Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Verdict

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Verdict

    So, I hadn't even heard about Hobby Lobby until someone posted something about it on Facebook. Here are two opinions on the verdict:

    For the Verdict:

    Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will be announcing its decision on one of the biggest religious freedom cases of recent years: Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.

    No doubt, tomorrow’s decision will be an emotional and controversial one, both for the Justices and for the rest of the country. From New York Daily News:

    The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice.

    The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those that Hobby Lobby and furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvania, say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

    The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women’s health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions.
    Many who side with the Obama administration on this case have denounced Hobby Lobby’s position as appalling, but it seems that they, in large part, misunderstand what the company is really asking for.

    However, as Hobby Lobby’s Mandi Broadfoot explains, the company is not refusing to pay for its employees’ birth control coverage – only emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices.

    It’s important that those who so loudly oppose the company get the facts straight: Hobby Lobby’s founders are not asking to deny women of birth control; they are simply asking for the freedom to not pay for those few, specific and controversial methods which violate their religious beliefs.

    Doesn’t sound so controversial, does it?
    Against the Verdict:

    HOBBY LOBBY AIN’T A CHURCH, IT’S A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.

    "Religious Freedom" Run Amok: How The U.S Supreme Court Believes Corporations Are People, Yet Treats Women Inhumanely

    July 1, 2014
    By George Takei

    A 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (comprised of all men) delivered a stunning set-back for women’s reproductive rights in the Hobby Lobby case yesterday. The conservative majority ruled that a crafts chain store (here, one with over 500 outlets) whose owners espouse “sincere religious beliefs” can refuse to provide insurance covering contraception to its female employees.

    The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion. Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).

    In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.

    As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

    Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.

    We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others. Our personal beliefs stop at the end of our noses, and your should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms.

    While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscious should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts–in their pocketbooks. I won’t be shopping there, and women everywhere should exercise their right of protest and refuse to shop there as well.

    -George Takei
    So, having read short pieces by both sides, I honestly have to say that I fall with those that support the verdict. Hobby Lobby's insurance does cover birth control, but it doesn't cover Plan B pills and the type. Now, if I'm not mistaken, different insurance plans cover different things, no? So why is this issue worth taking to the Supreme Court, only because of the reason they don't provide Plan B, for religious reasons? When you take into account the fact that Hobby Lobby pays its employees $14 an hour (nearly double the minimum wage), and part time employees $9.5 an hour, to me it seems like the chain really isn't such a bad place to work, and that this is all just a bunch of hullabaloo.

    But that's just me. What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter?
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  • #2
    It would be interesting to see of some employer deny insurance with maternity coverage. Lets see what the "freedom" folks have to say about that

    I agree with those against, this allows someone with asinine beliefs impose them on us
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

    Comment


    • #3
      With the against side. This business in not operating in a private vacuum but in the public sphere. The potential for a Pandora's box of exemptions could be mind boggling.

      Comment


      • #4
        Iím inclined to take issue with the ruling. Much of it hinges around the idea of a corporation as a person (I donít think they are). Corporations are being given the same freedoms of speech, freedom of religious expression, etc. as citizens. Yet they donít have the same responsibility as citizens. When corporations violate the law, they are immune from most of the punishments a citizen would face. Corporations donít go to jail when they break the law, they are fined or they dissolve and form a new corporation.

        Who determines what ďdeeply held religious beliefsĒ a corporation has? Presumably the owner/board of directors does. Yet these same owners/boards of directors who are responsible for exercising a corporationís rights are rarely held personally responsible when a corporation violates the law. Until the supreme court finds a way to hold corporations to the same level of responsibility for their actions as a citizen, they should not be treated as such.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
          So, I hadn't even heard about Hobby Lobby until someone posted something about it on Facebook. Here are two opinions on the verdict:
          ..............But that's just me. What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter?
          That the discussion ought to in places like here and NOT on Facebook.

          I've been going through and cutting and tossing the "ability" of people who insist putting their activism, their political comment on my FB. I use FB for my theater arts side of life, to keep up with the fun things friends are doing. I hate going there and finding someone using it to promote their political agenda, mar my enjoyment with what they think is wrong in the world and something ought to be done!

          As to the subject, generally anything that strips power from the ACA I would go for......................................I'm willing to sleep in that bed.

          Comment


          • #6
            The lefties and feminist are screeching about this ruling making it something its not.

            1. Obama issued a MANDATE through HHS that said employers must provide emergency contraception.
            2. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products said we wont do it and claimed protection under the LAW known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
            3. RFRA says the government must use the least intrusive method to achieve its goals after it met the compelling interest threshold.
            4. Obamacare already provided exemptions for religious non-profits and had provided ways for women working for them to get the contraception from other sources.
            5. The Supreme Court decided two things-
            5a. 5-2 with 2 abstaining that a Federal LAW trumps an executive agency MANDATE.
            5b. 5-4 That less intrusive means existed for the government to achieve its goals see number 4).
            6. It was never a constitutional question, not directly. The only real constitutional issue was which trumps law or mandate.
            7. It is a very narrow ruling applying only to individuals, sole proprietorship and closely held companies. It does not mean corporations can have religious beliefs, but that family owned businesses can.
            8. Hobby Lobby is a progressive employer for a retailer. paying near double the minimum wage and providing health care long before required to do so. It was also run on what its owners felt were Christian principles like closing on Sunday.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              The lefties and feminist are screeching about this ruling making it something its not.

              1. Obama issued a MANDATE through HHS that said employers must provide emergency contraception.
              2. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products said we wont do it and claimed protection under the LAW known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
              3. RFRA says the government must use the least intrusive method to achieve its goals after it met the compelling interest threshold.
              4. Obamacare already provided exemptions for religious non-profits and had provided ways for women working for them to get the contraception from other sources.
              5. The Supreme Court decided two things-
              5a. 5-2 with 2 abstaining that a Federal LAW trumps an executive agency MANDATE.
              5b. 5-4 That less intrusive means existed for the government to achieve its goals see number 4).
              6. It was never a constitutional question, not directly. The only real constitutional issue was which trumps law or mandate.
              7. It is a very narrow ruling applying only to individuals, sole proprietorship and closely held companies. It does not mean corporations can have religious beliefs, but that family owned businesses can.
              8. Hobby Lobby is a progressive employer for a retailer. paying near double the minimum wage and providing health care long before required to do so. It was also run on what its owners felt were Christian principles like closing on Sunday.
              Non sequiter arguments. what does their paying above minimum wages have anything to do with this?

              As I said, I wish someone comes with something as asinine (like not paying claims for maternity) and see if the law applies. Legal cover for one stupid position can provide legal cover for other stupid provisions.
              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by antimony View Post
                Non sequiter arguments. what does their paying above minimum wages have anything to do with this?

                As I said, I wish someone comes with something as asinine (like not paying claims for maternity) and see if the law applies. Legal cover for one stupid position can provide legal cover for other stupid provisions.
                Right and here is my stupid request. Since no one is born with religious beliefs they need to acquire at a later age through indoctrination in one form or the other.

                So here is mine and it falls under behavioral indoctrination which is just as strong with a strong emotional component. I am 4 years old and witness my home being broken into by a black male who kills my father in a struggle. I am now conditioned to fear all black men the same way I can condition a pigeon never ever to touch that green spot again. I am now an adult and operate a medium size business and don't want to deal with black males. It is a strongly held belief and fear. Is a religion a more strongly held belief than mine? Should the religious belief get preferential treatment over my strongly held belief and fear? Should I be told to not have a business because I feel that way and that is it? If I am told tough then why isn't a religion told tough? Same premise but different group now and does the group change the application?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                  Right and here is my stupid request. Since no one is born with religious beliefs they need to acquire at a later age through indoctrination in one form or the other.

                  So here is mine and it falls under behavioral indoctrination which is just as strong with a strong emotional component. I am 4 years old and witness my home being broken into by a black male who kills my father in a struggle. I am now conditioned to fear all black men the same way I can condition a pigeon never ever to touch that green spot again. I am now an adult and operate a medium size business and don't want to deal with black males. It is a strongly held belief and fear. Is a religion a more strongly held belief than mine? Should the religious belief get preferential treatment over my strongly held belief and fear? Should I be told to not have a business because I feel that way and that is it? If I am told tough then why isn't a religion told tough? Same premise but different group now and does the group change the application?
                  Wonderful, lets put this argument before the court.
                  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by antimony View Post
                    Non sequiter arguments. what does their paying above minimum wages have anything to do with this?
                    Lefties are claiming this is an attack on women... Hobbly Lobby who employs a lot of women pays them a living wage. They've been increasing wages and hours even as other retailers sought to reduce labor costs.

                    As I said, I wish someone comes with something as asinine (like not paying claims for maternity) and see if the law applies. Legal cover for one stupid position can provide legal cover for other stupid provisions.
                    In this case, only if government has done something that targets a religion in a manner that is not the least intrusive. People keep saying Jehovah's Witness and blood transfusion. I find this comparison to be bunk. Blood transfusions are not a prescription or simple procedure but are part of complex treatments for cancer, traumas and other medical emergencies. There is not way to separate out blood transfusion from other covered services. ie there is no less intrusive method.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Lefties are claiming this is an attack on women... Hobbly Lobby who employs a lot of women pays them a living wage. They've been increasing wages and hours even as other retailers sought to reduce labor costs.
                      Indeed, and I'm trying to figure out where Hobby Lobby is holding these women to involuntary servitude.

                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      In this case, only if government has done something that targets a religion in a manner that is not the least intrusive. People keep saying Jehovah's Witness and blood transfusion. I find this comparison to be bunk. Blood transfusions are not a prescription or simple procedure but are part of complex treatments for cancer, traumas and other medical emergencies. There is not way to separate out blood transfusion from other covered services. ie there is no less intrusive method.
                      It is indeed bunk but actually because no Jehovah's Witness business owner would say a single word about what the healthcare service he/she offers is providing to their employees. They would provide healthcare or not as their business model allowed. What happens after that is up to the government via Obamacare and of course the employee.

                      So while Justice Ginsberg probably has a point about other religious groups, her comparison to Jehovah's Witnesses is just plain wrong.
                      “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                      ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A curious observer here. If government mandates that you treat a particular race or gender equally - equal pay etc, and your religion says that a given race or gender is inferior, why are you compelled to provide equal treatment?
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Which religion would that be? ;)
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                            Which religion would that be? ;)
                            Which one wouldn't it be?
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              Which one wouldn't it be?
                              I don't recall the priests here having hollier then tho moment. Then again, not much of a believer guy myself.

                              Do recall however that they exchange visits on religious holidays and that they always call for respect of the others.
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X