Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[ABC10]

That's shameful...

I don't think the 47& who pay no taxes, collect food stamps, welfare and whose health is paid by the tax payer dollar by medicare is actually the weathy who actually pay for these costs..
.

 

[jj]

What we see here is a profoundly illegal decision made legal, a decision that utterly and completely destroys the idea of "respecting a religion" by specifically stating in the decision that it is in RESPECT OF A RELIGION.

Unfortunately, with this congress, we will not see the traitors to the constitution impeached promptly. Specifically stating in a decision that one is ignoring the 4th amendment is grounds for impeachment.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Can I refuse to have my employees pay the portion of their taxes that goes to military spending because of religious moral objection to war and violence?

If their tax bill came with line items then perhaps you could. Medical insurance does come with line items. That's the difference. One size fits all insurance essentially removes choice. As long as people are paying out of their own pocket for a specific services then limiting or forcing their choices is wrong at a basic moral level.

 

[fishbob]

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

Don't get out much, do you?
What do you think corporations are for?

 

[Cain]

This is bad, but it is the wedge we need to destroy the GOP utterly.

And earlier I saw a statement put out by Reid's office that said, "If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will." I doubted the effectiveness of the War Against Women 2012, and but I think the Democrats proved me wrong.

 

[Cain]

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

The freedom to have a funeral in one's womb?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Clearly that is for the supreme court to do. We finally have a court to determine real religious objections like those to birth control from bogus ones like those over blood transfusions and vaccines.

I applaud them for their endorsement of only the right kind of religions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've been seeing an article floating around the Internet claiming that Hobby Lobby invests in companies which manufacture abortifactants. What's up with THAT?!

ETA: here's the link... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

All Mighty Dollar > God

 

[Frank Newgent]

I've been seeing an article floating around the Internet claiming that Hobby Lobby invests in companies which manufacture abortifactants. What's up with THAT?!

ETA: here's the link... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

Referred to twice already on this thread.

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to give its employees birth control but they are fine with investing in birth control manufacturers because..... values and morals and something...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

Came here to post this same story and see you beat me to it.

That the company executives behave in a hypocritical way dosn't mean they can be burdened with what has been found unconstitutional.

But wait, it was they who brought the suit. Why do hypocrites have standing?

(Please excuse me if this is a silly question as I am not a lawyer.)

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You have the right to characterize free speech as naivety.

Except that's not what I did, now is it?

Some of us actually support free speech even when we don't like what's being said, or possible repercussions.

Windmills beware!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Meaning..?

 

[Kestrel]

I have a tangential question regarding all of this birth control controversy. Is religious objection to birth control a specifically Catholic thing? I grew up in a fairly conservative protestant sect (WELS Lutheran- I believe Michelle Bachman started out as such, fwiw). I had 8 years of church schooling and as far as I remember, there was no prohibition from using birth control. (Of course sex outside of marriage was highly frowned upon, but married couples could do family planning with the various methods of BC.) Doe Catholics believe life starts *before* conception?

As a side question, is there *official* Catholicism and then *actual practice* Catholicism? Based on my own anecdotal evidence, the Catholics I knew were somewhat loose and carefree with their moral code (other than on the days they went to confession). That's why I can't quite make out if the objection to Birth Control is legit, or some cynical game for what end I can't begin to fathom.

The Catholic Church is officially opposed to birth control. As are certain Catholic politicians, most notably Rick Santorum. In actual practice almost all Catholic women use birth control.

Some evangelical Christian sects are also opposed to any form of birth control. As are some of the more strident anti abortion gruops. This seem to be based on the fact that the right to privacy found in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision that declared state restrictions on contraception to be unconstitutional was the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

 

[SomedayGirl]

Don't get out much, do you?
What do you think corporations are for?

That's my other question about this ruling. The main purpose of an LLC and its other iterations is to protect and shield the individual owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. It is an independent entity. By extension if it is sued or it incurs fines or if it owes debts etc, the stakeholders can't be held as individual responsible parties for payment because the corporation owes and not the owners personally.

In this case, the Greens successfully argued that no - in fact we and our corporation are one. There is no separation. Doesn't that kinda throw one of the core purposes of an LLC/LLP/etc out the window?

Seems like if you have a pending suit against Hobby Lobby, you should add the Greens to it real quick - SCOTUS just ruled they are the same.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

People with more money get far more of everything they want than others. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. And they get the same constitutional guarantees as everyone else.

This discussion has become a derail, so I'll stop.

As to the quote above, I can only hope your blanket is nice and warm.

 

[Kestrel]

I am delighted, out of 55 plus means of birth control, this decision affects 4.

No, the decision tosses out the entire contraception mandate. If you work for a closely held company, your employer's religion decides what if any contraception methods your insurance covers.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't think the 47& who pay no taxes, collect food stamps, welfare and whose health is paid by the tax payer dollar by medicare is actually the weathy who actually pay for these costs...

Please stop listening to talk radio. If intellectual discourse were a fine, nourishing meal, TR would be a bag of Cheetos.

 

[Newtons Bit]

 

[BenBurch]

My friends with the DNC tell me fundraising went over the top yesterday. Including a record number of people who they did not have in their database at all!

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No, the decision tosses out the entire contraception mandate. If you work for a closely held company, your employer's religion decides what if any contraception methods your insurance covers.

No. What the decision means extends well beyond that. It means that the government can't make insurance companies offer only a small menu dictated by the government as a take it or leave it option. It means that the menu of options has to be more varied. To tie it just to religion is a very short sighted view of the decision. This was a test case meant to look at the validity of the ACA's basic requirement's of coverage. The ACA lost.

 

[BenBurch]

No. What the decision means extends well beyond that. It means that the government can't make insurance companies offer only a small menu dictated by the government as a take it or leave it option. It means that the menu of options has to be more varied. To tie it just to religion is a very short sighted view of the decision. This was a test case meant to look at the validity of the ACA's basic requirement's of coverage. The ACA lost.

Conservatism lost. That was a circular firing squad.