Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

a reply to: dawnstar

-poke-

it's not so much hobby lobby as a person, it's the owners of the company....who pay the bills...

they have beliefs, they're protected beliefs, and they're challenging the government's authority to require them to pay for something that runs contrary to those beliefs...

a reply to: Daedalus

Sorry, I kept up on the 1st 10 pages at work, after sleep its now 50 pages, I don't have a week to read through every post lol. So did or did not Hobby Lobby owners invest (knowingly or unknowingly) in these manufacturers? If so do they still?

a reply to: dawnstar

Actually, I wish that would happen. Women all over the world practice abstinence for a week, just to see if that is what society and men really want.

a reply to: MOMof3
Women want sex just as much as men, the only difference is who initiates the process, bad comparison

a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

unknowingly, through multiple layers and degrees of separation...it's a non-issue.

Mother Jones, and similarly shady, agenda-driven media, and posters here, make it sound as if they were directly investing in the specific companies that made the specific things they've gotten out of paying for...which would be retarded, because one would think that if you're investing in a company, you'd wanna do everything you could to help them succeed...poo-pooing their product, and costing them money wouldn't really run in-line with aiding success, would it?

it's weird, this thread kinda blew up, didn't it? took me hours just to cover the pages that popped up in the 12 or so hours i was away from it..

a reply to: Daedalus
Where in the constitution does it esteem an employer's beliefs above that of any other person???
Isn't the husband buying the insurance for the stay at home wife?
This is a religious rights matter!!
In order for Hobby Lobby's case to have any merit it had to be determined that they were a "person" by the law!!
not an employer!!
If I am not wrong the employers rights to decide what they should provide their employees as benefits was fought and lost when it was upheld that they would have to provide the insurance. unless that one wasn't challenged yet and in which case you should watch for that case to pop up and give your argument there!

a reply to: Daedalus
So they unknowingly invest in a product, yet when that product comes into their expense they all of the sudden know about it?

I understand portfolios and portfolio management. I also understand business. I can only "ASSUME" they no longer hold shares of those companies now that this has become a mainstream issue. The issue remains that they did at one time. Only a FOOL doesn't know their own portfolio. If they EVER invested in those companies, they knew about it. Maybe later than sooner, but they definitely knew about it.

And yes, yes it did haha, i expected to wake up and replay on the 12thish page, we are in area 51 now!!!

a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

are you married??
so if your spouse had lost the coverage to their birth control pill and really didn't want more babies to the point where they were willing to give up on sex
you would be alright with that???

a reply to: dawnstar
perfect example of misconception, I disagree with the judgement, and no I'm not married.

Also to expand, and I'm reading reading reading, i don't 'THINK' hobby lobby cut coverage of birth control pills in general, just certain ones. So if that is the case the person has the option of a different contraceptive covered under HL healthcare. i DO have an issue with religion being the reason for the exception as businesses are NOT people, and should NOT have discriminatory rights based on ANYTHING!

a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

that's the thing, they never held shares in the companies...again, they weren't directly investing...they have their 401(k) through a firm that's invested in all manner of companies...so they didn't invest, and probably had no idea....

i have no idea what they're planning to do about it, but it's NOT what everyone is saying it is...

originally posted by: dawnstar
Where in the constitution does it esteem an employer's beliefs above that of any other person???
Isn't the husband buying the insurance for the stay at home wife?
This is a religious rights matter!!
In order for Hobby Lobby's case to have any merit it had to be determined that they were a "person" by the law!!
not an employer!!
If I am not wrong the employers rights to decide what they should provide their employees as benefits was fought and lost when it was upheld that they would have to provide the insurance. unless that one wasn't challenged yet and in which case you should watch for that case to pop up and give your argument there!

what the christ are you talking about?

i demand that you make sense..

a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

I have so many issues with the obamacare law....
but I do believe that actions that were taken after the hobby lobby decision seem to indicate that all birth control can be exempted it depends on the belief!

a reply to: dawnstar

it's an absolutely atrocious law, and should be repealed post-haste....and yes, religion is a s**tty angle of attack, but anything that successfully lands a blow against this abomination, is ok with me..

a reply to: Daedalus

did you read the post you responded to
because I not only spend a considerable amount of time searching for any hint that there is an exemptions for us individuals (ya know the real people who do have that religous protections by the constitution) who also might have a moral issue with buying an insurance coverage that includes birth control
either for themselves or a family member!
and failed to find on but also time posting that post!
can you point me to the exemption that does this??

a reply to: Daedalus
it's not for me they are gonna nit pick the thing till it's half dead and we're gonna end up with something even worse!

a reply to: Daedalus
Daedalus, don't be ignorant. They do know EXACTLY what investments their business 401k's or personal investments entail. Saying they invested in those companies for 401K purposes not only makes worse, it makes it completely hypocritical. Those 401K policies require a signature, and as you stated the obvious, they are private, meaning only the OWNER of hobby lobby can sign it, not a shareholder vote. It actually SINGLES OUT THE OWNER . Again, I will say, no billion dollar ceo puts his/her name on something he/she doesn't know EVERY detail of.

I know I should just pack it in and shut the frack up ...

but ... one more time ...

I just can't believe that any of us, here, would be happy about this decision in any way!!! This is not a "victory" for Christians, in fact, it is ultimately a severe limitation on your religious freedoms.

Here's why.

1. It establishes, as a stated legal precedent, that corporations, while admittedly still legal fictions, yet have each and every right a natural person (i.e. REAL person) has with no legal distinction between the two classes of "personhood" and then elevates the rights of that "legal fiction" ABOVE THOSE of the natural persons it employs.

THEREFORE,

1. A. If a corporation's beliefs (or lack thereof for Atheist corporations) are superior to those of its employees and must be protected in the face of standing legislation, then every human being everywhere in America was just relegated to the status of second-class citizens! The implications of that political move are simply STAGGERING in regard to what we have termed in the past "individual freedoms."

2. The decision is not only based on a law and not the Constitution itself, but a law that has been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL when applied to State and local governments. It therefore EMPOWERS the Federal Government (of which the Congress and Supreme Court are two branches along with the Executive that so many suddenly hate so badly) to a) pass a law that flies in the face of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and then b) sustain that same law as a legal precedent in the face of having previously decided that the law itself is unconstitutional.

This is quite simply an act of political psychosis! SCOTUS is saying that even though we have previously stated that Congress egregiously overstepped its Constitutional authority (as concerning the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in City of Boerne v. Flores) we're now going to cite and establish that same law as legal precedent and thereby codify massive changes to the interpretation not only of PERSONHOOD and corporate law ... but of the Constitution itself!

3. Not every owner of every "closely held" corporation is a Christian. By elevating the religious beliefs of "a corporation" above those of the real human employees, individual religious liberties are at stake.



Please stop high-fiving and patting each other on the back because SCOTUS "stuck it to the Liberals and Obamacare" and see beyond the immediate effects of this decision!!!!

Conservative jack-boots are just as painful as liberal ones when applied to the head.

FINIS

a reply to: windword

Those are not rights. Those are not examples of rights granted. You do know what a "right" is, correct?

Those are portions of law or laws passed dictating who is responsible for providing what aspects of healthcare to who. These are not rights.

You have the right of religious freedom. You have the right of free speech, you have the right to bear arms.

Rights are fundamental to civilization. Rights are often considered to be pillars of civilization, without which the civilization in question would fall. In the US we have the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you should read it. No where is free contraception listed, nor anything even remotely close. Obviously, SCOTUS does not consider free contraception to be a right.

You do NOT have the right to possess a driver's license. You do not have a RIGHT to free contraception. You do not have a RIGHT to own a home, that too is a privilege.

Complications, obstacles and expense? Ok, I see the expense but the process to access contraceptives remains the same. The exact same. Still have to get a prescription, still have to get it filled.

You seem to be making it up as you go. What further complications are there? What further obstacles? Please elaborate...

This ruling has nothing to do with defunding Planned Parenthood. I would be more than happy to join you in a thread regarding Planned Parenthood to discuss that subject.

a reply to: dawnstar

That isn't proper pretense to assume upon though, it's what you think. If hobby lobby still offers birth control per obamacare except the 4 they don't approve of it should make the point mute right? Well no, we both would say that I assume. Religion has about as much place in business as it does in school...none. We SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE, except in the hobby lobby case, where we give precedence to christianity.

To be honest this really is a non-issue that became an issue because of religion. We are slowly becoming the middle-east in terms of religious wars. This case DOES open the doors to many many more lawsuits and trials. Even if no others succeed, they will have succeeded in draining tax dollars for "religious rights and beliefs" with no avail.

The funny part is we are now conformed into discussing minor details and not the problem itself...ObamaCare

a reply to: bbracken677

and this case has just declared hobby lobby as a person and protected their reigious rights.
I am a person if I had the same beliefs as hobby lobby are they protected? Is there an approved plan there that doesn't involve me buying contraception? or do I have to get a job at one of those exempted employers to be protected??

should the religous rights of the employer be recognized and be protected before the rights of the actual people are?