Hobby Lobby

[Schildog]

No it really has to do with companies claiming religious grounds to not comply with a federal law.

[ABC]

This thread read exactly as I expected by exactly who I expected. 

 

I loved reading, "it's not a fish" a dozen times. 

[Lou]

Why not? People have the freedom to choose to work for a company or not.

Exactly.

That's why I never took that lucrative job offer from the company owned by Jehovah's Witnesses

[Lou]

Elaine and that girl Jerry was dating who dumped him when she found out he changed the size 34 on his jeans to a 32.

Her name was Lena.

And he changed it from 32 to 31

[RallyMo]

This has nothing to do with the GOP. The case was brought by a family that happens to own a company. They had religious objections, and the court upheld their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.

I'm just glad that the family that runs the company adheres to Christian ideals in all facets of their business and go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that they don't deviate from Christian values. Consistency is important.

Edited July 1, 2014 by RallyMo

[Spirit]

I'm just glad that the family that runs the company adheres to Christian ideals in all facets of their business and go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that they don't deviate from Christian values. Consistency is important.

 

You make them sound like Libs (or Cons).

[Blarg]

I'm just glad that the family that runs the company adheres to Christian ideals in all facets of their business and go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that they don't deviate from Christian values. Consistency is important.

 

Like In N Out they are a company that pays well more than minimum wage for even part time employees, full time 80% higher as a starting wage. So I guess asking for an exemption for Plan B pills while allowing for standard methods of contraception makes them a target for the all or nothing crowd when it comes to morality judgements. All our agenda, none of your morality.

[RallyMo]

Like In N Out they are a company that pays well more than minimum wage for even part time employees, full time 80% higher as a starting wage. So I guess asking for an exemption for Plan B pills while allowing for standard methods of contraception makes them a target for the all or nothing crowd when it comes to morality judgements. All our agenda, none of your morality.

 

Good to know.

 

Are you in the business of assigning viewpoints to specific posts/posters in this thread on the basis of two lines of text or was that a general observation?

[Blarg]

Hey, if the Birkenstocks fit ...

 

But it was mostly a general observation and not to be mistaken for General Consensus that fought for the South in the Civil War.

[Thomas]

This has nothing to do with the GOP. The case was brought by a family that happens to own a company. They had religious objections, and the court upheld their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.

 

Actually the constitutionality was never really considered in this case.  This decision was strictly an application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Of note this legislation was nearly unanimously passed in 1993 and signed by the President Clinton. The law of unintended consequences. Per wiki...

 

The government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. 

 

First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.” Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.

 

The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. 

 

The government in this case failed to prove these conditions, at least to the majority, who rather cleverly found a way to satisfy the plantiffs (and supporters) while leaving the bar still rather high for future cases. Since there was an already existing solution agreed to between non-profit companies and the current administration after the passing of the ACA there was an example the court could point to that would negate an argument from the government of an undo burden. Again as long as the employees are able to receive these same prescriptions at no additional burden on their part through essentially what amounts to accounting changes. Not saying I agree with the decision though the law seems to support it but the political opportune hyperbole is pretty terrible. 

Edited July 1, 2014 by Thomas Crow

[floplag]

ok, the exaggeration is strong in this one....
This isnt a women thing..
IF you beleive what hpbby lobby is saying, the reason they dont want to pay for birth control is a religious objection.  Condoms would likely also apply but since that isnt something insurance has ever paid for it isnt listed.
I for one do not beleive a second of it concsidering this company has invested in things that would also directly violoate this so to me this was nothing more than using religion to increase profits when convenient.
However... on the grounds of this if a person does not work due to religion, i would assume that should also be protected... right?

bottom line is that this was bullshit from the start, and SCOTUS once again showed they are no longer a check or balance to anything.

[Thomas]

IF you beleive what hpbby lobby is saying, the reason they dont want to pay for birth control is a religious objection.  Condoms would likely also apply but since that isnt something insurance has ever paid for it isnt listed.

I for one do not beleive a second of it concsidering this company has invested in things that would also directly violoate this so to me this was nothing more than using religion to increase profits when convenient.

 

Sincerity of belief could have been argued in this case by the opposition. Such as for instance Walmart suddenly finding God after the outcome of the case. However it wasn't at trial. Can't blame the court for that.

[mtangelsfan]

ok, the exaggeration is strong in this one....

This isnt a women thing..

IF you beleive what hpbby lobby is saying, the reason they dont want to pay for birth control is a religious objection.  Condoms would likely also apply but since that isnt something insurance has ever paid for it isnt listed.

I for one do not beleive a second of it concsidering this company has invested in things that would also directly violoate this so to me this was nothing more than using religion to increase profits when convenient.

However... on the grounds of this if a person does not work due to religion, i would assume that should also be protected... right?

bottom line is that this was bullshit from the start, and SCOTUS once again showed they are no longer a check or balance to anything.

 

Bzzzzzzzzzz, I'm sorry that answer is incorrect.

[Schildog]

Does hobby lobby cover the pill?

[floplag]

Sincerity of belief could have been argued in this case by the opposition. Such as for instance Walmart suddenly finding God after the outcome of the case. However it wasn't at trial. Can't blame the court for that.

 

why not?  aree they not responsible for considering the consequence of thier decisions?

Hobby Lobby is on record as having invested in things that directly go against what was argued in this case, yet they still bought the line of bullshit so.., yeah, i can and do blame them for that

[floplag]

Bzzzzzzzzzz, I'm sorry that answer is incorrect.

 

lol... thank you for adding that wonderful commentary.., is boosting your post count that important to you or something ?

[Thomas]

Does hobby lobby cover the pill?

 

Yes. They consented to 16 of the 20 mandated birth control products. They objected to IUDs and Plan B

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-rules-in-favor-of-for-profit-corporations-but-how-broadly-in-plain-english/#more-214537

[Thomas]

why not?  aree they not responsible for considering the consequence of thier decisions?

Hobby Lobby is on record as having invested in things that directly go against what was argued in this case, yet they still bought the line of bullshit so.., yeah, i can and do blame them for that

 

Beats me, talk to the legal counsel for the government. You can't blame the court for not considering things not brought up in trial.

[TobiasFunke]

Yes. They consented to 16 of the 20 mandated birth control products. They objected to IUDs and Plan B

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-rules-in-favor-of-for-profit-corporations-but-how-broadly-in-plain-english/#more-214537

 

So you're saying they have no problem in altering God's plan?

[Thomas]

So you're saying they have no problem in altering God's plan?

 

I'd imagine they would say that no one can do that. However they seem to be cool with preventing little spermies from meeting Ms. Egg. However once they do meet up...

[mtangelsfan]

So you're saying they have no problem in altering God's plan?

 

You are trying to mock something you clearly don't understand.  I do know some Christians that refuse to use any birth control because they believe it isn't having faith but they also don't demand that anyone else follow that.  They understand the difference between Biblical thought and Biblical clarity.  I know the popular thing is to mock and tear down folks with the same beliefs I have but at least be intellectually honest about it.  You know the difference they are talking about.

[Thomas]

Also worth pointing that the boys in my avatar are both pill babies so um yeah.

[TobiasFunke]

You are trying to mock something you clearly don't understand.  I do know some Christians that refuse to use any birth control because they believe it isn't having faith but they also don't demand that anyone else follow that.  They understand the difference between Biblical thought and Biblical clarity.  I know the popular thing is to mock and tear down folks with the same beliefs I have but at least be intellectually honest about it.  You know the difference they are talking about.

 

Oh am I?

 

I too have Christian friends that refuse to use birth control because they feel they would be altering God's plan. And they would be quick to call out Hobby Lobby for allowing that to be in their medical plan. So don't tell me that I'm wrong for throwing that out there because a lot of believers would back me up Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy.

[Spirit]

Do you have some friends who are black and some that are gay?

[mtangelsfan]

Oh am I?

 

I too have Christian friends that refuse to use birth control because they feel they would be altering God's plan. And they would be quick to call out Hobby Lobby for allowing that to be in their medical plan. So don't tell me that I'm wrong for throwing that out there because a lot of believers would back me up Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy.

 

Those Christians you speak of are a small minority.  It's like saying the Communist party represents the left.  Hence, it is still dishonest.