RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 7:30:05 PM)
If a corporation is a person, then the people running it shouldn't assume it shares their religious views.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 7:42:35 PM)
How can any reasonable person disagree with this: Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 7:46:05 PM)
By being a Republican appointee.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 8:26:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Of course they do, they are mostly men making decisions of importance!!!!! Assumes facts not in evidence

smileforme50 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 4:15:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Of course they do, they are mostly men making decisions of importance!!!!! Assumes facts not in evidence Still.....probably a pretty safe assumption. My question is.....does this mean that a company owned by Jehovah's Witnesses can refuse to cover blood transfusions for it's employees? Up until Obamacare, most medical plans didn't cover blood transfusions to begin with, but now they do. Does this mean that if a company president says that his religion requires female circumcision of all prepubescent girls that the insurance plans must offer to cover such a procedure? I'm NOT saying that the company would require all female employees and their female family members to be circumcised.....I'm asking.....does this mean that a procedure is covered even if everyone else outside of that religion would find such a procedure extremely objectionable? I mean....we don't want to deny these people the practice of their beliefs now, do we? What I'm saying is that religions have a lot of differences between them when it comes to medical issues. If the company's owners only practice acupuncture and herbal medicine, should they be allowed to deny coverage for all other medical procedures that are outside of THEIR religious beliefs?

hot4bondage -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 5:57:32 AM)
Yes. Everything is on the table now as long as the employer's religious belief is "sincere and long-established." Do Not Resuscitate orders, blood transfusions, circumcisions, buying aspirin on a Sunday, etc. This is what happens when businesses are forced into the role of government agents.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:15:24 AM)
LMAO then push for single payer, or deny religious beliefs to corporations when women are off work having babies and or entering welfare because they keep getting pregnant, they will whine louder paying for a birth and doctors bills. Faced with the repubs decison to push for abortion at 20 weeks if they get a republican senate as mcconnell has said forced birth YAY theres a concept for people to embrace

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:17:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Of course they do, they are mostly men making decisions of importance!!!!! Assumes facts not in evidence Still.....probably a pretty safe assumption. My question is.....does this mean that a company owned by Jehovah's Witnesses can refuse to cover blood transfusions for it's employees? Up until Obamacare, most medical plans didn't cover blood transfusions to begin with, but now they do. The ruling is specifically limited to contraception and specifically says it does not extend to 2 things, vaccinations and transfusions. However the logic of that escapes pretty much every legal scholar who I've read on the ruling. quote: Does this mean that if a company president says that his religion requires female circumcision of all prepubescent girls that the insurance plans must offer to cover such a procedure? I'm NOT saying that the company would require all female employees and their female family members to be circumcised.....I'm asking.....does this mean that a procedure is covered even if everyone else outside of that religion would find such a procedure extremely objectionable? I mean....we don't want to deny these people the practice of their beliefs now, do we? That procedure is illegal in the US so no insurance plan would cover it so no. quote: What I'm saying is that religions have a lot of differences between them when it comes to medical issues. If the company's owners only practice acupuncture and herbal medicine, should they be allowed to deny coverage for all other medical procedures that are outside of THEIR religious beliefs? That is going to require more litigation. The Court really opened a huge can of worms here. That is why Alito tried to limit it just to contraception.

hot4bondage -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:30:12 AM)
Yes, this ruling is limited to contraception. Or, as Hobby Lobby defines it, abortion pills and IUDs that don't actually cause abortions. But it also opens the door to other religious objections. I can't wait to see how the courts interpret "sincere" and "long-established" beliefs. I don't think it's possible without being arbitrary.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 7:50:38 AM)
And therefore; hijabs and pork forbidden (both even when not on the clock). Unintended consequences of that language and that ruling.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 7:57:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Yes, this ruling is limited to contraception. Or, as Hobby Lobby defines it, abortion pills and IUDs that don't actually cause abortions. But it also opens the door to other religious objections. I can't wait to see how the courts interpret "sincere" and "long-established" beliefs. I don't think it's possible without being arbitrary. THIS ruling is arbitrary.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:14:38 AM)
Insh'allah!!!!

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:29:26 AM)
لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:44:38 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNnzSnrHkM

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 9:49:27 AM)
ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Yes. Everything is on the table now as long as the employer's religious belief is "sincere and long-established." Do Not Resuscitate orders, blood transfusions, circumcisions, buying aspirin on a Sunday, etc. This is what happens when businesses are forced into the role of government agents. No this is what happens when we allow adults who listen to their imaginary friend, to walk around without a keeper.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 9:51:35 AM)
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO then push for single payer, or deny religious beliefs to corporations when women are off work having babies and or entering welfare because they keep getting pregnant, they will whine louder paying for a birth and doctors bills. Not at all they will just require all women not actively seeking pregnancy to keep a cork in it.

joether -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 12:24:10 PM)
So, with this ruling, does that mean my business can declare "paying taxes goes against the company's religion of Capitalism"? Yes, the unintended consequence of this ruling by five idiots on the US Supreme Court that did not bother to think about things in the long term. The flood of similar such ideas, as the one above will start hitting the lower courts and within a year or two, be back at the US Supreme Court for another "impressive and wise decision" by the same five idiots.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 2:07:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Yes, this ruling is limited to contraception. Or, as Hobby Lobby defines it, abortion pills and IUDs that don't actually cause abortions. But it also opens the door to other religious objections. I can't wait to see how the courts interpret "sincere" and "long-established" beliefs. I don't think it's possible without being arbitrary. No. They've issued a clarification that it covers all forms of contraception just in case you thought there wasn't a war on women.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 2:28:48 PM)
I have a religious objection to Iraq, you know, thou shalt not kill, give us back our 4 Trillion bucks.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 2:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy How can any reasonable person disagree with this: Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.” Where does this ruling declare that a woman can't use birth control, IUD's, morning after pills, etc.? They can still make personal health care decisions for themselves, but can't force the costs of those decisions on their bosses in cases where it goes against their bosses religious beliefs They can still go out and purchase birth control, can't they? They can still use IUD's and "morning after" pills, right?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875