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

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 4:43:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:01:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses. There is a way to change that, isn't there? That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right?

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses. There is a way to change that, isn't there? That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right? So that means that the outrage is mostly a tempest in a teapot.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:29:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There is a way to change that, isn't there? That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right? Not with all the cutting to planned parenthood and other people who supply low cost contraceptives to low income women.Its not at someone elses expense, the women are paying for their own expenses when they pay their insurance. they are covered by the ACA. Why is contraception the only medical choice disallowed, you dont get to pick and choose where your tax/insurance money goes to.well unless you use religion as a reason. Can you imagine Obama trying to get a bill thru congress making all BC types available wether or not your boss says no you cant have it? LMFAO especially since just in the last six months that 733 provisions to bills by the repukes are limiting womens health choices even farther.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:31:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses. There is a way to change that, isn't there? That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right? So that means that the outrage is mostly a tempest in a teapot. Only a RW Idiot male would think that

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:46:39 PM)
So that means that the outrage is mostly a tempest in a teapot. By this moronic bit of reasoning then you would ok with the city of boston banning autoloading weapons larger than 49 cal. Clearly something that would affect a miniscule number of people. Would you be in favor of that or would you feel that if they can ban that they can increase the number and type of weapons to be banned. If it can happen in the city of boston could it not happen nation wide? When the tempest is in your teapot is it something different? Is it because you cannot get knocked up that you feel it is ok to fuck with women?

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 6:52:27 PM)
[image]https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/10487364_10151860802472325_4473700808838190218_n.jpg[/image]

njlauren -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 7:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I read the ruling, earlier today and if I'm not mistaken (I'm not a lawyer), there's a part of the ruling that gets over-looked: This ruling will only allow companies with very few owners (my interpretation was smaller businesses and large corporations that are almost wholly owned by one family) to "set the tone" of their public face. Like it or not, you can't have it both ways; if there's such a thing as "corporate citizens" (I don't think there are/should be), the important word there is "citizen" and that's where the constitution comes into play. That wonderful document protects a citizen's right to freedom of religion. In fact, the wording is very specific: quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... So, if corporations *are* citizens, they are entitled to not have the exercise of their religion curtailed in any way. I want to re-state: I don't think corporations are or should be viewed as citizens but, as long as they are ... Now, I think the ruling should absolutely apply to small, one-owner businesses. I don't think that just because a citizen owns a business (which contributes to the country's economic good) that they should be forced - by law - to go against their faith/conscience/morals/ethics (choose your word). Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? The right to freedom of religion is not absolute, any more than any right is. Even assuming a corporation is a person (which is one of the most chilling pieces of twisted legal logic I have ever read; Corporations are not people or persons, they are an entity composed of diverse people that are not monolithic), their right to practice their faith has its limits.What the law says is that the right to religious freedom is supposed to be respected as long as it doesn't place undo burdens on others. Thus a pharmacist can claim religious objections to dispensing birth control pills only if the employer can make accomodation without it being a burden on the business or if in allowing that exception it de facto denies people the right to get that prescription filled (like, for example, a pharmacist owns a drugstore in a small town that is the only one within a 40 mile radius). What is scary is you know that the religious right is going to try and use this as a wedge to open up other things, you can bet some evangelical fuckward working for a big company will sue over the company's policy of non discrimination towards LGBT people, arguing his religious belief allows him to discriminate or otherwise violate that policy (and this is not made up, several years ago some evangelical lump sued ATT over its non discrimination policy and having gotten reprimanded for spouting anti gay statements in the work place, claiming his right to his beliefs were violated, the courts threw it out; this goes to Scotus with the 5 ardent Catholic believers, and it is likely he would win...... And yes, the decision claimed that it was narrow, that it was just this one issue, but watch what happens, the religiously stupid have been losing bigtime in society, now they are going to use the shit Reagan and Bush gave us on the Supreme Court to allow discrimination and bigotry to flow; I wonder, though, if the evangelicals will come to realize it is a poor sword that doesn't cut both ways, and they may find that businesses and industry want nothing to do with them, that they can find businesses saying their beliefs run contrary to their own religious beliefs, so take a hike.

njlauren -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 7:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady The ruling is very limitedin its scope. While I don't agree with it,some here are blowing it way out of proportion. Daddysatyr is right in the closely held prive companies. Publicly traded corporation cannot applythis ruling. Further, thecompanies who DO wish to use the exemption must apply to use it and it can be denied and fought. Should those companies go public they will lose the exemption, which only applies to not provided birth control. It is an exemption to the ACA. Where the concept of a Muslim dress code comes into play is pretty far fetched. LL- It isn't that limited, the problem with this ruling is that it further extends the principal that a corporation is a person with the protections of the bill of rights extended to it, and it is very, very troubling. They made the argument in this case that it applied only to a family owned business, and that it was this one specific issue, but this has opened up a lot of doors. For example, an orthodox Jewish family owns a business, should they be allowed to not hire non Jews, because it is their belief only Jews should be hired? Should they be allowed to deny women applicants? Should they be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people, despite the fact that local law covers this? What this ruling is doing is saying that religious belief trumps other laws, and that is troubling, because this can be extended to a lot of things. Should some evangelical Christian manager be allowed to fire an employee he found out was living with his girlfriend, claiming that was against his faith? The ruling extended the rights of people to corporations, but what about the people in corporations (since the logic on saying corporations are people is that corporations are made up of people), this could in the end grant them the same right, and that is a mess. The precedence that the uber conservative justices broke so easily, that of a corporation not being a person, has implications well beyond it. Justices have held that businesses need to accomodate the religious belief of their employees as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on the business, and it also said that religious belief ends where federal law comes in, specifically anti discrimination laws, but under this, they could very easily say that the same right they granted to the owners of the company applies to people within a public corporation, since they are the 'persons' that make a corporation as an entity a person......and with the clowns in the conservative majority, who knows how far they will try and take it.

njlauren -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 7:37:46 PM)
Anyone notice something way ironic about this ruling? Conservatives have been yelling for years about creating law from the bench, how 'activist judges' have been writing law when they find 'rights' that are not in the constitution and so forth..so the court creates a ruling that goes against years and years of precedent and also the rule of law up to this point, and amazingly, this is a great blow for rights....think about this the next time some radical right hothead screaming about 'judicial activism' starts shooting his mouth off, with rulings like this and Citizens united that creared new law.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses. There is a way to change that, isn't there? That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right? Actually it applies to all forms of contraception. SCOTUS issued a clarification to all lower courts today. http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEV0_Jw7JTfGsAwEJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aTRxYjk3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:21:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses. There is a way to change that, isn't there? That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right? So that means that the outrage is mostly a tempest in a teapot. Even if what DS claims were true it still wouldn't be so. IUD are the only available form of contraception available to some women.

quizzicalkitten -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:38:13 PM)
But but but... most hobby lobbies start at 14 an hour for full time employees... and 9.50 an hour for part time employees... The Extra money they make could easily cover the costs... An IUD is about 5-10 years so 600 dollars over 5 years is 10 dollars a month.... Its not even an hours worth of work... But but but.... [8\|]

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic [image]https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/q71/s720x720/10487364_10151860802472325_4473700808838190218_n.jpg[/image] Babies are people, but who is claiming that a building is composed of people?

Dragonzgirl -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:45:32 PM)
The owners of hobby lobby are hypocrites. 1- The only way their religious beliefs would be impaired is if they were forced to take birth control- Anything else is a crock of shit. 2. Upwards of 90% of their stock on the shelves is from CHINA- you know, where they enforce 1 child per couple with mandatory abortions, even infanticide? Their beliefs apparently aren't as important as getting cheap items to better their bottom line. I'm so disgusted with the Religious zealots demanding all of us live by their beliefs in this country- I truly hope this shit wakes the voters up..

Dragonzgirl -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:47:43 PM)
And Hobby Lobby isn't "Paying for their employees health coverage." Insurance, vacation and sick time, possibly retirement are all benefits factored into a package- You as a worker EARN that medical coverage, they don't give you anything.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 8:49:03 PM)
If you dont get it tom.....you are sadder than i thought...I didnt think that was possible.

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/1/2014 9:32:26 PM)
Corporations, made of people, are moving just like people move, out of "liberal" California and into Conservative Texas, Arizona and Idaho (etc) in droves Once the leftists in California finally get their way and have destroyed or driven out most of the rest of those evil nasty corporations... Who will pay the bills? Poor unemployed people?

searching4mysir -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/2/2014 12:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady The ruling is very limitedin its scope. While I don't agree with it,some here are blowing it way out of proportion. Daddysatyr is right in the closely held prive companies. Publicly traded corporation cannot applythis ruling. Further, thecompanies who DO wish to use the exemption must apply to use it and it can be denied and fought. Should those companies go public they will lose the exemption, which only applies to not provided birth control. It is an exemption to the ACA. Where the concept of a Muslim dress code comes into play is pretty far fetched. LL- It isn't that limited, the problem with this ruling is that it further extends the principal that a corporation is a person with the protections of the bill of rights extended to it, and it is very, very troubling. They made the argument in this case that it applied only to a family owned business, and that it was this one specific issue, but this has opened up a lot of doors. For example, an orthodox Jewish family owns a business, should they be allowed to not hire non Jews, because it is their belief only Jews should be hired? Should they be allowed to deny women applicants? Should they be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people, despite the fact that local law covers this? What this ruling is doing is saying that religious belief trumps other laws, and that is troubling, because this can be extended to a lot of things. Should some evangelical Christian manager be allowed to fire an employee he found out was living with his girlfriend, claiming that was against his faith? The ruling extended the rights of people to corporations, but what about the people in corporations (since the logic on saying corporations are people is that corporations are made up of people), this could in the end grant them the same right, and that is a mess. The precedence that the uber conservative justices broke so easily, that of a corporation not being a person, has implications well beyond it. Justices have held that businesses need to accomodate the religious belief of their employees as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on the business, and it also said that religious belief ends where federal law comes in, specifically anti discrimination laws, but under this, they could very easily say that the same right they granted to the owners of the company applies to people within a public corporation, since they are the 'persons' that make a corporation as an entity a person......and with the clowns in the conservative majority, who knows how far they will try and take it. I worked, as a temp, for Hadassah. If I was going to eat in the building it had to be kosher. I'm not Jewish, but I respected them enough to abide by that.

Marc2b -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/2/2014 1:57:05 AM)
quote: SCOTUS got it right on both rulings today. Don't get to cocky. The Supreme Court has gotten it right before - Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson - only to have a bunch of crybaby liberals reverse those decisions later on. [8\|]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625