Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Neally]

They would be forced to pay for insurance policies that covers such things they don't want? How disagreeable.

For them, yes. Or maybe you presume to want to dictate what religious beliefs a person should or shouldn't have?

It's this sort of utilitarian thinking that forces a black or white approach to moral justification of withholding medical treatment and prevention simply because one's religion punishes such acts.

What part of, "Employees religious freedom is not impinged and they can still get whatever contraceptives they want.", do you not understand?

You've just granted religion the right to specifically control and force actions on the part of people who do not share the same religious belief.

Same question, what part of, "Employees religious freedom is not impinged and they can still get whatever contraceptives they want.", do you not understand?

N.B. Having read more about this, the "Christian Scientist" thing won't fly, however, SCOTUS has just formally, as an explicit matter of law, stated that women are second-class citizens, and have said it in a way that makes it the utter force of law.

This SCOTUS has declared women to be less than human.

LOL I can't imagine an empty headed misandry filled blogger characterizing the decision in this way, but congratulations, you've managed to come up with some prime hyperbole.

Ah, so naive it is then.

You have the right to characterize free speech as naivety. Some of us actually support free speech even when we don't like what's being said, or possible repercussions.

 

[stevea]

Ah, so naive it is then.

No - naivete is imagining that you have a right to promote a political position, and I have a right to promote a political position, but we lack the right to promote it together.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The law the Court was considering requires that each instance be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Each of your other cases would have to be determined separately.

But what principle could apply to why some items would be exempt and others not? Is the court going to decide which religious beliefs get special privileges? On what will they base their decisions?

 

[Kaepora Gaebora]

What part of, "Employees religious freedom is not impinged and they can still get whatever contraceptives they want.", do you not understand?

This isn't about employee's religious freedom; this is about insurance being withheld from potentially expensive contraceptives and other medical treatments because of religious zealots in family companies not providing insurance coverage for it. It is in effect preventing access to some care because of prohibitive costs not covered by insurance.

It's even possible to prevent insurance coverage for some life saving surgery because of some elaborate stretch of Jesus's quote of treating your body like a temple to not cutting yourself open. Or even Jehovah's witness companies that don't want blood transfusion being paid for by insurance.

 

[maxpower1227]

But what principle could apply to why some items would be exempt and others not? Is the court going to decide which religious beliefs get special privileges? On what will they base their decisions?

"Is the religion in question Catholic, or another theologically correct sect of Christianity (none of that Charismatic nonsense)?"

Can't say I'm surprised to see our resident wingers defend this decision by the same justices who think that we don't need all of the Voting Rights Act, that corporations are people that should be allowed to dump unlimited money into our elections, that there is nothing unconstitutional about executing minors or innocent people, that laws barring travel for freed black slaves should be relevant precedent for defending Arizona's racist immigration laws, and that we should be wary of gay marriage because it's more recent than cell phones.

 

[Kestrel]

But what principle could apply to why some items would be exempt and others not? Is the court going to decide which religious beliefs get special privileges? On what will they base their decisions?

Five Catholic men voted for this decision, therefore the decision will be based on the religious beliefs of Catholic men.

These same 5 men have also expressed a preference for the wealthy who own corporations over the peons who merely work for a living.

 

[Manopolus]

. [...]It's you "can't tolerate dissent", shout-down every alternative, totalitarian types, who need a time-out.[...]

I'm not one who generally hits the report button, but please do try not to put me in an ideological box of your own making. Reread the Membership Agreement and remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

I can tolerate dissent just fine. I will not, however, tolerate much of this sort of name calling.

 

[fishbob]

This just in: SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby.

So a corporation is a person now, but I can't quite see how it can have a religion.

Since the law of the land is one person, one vote - it seems to me that when a closely held corporation gets rights, then the corporate owners should lose theirs. They should not have it both ways.

 

[stevea]

But what principle could apply to why some items would be exempt and others not? Is the court going to decide which religious beliefs get special privileges? On what will they base their decisions?

So you can't even read the first two sentences of the opinion link ?

You are distorting the issue - it's not a "special privilege" to practice your religious views in the US. Instead the state needs a compelling reason and no less restrictive alternative to interfere.

 

[fishbob]

Without this ruling, the owner of Hobby Lobby would be forced to pay for something they find religiously objectionable.

With this ruling, the owners religious freedom has be upheld. Employees religious freedom is not impinged and they can still get whatever contraceptives they want.

Which part of the above upsets you?

You missed the 'corporation' part.

The owner of Hobby Lobby is not forced to pay for anything. The Hobby Lobby Corporation shields the owner from all those icky responsibilities.

 

[Kaepora Gaebora]

So you can't even read the first two sentences of the opinion link ?

You are distorting the issue - it's not a "special privilege" to practice your religious views in the US. Instead the state needs a compelling reason and no less restrictive alternative to interfere.

Would you say then it's the corporations right to interfere in other people's access to medication just because of their religious beliefs?

 

[nelsondogg]

So, this clears the way for "closely held corporations" to engage in any kind of religious discrimination whatsoever, quite obviously, and also says that closely held corporations are completely exempt in every fashion from Romneycare, all they have to do is become Christian Scientist, and push everyone to exchanges without compensation.

That's what this ruling clearly means.

Also, turns out that closely held corporations make up 90% of companies in the US.

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you say then it's the corporations right to interfere in other people's access to medication just because of their religious beliefs?

You're interfering with my access to beer by not giving me any.

 

[Kestrel]

You missed the 'corporation' part.

The owner of Hobby Lobby is not forced to pay for anything. The Hobby Lobby Corporation shields the owner from all those icky responsibilities.

It really is one more step removed. The Corporation buys insurance policies for its employees. If an employee decides to use contraception, the insurance company pays for it. Under medical privacy laws, the corporation has no right to know what form of contraception was used, or even if contraception was used.

 

[Neally]

This isn't about employee's religious freedom;

You're right it's not. The employee's religious rights are unaffected. Isn't that a good thing? Seems you only have a problem with the religious freedom and rights of the employer because you don't agree with them.

this is about insurance being withheld from potentially expensive contraceptives and other medical treatments because of religious zealots in family companies not providing insurance coverage for it. It is in effect preventing access to some care because of prohibitive costs not covered by insurance.

As Ziggurat pointed out by example, not paying for what someone else wants isn't the same as preventing them from having it. They are free to buy whatever they want out of pocket or obtain other insurance coverage.

You missed the 'corporation' part.

The owner of Hobby Lobby is not forced to pay for anything. The Hobby Lobby Corporation shields the owner from all those icky responsibilities.

I didn't miss it. It's a distinction without a difference.

Would you say then it's the corporations right to interfere in other people's access to medication just because of their religious beliefs?

You seem to be unable to understand the difference between interfere/prevent and providing/buying for.

 

[stevea]

So a corporation is a person now, but I can't quite see how it can have a religion.

Since the law of the land is one person, one vote - it seems to me that when a closely held corporation gets rights, then the corporate owners should lose theirs. They should not have it both ways.

Confused mumbo-jumbo. Do you really think that corporations vote ?
It's one corporation = ZERO votes, so the sum is fine.

 

[Kestrel]

Corporations vote with dollars and get far more of what they want than the suckers who just use the voting booth.

 

[TjW]

Now that they've gotten this much, perhaps Hobby Lobby should consider having religious beliefs that paying taxes is immoral.

 

[jj]

Same question, what part of, "Employees religious freedom is not impinged and they can still get whatever contraceptives they want.", do you not understand?

You can repeat this all you want, but it is, in practice, a lie. And when a lie comes from where that one came from (not you) it shows that the system has been perverted into a Christianist Taliban system.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm not sure I understand. What reproductive liberty do you mean, exactly?

Do women have a right to decide how and when their bodies will be used for making children? I believe so.

Do women bear the largest share of the costs of reproductive health? Without question.

Do women have the right to work at the same jobs as men? Certainly.

Did the Supreme Court just decide that corporate profits are more important than the rights of women and the costs to the individual? Yep.