It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 52
49
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

lol we can discuss all we want
the powers that be ain't listening
and their whole agenda isn't for any of us
obamacare is just a furthering of that agenda and I want to make one thing clear
both parties have done their part to ensure that their agenda!!
case in point
obamacare might be obama's baby
but it's grandfather was romney!




posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
The insanely flawed 2-party discussion is an entity of its own, not here.

We agree that point-in-case hobby lobby should receive no exception to the bullship law that shouldn't be due to religion. Constitutional freedom of religion doesn't apply to entity's last I checked, but I could be wrong. the main issue to me here isn't what they will or won't cover, it's the religious context used to achieve the SCOTUS victory.

Pandora's box I introduce you to MURICA, now go JIHAD like a good lil religious box



SM2

posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Really people? Did anyone actually read the ruling? Now, those people that read the ruling, how many of you know anything about business law?

First off, Hobby Lobby is a privately held corporation, they do not trade or sell stock. their shareholders are the family. Incorporating a business, makes it a legal entity, essentially creating a person for business reasons. To protect the owners being sued directly and losing their personal assets such as their home and cars. In doing this, the courts have ruled numerous times, that the corporation is to be treated an individual person. Well, since they are individuals, then they to, are entitled to rights. The supreme court has ruled in this too, numerous times, the latest being Citizens United. So, that being said, in this case, yes the company has rights.

Now, if anyone actually bothered to get to the truth, Hobby Lobby has been providing coverage for most birth control methods out there. 16 of the 20 mandated by Obamacare. The only ones they took issue with are ones that DO NOT TREAT ANY DISEASE OR PREVENT A PREGNANCY but are use to abort an already existing pregnancy. I mean come on, who the &^%$ uses plan b or Ella as a preventative birth control anyways? An a copper IUD ? really, that is safe? ever seen what happens with copper poisoning? They just didnt want to cover abortion causing methods that can not be used to treat any known disease. Try reading and taking off the political blinders for a second before making uneducated comments that make you look like a moron.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Given the fact that "belief" is a right granted in the Bill of Rights I would say that from that aspect SCOTUS ruled according to the constitution.

One does have the right of religious freedom, a basic tenet of our history, our govt and our constitution. Your belief system is obviously different, but you also have a right to believe as you do.

The Bill of Rights does not grant freedom from religion, but rather freedom OF religion.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
This is only remotely related but I have to ask

www.breitbart.com...

what in hades name is this???

can businesses really base any business decision whatsoever on weather or not I am allied to the gay community in any way? depending on what the business' beliefs are on the matter I could be danged if I am or danged if I am not!

my faith is mine!!
it's not worth you knowing!!
Freedom of religion means I should be able to live my life within the world that the gov't is presiding over without ever having to relay my beliefs to anyone!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: macman
so it's not a sin to buy it for yourself
but it is to buy it for others??
huh???



I am not here to judge others.

Very simple. The business gets to decide. Not the employee.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I would like to clarify something here:

I keep reading statements by people that the SCOTUS decision has deprived people of rights. More specifically the "right" of access to contraceptives.

First: There is no constitutionally granted right to access of contraceptives. Most particularly there is not constitutional right granting access to free or employer subsidized contraceptives.

Second: Assuming (for just a fantasy moment) that there was a right to access to contraception, the SCOTUS decision does not impede access. Access is still as it was before. You still have to see a doctor, obtain a prescription and then fill the prescription.

Back in the 70s contraceptives were not covered by my insurance plan. For whatever reason I did not wring my hands, curse God, threaten revolution nor did I abstain (nor my wife) from acquiring them. They were not particularly expensive then, nor are they now.

I fail to see what the effin big deal is.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

True. As a business owner you feel you are entitled the right to pick and choose what you pay for as far as health care, while everyone else doesn't get that choice.

Don't look at me. I have not backed this bucket of crap 0bamacare.
Not my fault that it became law, allowing the Govt to force individuals to purchase something.
And it is not an entitlement.
Going back to what this country's laws are, a business is not forced to provide such things.


originally posted by: mOjOm
You want the special rights because of your religious beliefs. Read that again. Special Rights because of your Religious Beliefs. That is the entitlement right there. Because those who aren't Religious or of a Religion that allows birth control just have to pay up as usual.

No again.
I want the rights restored to the people.
People and people that own businesses.
BIG difference there.


originally posted by: mOjOm
Once again, you want special rights that others don't get. Simple as that.


Do you really want to talk special rights??? Like all the "special rights" afforded to special groups under 0bamacare?
Shall I continue?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What is this Republican OBSESSION with repeating over and over "pay for it themselves'???

They WERE paying for "it" for themselves, via their insurance benefit.

NOW, thanks to this unprecedented aping of a real court ruling, the Public Health systems will be forced to pay for these items.

It is, in fact, Hobby Lobby's action that moves the purchase from a person's own resources to the public dole.

So, I hope all that are continuously whining and harping on "entitlement" get that through your heads.

NO no no no no.

The business was paying the large portion.

Do you not know how this works? In regards to Health Insurance packages offered by companies?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2
Hobby Lobby is actually a model of a company...that is until they took religious beliefs to the SCOTUS level.

Corporations whether they be private or public do not reserve the same rights as a living breathing person. There is no law saying they do.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc


Why am i angry about this decision even though im (thankfully) not american?


That is all I needed to read.


Carry on.


As your american, i'd expect that is ALL you would read haha

Invade first ask questions later?


I invaded what again?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

a stay at home mom doesn't have an employer
the husband of that stay at home mom could conceivably have the funds to so shopping on the open market for an alternative.
my question is:
will he be able to find an acceptable plan that will pass the gov't scrutiny and avoid the fine?

I am kind of doubtful that he will be able to!
when it comes to religious rights we all should be protected weather we be employer or whatever.

and
www.scotusblog.com...

this is a list of cases that followed the hobby lobby case
please take note that all those cases that sided with the employer in lower courts and the the gov't challenged a have been denied
those that the gov't won in the lower court and are being challenged by the employer will be reviewed.. Many of these are catholic plaintiffs and they are objecting to all preventive coverage!

that should but probably won't give a clear enough indication at to where the supremes are going with this!



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You forgot the VA, illegals, EPA, McDaniel recount, Lawsuit, and so on



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

Apparently it has been a while since you checked.

Business entities were granted 1st amendment rights by SCOTUS ... was it last year? Or year before last, I forget.

At any rate, a business has the right to exercise free speech, as decided by SCOTUS.

Now, SCOTUS has doubled down by following up that decision with this decision which acknowledges a business's right to freedom of religion.

I find the whole thing, as a whole, to be a bit disturbing, frankly. I will argue until I am blue that there is no right to contraceptives. I will argue till I am blue that this decision has not infringed on anyone's rights. But I question granting businesses rights guaranteed to individuals in the Constitution.

I cant help but feel there is a rabbit hole we have dived into that will lead to all kinds of "Through the Looking Glass" moments.

With lobbying, with PACS, with all kinds of ways that Corporate America has to influence legislation, do we really need them to have the same Bill of Rights as granted to the average Joe (or Josephine)?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Some interesting meme's coming out.



If ATS'er had the ability to move a post to the first page under the OP, I'd move this one!

Spot on Beez!

Progressive thinking: you must buy me and everyone who wants it birth control ; you may not buy everyone a cupcake or a large soda - oh wait maybe there is a common thread in thinking - you must buy a woman birth control so she doesn't get "fat" and you must not buy anyone anything that has the potential to make them look fat -

after all appearances are all that matter in this world -

so wrap it in a package that looks good (Obamacare) and forget what might be underneath

(a person who died yesterday because Obamacare screwed up by not "giving" her what she paid for "the policy" -

of course we all know no one has a "right" to care for a brain tumor when they paid for Obamacare,

only a right to birth control)



edit on 2-7-2014 by grandmakdw because: because

edit on 2-7-2014 by grandmakdw because: make it more readable

edit on 2-7-2014 by grandmakdw because: see previous



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Dude...since ACA went into effect you cannot, even if you wanted to, purchase a health plan that does not satisfy ACA requirements. At least, that is the understanding I get from my insurance carrier (Blue Cross).

This is why so many people lost their insurance towards the end of last year. Those policies did not, in full, satisfy ACA and the insurance carriers cancelled them.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

a stay at home mom doesn't have an employer
the husband of that stay at home mom could conceivably have the funds to so shopping on the open market for an alternative.
my question is:
will he be able to find an acceptable plan that will pass the gov't scrutiny and avoid the fine?

Not my problem. Nor is it the problem of a company.
Maybe instead of taking out your unqualified anger on the business, and maybe you should be looking as to why in the hell people allowed the Govt to pass a law FORCING people to purchase health insurance.


originally posted by: dawnstar

I am kind of doubtful that he will be able to!
when it comes to religious rights we all should be protected weather we be employer or whatever.

selfpaypatient.com...-1041
Seems that purchasing it is pretty cheap.



originally posted by: dawnstar
and
www.scotusblog.com...

this is a list of cases that followed the hobby lobby case
please take note that all those cases that sided with the employer in lower courts and the the gov't challenged a have been denied
those that the gov't won in the lower court and are being challenged by the employer will be reviewed.. Many of these are catholic plaintiffs and they are objecting to all preventive coverage!

that should but probably won't give a clear enough indication at to where the supremes are going with this!

And that is great.
A business, regardless of religious leaning, should not be forced to provide something in a benefit package they don't want to.

Oh, and the whole Case Law angle with this..............thank Progressives for that.

The sword cuts both ways it seems.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: KnowledgeSeeker81

There is a SCOTUS decision that says you are wrong.

SCOTUS/Corporate personhood



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677
thank you for confirming this!!!

so hurray!!
some businesses and their employees have had their religious rights protected!!

now what about the rest of us!!
some of us have the very same beliefs that these businesses hold and well
they needed a special law to obtain those rights that the constitution explicitly gives us!!

maybe if so many weren't so gun hoe about preserving the employers right to make decisions for their employees because "they pay the bills" I wouldn't have had to post and repost this idea a dozen or so times for it to catch on!

I would venture to say that some aren't really that concerned with anybody's religious rights...
I guess we have to have enough money to buy them and go through the court system and have the supremes rule on that!



edit on 2-7-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I've heard this and searched it, but cannot find the legal terms that defines an entity rights on its own. I've come up with majority shareholders being given those rights as a company, but nothing regarding private industries. Even the links I found giving "entity" rights to a corporation all involve liability (and quite the biased links I found).

If you could link me the defining LEGAL judgement that would be great. I know corporations were given "rights", but not like this.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join