Hobby Lobby contraception case going to Supreme Court

[likeitfast55]

This was inevitable. ACA should have never been "forced" upon anyone. Just another hole in this huge mess that is called ACA. While I agree that this was a good ruling by SCOTUS that an employer has the right to NOT cover certain health situations due to religious beliefs, this opens the ACA to interpretation by anyone with the same agenda.

"We do not want to be forced to cover cancer treatments due to our religious beliefs" God determines when we die.

I see a lot of this mentality being interjected into healthcare policies in the future. EVERY employer will now have the green-light to exclude what they want in the name of God.


Solution...................scrap ACA and start over. This will never happen due to all of the special interests groups that have infused themselves in Washington. Everyone wants their side to win, screw the American people.

[Gasser64]

Providing your poor with basic health care is a nice idea, but that isn't always a reasonable idea.

Fixed. Please talk moar about how its a "good" idea. That doesnt you know, lead to slavery under a different name.

The only thing that has me really excited about this decision is how "I think" it could completely overturn the ACA. Hallelujah.

Very good post sir! And ill delete part to get to the point.

I would like you to elaborate on how it could be used to overturn the ACA. Wouldnt that be the sh1t? What killed him? In the end, it was Hobby Freakin' Lobby. ROFL! There would be some kind of poetic justice in that.

[YALE]

How can you have a human right that someone else would have to pay for and provide? That is called slavery.

We're in agreement.

[Sean88gt]

It doesn't affect:

• Most birth control pills

• Condoms

• Sponges

• Sterilization

It does affect:

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

If they worte it properly and put some responsibility on the women, the law would cover a breath mint and hand towel.

And cover the hour nap I need after helping a female employee climb the ladder.

[Forever_frost]

Because they aren't a person, they aren't subject to law the same way. Basically, aside from fining a corporation, all you can do is pull its charter. It still doesn't change my opinion that insurance isn't a basic human right. Providing your poor with basic health care is a good idea, but that isn't always a reasonable idea. Also, giving them insurance and calling it health care is moronic. They aren't the same.

How can you have a human right that someone else would have to pay for and provide? That is called slavery.

[racrguy]

Nothing has changed. Not sure how many times I have to say that. They have retained the rights they have always had.

Well I guess we just disagree on this then.

[CJ]

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you thought a corporation should be a person or not. Far too many people are missing the forest through the trees, and instead of arguing that corporations should/should not be people, they're arguing the minutia of the situation.



Except they've got more.



What's to stop closely held corporations from saying they don't like vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc due to their firmly held religious beliefs? What defines a closely held corporation, and what's to stop them from redefining it to mean 10,000 or 100k shareholders being closely held?



Corporations have always been legally regarded as people?

Nothing has changed. Not sure how many times I have to say that. They have retained the rights they have always had.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Yeah, and you are one of those people.

The Supreme Court did not decide "against women" or "for Christians" or "for corporations." They decided that American business owners have the RIGHT to run their business as they see fit. In this case, the owner(s) of these businesses believe that they should not be forced to pay for morning-after abortion pills on religious grounds, and the courts agreed. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Yeah, that second part there is exactly as important as the first.

Since none of the news agencies seem to be reporting it, I'll tell you here - Hobby Lobby has chosen to cover the costs of 16 forms of contraception for their employees, but refuses to cover the four morning-after options. That seems VERY reasonable to me, but like I said, you'll never hear THAT from MSNBC. Sorry, I don't see why this is even an issue, except to be divisive. Here's what a Hobby Lobby employee CAN receive as a benefit, completely free of charge, today, right now:

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill")
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill")
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

The great thing about America is that while Hobby Lobby now has the RIGHT to stand firm on a religious issue, you also have the RIGHT to boycott that business or refuse to work there and no one is going to get huffy about it.

The only thing that has me really excited about this decision is how "I think" it could completely overturn the ACA. Hallelujah.

Very nice, sir.

The problem is you are asking racergay to look past his militant hatred of anything religious, and he is incapable.

[YALE]

How are they protected from the law? Plausible deniability? I haven't looked into corporations much but thought the board members could be held responsible just as a individual business owner could.

They can be. I'm talking about the corporate entity itself. It doesn't really matter what my opinion is, though. It matters what the law is.

[46Tbird]

What's to stop closely held corporations from saying they don't like vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc due to their firmly held religious beliefs?

What defines a closely held corporation, and what's to stop them from redefining it to mean 10,000 or 100k shareholders being closely held?

Corporations have always been legally regarded as people?

Far too many people are missing the forest through the trees, and ... they're arguing the minutia of the situation.

Yeah, and you are one of those people.

The Supreme Court did not decide "against women" or "for Christians" or "for corporations." They decided that American business owners have the RIGHT to run their business as they see fit. In this case, the owner(s) of these businesses believe that they should not be forced to pay for morning-after abortion pills on religious grounds, and the courts agreed. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Yeah, that second part there is exactly as important as the first.

Since none of the news agencies seem to be reporting it, I'll tell you here - Hobby Lobby has chosen to cover the costs of 16 forms of contraception for their employees, but refuses to cover the four morning-after options. That seems VERY reasonable to me, but like I said, you'll never hear THAT from MSNBC. Sorry, I don't see why this is even an issue, except to be divisive. Here's what a Hobby Lobby employee CAN receive as a benefit, completely free of charge, today, right now:

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill")
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill")
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants

The great thing about America is that while Hobby Lobby now has the RIGHT to stand firm on a religious issue, you also have the RIGHT to boycott that business or refuse to work there and no one is going to get huffy about it.

The only thing that has me really excited about this decision is how "I think" it could completely overturn the ACA. Hallelujah.

[dee]

Because they aren't a person, they aren't subject to law the same way. Basically, aside from fining a corporation, all you can do is pull its charter. It still doesn't change my opinion that insurance isn't a basic human right. Providing your poor with basic health care is a good idea, but that isn't always a reasonable idea. Also, giving them insurance and calling it health care is moronic. They aren't the same.

How are they protected from the law? Plausible deniability? I haven't looked into corporations much but thought the board members could be held responsible just as a individual business owner could.

[Baron Von Crowder]

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you thought a corporation should be a person or not. Far too many people are missing the forest through the trees, and instead of arguing that corporations should/should not be people, they're arguing the minutia of the situation.



Except they've got more.



What's to stop closely held corporations from saying they don't like vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc due to their firmly held religious beliefs? What defines a closely held corporation, and what's to stop them from redefining it to mean 10,000 or 100k shareholders being closely held?



Corporations have always been legally regarded as people?

I find it revolting that you are more focused on the fact that a corporation has the right to do business using religious guidelines as they choose, and completely ignoring that the government has grossly overstepped their boundaries by making and passing the ACA.

[racrguy]

It's not what I think, it's what the law says. And the law says a corporation is a person.

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you thought a corporation should be a person or not. Far too many people are missing the forest through the trees, and instead of arguing that corporations should/should not be people, they're arguing the minutia of the situation.

And bestowed upon corporations are the same rights.

Except they've got more.

Which is why this ruling is not dangerous or some major problem we need to worry about.

What's to stop closely held corporations from saying they don't like vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc due to their firmly held religious beliefs? What defines a closely held corporation, and what's to stop them from redefining it to mean 10,000 or 100k shareholders being closely held?

That's the way it has always been, and always interpreted.

Corporations have always been legally regarded as people?

[Baron Von Crowder]

Composed of people. That doesn't make it a person. In a perfect world, I would agree with you that the government needs to stay out of businesses.. ahem, business. When they are buying every politician in the country that means business needs to be redefined and looked at in a different manner. Or perhaps I'm looking at the wrong problem here, which is entirely possible. At any rate, all this does is set up one more precedent where the people of this country lose, and corporations and politicians win. I'm not going to claim to have all the answers, but IMO this is tantamount to religious discrimination and sets a VERY dangerous precedent.

yeah, like Chick fil A being closed on Sundays. I cant believe the government hasnt stepped in on that already. I have a right to eat wonderful chicken and waffle fries on Sundays!

[YALE]

When do they have more protection? Are you referring to when a board member isn't held accountable for supposed "unknown" actions?

Because they aren't a person, they aren't subject to law the same way. Basically, aside from fining a corporation, all you can do is pull its charter. It still doesn't change my opinion that insurance isn't a basic human right. Providing your poor with basic health care is a good idea, but that isn't always a reasonable idea. Also, giving them insurance and calling it health care is moronic. They aren't the same.