Hobby Lobby Ruling

[PLAYER57832]

The whole crux of the matter is the supreme court reversing 200 years of rulings regarding separation of church and state. Now apparently a business can claim exemptions from the law based on the religious beliefs of the owners. The Roberts court already has ruled corporations are people so now corporations can invoke the same rights a group of people can invoke. So any corporation (group of people) can enjoy all the benefits of personhood minus the fact they can't be incarcerated and that they received corporate tax breaks and incentives.The Roberts court should be lined up against the wall and shot for treason.

Pretty much agree.

Sad that so many supposedly religious individuals don't see that they have been duped into the religion of corporate money. Its not coincidental that the first challenges are ones supported generally by the religious right, but... that in no way means that the purpose and result is a benefit to religion, conservative or otherwise.

[PLAYER57832]

Because businesses now have religious rights. You claim to support the Constitution, and yet you favor this? That is why I state fully that you, Night Strike, only want to abuse the Constitution - you don't actually believe in it except when you get your way.

That's because businesses, especially privately owned ones, are owned by individuals. There is no difference between the mom and pop store down the street and the national business of Hobby Lobby when it comes to the fact that their businesses are owned by individuals. People don't give up their religious freedoms just because they own a business of arbitrary size. We're not talking about publicly traded companies like Walmart that are owned by millions of shareholders....we're talking about individuals and families who own their own businesses. Individuals don't lose their religious freedoms just because they own and run a business, so you can't force those individuals to take actions that go against their religious freedoms. I thought all of you progressives were for "separation of church and state", so why aren't you keeping the state out of people's religious beliefs?

NO, we are talking about whether an owner's religion means he gets to restrict the employees practices.

[Metsfanmax]

Can we go back to talking about how there's not actually any real evidence for the argument that these "controversial" methods cause abortions?

Yeah, didn't think so.

People don't give up their religious freedoms just because they own a business of arbitrary size.

Please give a serious answer to this question: if a Muslim owner of a small American store requires his female employees to wear burqas while in the store with the customers, would you prefer there to be no law prohibiting this practice?

[Phatscotty]

Can't believe this issue has garnered so many comments. Can't believe some people think that if you want to own a business in America, you must buy abortion coverage. Obama went way to far in the first place putting that in there.

This is the fundamental reason Obamacare and it's one size fits all approach were flawed from the get go. Look at all the things they think they have to right to tell business owner's, that they are going to fund abortion coverage whether they like it or not.

GET REAL! If a company wants to include that, fine! You don't hear me trying to tell others what to do and how to live and how to run their business and that religious beliefs mean nothing. Look at yourselves!

[a6mzero]

And I can't believe a for profit business which is not a religious organization is allowed to opt out of a law based on the owners religious beliefs. Like a poster said earlier all u folks who work for a hindu , u will not be allowed to eat a hamburger at lunch while your at work by the time this crap hits the proverbial fan.

[Night Strike]

Because businesses now have religious rights. You claim to support the Constitution, and yet you favor this? That is why I state fully that you, Night Strike, only want to abuse the Constitution - you don't actually believe in it except when you get your way.

That's because businesses, especially privately owned ones, are owned by individuals. There is no difference between the mom and pop store down the street and the national business of Hobby Lobby when it comes to the fact that their businesses are owned by individuals. People don't give up their religious freedoms just because they own a business of arbitrary size. We're not talking about publicly traded companies like Walmart that are owned by millions of shareholders....we're talking about individuals and families who own their own businesses. Individuals don't lose their religious freedoms just because they own and run a business, so you can't force those individuals to take actions that go against their religious freedoms. I thought all of you progressives were for "separation of church and state", so why aren't you keeping the state out of people's religious beliefs?

NO, we are talking about whether an owner's religion means he gets to restrict the employees practices.

The employer is in no way restricting what the employee can do! Why do you progressives refuse to understand this? Refusing to pay for what someone else wants to do does not mean they have placed restrictions on what the employees can do. Employees can do what they want with their own money....they can't use the employer's money to go do what they want.

[Night Strike]

And I can't believe a for profit business which is not a religious organization is allowed to opt out of a law based on the owners religious beliefs. Like a poster said earlier all u folks who work for a hindu , u will not be allowed to eat a hamburger at lunch while your at work by the time this crap hits the proverbial fan.

That would only be the case if the employer was forced to buy you hamburgers for lunch, so please make valid comparisons. And religious beliefs don't end just because a person owns a business. Just like how other Constitutional rights such as being free from warrantless searches and having due process don't end just because a person owns a business.

[Metsfanmax]

Because businesses now have religious rights. You claim to support the Constitution, and yet you favor this? That is why I state fully that you, Night Strike, only want to abuse the Constitution - you don't actually believe in it except when you get your way.

That's because businesses, especially privately owned ones, are owned by individuals. There is no difference between the mom and pop store down the street and the national business of Hobby Lobby when it comes to the fact that their businesses are owned by individuals. People don't give up their religious freedoms just because they own a business of arbitrary size. We're not talking about publicly traded companies like Walmart that are owned by millions of shareholders....we're talking about individuals and families who own their own businesses. Individuals don't lose their religious freedoms just because they own and run a business, so you can't force those individuals to take actions that go against their religious freedoms. I thought all of you progressives were for "separation of church and state", so why aren't you keeping the state out of people's religious beliefs?

NO, we are talking about whether an owner's religion means he gets to restrict the employees practices.

The employer is in no way restricting what the employee can do! Why do you progressives refuse to understand this? Refusing to pay for what someone else wants to do does not mean they have placed restrictions on what the employees can do.

This is why I would like you to answer my question about the burqas. We should not be talking about it in terms of "restricting" employee behavior; we should be talking about it in terms of whether it is an acceptable mandate on what the employer must spend their money on. And to do that, we need to understand if this is actually an issue of freedom of religion, or just a more general issue on whether we should be forcing employers to pay for things. So let's address the actual issue you are trying to discuss, instead of letting PLAYER derail you.

[patches70]

Please give a serious answer to this question: if a Muslim owner of a small American store requires his female employees to wear burqas while in the store with the customers, would you prefer there to be no law prohibiting this practice?

I don't see what the problem is here. There shouldn't be a law prohibiting this. There are a ton of businesses that make their employees wear something in particular. If the employee doesn't want to wear what the owner says they have to wear, then the employee won't get that job, will they?

If customers don't want to go to a place where the employer makes the employees wear burqa's then the customer will go somewhere else if they feel that strongly about it.
If a customer doesn't like that the employer doesn't cover the employees plan B pills, the customer will go somewhere else if they feel that strongly about it.

Are you trying to appeal to people's biases and prejudices to prove some point, mets?

[Metsfanmax]

Please give a serious answer to this question: if a Muslim owner of a small American store requires his female employees to wear burqas while in the store with the customers, would you prefer there to be no law prohibiting this practice?

I don't see what the problem is here. There shouldn't be a law prohibiting this. There are a ton of businesses that make their employees wear something in particular. If the employee doesn't want to wear what the owner says they have to wear, then the employee won't get that job, will they?

The problem is that requiring women to cover themselves in public is fairly degrading to women. I'm not talking about all employees being forced to cover their faces -- just the female ones. I'm not too fond of your stance if it is that the women who need money desperately enough will humiliate themselves this way, just to earn a living. Is that the society we want to live in, where certain employees can be denigrated in the workplace as long as the employer feels like it? The problem with your argument is that the job market doesn't just magically sort this out. When discrimination against women is widely allowed, then most employers will not be too friendly to women. History in the US bears witness to this pretty well. Burqas are an extreme example simply because Islam is a minority religion in the US, but I believe the point is valid.

[BoganGod]

meh, you are all cowards. maybe just mets fans. Same thing really. How many planes need to be downed?

Covering one's face is not degrading. Viewing women as "meat" composites of body parts is offensive. Those that cry the hardest about face/hair covering are those with the creepiest gazes. Upskirt camera men hate burkas and nijabs.

[a6mzero]

One more plane flown into your house would meet the quota Bogan.

[a6mzero]

Hobby Lobby will never see another penny from me and my family . I hope a jillion other folks here in the US feel the same way.

[a6mzero]

Jefferson stated there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Madison stated the separation of church and state should be strongly guarded. The courts ruling on this matter is unconstitutional because it advances the views of only one segment of the religious society. It does not advance other religious views which may be distasteful to this particular segment. However the advancement of other religious views is now fair game to be decided in court.

[patches70]

The problem is that requiring women to cover themselves in public is fairly degrading to women.

Whoa now! You are speaking for all women? Haha! I don't think so. It may seem degrading to you, but that's not relevant at all. Why don't you go over to Saudi Arabia and ask all the women there if they think it is degrading. I'm sure you'll find some who will agree with you, but you'll also find plenty who are just fine with it and won't agree at all that it's degrading.

Different cultures and all, ya know? How come you are degrading other people's cultures like this? Are you that much bigoted?

Sure, from a western standpoint, it may be a majority who would feel like you do, but this opinion isn't universal. Not by a long shot.

[a6mzero]

The right hides behind the constitution like a bank robber holding a hostage.When its of no further use to them , they discard it.

[tzor]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

Sorry that I'm late to the party but I really don't want to go through 18 pages of potential nonsense to see if my point was already covered. The Supreme Court decision had nothing whatsoever to do with "contraceptives" no matter how much the mainstream media wants to advertise it as such. The issue was over a small number of methods that the company declared were "abortifacients" (that which induces an abortion) and opposed to contraceptives (that which prevents conception). Clearly an abortifacient is a failed contraceptive because it assumes at its face value that the conception has already taken place.

Now there is a secondary question of whether a method that simply prevent implantation a contraceptive or an abortifacient.

And there is a tertiary question of whether the morning after pill prevents implantation.

Now let's go backwards. As to question 3, I see from WebMD: "It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining." So the answer is "yes it may."

What about the second question. Now that is a harder moral question. For those who firmly believe that life begins at conception, the deliberate attempt to prevent implantation (as opposed to implantation failing naturally) would be morally equivalent to an abortifacient (as opposed to a miscarriage happening naturally). In such conditions, I can see that the supplying of material to provide the prevention of implantation would be the equivalent of providing material to the support of a deliberate abortion which in turn would be cooperation in a grave sin in the eyes of the person.

So yes, I can see how someone can be absolutely serious in not desiring to participate in what they may believe is a grave sin in terms of these specific forms that Hobby Lobby objected to.

Note that doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the specific argument; merely that I can see how one can make such a case.

Contraception, should, by its name, result in no unwanted conceptions. The Hobby Lobby had no problems with this and was perfectly willing to support a number of methods that actually prevented conception. Once fertilization took place, they did have an objection. The objection was based on religious grounds.

Basically, the SCOTUS has stated that a group of people don't leave their religious beliefs at the door merely because they filed a legal document to limit their financial liability (a corporation). The law could have been written to exclude such groups, but it was not.

Personally, I don't think corporations should be involved in health insurance at all. You don't get your auto insurance from your employer and your employer and your health choices should follow the same design. It is only because this is a stupid system that the question even comes up in the first place.

[PLAYER57832]

Can't believe this issue has garnered so many comments. Can't believe some people think that if you want to own a business in America, you must buy abortion coverage. Obama went way to far in the first place putting that in there.

This ruling is about birth control, not abortion coverage!

This is the fundamental reason Obamacare and it's one size fits all approach were flawed from the get go. Look at all the things they think they have to right to tell business owner's, that they are going to fund abortion coverage whether they like it or not.

That had little to do with anything, but nice try at trying to make this another thread about abortion.

GET REAL! If a company wants to include that, fine! You don't hear me trying to tell others what to do and how to live and how to run their business and that religious beliefs mean nothing. Look at yourselves!

Actually, you do that every day... and owning a business doesn't mean you get to control the religion or religious practices of employees, nor does it mean you get to limit their medical practices based on your religion.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.

Sorry that I'm late to the party but I really don't want to go through 18 pages of potential nonsense to see if my point was already covered. The Supreme Court decision had nothing whatsoever to do with "contraceptives" no matter how much the mainstream media wants to advertise it as such. The issue was over a small number of methods that the company declared were "abortifacients" (that which induces an abortion) and opposed to contraceptives (that which prevents conception). Clearly an abortifacient is a failed contraceptive because it assumes at its face value that the conception has already taken place.

No, that is medically untrue. What is true is that some people want to claim that these birth control methods can be abortifacients. Whether they medically are or not is irrelevant, because it is a religious belief, not science

]Now there is a secondary question of whether a method that simply prevent implantation a contraceptive or an abortifacient.

And there is a tertiary question of whether the morning after pill prevents implantation.

These are real medical questions,but not truly part of this lawsuit. Hobby Lobby believes it has the right to make this assessment based not upon science, but their personal religious beliefs. That is pretty scary.

Now let's go backwards. As to question 3, I see from WebMD: "It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining." So the answer is "yes it may."

What about the second question. Now that is a harder moral question. For those who firmly believe that life begins at conception, the deliberate attempt to prevent implantation (as opposed to implantation failing naturally) would be morally equivalent to an abortifacient (as opposed to a miscarriage happening naturally). In such conditions, I can see that the supplying of material to provide the prevention of implantation would be the equivalent of providing material to the support of a deliberate abortion which in turn would be cooperation in a grave sin in the eyes of the person.

This is, at very best a tenuous argument. It is not a position held by any but the absolute extreme.

Personally, I don't think corporations should be involved in health insurance at all. You don't get your auto insurance from your employer and your employer and your health choices should follow the same design. It is only because this is a stupid system that the question even comes up in the first place.

I agree with this, but sadly these folks have no desire to make universal insurance work. Their goal is to limit ALL national requirements, effectively hamstringing our nations (while waving a patriotic flag to do it)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Please give a serious answer to this question: if a Muslim owner of a small American store requires his female employees to wear burqas while in the store with the customers, would you prefer there to be no law prohibiting this practice?

I don't see what the problem is here. There shouldn't be a law prohibiting this. There are a ton of businesses that make their employees wear something in particular. If the employee doesn't want to wear what the owner says they have to wear, then the employee won't get that job, will they?

The problem is that requiring women to cover themselves in public is fairly degrading to women. I'm not talking about all employees being forced to cover their faces -- just the female ones. I'm not too fond of your stance if it is that the women who need money desperately enough will humiliate themselves this way, just to earn a living. Is that the society we want to live in, where certain employees can be denigrated in the workplace as long as the employer feels like it? The problem with your argument is that the job market doesn't just magically sort this out. When discrimination against women is widely allowed, then most employers will not be too friendly to women. History in the US bears witness to this pretty well. Burqas are an extreme example simply because Islam is a minority religion in the US, but I believe the point is valid.

You could flip it the other way and say places like Hooters shouldn't be allowed to make their employees wear the short shorts.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

Please give a serious answer to this question: if a Muslim owner of a small American store requires his female employees to wear burqas while in the store with the customers, would you prefer there to be no law prohibiting this practice?

I don't see what the problem is here. There shouldn't be a law prohibiting this. There are a ton of businesses that make their employees wear something in particular. If the employee doesn't want to wear what the owner says they have to wear, then the employee won't get that job, will they?

The problem is that requiring women to cover themselves in public is fairly degrading to women. I'm not talking about all employees being forced to cover their faces -- just the female ones. I'm not too fond of your stance if it is that the women who need money desperately enough will humiliate themselves this way, just to earn a living. Is that the society we want to live in, where certain employees can be denigrated in the workplace as long as the employer feels like it? The problem with your argument is that the job market doesn't just magically sort this out. When discrimination against women is widely allowed, then most employers will not be too friendly to women. History in the US bears witness to this pretty well. Burqas are an extreme example simply because Islam is a minority religion in the US, but I believe the point is valid.

You could flip it the other way and say places like Hooters shouldn't be allowed to make their employees wear the short shorts.

-TG

I find Hooters quite offensive and would not be sad to see it go.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

There are tons of things one can find offensive. The question is whether your sense of offense overrides employment rights. I'm sure in your previous example, the Muslim store owner finds uncovered women as offensive as you find the women of Hooters (or the idea or whatever you find offensive). It's a bit self-defeating to use one example but not the other when they are philosophically the same.

The women of Hooters probably don't care because they make tons of money in tips.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

There are tons of things one can find offensive. The question is whether your sense of offense overrides employment rights. I'm sure in your previous example, the Muslim store owner finds uncovered women as offensive as you find the women of Hooters (or the idea or whatever you find offensive). It's a bit self-defeating to use one example but not the other when they are philosophically the same.

I believe that Hooters does violate employment rights under the Civil Rights Act. The job their "girls" perform -- waitstaff at a restaurant -- can be performed equally well by men and women, and the fact that they generally hire only women to wait on tables is, to me, a violation of the principle of no discrimination based on gender. I find it quite shocking that this practice has never been found illegal in court; from what I understand, they generally skate by on a technicality. Either way, I think they've violated the spirit of the law.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Ah, silly me. I mistook your position. I apologize.

-TG