SCOTUS Rules employers do not have to provide contraception

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[crandc]

SlyPokerDog, I have not seen that particular graphic, but have heard the joke. A woman, a corporation, and a fertilized egg are in a room together. Which of the three is not a person (the woman, of course).

Contraception is hardest to get for the young, the poor, the small town/rural. Any barriers make it harder. Saying you can find a place that sells it is irrelevant.

Justice Ginsburg in fact was on the money when she pointed out the decision does favor some religions over others. The court specifically said religious objections to medical treatment cannot prevent coverage in health plans except for birth control. Jehovah's Witnesses are just as "sincere" in their objection to blood transfusions as Catholics to birth control; in fact, far more so, since most Catholics actually do use birth control. But only the Catholic employer can impose religious views? And no one can explain why "religious freedom" only applies to controlling what women do?

Not to mention the hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby paying for contraception for years without protests until it became an "Obamacare" mandate, and buying products made in China with their forced abortion policy.

Eastoff was spot on. This bizarre idea that private for profit corporations have a religion and that this "religion" takes precedence over the religious views of thosuands of employees, that they can impose their "religion" on all employees and that this is "freedom" literally overturns more than 200 years of legal precedent.

I was going to write about the bizarro world of the Supreme Court but that's really another thread and I do have to get some work done. That's what they pay me for. And my employer covers contraception.

So I'll depart with this question for MarAzul and others who claim corporations have "religious freedom": If your boss informed you that he (I use the male term purposely) was a devout Muslim and that all men must grow beards and all women cover their hair, would you accept that your boss's religious freedom took precedence over yours?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Damn dude, you're in a mood today. First Crandc and now this brownfinger crack?

Nothing wrong with having a life extension directive for your doctor and family. Obviously you're one of the people who no matter how brain dead you might be you don't want that cord unplugged or your organs donated. And that's alright. That's your right. But it is important to make your wishes known. Death is inevitable, nothing wrong with having how you want to go out in writing.

no man, not at all. This was done in front of my mother while she was awake and alert. I the past few years I have lost several family members and have been the first to not want them to suffer. But to have some fucking ghoul try to coherence me into consenting to their program against my mothers wishes is pure bullshit.

Oh and to clarify, they are only supposed to ask you once, not hammer the subject into the fucking ground.

 

[Vintage]

If you can refuse to let employees use their insurance benefits for contraception, why can't you also prohibit them from using their salary to purchase contraception? The implications of this ruling are scary.

Lol, what?

They aren't saying you cannot buy contraceptives. They are saying employers don't have to provide medical coverage that covers it. My insurance doesn't cover Ny Quil. I have been successful purchasing it every time I've attempted to. Well, once I turned 18.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is incredibly uninformed and wrong to spew that corporations are people.

They are a voluntary association of people, that much is true.

In one ruling by SCOTUS, the court said that corporations are Persons with respect to the 14th amendment. That is, they deserve equal treatment under the law. SCOTUS got that right, or states could discriminate against black owned businesses.

Democrats and their mindless parrots get it wrong and keep repeating it. Only a fool says stuff like "corporations are people" as if there's something bad about it.

Otherwise, corporations are legal vehicles to encourage investing. Without the liability limits they provide, nobody would be able to raise or pool money - the risk of losing all you own in a lawsuit because you invested $1 would be discouraging.

That like minded religious folk might form a corporation is hardly surprising and is perfectly legal.

If you think a woman can't afford the $9 for The Pill and there's no Walmart near enough, get off your ass and buy and deliver the pills to her yourself.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned
pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah. Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.
The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote:

while it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires
​

A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!”
Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.”


http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-co...s-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/

 

[Eastoff]

WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned
pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah. Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.
The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote:

while it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires
​

A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!”
Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.”


http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-co...s-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/

Long Live Jupiter! God of the Gods!

 

[MarAzul]

So I'll depart with this question for MarAzul and others who claim corporations have "religious freedom": If your boss informed you that he (I use the male term purposely) was a devout Muslim and that all men must grow beards and all women cover their hair, would you accept that your boss's religious freedom took precedence over yours?

Easy, I have a beard. Had the beard for many years. But then more to your point, If a Muslim made demands on me, and I can easily imagine that happening, bye bye! I don't work for that sucker. Probably don't right off the get go because I have worked with many, and we do not get along at all.

I ran an International team of consultants/project leaders. which occasionally included Muslims from various countries on temporary assignment. One time after a task force of these guys completed a rather long task, I wanted to take the team to lunch and frivolity for the afternoon and so I did. As we all were leaving the one from Pakistan caught my eye, it appeared he was not coming along. I ask him if he was coming? He responded, "You don't expect me to eat with you, do you?"

I could go on with many more tales, but too much typing.

The ruling about Hobby lobby and Conestoga was not about corporations having a religious moral compass. On the contrary it ruled that a "Closely held Corporation" can and that sure seems logical to me. A family owned business or few owners is vastly different than GM with millions of stock holders of all faiths and no faith.

 

[crandc]

The Supreme Court clarifies. It is about ALL birth control, not just the methods Hobby Lobby (BTW, when was Hobby Lobby baptized? What church does he attend? Was he circumsized?) claims are really abortion even if they aren't:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception. […]

The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.

So, courts who have said corporations can ban all forms of birth control are upheld; those who said corporations cannot control employees religious and health decisions are ordered to "reconsider".

Alito added that expecting Hobby Lobby to actually defend their position that birth control = abortion in the face of factual evidence to the contrary was unfair to Hobby Lobby. Because Jesus.

There are currently 71 other corporate persons who are in court trying to keep sluts from getting slutty slut birth control. The include such religious congregations and a military contractor, auto repair shop, and Eden Organics.

It's the sluts, stupid.

 

[MarAzul]

It's the sluts, stupid.

I don't use that word, too crude for me.

The rest of your post seems like a rambling rant, so I have no comment.

 

[Eastoff]

HoobyLobby says - For our workers, it's not okay! But if it makes me money, it's okay!

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

 

[MarAzul]

HoobyLobby says - For our workers, it's not okay! But if it makes me money, it's okay!

Isn't your mocking a little fallacious? Investments in the employees 401K is not making the owners of Hobby Lobby (the me) money. It is investments that are making the employees of Hobby Lobby money or at least the goal. Shoot, a 401k is more often than not controlled by the person that owns it, the employee.

You would not expect Hobby Lobby to some how prevent the employee from investing in what ever their investment advisors recommend, would you?

 

[Eastoff]

Isn't your mocking a little fallacious? Investments in the employees 401K is not making the owners of Hobby Lobby (the me) money. It is investments that are making the employees of Hobby Lobby money or at least the goal. Shoot, a 401k is more often than not controlled by the person that owns it, the employee.

You would not expect Hobby Lobby to some how prevent the employee from investing in what ever their investment advisors recommend, would you?

The employer is matching their contribution, but you make a good point about my poor choice of the word "me." I will still stand that 401k benefits for employees from the employer are benefiting off the same times of birth control that the employer doesn't want to include in health benefits.

 

[MarAzul]

The employer is matching their contribution, but you make a good point about my poor choice of the word "me." I will still stand that 401k benefits for employees from the employer are benefiting off the same times of birth control that the employer doesn't want to include in health benefits.

Yes, so the employer simply does not want to pay for insurance that covers the use of a produce. Paying for and enabling the "use" of a produce is objectionable to them in their personal religious beliefs. Other people investing in the company that make the product in question is not the business of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Makes complete sense to me.

 

[Eastoff]

Yes, so the employer simply does not want to pay for insurance that covers the use of a produce. Paying for and enabling the "use" of a produce is objectionable to them in their personal religious beliefs. Other people investing in the company that make the product in question is not the business of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Makes complete sense to me.

Agree to disagree? =]

 

[MarAzul]

Agree to disagree? =]

What the heck do you disagree with? Should they force the employees not to invest in these companies?

 

[MarAzul]

Agree to disagree? =]

What the heck do you disagree with? Should Hobby Lobby prevent the employees from investing in these companies? Man, That would be draconian!


Sorry it didn't show up for so long I thought I forgot to hit the post button.

 

[oldmangrouch]

What the heck do you disagree with? Should Hobby Lobby prevent the employees from investing in these companies? Man, That would be draconian!


Sorry it didn't show up for so long I thought I forgot to hit the post button.

I agree they shouldn't dictate the pension fund investments. I also believe they shouldn't dictate how an employee uses the insurance benefits they *earned*. These benefits are not "government hand-outs" or something. This is not a charity. The employees worked for those benefits and put money in the company's pocket with their labor. This is part of their compensation.

You will no doubt call it "socialism", but I would like to see companies use "menu" plans for their employees. If employee "A" chooses to drop eyeglass coverage for more dental - that's fine. If they choose family planning over hearing aids or some other service, that's fine too. Leave the employer out of it!

 

[MarAzul]

I agree they shouldn't dictate the pension fund investments. I also believe they shouldn't dictate how an employee uses the insurance benefits they *earned*. These benefits are not "government hand-outs" or something. This is not a charity. The employees worked for those benefits and put money in the company's pocket with their labor. This is part of their compensation.

You will no doubt call it "socialism", but I would like to see companies use "menu" plans for their employees. If employee "A" chooses to drop eyeglass coverage for more dental - that's fine. If they choose family planning over hearing aids or some other service, that's fine too. Leave the employer out of it!

No I won't call it Socialism. A lot of companies do it just like you say, including this one as I understand it. All but four birth control item or prescription are covered. The Constitution is quite clear that no law should be passed that interferes with Their beliefs, not yours, not mine, their beliefs.

The Constitution is also very clear in that nowhere in the whole document does it mention that Health insurance is the business of Congress or the executives. So a State can and some do tell an employer what coverage he must provide. So I would say the whole affair does not comply with the Constitution.

It looks as though it will get trimmed back until it is gone, then it will comply. If Obama had assessed the situation properly, he would have had someone introduce this bill as a Constitutional amendment after he had sold the idea to the American people. Pretty damn foolish simply ignore the Constitution and forge on in spite of it.

 

[crandc]

Today a group of VERY Christian ministers wrote a letter to President Obama. In light of the Hobby Lobby ruling, they said they should be able to refuse to hire gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people because our existence violates their religious freedom.

Funny, not a word in the Bible about birth control. Quite a lot about loving thy neighbor and do unto others and give all that thou hast to the poor and feed the hungry and stuff like that, but Christians, so called, are totally focused on what consenting individuals do sexually.

 

[Denny Crane]

So what do you want to do, shoot them if they won't hire gay people?

What level of FORCE are you advocating here?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...eating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/

An article to refer to when building ad absurdum attacks against each other.

 

[MarAzul]

Today a group of VERY Christian ministers wrote a letter to President Obama. In light of the Hobby Lobby ruling, they said they should be able to refuse to hire gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people because our existence violates their religious freedom.

Funny, not a word in the Bible about birth control. Quite a lot about loving thy neighbor and do unto others and give all that thou hast to the poor and feed the hungry and stuff like that, but Christians, so called, are totally focused on what consenting individuals do sexually.

Actually I don't give a shit and I really prefer you don't fill me in.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Today a group of VERY Christian ministers wrote a letter to President Obama. In light of the Hobby Lobby ruling, they said they should be able to refuse to hire gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people because our existence violates their religious freedom.

Funny, not a word in the Bible about birth control. Quite a lot about loving thy neighbor and do unto others and give all that thou hast to the poor and feed the hungry and stuff like that, but Christians, so called, are totally focused on what consenting individuals do sexually.

man..I dont get it

QT

Tuesday's letter is different: It comes from a group of faith leaders who are generally friendly to the administration, many of whom have closely advised the White House on issues like immigration reform. The letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the Obama White House and directed faith outreach for the president's 2012 campaign. Signers include two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.


These are brownfingers cronies that you make out to be some kind of wackos..these are the people who helped promote a lot of the "progressive" ideas you also believe in..

 

[oldmangrouch]

So what do you want to do, shoot them if they won't hire gay people?

What level of FORCE are you advocating here?

Oh FFS.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Despite all the posturing and rambling, all I see in this decision are the following:

• The government cannot mandate that anyone pay for a service that violates their religious beliefs;
• Small-business owners do not lose constitutional protection just because they own a business.

I'm sorry, but those seem like two very reasonable positions to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh FFS.

Seriously, at some point you're forcing people to do things against their will. That doesn't seem right, either.

 

[Sinobas]

This Supreme court is a bad joke. Bush putting two right-wing nut jobs in there really tipped the balance of power. Now I have to shudder every time these assholes hear a case.

First off, the idea of opting out of a law because of a "religious belief" is ridiculous. If the law is something that can be discarded simply because someone doesn't agree with it, it shouldn't be a law in the first place. What if my religion is that I shouldn't cruise below 60 MPH on any street? Would the government be dumb enough to grant me impunity from speeding?

But now they are saying that corporations can be "religious people" and opt out of laws. And just like with the Harris v. Quinn case, the case and justification given by the majority have these sweeping implications, but they say, "oh no this only applies to contraception". That makes no sense at all!

As Justice Ruth Ginsburg pointed out, this opens up the door to objections to blood transfusions (JW), antidepressants (scientolgists), medications derived from pigs or coated with gelatin (which includes anesthiesia) (Muslims, News, Hindus).....

 

[Sinobas]

This supreme court is a fucking embarassment to America. Congress needs to get these assholes out of the chair.

 

[Denny Crane]

What if they make a law against going to church on Sundays?

There are limits to what laws congress can pass. Thank goodness.