 

The owners of HL are not Jews, for whom the sabbath rule was written. They are Christians, who are told to worship on the first day, not the last of the week. 

All the brouhaha over 4 methods of bc. 4. No one says these methods can not be used. Just that the employers don't have to subsidize them. 2 of them are available if your are over 17 with out a prescription. I know my insurance doesn't cover otc meds anyway. 

You want employers and other out out of your bedroom? Then quit demanding they help you do what ever it is you do there.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> Ugh... all this really tears at my nerves!
> 
> An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. If there is an issue or difference of opinion, then one party or the other should walk away (I hold this view for all employee/employer relations... including the abolishment of labor unions--if an employee doesn't like the working conditions, he is free to leave).
> 
> ...


Question. Do you think that how HL chooses to practice their beliefs should have anything to do with this case? Do you disagree with the courts ruling or are you just against HL?


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

notthereyet said:


> Ugh... all this really tears at my nerves!
> 
> An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. If there is an issue or difference of opinion, then one party or the other should walk away (I hold this view for all employee/employer relations... including the abolishment of labor unions--if an employee doesn't like the working conditions, he is free to leave).
> 
> ...


You see, those of us that feel that the owner of a company should be able to run it in accordance to their own personal faith, feel the exact way as you do in your first paragraph in terms of employer/employee relationships. If they cannot mesh based on their faiths, they are welcome to go separate ways.

Hobby Lobby, at least my local hobby lobby, is closed on Sunday, which has been utilized by many in the Christian faith as the Sabbath for quite a long time. What the owner of Hobby Lobby has done is to ensure he can conduct his business in a way that is in accordance with his faith. He has not forced his faith on anyone, nor has he told employees they have to be Christians in order to work there. He of course has not told his employees what they can do with their money and to suggest that because he did not do that, he is a "so-called Christian" is simply insulting.

And please, tell me that you are 100% perfect in following your own faith, whatever it may be.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notthereyet said:


> Ugh... all this really tears at my nerves!
> 
> An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. If there is an issue or difference of opinion, then one party or the other should walk away (I hold this view for all employee/employer relations... including the abolishment of labor unions--if an employee doesn't like the working conditions, he is free to leave).
> 
> ...


You are not understanding the ruling at all. It is NOT imposing religion on anyone. There is a passage in OUR laws what says to the effect that the gov't shall make NO LAW in regards to religion or the free exercise thereof.
HL was NOT able to exercise religion b/c this Idiotincharge or rather HHS, made a LAW in regards to RELIGION!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notthereyet said:


> Ugh... all this really tears at my nerves!
> 
> An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. If there is an issue or difference of opinion, then one party or the other should walk away (I hold this view for all employee/employer relations... including the abolishment of labor unions--if an employee doesn't like the working conditions, he is free to leave).
> 
> ...


You are not understanding the ruling at all. It is NOT imposing religion on anyone. There is a passage in OUR laws what says to the effect that the gov't shall make NO LAW in regards to religion or the free exercise thereof.
HL was NOT able to exercise religion b/c this Idiotincharge or rather HHS, made a LAW in regards to RELIGION!

Now, try to see, if you can, that HL offers ins. that gives FREE to anyone 16 different types of birth control. So... they are NOT imposing any religion on anyone. In fact it was just the opposite, the gov't imposing on HL law that said they had to abandon their religious positions on abortion.

You do not have to be Christain, btw, to be pro-life.

(whew, I'm about out of crayons & puppets!)


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> The government nor the employees should be able to force their bosses to go against their religion either. Same goes for dealing with customers. The government does not have the right to force a business to break it's owners Faith rules in whom they serve.
> 
> The owners of HL are not Jews, for whom the sabbath rule was written. They are Christians, who are told to worship on the first day, not the last of the week.
> 
> ...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Now, try to see, if you can, that HL offers ins. that gives FREE to anyone 16 different types of birth control.


And if I understand correctly, they can also get the disputed types of birth control paid for by the insurance company...it's just outside of the policy so technically the insurance company is paying for it instead of Hobby Lobby...so the whole thing is really just an accounting trick.



> You do not have to be Christain, btw, to be pro-life.


So very true!


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

I think I have a pretty good grasp on the ruling. SCOTUS held that a corporation can have religion and that an employer can discriminate against it's employees on the basis of it's religion. Basically overturning every anti-discrimination law ever passed. I believe SCOTUS was wrong to support the "rights" of a corporation over the rights of actual people, but we, as a nation, have been giving up our rights hand over fist. We are quickly becoming one of the least free nations in the world.

An employer provides compensation to employees. That compensation takes several forms, but primarily it's in the form of a paycheck and health insurance. If an employer can prohibit that insurance from covering certain procedures, can they also prohibit the paycheck from purchasing certain items that go against the belief of the employer?

Can a Muslim employer prohibit their employees from using their paychecks to care for a dog?

Can a Jewish employer prohibit their employees from using their paychecks to purchase pork or other unclean meat?

Where, exactly, do we draw the line?

With regards to abortion, my personal belief is that it's disgusting and vile, but it is a choice that must be left to the individual, her doctor, and her God. It is not my place to judge, it is not your place to judge, and it is not an employer's place to judge.

Oh, and to the person who suggests that the commandments and laws given to Moses are only for Jews, I would ask you to think about the actual religion of Jesus. He was a Jew and was bound by the laws of Moses. He denounced the laws of the Pharisees, but I do not recall Him denouncing the laws of Moses (I could be wrong, so feel free to show me where Jesus denounced Moses). You cannot pick and choose which of God's laws you follow and still use God's law as an excuse to discriminate against other people. Surely, if we disregard the law regarding the Sabbath, we can also disregard the laws against murder and let people have abortions if they so choose.

As for MY faith... I will not discuss it. If people choose to usurp God's right to judge me, then so be it, that is their sin, not mine. I believe that the Bible, as a whole, was appropriate for a certain people of a certain time, and that while many of the teachings in the Bible still hold true, many do not. We have abolished slavery and polygamy (in law if not in practice). Do Christians who use the Bible as the foundation of their faith believe we should still have such things in our modern society? Should I treat my wife and children as chattel? Should we still take eye for eye and tooth for tooth?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

notthereyet said:


> I think I have a pretty good grasp on the ruling. SCOTUS held that a corporation can have religion and that an employer can discriminate against it's employees on the basis of it's religion. Basically overturning every anti-discrimination law ever passed. I believe SCOTUS was wrong to support the "rights" of a corporation over the rights of actual people, but we, as a nation, have been giving up our rights hand over fist. We are quickly becoming one of the least free nations in the world.
> 
> An employer provides compensation to employees. That compensation takes several forms, but primarily it's in the form of a paycheck and health insurance. If an employer can prohibit that insurance from covering certain procedures, can they also prohibit the paycheck from purchasing certain items that go against the belief of the employer?
> 
> ...


That's just plain silly. They aren't discriminating against anyone. All employees are treated the same. Many insurance policies will not pay for certain things or even certain doctors. Are they all discriminating? Comparing a paycheck to insurance coverage is also silly. Can you show me one case where an employer told employees what they could and could not buy with their paycheck? Benefits are different and always have been. An employer owes you no benefits unless you have a contract. He is free to decide health insurance premiums are too expensive and drop coverage or switch you to a cheaper plan. He offers what he chooses and you either agree, work without the insurance he offers, or go work somewhere else.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

This is a non-issue. This is just the NEWS stirring up something that in the scope of normal life really does not matter, at least not to the degree some folks want to make it.
Birth Control pills, without insurance cost about $10. with some brands higher. The morning after pill is about $10. An abortion costs from $300 to over double that. With many cheap insurance plans, the deductible is more than that. These are not catastrophic medical costs. While the cost of birth control pills could run on for decades, they are known costs. Why would you want insurance on a known expense? Would you also want cell phone service insurance? Each month you pay for your cell phone service insurance and each month you present your insurance card to the cell phone company and they cover the bill. What's next? Aspirin and band aid insurance?
Birth control pills cost is small and abortion is rare, but relatively inexpensive. There is no need for an insurance company to collect premiums for it, administer the plan and dole out the money that pays for it. Where do we as a society draw the line? Tampon insurance next?
The NEWS wants to take the common sense out of it and call it an attack on women's rights. 
I want good catastrophic health care for everyone. But driving up the cost of insurance for all the cheap, simple stuff, coverage will break the system.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> Ugh... all this really tears at my nerves!
> 
> An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. If there is an issue or difference of opinion, then one party or the other should walk away (I hold this view for all employee/employer relations... including the abolishment of labor unions--if an employee doesn't like the working conditions, he is free to leave).
> 
> ...


>>An employer should not be allowed, under any circumstance, to impose it's religious views upon it's employees. <<

Then you'll be happy to learn that this decision does not allow an employer to impose its religious views on employees.

>>Also, I really don't understand how the owners of Hobby Lobby can claim anything with regards to their religion. "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." Yet, looking at their website, they are open for business on the Sabbath. If they can't follow one simple commandment, how can they claim an exemption for something that's not mentioned, even once, in the bible.<<

Because "Freedom of Religion" is a personal thing and the gov't nor you get to define the belief system of others.

>>Do the owners of the Hobby Lobby forbid their employees from spending their wages to acquire unclean meat to eat? Eating unclean meat is expressly forbidden in the Bible. There's another commandment found in the bible that most so-called christians do not follow.<<

You have the whole decision bass-ackwards. This decision allows HL to not be forced to do something against their religion. It does not grant them the power to impose their belief practices on anyone. As I have said so many times in this thread, the freedom to not do, is not equal to the freedom to forces others to do. I just don't get why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.

>>I do not like the ACA (ObummerCare), but so-called christians fighting it based on their faith is silly in the extreme when they do not even follow the rules of their own faith themselves.<<

See prior note on you not getting to decide what someone's beliefs are. There is no purity test within the constitution or in law to certify someone's faith. The constitution does not say, freedom of religion as long as it is purely consistent with the gov't's interpretation of the Bible and I hope you are not advocating that.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> This is a non-issue. This is just the NEWS stirring up something that in the scope of normal life really does not matter, at least not to the degree some folks want to make it.
> Birth Control pills, without insurance cost about $10. with some brands higher. The morning after pill is about $10. An abortion costs from $300 to over double that. With many cheap insurance plans, the deductible is more than that. These are not catastrophic medical costs. While the cost of birth control pills could run on for decades, they are known costs. Why would you want insurance on a known expense? Would you also want cell phone service insurance? Each month you pay for your cell phone service insurance and each month you present your insurance card to the cell phone company and they cover the bill. What's next? Aspirin and band aid insurance?
> Birth control pills cost is small and abortion is rare, but relatively inexpensive. There is no need for an insurance company to collect premiums for it, administer the plan and dole out the money that pays for it. Where do we as a society draw the line? Tampon insurance next?
> The NEWS wants to take the common sense out of it and call it an attack on women's rights.
> I want good catastrophic health care for everyone. But driving up the cost of insurance for all the cheap, simple stuff, coverage will break the system.


That's probably the most I've ever agreed with you. The only minor point of disagreement, is that it is not all the NEWS fault. There are lots of dimocrats out there, like Hillary, claiming that HL is denying contraceptives to its employees. Dimocrats claim this decision was yet another salvo in the Republican WAR ON WOMEN.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> I think I have a pretty good grasp on the ruling. SCOTUS held that a corporation can have religion and that an employer can discriminate against it's employees on the basis of it's religion. Basically overturning every anti-discrimination law ever passed.


No, no you do not. 

SCOTUS held that a corp is an association of persons who can have religion and that the gov't can not take away people's rights simply because they hired someone. In no way whatsoever, not even a little bit, zero, nil, nada, does this ruling allow discrimination or over turn any prior decision on discrimination. 

If you insist on sticking to that belief, would you be so kind as to point us to the language in the decision that allows for discrimination?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> Where, exactly, do we draw the line?


If you understood the court's decision as you claim, you wouldn't ask this question, as the decision very clearly articulates the line they have drawn.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Birth Control pills, without insurance cost about $10. with some brands higher. The morning after pill is about $10. An abortion costs from $300 to over double that. With many cheap insurance plans, the deductible is more than that. These are not catastrophic medical costs. While the cost of birth control pills could run on for decades, they are known costs. Why would you want insurance on a known expense?


Some birth control may cost $10, but most costs way more. With my good BC/BS insurance, some copays were as much as $50 for one month's worth of some types. Out of pocket cost was something like $250 or something outrageous. Can you see why someone would want insurance on that expense? I'm sure you may know (since you seem to be an expert on BC), that not all types are created equal, so some women do better on certain ones than others. Here's an article showing some prices of several types. 

The Plan B meds (morning after pill) are $50 at Walgreens, and probably more other places. As far as I know, most insurances don't cover it, so I'm not sure why it's in the news as part of the ruling. 

Some implants are surgically applied, so I'm sure you can understand those costs are significantly more than most people can afford out of pocket (like $1,000 out of pocket).


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Some birth control may cost $10, but most costs way more. With my good BC/BS insurance, some copays were as much as $50 for one month's worth of some types. Out of pocket cost was something like $250 or something outrageous. Can you see why someone would want insurance on that expense? I'm sure you may know (since you seem to be an expert on BC), that not all types are created equal, so some women do better on certain ones than others. Here's an article showing some prices of several types.
> 
> The Plan B meds (morning after pill) are $50 at Walgreens, and probably more other places. As far as I know, most insurances don't cover it, so I'm not sure why it's in the news as part of the ruling.
> 
> Some implants are surgically applied, so I'm sure you can understand those costs are significantly more than most people can afford out of pocket (like $1,000 out of pocket).


 Most do not cost more, a few may cost more. You need to stop shopping at Walgreens if they are ripping you off for $50 for a morning after pill. Feel free to call a hundred different pharmacies, or just google, " how much does an abortion cost", " how much do birth control pills cost" and "what is the cost of a morning after pill?". 

If you need costly birth control pills and feel those that do not should subsidize your sexual maintenance drugs, then by all means, insurance is the best way. 
I'm no expert on BC, never claimed to be. Just stating known facts. Can we have a discussion without being snippy?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Some birth control may cost $10, but most costs way more. With my good BC/BS insurance, some copays were as much as $50 for one month's worth of some types. Out of pocket cost was something like $250 or something outrageous. Can you see why someone would want insurance on that expense? I'm sure you may know (since you seem to be an expert on BC), that not all types are created equal, so some women do better on certain ones than others. Here's an article showing some prices of several types.
> 
> The Plan B meds (morning after pill) are $50 at Walgreens, and probably more other places. As far as I know, most insurances don't cover it, so I'm not sure why it's in the news as part of the ruling.
> 
> Some implants are surgically applied, so I'm sure you can understand those costs are significantly more than most people can afford out of pocket (like $1,000 out of pocket).


Let's go with that. In fact, let's multiply it by an order of magnitude and say BC costs $10K. If BC costs that much, in your mind does that mean that the rights of the employer may be squashed by the gov't in favor of the employee? 

At what price point do you believe the employer should forfeit his rights? $1M? $10M? 1 cent?


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

couldn't they go to Walmart and get regular birth control pills?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I just do not believe the issue is BC or women's rights. I do not believe it is a powe grab by the government to control health care.
The real issue is something no one talks about.
The math doesn't work. That is it.
If a third of the population of women need $50 to $1000 BC every month and a third are old and need/want/get $1000 in pills each month ant the remaining third are taking the bue pill, the purple pill and the pill that lets you stay out of the restroom for hours at a time and average $1000 a month, then an insurance company needs about $5000 a month for every worker from the employer, just to administer the plan(assuming one in five are employed) And that is just a small segment of overall health insurance.
Our medical advances do wonderful things. I have friends with new knees, new hips. Recently, I underwent facial surgery. Wonderful machines. I made a full recovery from an injury that 50 years ago I would have just been left to live my life disfigured. But, as we Baby Boomers age, can we all get a $40,000 knee, times two and a $40,000 hip joint, times two and a couple bypass surgeries? Who'll pay for it? If each of us require $100,000 in medical treatment, can it be covered by $400 a month health insurance? Do the math. We all seem to want insurance to cover things we cannot afford on our own, but refuse to admit where the insurance company gets their money.
I see the exaggerated expectation of what insurance can do as the root problem. But instead we splinter ourselves debating a narrowly focused court ruling. If one could break down the costs of insurance, how much difference is the cost of a plan without 4 of the 18 BC options, compared to a plan with all 18 options? What is the monetary savings for Hobby Lobby? I think not much.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

haypoint said:


> I just do not believe the issue is BC or women's rights. I do not believe it is a powe grab by the government to control health care.
> The real issue is something no one talks about.
> The math doesn't work. That is it.
> If a third of the population of women need $50 to $1000 BC every month and a third are old and need/want/get $1000 in pills each month ant the remaining third are taking the bue pill, the purple pill and the pill that lets you stay out of the restroom for hours at a time and average $1000 a month, then an insurance company needs about $5000 a month for every worker from the employer, just to administer the plan(assuming one in five are employed) And that is just a small segment of overall health insurance.
> ...



:clap:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

But the Supreme Court is deciding the balance of competing values or at least the limit of the government's right to impose a conflicting value on it's citizens. 
The use of insurance in paying for routine needs is a whole different debate.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Most do not cost more, a few may cost more. You need to stop shopping at Walgreens if they are ripping you off for $50 for a morning after pill. Feel free to call a hundred different pharmacies, or just google, " how much does an abortion cost", " how much do birth control pills cost" and "what is the cost of a morning after pill?".
> 
> If you need costly birth control pills and feel those that do not should subsidize your sexual maintenance drugs, then by all means, insurance is the best way.
> I'm no expert on BC, never claimed to be. Just stating known facts. Can we have a discussion without being snippy?


I don't feel that BC should be any different than any other drugs people take, so yes, if I'm paying for insurance I do think my insurance should cover them. 

Like I said WAY earlier in this thread, this isn't even about BC pills, I just wanted to comment on your post that was very misleading about the price of most BCs. 



DEKE01 said:


> ]Let's go with that. In fact, let's multiply it by an order of magnitude and say BC costs $10K. If BC costs that much, in your mind does that mean that the rights of the employer may be squashed by the gov't in favor of the employee?


I still do not agree the employer's rights are being squashed by anyone at all. The employer is not being forced to take these drugs or have IUDs, are they? Nope. They're paying for insurance anyways, right? Yes. In fact, people have already said in this thread they're not saving any money by including those 4 other drugs in their insurance coverage. The employer simply does not like those drugs. 

Like I've said before, it's a thinly veiled attempt to try to claim infringement of rights, especially when said company sends so much money to China, where abortions are routine. If HL really didn't believe in abortions and did not want any of their dollars funding anything to do with abortions, they'd stop buying Chinese products, wouldn't you agree? 


Since I like horses, I'm going to stop beating this one, since it's dead, rotten, and smelly by now. I get accused of being snippy when others in this thread have been insulting anyone they think may be a liberal. Pretty funny stuff. I'd be amazed some conservatives in this thread could even have a remotely political discussion without having to sling around insults. 

Have fun going around in circles and beating the dead horse. Not much left to beat by now...:grin:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Some birth control may cost $10, but most costs way more. With my good BC/BS insurance, some copays were as much as $50 for one month's worth of some types. Out of pocket cost was something like $250 or something outrageous. Can you see why someone would want insurance on that expense? I'm sure you may know (since you seem to be an expert on BC), that not all types are created equal, so some women do better on certain ones than others. Here's an article showing some prices of several types.
> 
> The Plan B meds (morning after pill) are $50 at Walgreens, and probably more other places. As far as I know, most insurances don't cover it, so I'm not sure why it's in the news as part of the ruling.
> 
> Some implants are surgically applied, so I'm sure you can understand those costs are significantly more than most people can afford out of pocket (like $1,000 out of pocket).


I would suppose that b/c HL offers FREE 16 different types, the 4 it will NOT offer is a moot point, then.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I just do not believe the issue is BC or women's rights. I do not believe it is a powe grab by the government to control health care.
> The real issue is something no one talks about.
> The math doesn't work. That is it.
> If a third of the population of women need $50 to $1000 BC every month and a third are old and need/want/get $1000 in pills each month ant the remaining third are taking the bue pill, the purple pill and the pill that lets you stay out of the restroom for hours at a time and average $1000 a month, then an insurance company needs about $5000 a month for every worker from the employer, just to administer the plan(assuming one in five are employed) And that is just a small segment of overall health insurance.
> ...


Good points for another thread. This one's about the 1st amendment.
The one the Idiotincharge violated w/this UNhealthcare law.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

HL buys products in China. HL has no control over what the Chinese do with the money. If they pay for abortions out of their money, that is their choice. 
HL pays wages to their employees. HL has no control over what their employees do with their money. If they pay for abortions or medications that cause abortions, that is their choice.
But providing a service that includes abortion, included in with the health insurance they buy for their employees, is funding abortion.
Since when did abortion become a "right"? I can see health insurance as a benefit, something I consider when seeking employment. All else being equal, is anyone going to take a job at the Dollar Store instead of Hobby Lobby because the Dollar Store funds the morning after pill and HL doesn't? Let's not stretch the truth, HL only objected to a few pills. Most BC pills were included.
That being said, we are beating a dead horse. It is a tiny issue not worthy of this much discussion. But that is what the liberal NEWS want us to focus on. Keeps us from understanding how insurance works and why we cannot afford the coverage we want.


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

poppy said:


> That's just plain silly. They aren't discriminating against anyone. All employees are treated the same.


No, actually, they are not. Alice and Mary both work for employers that are required to provide a comprehensive insurance plan. Alice gets it from her employer, but Mary's plan is subject to the religious views of her employer.



DEKE01 said:


> Then you'll be happy to learn that this decision does not allow an employer to impose its religious views on employees.
> 
> Because "Freedom of Religion" is a personal thing and the gov't nor you get to define the belief system of others.


Actually, that's what the decision does allow. It allows an employer to withhold benefits based on their religious views. This is exactly the definition of discrimination.

It is not OK for me to say "you can not rent this house because you're a Jew," but would it be OK for me to say "you can not rent this house because I am a Christian?"

The constitution of our great nation starts with "We The People..." and the first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion. Quite simply, this guarantees that I am free of YOUR religion.

What SCOTUS has done, is say that employees are not necessarily free from their employer's religion. This is wrong on so many levels and opens a huge can of worms that we've been fighting for over 200 years.



> You have the whole decision bass-ackwards. This decision allows HL to not be forced to do something against their religion. It does not grant them the power to impose their belief practices on anyone. As I have said so many times in this thread, the freedom to not do, is not equal to the freedom to forces others to do. I just don't get why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> See prior note on you not getting to decide what someone's beliefs are. There is no purity test within the constitution or in law to certify someone's faith. The constitution does not say, freedom of religion as long as it is purely consistent with the gov't's interpretation of the Bible and I hope you are not advocating that.


I'm not sure how I've got it backwards, but I guess that's because I just can't see it from your point of view.

Nowhere in the ACA does it FORCE anyone to OBTAIN any specific procedures. It simply says that coverage for those specific procedures must be provided.

Why should any one individual (an employer) be able to decide what is right or wrong for another individual (the employee)?

Yes, I hear the argument that the employer should not e forced to do something that is against their beliefs, but again, the employer is not being forced to do any of these objectionable thing themselves.

A Jehovah's Witness might have comprehensive health coverage that includes blood transfusions. However, he has the choice whether or not to actually obtain that particular service.

An employee who has coverage that includes abortions still has the choice of whether or not to get one.

The employer, like the government, should not be allowed to come between a patient and her doctor.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

When an employer provides health insurance, they are, in a way, getting between the employee and their doctor. They are providing a "free pass" for a long list of specific health care procedures.
I might think that covering up an old tattoo is a medical procedure, but if my employer's insurance plan doesn't cover it, then I'm on my own. If my employer gave me a coupon for tattoo removal, my employer is between me and my tattoo parlor. So, if my employer gave me a coupon for a free morning after pill, they are intimately involved with that choice. Providing an insurance plan that pays for abortion is an active involvement in that abortion.
I am pro-choice. But I don't think those that are pro-life should be required to fund abortions. Even through their employees' insurance plans.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> No, actually, they are not. Alice and Mary both work for employers that are required to provide a comprehensive insurance plan. Alice gets it from her employer, but Mary's plan is subject to the religious views of her employer.


So what? Do you think that having options in health insurance is fundamentally bad? uneven?



notthereyet said:


> Actually, that's what the decision does allow. It allows an employer to withhold benefits based on their religious views. This is exactly the definition of discrimination.


Wrong. The decision said nothing of the kind. The decision said that the Federal Government violated the RFRA by imposing a religious burden on the owners of HL when *there was another means to accomplish the same goal which did not impose the burden*. In fact the decision upheld that government had a legitimate purpose in providing all forms of FDA birth control at no additional fee.



notthereyet said:


> It is not OK for me to say "you can not rent this house because you're a Jew," but would it be OK for me to say "you can not rent this house because I am a Christian?"


Of course it is ok. If renting a house is against your religious beliefs by all means DO NOT RENT IT. There is nothing discriminating in that at all.

I think the problem here is your lumping all companies into the same pool when they are distinct. Do you think that your employment benefits should be the same irregardless of who your employer is or what you do?



notthereyet said:


> The constitution of our great nation starts with "We The People..." and the first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion. Quite simply, this guarantees that I am free of YOUR religion.
> 
> What SCOTUS has done, is say that employees are not necessarily free from their employer's religion. This is wrong on so many levels and opens a huge can of worms that we've been fighting for over 200 years.


This is a repeat from above. No, the SCOTUS did not say this at all. It said the government cannot impose a burden on the owners of HL when there is another way of doing the same thing which does not impose that burden.



notthereyet said:


> Nowhere in the ACA does it FORCE anyone to OBTAIN any specific procedures. It simply says that coverage for those specific procedures must be provided.


Agreed, withholding that I have not read all of the ACA.



notthereyet said:


> Why should any one individual (an employer) be able to decide what is right or wrong for another individual (the employee)?


An employer shouldn't be able to decide. An employer should offer a benefit package in exchange for goods or services performed. The employee should have full understanding of this package, and if they deem it acceptable take the job. Why do you think this decision doesn't support this?



notthereyet said:


> A Jehovah's Witness might have comprehensive health coverage that includes blood transfusions. However, he has the choice whether or not to actually obtain that particular service.


Unless the JW is a minor in which case the State will obtain custody and force the doctor to administer the blood transfusion. However adults are free to control their medical care as they best see fit.



notthereyet said:


> An employee who has coverage that includes abortions still has the choice of whether or not to get one.


Correct. The opposite is true as well; an employee who's insurance doesn't cover abortion also has the choice of whether or not to get one.



notthereyet said:


> The employer, like the government, should not be allowed to come between a patient and her doctor.


Agreed. I would extend this to Insurance shouldn't come between a patient and their doctor as well, however the insurance company is going to set the rates, co-pays, etc for services which _they_ will provide.

I think the SCOTUS ruling is very simple. They said if the Federal Government wishes to provide women with all forms of FDA birth control at no cost to the consumer then the Federal Government should be paying for it, not forcing others to pay for it. Why is that ruling objectionable to you?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> I still do not agree the employer's rights are being squashed by anyone at all.


All the obfuscation about China aside, you believe it is not trampling someone's religious rights to make them pay for an abortion when they believe it violates their faith. The trouble is, in the US we have a Constitution to protect our rights.

1A: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._

HHS created a regulation that required employers to pay for something that the employers say violates their faith. That is a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion so it is unconstitutional and not allowed. It doesn't matter if you agree with the religion, think those of that faith remain pure to their religious texts, or if they employee people, the gov't does not get to violate religious freedom.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> All the obfuscation about China aside, you believe it is not trampling someone's religious rights to make them pay for an abortion when they believe it violates their faith. The trouble is, in the US we have a Constitution to protect our rights.
> 
> 1A: _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> HHS created a regulation that required employers to pay for something that the employers say violates their faith. That is a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion so it is unconstitutional and not allowed. It doesn't matter if you agree with the religion, think those of that faith remain pure to their religious texts, or if they employee people, the gov't does not get to violate religious freedom.


Although I wish what you state were true, the courts decision does not go back to the Constitution at all. In fact I was surprised to see what all the decision upheld. Alito wrote in the ruling for the assent that the Federal Government could impose this mandate but only if it were the least burdensome method of so doing. He then states there would most certainly be a less burdensome way of doing this, such as using some of the $3 trillion spent on the ACA.

This ruling, although it blocks the mandate for HL to include all forms of birth control in their insurance at no additional cost to the recipient, does nothing to limit the power of the Federal Government. In fact it was a little scary to see how close this was to being upheld.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> All the obfuscation about China aside, you believe it is not trampling someone's religious rights to make them pay for an abortion when they believe it violates their faith.


No, I never said that. My posts have been referring to medications, not an actual abortion. I don't know if it's standard for insurance companies to cover those procedures (I thought not, but I could be wrong, I have never researched it).


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> Actually, that's what the decision does allow. It allows an employer to withhold benefits based on their religious views. *This is exactly the definition of discrimination.*
> 
> *What SCOTUS has done, is say that employees are not necessarily free from their employer's religion.* This is wrong on so many levels and opens a huge can of worms that we've been fighting for over 200 years.
> 
> I'm not sure how I've got it backwards, but I guess that's because I just can't see it from your point of view.


The definition of discrimination: 1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice. 

So you have it wrong, HL saying they will not provide something to everyone is not discrimination. If HL denied something to an employee because he was black, jewish, or in a wheelchair, that is discrimination. What other employers chose to do is their right; conflating what others do with what HL does is irrelevant. There are few if any employers that have an identical compensation package, and that is a good thing. It let's employees pick and choose between what the deem are good or bad employers. 

You have it right when you say employees are not free of employer's religion. What many do not understand is that the Constitution does not protect people from other people, it only protects people from the gov't. HomesteadersToday violates our rights free speech all the time and that is their right. They get to decide allowable discussions, language, and if a message is too mean. We are free to participate by their rules or go start our own message board. 

Employers likewise get to set workplace standards and benefits based in part on their religious preferences. Like Chik-fil-a closes on Sunday. I hate that. Seems like every time I get to go to my fave fast food place, it is a Sunday. But I don't get to decide their policies. 

The HL decision says the gov't can not impose a dictate on someone that violates their religion. It does not say HL can force their religion on employees. HL can not fire someone because they got an abortion, rather, HL can only decide to not pay for the abortion.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> No, I never said that. My posts have been referring to medications, not an actual abortion. I don't know if it's standard for insurance companies to cover those procedures (I thought not, but I could be wrong, I have never researched it).


HL considers the morning after pill to be an abortion. 

As to what is standard for insurance companies, I've bought HC insurance for a half dozen companies that ranged from 5 employees to hundreds. There are common insurance offerings, but there are few standards. Some cover no medications at all, or at least that used to be the case before ACA. I've been out of the game since 2007, so I'm not up on all the changes. Insurance companies have a formulary (list of approved medications) that vary by company, and vary by policy. You want the Cadillac plan, you pay higher rates. You want a cheapo plan, and the formulary may include only generics.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> HL considers the morning after pill to be an abortion.


Well they're wrong.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Although I wish what you state were true, the courts decision does not go back to the Constitution at all. In fact I was surprised to see what all the decision upheld. Alito wrote in the ruling for the assent that the Federal Government could impose this mandate but only if it were the least burdensome method of so doing. He then states there would most certainly be a less burdensome way of doing this, such as using some of the $3 trillion spent on the ACA.
> 
> This ruling, although it blocks the mandate for HL to include all forms of birth control in their insurance at no additional cost to the recipient, does nothing to limit the power of the Federal Government. In fact it was a little scary to see how close this was to being upheld.


I mostly agree with that. It should have been a 9 - 0 case and not allowed any wiggle room. But that case will have to wait for another day.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> Well they're wrong.


So you get to decide what someone's religious beliefs are?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> So you get to decide what someone's religious beliefs are?


This is science, and you cannot argue with that. It has nothing to do with religion. Plan B prevents the implantation of the egg, so even *if* the egg gets fertilized it won't ever even become a pregnancy. It does not and will not cause an already implanted egg to be aborted. It's pregnancy prevention, not termination. 

If HL wants to come up with their own definition of pregnancy and abortion, that's on them. Calling the color blue green doesn't make it so. I guess HL is like that guy who had the debate with Bill Nye...even proof won't cause him to change his mind about religion...so I guess science won't cause the head people at HL to change their minds either.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> This is science, and you cannot argue with that. It has nothing to do with religion. Plan B prevents the implantation of the egg, so even *if* the egg gets fertilized it won't ever even become a pregnancy. It does not and will not cause an already implanted egg to be aborted. It's pregnancy prevention, not termination.
> 
> If HL wants to come up with their own definition of pregnancy and abortion, that's on them. Calling the color blue green doesn't make it so. I guess HL is like that guy who had the debate with Bill Nye...even proof won't cause him to chance his mind about religion...so I guess science won't cause the head people at HL to change their minds either.


It prevents implantation of a FERTILIZED egg, which HL thinks is important. I'm not saying I agree with HL, I'm just saying you and I do not get to decide what their religious beliefs are. This is not about science, it is about religious freedom. 

I'm all for morning after pills because it is light years better than a second or third term abortion.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Top 5 liberal myths about HL case

This guy got most of what has been said in this thread. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2014/07/09/top-five-liberal-myths-about-the-hobby-lobby-case-n1859969?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> This is science, and you cannot argue with that. It has nothing to do with religion. Plan B prevents the implantation of the egg, so even *if* the egg gets fertilized it won't ever even become a pregnancy. It does not and will not cause an already implanted egg to be aborted. It's pregnancy prevention, not termination.
> 
> If HL wants to come up with their own definition of pregnancy and abortion, that's on them. Calling the color blue green doesn't make it so. I guess HL is like that guy who had the debate with Bill Nye...even proof won't cause him to change his mind about religion...so I guess science won't cause the head people at HL to change their minds either.


I disagree with what you state. This is a question about what you consider "life". HL owners have stated they consider life to start at the moment of fertilization. This makes anything after that point an abortion, the snuffing out of a life. You seem to be defining life as starting when a fertilized egg becomes implanted in the uterous. I believe the Federal Government defines life as starting at sometime between the first and third trimester.

I would also point out that the Federal Government clearly acknowledged these drugs to have religious impact since from the start they excluded churches and other institutions from having to provide them in insurance. The court ruling states the HHS did not present a good enough case as to why HL does not fit the definition of a "person" but churches do.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sex is not a right found in my copy of the constitution.....which draft do you have.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Sex is not a right found in my copy of the constitution.....which draft do you have.


psst Kasilof, it's in the Declaration of Independence. You know "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a penis".

Sorry, that was bad but I couldn't resist.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Speak for yourself Nate.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Sex is not a right found in my copy of the constitution.....which draft do you have.


Kasil - don't make that mistake. The CONS does not contain an all inclusive list of our rights, it just hits the highlights because it was believed that those were the most likely for the gov't to want to limit. In fact, the major argument at the time of the passing of the CONS was that the Bill of Rights should not be included because it might be later assumed that those were the limits of what our gov't could not do. 

Some thought the enumerated powers clause of the CONS was good enough, assuming that if it was not specifically listed as a power for the Feds, then it was a power left to the states or people. But others understood that the insatiable lust for power of all gov'ts meant that the USG needed a reminder of some areas where rights could not be taken from the citizens without due process and for just cause. The original text of the Bill of Rights includes:

_Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._


Inalienable rights not directly listed in the CONS include:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of P...err...Happiness. And for most people, sex makes them happy.
Freedom of travel
Freedom of association
Freedom to chose your vocation
Seeking, acquiring, and possessing property (that is in Ohio's CONS)


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Senate Dems introduce legislation to bypass the HL decision

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2014/07/09/sigh-senate-dems-introduce-bill-to-override-hobby-lobby-decision-n1860401?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

I have little doubt the bill would not get thru the House, but if it did, the SCOTUS would most likely end up having to take on the religious freedom aspect directly, instead of kinda-sorta-supporting but not directly the way they did in HL.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm conflicted as to what will be the undoing of the USA. It might be bankruptcy, but more likely it will result from either those too ignorant of the constitution and its protections to care or those more concerned with gathering some benefit at the expense of freedom of all citizens.
> 
> Text of 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> ...



If you think corporations are people was the thinking of the Founding Fathers you might want to study your history a little better. They would be rolling in their graves over these recent rulings.


> After the nationâs founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, not permitted to own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their specific, corporate business goals.
> Put another way, every single investment bank on Wall Street, as we know it today, would have been illegal in the days of our founding.
> And here is the big one âin the early days of the nation, most states had rules on the books _making any political contribution by a corporation a criminal offence._
> Indeed, so restrictive was the corporate entity, many of early Americaâs greatest entities were set up to _avoid_ the corporate restrictions. Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust in order to avoid the restrictions placed on corporations. Yet, it is now apparently too much to ask that those holding strong religious views, such as the Green family who hold the stock of Hobby Lobby, do the same.
> Despite the controls placed on corporations in the early days of our nation, as corporations grew larger and their shareholders wealthier, they began to influence the rule making process that governed corporations. Using the money they had accumulated, they began to chip away at corporate restrictions. Eventually, corporations were permitted to go on forever rather than be expressly limited to a period of years. Where shareholders had once been personally responsible for the actions of the corporation, contemporary corporations shield their owners from personal liability.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...cotus-rules-that-corporations-are-people-too/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Privately owned business


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

The link gives a brief history of SCOTUS saying that corps are people too, starting with the "recent rulings" in 1819 and 1886. Corporate law has changed over time, and like in the great AGW debate where Patchouli wants to freeze everything as it exists in what he thinks is the perfect time, time marches on indifferent to his preferences. The founding fathers also allowed for slavery, but we evolved as a nation. Or do you want to erase all progress since 1776? 1787? 1865? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

_Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward &#8211; 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad &#8211; 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis,[1] noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[2] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania &#8211; 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."[3] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since._


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> It prevents implantation of a FERTILIZED egg, which HL thinks is important. I'm not saying I agree with HL, I'm just saying you and I do not get to decide what their religious beliefs are. This is not about science, it is about religious freedom.
> 
> I'm all for morning after pills because it is light years better than a second or third term abortion.


You & me too! Far better. Use one of the other 16 methods if you're HL employee.

If I'm Orthodox Jew & have a deli & the gov't says I have to serve ham sandwiches b/c they're nutritious, I guess that's ok. 
I'd fight to the death for the Jewish deli.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> The link gives a brief history of SCOTUS saying that corps are people too, starting with the "recent rulings" in 1819 and 1886. Corporate law has changed over time, and like in the great AGW debate where Patchouli wants to freeze everything as it exists in what he thinks is the perfect time, time marches on indifferent to his preferences. The founding fathers also allowed for slavery, but we evolved as a nation. Or do you want to erase all progress since 1776? 1787? 1865?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
> 
> ...



By 1888 the corporations had bought the legal system and Congress.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> By 1888 the corporations had bought the legal system and Congress.


What about the 1819 decision? Was Congress already bought then? 

I'll never understand how liberals can be so sure that gov't is so easily bought off yet consistently argue for more power for the gov't. You think congress has pooped in your corn flakes and your solution is to feed congress a laxative.


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> The definition of discrimination: 1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice.
> 
> So you have it wrong, HL saying they will not provide something to everyone is not discrimination. If HL denied something to an employee because he was black, jewish, or in a wheelchair, that is discrimination. What other employers chose to do is their right; conflating what others do with what HL does is irrelevant. There are few if any employers that have an identical compensation package, and that is a good thing. It let's employees pick and choose between what the deem are good or bad employers.


I still disagree. Mr. Green is choosing to treat his 20,000 employees differently than the other 300 million people in the US on the basis of HIS religion. This IS discrimination, pure and simple. Mr. Green is letting his religious prejudices influence the way he treats his employees.

The ACA required every employer to provide a minimum level of health care. Mr. Green is crying discrimination because it violates his religious views. This is not discrimination, it was a law that covered everyone regardless of their race, gender, or religion. No unfair burden was placed on Mr. Green, he has the exact same burdens as every other employer and he should not be allowed to use his religion to get out of his obligations as an employer.



> You have it right when you say employees are not free of employer's religion. What many do not understand is that the Constitution does not protect people from other people, it only protects people from the gov't. HomesteadersToday violates our rights free speech all the time and that is their right. They get to decide allowable discussions, language, and if a message is too mean. We are free to participate by their rules or go start our own message board.
> 
> Employers likewise get to set workplace standards and benefits based in part on their religious preferences. Like Chik-fil-a closes on Sunday. I hate that. Seems like every time I get to go to my fave fast food place, it is a Sunday. But I don't get to decide their policies.
> 
> The HL decision says the gov't can not impose a dictate on someone that violates their religion. It does not say HL can force their religion on employees. HL can not fire someone because they got an abortion, rather, HL can only decide to not pay for the abortion.


How is Mr. Green paying for that abortion anymore than if the employee uses her paycheck to cover the cost? Insurance benefits are only one part of the compensation package, compensation for the work the employee has performed for her employer.

If you insist on following the money, do not top at Mr. Green, keep following it to the customer. Ultimately, they are the ones who are paying for all forms of compensation for the employees. Mr. Green is only the middle man here.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> I still disagree. Mr. Green is choosing to treat his 20,000 employees differently than the other 300 million people in the US on the basis of HIS religion. This IS discrimination, pure and simple. Mr. Green is letting his religious prejudices influence the way he treats his employees.
> 
> The ACA required every employer to provide a minimum level of health care. Mr. Green is crying discrimination because it violates his religious views. This is not discrimination, it was a law that covered everyone regardless of their race, gender, or religion. No unfair burden was placed on Mr. Green, he has the exact same burdens as every other employer and he should not be allowed to use his religion to get out of his obligations as an employer.


Do you realize your two paragraphs there contradict each other?

Mr. Green has not suggested that any of his employees be treated any different than any of his other employees in this case. There is no way you can compare HL benefits package to other employers. Are you suggesting that all employee compensation should be dictated by the government?

Mr. Green never claimed discrimination. The case was whether the Federal Government has the ability to mandate his company do something which is a religious burden on him. The court ruling didn't even say they can't, it simply said there was a less burdening way the government can do this. Kind of like it can build an interstate through your backyard, or it can build it nearby where there are no houses. Which should the government do?


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Do you realize your two paragraphs there contradict each other?
> 
> Mr. Green has not suggested that any of his employees be treated any different than any of his other employees in this case. There is no way you can compare HL benefits package to other employers. Are you suggesting that all employee compensation should be dictated by the government?
> 
> Mr. Green never claimed discrimination. The case was whether the Federal Government has the ability to mandate his company do something which is a religious burden on him. The court ruling didn't even say they can't, it simply said there was a less burdening way the government can do this. Kind of like it can build an interstate through your backyard, or it can build it nearby where there are no houses. Which should the government do?


No contradiction at all. Mr. Green does not have a burden that is any different than any other employer. By using his religion to deny basic health coverage for his employees, he is claiming religious burden (discrimination). Yet, on the other side of the coin, he's using his religion to deny his employees the same minimum benefits that other people receive from their employers.

Like the minimum wage, the government set a minimum level of health care. Should an employer be able to subvert the minimum wage laws if it places a "burden" on them? Every employer out there will claim that the minimum wage is a burden.

If Mr. Green were operating a not-for-profit religious foundation that had employees, then I can see an exemption for parts of the ACA that violate his beliefs. However, this is not the case. 100% of the money used to provide compensation for the employees of Hobby Lobby comes from commercial activities and originates with the customer not Mr. Green.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> No contradiction at all. Mr. Green does not have a burden that is any different than any other employer. By using his religion to deny basic health coverage for his employees, he is claiming religious burden (discrimination). Yet, on the other side of the coin, he's using his religion to deny his employees the same minimum benefits that other people receive from their employers.
> 
> Like the minimum wage, the government set a minimum level of health care. Should an employer be able to subvert the minimum wage laws if it places a "burden" on them? Every employer out there will claim that the minimum wage is a burden.
> 
> If Mr. Green were operating a not-for-profit religious foundation that had employees, then I can see an exemption for parts of the ACA that violate his beliefs. However, this is not the case. 100% of the money used to provide compensation for the employees of Hobby Lobby comes from commercial activities and originates with the customer not Mr. Green.


Which HL employee was denied health coverage? I haven't heard of a single one. This case was not about peoples access to the care, it was about who would pay for that care. It's also about extending the control of government. Do you think women are so weak that they cannot negotiate the terms of employment they desire? Maybe we are all that weak and we should just succumb to accepting whatever terms the government feels we should have.

You say "Mr. Green does not have a burden that is any different than any other employer." That statement is false. The ACA excluded many employers from the mandate *because it would be objectionable for religious reasons*. Mr Green questioned the fact that since his company happens to turn a profit why should he face an additional burden. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not distinguish between For profit and Not for profit. BTW, where do you think not for profit companies get their money? 

Let's look at this another way, you say if an employer is not offering an option in health insurance that others are that they are discriminating. What if everyone is equal and one employer offers something additional? Are all the other employers somehow now being discriminatory?

As far as minimum wage, that would not be covered under RFRA.

In all honesty if the American working class wishes to have complete control of their health insurance benefits they should look at being able to purchase it themselves and not get it through an employer. Asking someone else to provide you with something always comes with strings attached.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> I still disagree. Mr. Green is choosing to treat his 20,000 employees differently than the other 300 million people in the US on the basis of HIS religion. This IS discrimination, pure and simple. Mr. Green is letting his religious prejudices influence the way he treats his employees.
> 
> The ACA required every employer to provide a minimum level of health care. Mr. Green is crying discrimination because it violates his religious views. This is not discrimination, it was a law that covered everyone regardless of their race, gender, or religion. No unfair burden was placed on Mr. Green, he has the exact same burdens as every other employer and he should not be allowed to use his religion to get out of his obligations as an employer.
> 
> ...


Mr, Notallthereyet - Read what Nate said. You contradict yourself. I'm beginning to think you are pulling our collective legs because your words are so self contradictory.


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

You still fail to point out the contradiction and I still fail to see it. I hold that what I've said is true.

1) Mr. Green is being treated the same as any other employer.

2) Mr. Green is asking for special consideration, due to his religion, to treat his employees differently than other American workers.

Nobody should be discriminated against because of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc... but at the same time, nobody should be able to use their race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc... to demand special treatment.

This was the problem with affirmative action, and it's the problem with Mr. Green's case.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> You still fail to point out the contradiction and I still fail to see it. I hold that what I've said is true.


You say in the first paragraph that Mr. Green puts out a policy which is applied uniformly to a group of people that is discriminatory. In the second paragraph you say the government puts forth a policy which, because it is uniformly applied to a group of people, cannot be discriminatory.

Uniformly applied does not mean it is not discriminatory.

And just FYI, the RFRA has specific verbiage to this effect:


> In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion; therefore the Act states that the âGovernment shall not substantially burden a personâs exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.â


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFRA


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> You still fail to point out the contradiction and I still fail to see it. I hold that what I've said is true.


To quote the woman I'm going to marry one day, TrickyG, I'm all out of puppets and crayons.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Are you suggesting that all employee compensation should be dictated by the government?


Too LATE!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> To quote the woman I'm going to marry one day, TrickyG, I'm all out of puppets and crayons.


----------



## notthereyet (Nov 17, 2011)

Don't need puppets and crayons, thank you anyways. I just love how people who can't make a reasonable argument always degrade the conversation into juvenile insults and mud slinging.

It's obvious that nobody is willing to actually demonstrate how Mr. Green was given this burden on the basis of his religion (more so than any other employer has been burdened), so I'll kindly drop out of the whole conversation (unless invited back in).

For what it's worth, Hobby Lobby does, indeed, win. They have further twisted our constitution and laws to benefit themselves without actually fixing anything in our broken system.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

notthereyet said:


> Don't need puppets and crayons, thank you anyways. I just love how people who can't make a reasonable argument always degrade the conversation into juvenile insults and mud slinging.
> 
> It's obvious that nobody is willing to actually demonstrate how Mr. Green was given this burden on the basis of his religion (more so than any other employer has been burdened), so I'll kindly drop out of the whole conversation (unless invited back in).
> 
> For what it's worth, Hobby Lobby does, indeed, win. They have further twisted our constitution and laws to benefit themselves without actually fixing anything in our broken system.


What's broken? Did any of Mr. Greens employees complain? If not, there was no discrimination. Why were there no complaints before Obama passed the aca? The government created this problem by forcing this horrible law on the American people against their will. What happened to "We, the people"? I'm not sure why some religious groups and businesses got a blanket waiver and some had to go to court to get one. Maybe you can tell us!

Eta: it's this administration that likes to twist the Constitution to fit their agenda. Look at all the court cases involving illegal mandates that were ruled unconstitutional!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

notthereyet said:


> Don't need puppets and crayons, thank you anyways. I just love how people who can't make a reasonable argument always degrade the conversation into juvenile insults and mud slinging.
> 
> It's obvious that nobody is willing to actually demonstrate how Mr. Green was given this burden on the basis of his religion (more so than any other employer has been burdened), so I'll kindly drop out of the whole conversation (unless invited back in).
> 
> For what it's worth, Hobby Lobby does, indeed, win. They have further twisted our constitution and laws to benefit themselves without actually fixing anything in our broken system.


The primary protection from government tyranny that is guaranteed in the Constitution is that the government shall not create nor impede the practice of religion. So it is always a balancing act between those two things- creating and impeding. 
If Mr. Green and his family have a religious belief that birth control or abortion (as defined by the practice they hold out and abide by) is murder, then forcing them to pay for this murder is a serious impediment to the practice of their religion. One of the main differences to this issue is the involuntary nature of abortions especially. It is not the same as what they would perceive as a sin an individual chooses for themselves but is a wrong against a defenseless soul. 
So I suspect that a person who has a belief that this is wrong would bear significant guilt in providing the means to do that particular sin. Just because it is not something you believe does not give you the right flick off a deeply held belief because it doesn't bother you. I suspect if forced to follow this part of the law, the family would choose to remove themselves from their business. And, disregarding the guilt that is a burden if they do follow the law, that is a burden.They are screwed either way.
So it comes to a decision as to whether a government law is a significant enough impediment to their religious practice that the government is barred by the Constitution from making them follow this law. And the Court decided it was.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Humor takes brains. Notthereyet you are NOT THERE YET in being able to logically explain your point of view by the facts. You simply do not seem to accept that blows won.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> What about the 1819 decision? Was Congress already bought then?
> 
> I'll never understand how liberals can be so sure that gov't is so easily bought off yet consistently argue for more power for the gov't. You think congress has pooped in your corn flakes and your solution is to feed congress a laxative.


The 1819 decision was extremely narrow and made it clear as the part I bolded and will paste here for you again:

_*The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.*_


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

notthereyet said:


> Don't need puppets and crayons, thank you anyways. I just love how people who can't make a reasonable argument always degrade the conversation into juvenile insults and mud slinging.
> 
> It's obvious that nobody is willing to actually demonstrate how Mr. Green was given this burden on the basis of his religion (more so than any other employer has been burdened), so I'll kindly drop out of the whole conversation (unless invited back in).
> 
> For what it's worth, Hobby Lobby does, indeed, win. They have further twisted our constitution and laws to benefit themselves without actually fixing anything in our broken system.


Par for the course around here sadly. You know you have won the argument when they all start calling you names and insulting you. 

By the way I understood exactly what you were saying.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> The 1819 decision was extremely narrow and made it clear as the part I bolded and will paste here for you again:
> 
> _*The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.*_


Well you can cling to those words, but don't expect them to be a liferaft. That decision did grant some rights to corps ~=~ people and the later decisions expanded upon that. Look, I don't like the way the SCOTUS goes every time, but their interpretation of the CONS is the law of the land. In this area, it has survived the test of time and the decisions seemed to reinforce one another in the same direction. 

You have to over turn a lot of freedom of association decisions to find that corps are not people, it isn't decided just because it is fashionable in some circles today to hate businesses.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If my standards in my life was against drinking due to my faith yet I lived in a place that allowed drinking, should I enforced to have booze in my home.

Mr green owns his private business and he is against the killing of life so why should he be forces to pay for his workers who fail to use conception control and yet fail to see that was an option that he is willing to pay for. He pays his employees so what they do with their pay is on them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> The 1819 decision was extremely narrow and made it clear as the part I bolded and will paste here for you again:
> 
> _*The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.*_


This is not relevant- the case was based on a close family corporation only- a business that is held by a few directly related people who can act with one will- not a publicly held corporation which was specifically excluded from the decision.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Well you can cling to those words, but don't expect them to be a liferaft. That decision did grant some rights to corps ~=~ people and the later decisions expanded upon that. Look, I don't like the way the SCOTUS goes every time, but their interpretation of the CONS is the law of the land. In this area, it has survived the test of time and the decisions seemed to reinforce one another in the same direction.
> 
> You have to over turn a lot of freedom of association decisions to find that corps are not people, it isn't decided just because it is fashionable in some circles today to hate businesses.


Current SCOTUS decisions do not negate history. My point was that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended. I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court rarely cares about the original intentions of the Constitution anymore.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court rarely cares about the original intentions of the Constitution anymore.


Sadly true.

But I'm not erecting a monument like the last time we agreed.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

notthereyet said:


> It's obvious that nobody is willing to actually demonstrate how Mr. Green was given this burden on the basis of his religion (more so than any other employer has been burdened), so I'll kindly drop out of the whole conversation (unless invited back in).


Maybe the example for which the law was written may be the best explanation.

The Federal government passed a law making the use and possession of peyote illegal. This law was uniform for everyone. You, me, and everybody else in the US could not use peyote without fear of repercussions from the government.

Now although the law is the same for everyone does it impose a burden on certain Native American religions? I can clearly say I bore no religious burden under the law; but I would not say that is universal _ because means of expressing ones faith can vary_. So Congress passed a law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from which I have cited to indicate this to be the case.

Now in the HL case the mandate clearly has a burden on some religions since the government had already exempted non-profits. HHS argued that for profit corporations should not be covered under the RFRA but the court found, at least in the case of HL, that not to be true.

Then, even if it is a religious burden the RFRA does not offer complete protection. A law can still be passed if it meets 2 criteria. First it serves a compelling government interest and second that it is the least burdening means of accomplishing that interest.

As an example, there was a case where a Jehovah's Witness claimed paying income tax was a religious burden because the funds were then used in war. The court found this too to be a burden however it was the least burdening means of accomplishing a government interest.

In HL's case the court found the government most certainly has access to a less burdening means of providing birth control; to do it directly.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Current SCOTUS decisions do not negate history. My point was that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended. I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court rarely cares about the original intentions of the Constitution anymore.


I don't think this ruling went to the Constitution at all. It went to the RFRA. The summary from Alito would indicate if Congress would change the RFRA to specifically exclude for-profit organizations their judgement may be different.

As I read it, Alito said if the Federal Government wishes to provide it's citizens with all forms of FDA birth control then it should do it directly and not mandate someone else to do it for them. What is wrong with that?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Sadly true.
> 
> But I'm not erecting a monument like the last time we agreed.



Not even a little one?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I don't think this ruling went to the Constitution at all. It went to the RFRA. The summary from Alito would indicate if Congress would change the RFRA to specifically exclude for-profit organizations their judgement may be different.
> 
> As I read it, Alito said if the Federal Government wishes to provide it's citizens with all forms of FDA birth control then it should do it directly and not mandate someone else to do it for them. What is wrong with that?


I think you have the best understanding of the decision of anyone here, so I'll ask you this...do you think this could be a step toward single payer? If they can shift the contraception burden from the employers to the federal government, it seems many other parts are not far behind.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> I think you have the best understanding of the decision of anyone here, so I'll ask you this...do you think this could be a step toward single payer? If they can shift the contraception burden from the employers to the federal government, it seems many other parts are not far behind.


Interesting you mention that. It is the same thing which came to my mind as I was reading the ruling. I don't think this ruling takes the step toward single payer. I think instead it is taking away the middle ground. It will force the Democratic party to go to government paid insurance as their solution.

One other telling thing is Alito made no hesitation saying the Federal government has an interest in provide free contraception for women. That's something which surprised me.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I'm waiting for Hobby Lobby to announce that it's going to deny contraceptive coverage to unmarried employees. After all, premarital sex ought to violate the owners' Christian values in the same way that abortifacients do. Right?

Why is it that people who use religious excuses always seem to pick and choose which parts of their religion are important and ought to be upheld? It's like the bakers and photographers who claim that working for gay couples violates their Christian beliefs, yet they never seem to object to serving previously-married heterosexual couples who by Biblical standards are committing adultery.


----------



## Cookie2 (Feb 21, 2014)

I can't believe people are still discussing this issue.

You know what? If we truly lived in a free-market capitalistic society like the Liberals complain about, then an enterprising insurance company would offer a public "abortion coverage" plan. It could be really cheap, too, like vision insurance.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I'm waiting for Hobby Lobby to announce that it's going to deny contraceptive coverage to unmarried employees. After all, premarital sex ought to violate the owners' Christian values in the same way that abortifacients do. Right?
> 
> Why is it that people who use religious excuses always seem to pick and choose which parts of their religion are important and ought to be upheld? It's like the bakers and photographers who claim that working for gay couples violates their Christian beliefs, yet they never seem to object to serving previously-married heterosexual couples who by Biblical standards are committing adultery.


What's important is that we recognize everyone's right to religious belief and expression, not that we understand or agree with every facet of those beliefs.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I'm waiting for Hobby Lobby to announce that it's going to deny contraceptive coverage to unmarried employees. After all, premarital sex ought to violate the owners' Christian values in the same way that abortifacients do. Right?
> 
> Why is it that people who use religious excuses always seem to pick and choose which parts of their religion are important and ought to be upheld? It's like the bakers and photographers who claim that working for gay couples violates their Christian beliefs, yet they never seem to object to serving previously-married heterosexual couples who by Biblical standards are committing adultery.


Everybody gets to decide their own religion...and which parts are most important to them. Hypocrisy (real or perceived) does not negate anyone's rights.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> I'm waiting for Hobby Lobby to announce that it's going to deny contraceptive coverage to unmarried employees. After all, premarital sex ought to violate the owners' Christian values in the same way that abortifacients do. Right?
> 
> Why is it that people who use religious excuses always seem to pick and choose which parts of their religion are important and ought to be upheld? It's like the bakers and photographers who claim that working for gay couples violates their Christian beliefs, yet they never seem to object to serving previously-married heterosexual couples who by Biblical standards are committing adultery.


I don't think you can equate premarital sex with taking a life.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I'm waiting for Hobby Lobby to announce that it's going to deny contraceptive coverage to unmarried employees. After all, premarital sex ought to violate the owners' Christian values in the same way that abortifacients do. Right?
> 
> Why is it that people who use religious excuses always seem to pick and choose which parts of their religion are important and ought to be upheld? It's like the bakers and photographers who claim that working for gay couples violates their Christian beliefs, yet they never seem to object to serving previously-married heterosexual couples who by Biblical standards are committing adultery.


Wrong! 
C'mon, WG, I KNOW you're smarter than that. 
Excommunication is the penalty for abortion. I don't even think anyone flinches at fornication anymore.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Why is it that people who use religious excuses always seem to pick and choose which parts of their religion are important and ought to be upheld? It's like the bakers and photographers who claim that working for gay couples violates their Christian beliefs, yet they never seem to object to serving previously-married heterosexual couples who by Biblical standards are committing adultery.


I heard a discussion on the radio about the Hobby Lobby case and those that objected to it would roll out the most extreme scenarios for where this would lead. One said what if an employer decided that everyone would have to pray together before work, would they have the right to demand it? Or what if the employer decided that no one could use birth control and keep their job?
Which is the nonsense level of hysteria triggered by this case. None of that is going to happen. This was simply a case where the Supreme Court decided that there were other options available that would still allow a close family corporation to follow their conscience while those who wanted access to birth control could get it. 
The point is not that Hobbyists Lobby is free to judge the sinfulness of employees and fire them if they don't measure up (which BTW employers legally already do to a large extent) but that Hobby Lobby should not be forced to take an action themselves that they consider to be a major sin just to meet the law.
Most Christian sects have a primary belief in the sinfulness of humanity and see the virtue of religious teaching as the way to minimize it. So they do not expect everyone else to be sin free but expect they will do better by applying religion. And to deny their personal application of those teachings in order to meet the law is a very big deal. And under our Constitution, the government is required to consider that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Those who are opposing SCOTUS decision, tell us why you think its a right & should be a LAW for a person to have a co. buy something-anything-for them.

And how is it you think Obamacare should force co.s to buy anything for employees?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wrong!
> C'mon, WG, I KNOW you're smarter than that.
> Excommunication is the penalty for abortion. I don't even think anyone flinches at *fornication* anymore.


Makes me quiver all over..


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Cookie2 said:


> I can't believe people are still discussing this issue.
> 
> You know what? If we truly lived in a free-market capitalistic society like the Liberals complain about, then an enterprising insurance company would offer a public "abortion coverage" plan. It could be really cheap, too, like vision insurance.


No they wouldn't because the Federal government dictates they cannot charge for it.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> No they wouldn't because the Federal government dictates they cannot charge for it.


I think you missed Cookie's "if" clause, Nate.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> I think you missed Cookie's "if" clause, Nate.


You are correct. My apologies Cookie.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

jtbrandt said:


> I think you missed Cookie's "if" clause, Nate.


You are correct. My apologies Cookie.


----------

