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.

 

After Hobby Lobby Decision, Federal Court Grants Catholic Network Relief From Birth Control Mandate

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: buster2010
The Founding Fathers would be so proud. No we will not make any laws respecting the establishment of religion but we will sure change laws to suit them. Score one for the biblethumpers who want to force their religious dogma on others.


hey buster, who was forcing who, again?

what happened to freedom of religion?




People do have freedom of religion companies should not. If they want to make it so a person has to say it's my religion to make things legal then I'm going to become a Christian and start a slave trading business. Remember the bible says it's ok to have slaves so all I will have to say is it's my faith.




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


Hobby Lobby is not a non profit religious corporation. Because if it were then the owner couldn't have become a billionaire if it was non profit now could he?


Everything changed yesterday.

Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
You must have overlooked this part.


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.

That was only given to them for the ability to enforce contracts.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


Remember the bible says it's ok to have slaves so all I will have to say is it's my faith.


Slavery is illegal and that law would supersede any claim otherwise.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


Hobby Lobby is not a non profit religious corporation. Because if it were then the owner couldn't have become a billionaire if it was non profit now could he?


Everything changed yesterday.

Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby.




Did HL suddenly become non profit? No they didn't so it didn't change.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Hey there is one thing I will say, which is that ever since discovering the internets and it's power... I haven't shopped at hobby lobby anyway.

I refuse to pay 10 bucks for a paintbrush. I refuse.
edit on 1-7-2014 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010


Remember the bible says it's ok to have slaves so all I will have to say is it's my faith.


Slavery is illegal and that law would supersede any claim otherwise.




If HL can get the law changed because of their faith and deny something that is legal then I should be able to get that law changed to follow my faith.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




They found that, in the case of the four methods seen as abortifacients, the HHH regulation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by Congress. Since the regulation didn't follow the law, it was void.


Charles, That's just NOT the way I'm seeing it.

SCOTUS didn't rule that those methods of contraception violated the RFRA. SCOTUS didn't consider the 4 methods of birth control to be abortifacients, the Hahns and the Greens did. The court ruled that their belief that these things violated the Hahn's and the Greens religious liberties was all that mattered.

So, don't like birth control, don't take birth control right? Not good enough for the Hahns and the Greens.

The Court ruled that the Hahn's and the Green's perceived religious need to prevent their employees from possibly doing something they felt was immoral, and their desire to dis-allow the options, through their insurance packages, was urgent and compelling enough for the court to grant them the exemption.

The court ruled on belief, not on how any particular contraception method actually impacted their rights.

Also, it seems to me that SCOTUS relieved Hobby Lobby of the mandate because the gov already has religious exemptions in place, and a recourse for disenfranchised employees of those exempted businesses. The Gov, therefore, failed to show that their interest in enforcing the law through Hobby Lobby, et al, wasn't greater than the corporations' rights to religious liberty and expression.


edit on 1-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: buster2010

Hey there is one thing I will say, which is that ever since discovering the internets and it's power... I haven't shopped at hobby lobby anyway.

I refuse to pay 10 bucks for a paintbrush. I refuse.

But how can you refuse all the good products they get from a nation that forces abortions on it's citizens? HL only has a problem with abortions when it takes money out of their pockets.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
I had no idea that that's how ACA worked, that it had different levels of plans.
The bronze plan is that much?
I'm with OrphanApology on this, free market, if that's the case with ACA. I don't want to pay that. I don't need all that.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

With this win many will say that it is the start of what will be the collapse of obamacare(or as I call it, ACA). Which under normal situations would be a hurrah hurrah.

However, that's not going to happen and all it is going to do is put a burden on women workers.

Who knows? Maybe that is what they are trying to do. Push women out of jobs so that there is more room for the men returning home from all the various wars to find employment. Then those women just instead get on welfare for all the babies they now have because they are idiots and decided that the one time would be fine. It isn't college educated women that normally have 3 or 4 children by the time they are 25(so no, feminism is not to blame for these issues...even though college educated feminists are usually the first to fight for them).

No the issue is that we have now made a corporation a person even though it is an entity of the government. It is Frankenstein's monster when Frankenstein is supposed to not have a religion. They only exist because of government law, those bundles of goodies that create a hidden in plain view system of theft that involves pointing a gun at one person, taking their money, and handing it to someone else.

It is the poor and the uneducated that will have more children. Why might you ask? Because birth control is expensive when you don't make much money. Many women and men are not that smart when it comes to sexual decisions. They just aren't. This is not going to change. They never have been.

The best thing to help these people is access to contraceptive services. The end. Finite.

With a system where healthcare is based on managed care insurance access, where the government created a system where employers decide health insurance plans...employers cannot use religion to dictate services. Because then it all leads back to the government, which is supposed to be secular. Otherwise UNTIE the #ing insurance and healthcare system from employers.

That's it.

It is not the Hobby Lobby worker making 60k that a decision like this is going to effect. It is the PT worker making 9.50 an hour whose only access to healthcare depends on what insurance covers because of America's bloated healthcare.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

One of the things I really like about you is that we can talk and respond to what each other is saying. Too many times a poster will just repeat what they've said before, or switch over to personal insults. In this case, i think you've seen something the other posters haven't. Nice work, congratulations.

But going from the top to the bottom, let's start with this.

SCOTUS didn't rule that those methods of contraception violated the RFRA.
You're absolutely right. If they had said that any form of contraception violated RFRA, I would have gone "What the Hell-ing" all over the place.


SCOTUS didn't consider the 4 methods of birth control to be abortifacients, the Hahns and the Greens did.
Not so much just the Hahns and Greens. HHS included in their brief to the Court an FDA booklet entitled "Birth Control: Medicines to Help You." (Bottom of page 8, top of page 9) HHS, thought they were abortifacients, and since everybody agreed, the Court went along with them.


The court ruled that their belief that these things violated the Hahn's and the Greens religious liberties was all that mattered.
Now THAT is an EXCELLENT point. Of course there were a few other tests and hurdles, but you're right. HHS can't tell them that they're religious beliefs are silly and not protected.


So, don't like birth control, don't take birth control right? Not good enough for the Hahns and the Greens.
Right again. They thought that they shouldn't be forced to pay for those particular methods of birth control.


The Court ruled that the Hahn's and the Green's perceived religious need to prevent their employees from possibly doing something they felt was immoral, and their desire to dis-allowing the options, through their insurance packages, was urgent and compelling enough for the court to grant them the exemption.
I'm not so sure. The Green's never expressed a desire to prevent their employees from doing anything. They just objected to being forced to pay for it. I don't mind if you get drunk, but I don't want the cops telling me I have to buy the booze.

They had no desire to disallow any options and the Court didn't think they did. That wasn't a reason for the Court's decision. There was nothing urgent and compelling about anything (at least not as a decisive factor).


The court ruled on belief, not on how any particular contraception method actually impacted their rights.
No one in the case thought any particular method of contraception impacted Hobby Lobby's rights. This was about the mandate to pay for things recognized by the government and Hobby Lobby to be abortifacients.

NOW HERE IS THE BRILLIANT WINDWORD I ADMIRE SO MUCH.


Also, it seems to me that SCOTUS relieved Hobby Lobby of the mandate because the gov already has religious exemptions in place, and a recourse for disenfranchised employees of those exempted businesses.
Absolutely right. This particular point, more than any other (in my opinion) doomed HHS.

"Hey!" said the Court. "You clowns over at HHS have already found ways to provide coverage for other businesses with religious objections, what's it gonna hurt if you stick Hobby Lobby in the same program?" (Paraphrase) HHS had nothing left to do but take down the tents and clean the cages. It was over.


The Gov, therefore, failed to show that their interest in enforcing the law through Hobby Lobby, et al, wasn't greater than the corporations' rights to religious liberty and expression.
Interestingly enough, the Court would have allowed the government to win even if they had a lesser interest than Hobby Lobby's. Where HHS failed was that they didn't show they had used the "Least restrictive" method to attain that interest. That's where they violated RFRA, and that's where the Court struck a stake through their hearts.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta

Allowing businesses to not pay for contraceptives and certain procedures based on their religious beliefs is bass ackwards.



No, you still have the option of not allowing it by grouping up with people who favor companies who pay for contraception. If enough people join your group, then you have prevented businesess from not paying from contraceptives based on their religious belief. If not enough people join you, well they aren't really serious about their belief and it makes yours questionable if you have made no effort to start such a group.

What you really mean is businesses that do not pay for contraception for employees should be destroyed and/or shut down if they refuse to follow your twisted moral code.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




I'm not so sure. The Green's never expressed a desire to prevent their employees from doing anything. They just objected to being forced to pay for it. I don't mind if you get drunk, but I don't want the cops telling me I have to buy the booze.

They had no desire to disallow any options and the Court didn't think they did. That wasn't a reason for the Court's decision. There was nothing urgent and compelling about anything (at least not as a decisive factor).


Well, i'ts only my opinion, of course, but it's based on this (major BS):


The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.


It seems to me that is "special pleading" that their beliefs compel them to prevent another person from possibly sinning, through some inadvertent and innocent act that they may have done. That was their justification for not providing those methods of BC to their employees.

That's stretch, in my opinion. Where does that kind of a thing start and stop? This sets a dangerous precedent allowing, not just Christians, to claim that their religion compels them to stop another from exercising their rights.....Like getting an abortion, for example.



Interestingly enough, the Court would have allowed the government to win even if they had a lesser interest than Hobby Lobby's. Where HHS failed was that they didn't show they had used the "Least restrictive" method to attain that interest. That's where they violated RFRA, and that's where the Court struck a stake through their hearts.



What? The government take the path of least resistance? You kid!





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



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: shaneslaughta


Its pushing religious beliefs on your employees by saying that because your the owner and feel its wrong and against your views you do not need to pay for it for your employees.

No. It's not having others beliefs pushed on them. No one is forcing you to do anything.


How about you give a damn for your employees; Hobby Lobby. How about you follow the laws. Quit making a big stink about it and do something for your minimum wage slaves.

Apparently they are following the laws. How about you make laws that do not infringe on Constitutional rights?


What a crock of horse hockey that is. A giant penny pinching scheme because of the cost of the ACA on businesses.

The richer they are the more greedy they become.



Stupidest comment of the day. Hobby Lobby is not saving any money whatsoever, they already insure employees and cover 16 different birth control methods. They save 0.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheCounselor

In addition to the bronze plan, you can get silver, gold or platinum plans.
The monthly premiums are much higher....and the deductibles much lower.

There is also a bare bones catastrophic plan, for those under 30.
Also, rates go up every year....as you get older....in addition to any rate changes that the insurance companies are granted.
For example, for 2015, Blue Cross in my state is raising all rates by 9.7%, I believe.

Anything a company can do to get a better rates should be allowed.
I wish individuals had the same chance.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Do not want!


I had no idea ACA was tiered like that.
Has anyone had their doctor ask for an 'administration fee' to handle files and paperwork etc..
My doctor is strongly independent, and I was wondering if it had anything to do with the ACA.
I had no problem with the fee I was asked to pay.
edit on 3-7-2014 by TheCounselor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join