So Hobby Lobby Doesn't Have To Provide Contraceptives Due To Religious Beliefs[W:487]

[Geoist]

...I guess that means I don't have to pay the portion of my tax that pays for war because killing goes against my religious views.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Can't wait for a non-christian owned store to use this decision on christians.

 

[shrubnose]

...

I guess that means I don't have to pay the portion of my tax that pays for war because killing goes against my religious views.

Give it a try and report back to us.

 

[Linc]

It was a matter of time before a reasonably spoken thread not blowing things up would surface.
I did hear that Justice Alito specifically said that this decision would NOT apply to other religious concerns over medicinal requirements and more.

Another poster explained it only pertained to the morning after pill, though I get the precedent-setting concerns for women.
Support the women who are affected here with new Gilded-age clinics.

Encourage concerned women to stay active in politics.
Remind people that even a Republican spin pollster admitted that Democrats were just as motivated to vote right now as GOPs, due to women .

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Well I guess now this decision will ...create jobs....put food on people's table...fix the decaying roads and bridges...and erase the national debt! :roll:

You people are like rats ...no matter how many times this distraction trick is used ....you fall for it.

Meanwhile the 1% continue to pillage and loot from the rapidly declining middle class!

 

[DiAnna]

This bothers me because it opens a door... a very large door. On CNN Jeffry Toobins (I think) said that under the legal definition of "closely held for profit companies", 90% of America's companies qualify, and those employ 50% of the workforce nationwide. Please don't ask me to support those numbers, I'm quoting a guy on tv and using the fact that millions of people will be affected by this decision now and in the future.

Bottom line, SCOTUS just gave permission to top echelon bosses to force their religious beliefs on their entire workforce, whether that workforce shares those beliefs or not. It is another step in de-secularizing the country, giving a very small percentage of individuals overall (I think they said a "closely-held for profit company" required the majority of stock to be held by no more than five individuals... but don't hold me to that, I'm going by memory) the ability to enforce their personal religious beliefs on a potentially huge swath of the American workforce.

The precedent this sets is enormous. If these "closely held" companies can enforce religious beliefs on certain contraceptives, why not all contraceptives? Why not on vaccines, blood transfusions, all medical procedures? I don't think it's a stretch that in the future other religious "closely held" companies may try to get SCOTUS attention for their own religious grievances, medically. If it continues to go their way, then why stop at medical procedures? Why not enforce other religious beliefs on the workforce, from prohibition of drinking, smoking, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, requiring regular church attendance, etc.?

Granted, it may take decades before the more onerous cases would be submitted to SCOTUS, but one step at a time, each and every thing I've listed could eventually be justified by this current decision. All it takes is for "closely held" companies, which are now considered "people" not only politically (Citizens United) but religiously, thereby opening the door for the religious beliefs of "the company" to be enforced upon its workers, whether they share those beliefs or not.

So it's not the four contraceptives that can now be legally denied to Hobby Lobby workers that bothers me; it's giving these companies the right to force their religious beliefs on their workers because of the same justification they used here: Use of those contraceptives violates their religious principles.

Don't bother screaming at me that it's only about who pays for it. That isn't my point, particularly since nobody is beating down SCOTUS's door complaining that paying for insurance that covers viagra is against their religious belief. It's the underlying precedent of accepting that the "company's" religious beliefs can be enforced on their workers that makes the hair on my nape stand up.

 

[Redress]

This bothers me because it opens a door... a very large door. On CNN Jeffry Toobins (I think) said that under the legal definition of "closely held for profit companies", 90% of America's companies qualify, and those employ 50% of the workforce nationwide. Please don't ask me to support those numbers, I'm quoting a guy on tv and using the fact that millions of people will be affected by this decision now and in the future.

Bottom line, SCOTUS just gave permission to top echelon bosses to force their religious beliefs on their entire workforce, whether that workforce shares those beliefs or not. It is another step in de-secularizing the country, giving a very small percentage of individuals overall (I think they said a "closely-held for profit company" required the majority of stock to be held by no more than five individuals... but don't hold me to that, I'm going by memory) the ability to enforce their personal religious beliefs on a potentially huge swath of the American workforce.

The precedent this sets is enormous. If these "closely held" companies can enforce religious beliefs on certain contraceptives, why not all contraceptives? Why not on vaccines, blood transfusions, all medical procedures? I don't think it's a stretch that in the future other religious "closely held" companies may try to get SCOTUS attention for their own religious grievances, medically. If it continues to go their way, then why stop at medical procedures? Why not enforce other religious beliefs on the workforce, from prohibition of drinking, smoking, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, requiring regular church attendance, etc.?

Granted, it may take decades before the more onerous cases would be submitted to SCOTUS, but one step at a time, each and every thing I've listed could eventually be justified by this current decision. All it takes is for "closely held" companies, which are now considered "people" not only politically (Citizens United) but religiously, thereby opening the door for the religious beliefs of "the company" to be enforced upon its workers, whether they share those beliefs or not.

So it's not the four contraceptives that can now be legally denied to Hobby Lobby workers that bothers me; it's giving these companies the right to force their religious beliefs on their workers because of the same justification they used here: Use of those contraceptives violates their religious principles.

Don't bother screaming at me that it's only about who pays for it. That isn't my point, particularly since nobody is beating down SCOTUS's door complaining that paying for insurance that covers viagra is against their religious belief. It's the underlying precedent of accepting that the "company's" religious beliefs can be enforced on their workers that makes the hair on my nape stand up.

A little reading for you that might put your mind somewhat at ease. The ruling was pretty narrow actually. Court rules in favor of for-profit corporations, but how broadly? In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

But even if that’s the case, the Court continued, the mandate still can’t survive because it is not the narrowest way of promoting the government’s interest. If the government really cares about providing women with free birth control, the Court explained, it could do so itself, at a cost that would probably pale in comparison with what the Affordable Care Act will ultimately cost the government. But, the Court pointed out, further evidence that there is an easier and less burdensome (for the companies) way to do this can been seen in the exemption that the government has created for religious non-profits that object to providing birth control. Those religious non-profits can opt out of providing the coverage without paying for it, but their female employees can still receive the coverage, with either the insurers or the government paying for it.

The Court’s opinion made clear that today’s decision was a relatively narrow one. It does not mean, the Court clarified, that an employer can automatically avoid paying for a particular kind of insurance coverage just because it has religious objections to it. Thus, for example, the Court explained, employers might still be required to provide coverage for vaccinations – an example that came up at oral argument – even if their religious beliefs might dictate otherwise, because of the need to prevent the spread of contagious and deadly diseases. Nor, the Court took pains to add, does the decision provide cover for employers to rely on religion to discriminate on the basis of race.

Bolding mine. The reasoning of the court was that this failed because there where other, less disruptive ways to further the states interest. Oddly(to my mind), they did assume that it was a state interest to insure access to birth control. I do not see this as really opening up a big can of worms.

And to clarify and ease your mind more, from further in the article linked:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom we often think of as the pivotal vote in high-profile decisions, agreed with both the majority’s reasoning and its result, but he also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he seemed to be emphasizing that this decision is indeed “a ticket for one day only.” Thus, although the Court held that the contraception mandate does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, he made clear that it was able to do so primarily because the government was already accommodating other employers who did not want to cover birth control, proving that there was an easier way to balance the companies’ interests and those of its female employees.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But let me guess: things like Cialis and Viagra are all covered, eh?

 

[Ocean007]

It was a matter of time before a reasonably spoken thread not blowing things up would surface.
I did hear that Justice Alito specifically said that this decision would NOT apply to other religious concerns over medicinal requirements and more.

Yeah, probably not NOW. But I don't believe his claim for a New York minute. I agree with Justice Ginsberg's dissention, and I think this decision is definitely a slippery slope toward rolling back and even eliminating progressive steps like voting rights and gay rights.

 

[Ocean007]

This bothers me because it opens a door... a very large door. On CNN Jeffry Toobins (I think) said that under the legal definition of "closely held for profit companies", 90% of America's companies qualify, and those employ 50% of the workforce nationwide. Please don't ask me to support those numbers, I'm quoting a guy on tv and using the fact that millions of people will be affected by this decision now and in the future.

Bottom line, SCOTUS just gave permission to top echelon bosses to force their religious beliefs on their entire workforce, whether that workforce shares those beliefs or not. It is another step in de-secularizing the country, giving a very small percentage of individuals overall (I think they said a "closely-held for profit company" required the majority of stock to be held by no more than five individuals... but don't hold me to that, I'm going by memory) the ability to enforce their personal religious beliefs on a potentially huge swath of the American workforce.

The precedent this sets is enormous. If these "closely held" companies can enforce religious beliefs on certain contraceptives, why not all contraceptives? Why not on vaccines, blood transfusions, all medical procedures? I don't think it's a stretch that in the future other religious "closely held" companies may try to get SCOTUS attention for their own religious grievances, medically. If it continues to go their way, then why stop at medical procedures? Why not enforce other religious beliefs on the workforce, from prohibition of drinking, smoking, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, requiring regular church attendance, etc.?

Granted, it may take decades before the more onerous cases would be submitted to SCOTUS, but one step at a time, each and every thing I've listed could eventually be justified by this current decision. All it takes is for "closely held" companies, which are now considered "people" not only politically (Citizens United) but religiously, thereby opening the door for the religious beliefs of "the company" to be enforced upon its workers, whether they share those beliefs or not.

So it's not the four contraceptives that can now be legally denied to Hobby Lobby workers that bothers me; it's giving these companies the right to force their religious beliefs on their workers because of the same justification they used here: Use of those contraceptives violates their religious principles.

Don't bother screaming at me that it's only about who pays for it. That isn't my point, particularly since nobody is beating down SCOTUS's door complaining that paying for insurance that covers viagra is against their religious belief. It's the underlying precedent of accepting that the "company's" religious beliefs can be enforced on their workers that makes the hair on my nape stand up.

Agreed, and it's a rather frightening thought. This kind of tactic by faith-based employers is one of the many reasons that I have never -- and WILL never -- work for institutions run by religious fundamentalists, no matter what church they belonged to.

I didn't know until recently that Hobby Lobby is one of THOSE companies, and now that I do know, it will go on my list of employers NEVER to work for. Thankfully, I have never given any of their stores a cent of my money, and they won't get it in future either.

 

[tres borrachos]

...I guess that means I don't have to pay the portion of my tax that pays for war because killing goes against my religious views.

Your headline is wrong. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of contraceptives in their healthcare plan to their female employees.

 

[tres borrachos]

This bothers me because it opens a door... a very large door. On CNN Jeffry Toobins (I think) said that under the legal definition of "closely held for profit companies", 90% of America's companies qualify, and those employ 50% of the workforce nationwide. Please don't ask me to support those numbers, I'm quoting a guy on tv and using the fact that millions of people will be affected by this decision now and in the future.

Bottom line, SCOTUS just gave permission to top echelon bosses to force their religious beliefs on their entire workforce, whether that workforce shares those beliefs or not. It is another step in de-secularizing the country, giving a very small percentage of individuals overall (I think they said a "closely-held for profit company" required the majority of stock to be held by no more than five individuals... but don't hold me to that, I'm going by memory) the ability to enforce their personal religious beliefs on a potentially huge swath of the American workforce.

The precedent this sets is enormous. If these "closely held" companies can enforce religious beliefs on certain contraceptives, why not all contraceptives? Why not on vaccines, blood transfusions, all medical procedures? I don't think it's a stretch that in the future other religious "closely held" companies may try to get SCOTUS attention for their own religious grievances, medically. If it continues to go their way, then why stop at medical procedures? Why not enforce other religious beliefs on the workforce, from prohibition of drinking, smoking, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, requiring regular church attendance, etc.?

Granted, it may take decades before the more onerous cases would be submitted to SCOTUS, but one step at a time, each and every thing I've listed could eventually be justified by this current decision. All it takes is for "closely held" companies, which are now considered "people" not only politically (Citizens United) but religiously, thereby opening the door for the religious beliefs of "the company" to be enforced upon its workers, whether they share those beliefs or not.

So it's not the four contraceptives that can now be legally denied to Hobby Lobby workers that bothers me; it's giving these companies the right to force their religious beliefs on their workers because of the same justification they used here: Use of those contraceptives violates their religious principles.

Don't bother screaming at me that it's only about who pays for it. That isn't my point, particularly since nobody is beating down SCOTUS's door complaining that paying for insurance that covers viagra is against their religious belief. It's the underlying precedent of accepting that the "company's" religious beliefs can be enforced on their workers that makes the hair on my nape stand up.

Just curious what the religious objection to Viagra would be?

 

[ttwtt78640]

This bothers me because it opens a door... a very large door. On CNN Jeffry Toobins (I think) said that under the legal definition of "closely held for profit companies", 90% of America's companies qualify, and those employ 50% of the workforce nationwide. Please don't ask me to support those numbers, I'm quoting a guy on tv and using the fact that millions of people will be affected by this decision now and in the future.

Bottom line, SCOTUS just gave permission to top echelon bosses to force their religious beliefs on their entire workforce, whether that workforce shares those beliefs or not. It is another step in de-secularizing the country, giving a very small percentage of individuals overall (I think they said a "closely-held for profit company" required the majority of stock to be held by no more than five individuals... but don't hold me to that, I'm going by memory) the ability to enforce their personal religious beliefs on a potentially huge swath of the American workforce.

The precedent this sets is enormous. If these "closely held" companies can enforce religious beliefs on certain contraceptives, why not all contraceptives? Why not on vaccines, blood transfusions, all medical procedures? I don't think it's a stretch that in the future other religious "closely held" companies may try to get SCOTUS attention for their own religious grievances, medically. If it continues to go their way, then why stop at medical procedures? Why not enforce other religious beliefs on the workforce, from prohibition of drinking, smoking, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, requiring regular church attendance, etc.?

Granted, it may take decades before the more onerous cases would be submitted to SCOTUS, but one step at a time, each and every thing I've listed could eventually be justified by this current decision. All it takes is for "closely held" companies, which are now considered "people" not only politically (Citizens United) but religiously, thereby opening the door for the religious beliefs of "the company" to be enforced upon its workers, whether they share those beliefs or not.

So it's not the four contraceptives that can now be legally denied to Hobby Lobby workers that bothers me; it's giving these companies the right to force their religious beliefs on their workers because of the same justification they used here: Use of those contraceptives violates their religious principles.

Don't bother screaming at me that it's only about who pays for it. That isn't my point, particularly since nobody is beating down SCOTUS's door complaining that paying for insurance that covers viagra is against their religious belief. It's the underlying precedent of accepting that the "company's" religious beliefs can be enforced on their workers that makes the hair on my nape stand up.

Are you kidding me? The PPACA employer mandate did not apply to ANY employer with fewer than 50 (now 100 per Obama's decision to delay that until after the midterm elections) employees. Unlike the FLSA, which was applied to ALL employers/employees, PPACA was initially designed to apply to only some employers/employees - adding a partial limitation (not a full exemption) for about 16K employees is hardly the catastrophic event that you make it out to be when millions work for small (with under 50 workers) employers.

 

[Respecthelect]

This bothers me because it opens a door... a very large door.

The left opened the door when it tried to push everyone around. Obama's lawyers literally argued for force-feeding unhealthy people broccoli and the Court agreed. If you are too fat, they can strap you down and starve you, feed you broccoli, inject you - all because the left created a communal interest in your health. Since society pays for your unhealthiness, the government now has a "right" to perform Mengele experiments on whomever some bureaucrat decides. It won't occur this year, there'd be too much outrage, but the law is now in place and whenever the mood strikes them, they can exert the "right" of the mob.

Employment is an exchange between free parties. The government should never have inserted itself. This ACA is bad law. Worse, the stated goals could've been accomplished without thousand-page law and a hundred-thousand bureaucrats. The unstated goal to push people around requires ACA, though.

 

[tres borrachos]

The left opened the door when it tried to push everyone around. Obama's lawyers literally argued for force-feeding unhealthy people broccoli and the Court agreed. If you are too fat, they can strap you down and starve you, feed you broccoli, inject you - all because the left created a communal interest in your health. Since society pays for your unhealthiness, the government now has a "right" to perform Mengele experiments on whomever some bureaucrat decides. It won't occur this year, there'd be too much outrage, but the law is now in place and whenever the mood strikes them, they can exert the "right" of the mob.

Employment is an exchange between free parties. The government should never have inserted itself. This ACA is bad law. Worse, the stated goals could've been accomplished without thousand-page law and a hundred-thousand bureaucrats. The unstated goal to push people around requires ACA, though.

Not to mention, the ACA disregarded the RFRA, which is a law that has been on the books for 21 years. The crafters of the ACA, as well as the legal folks in the HHS, should have known that the requirement to provide abortion inducing birth control in an employer insurance package was a violation of the RFRA.

 

[Ocean007]

Your headline is wrong. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of contraceptives in their healthcare plan to their female employees.

REALLY. Got a list of which specific ones HL allegedly provides?

 

[tres borrachos]

REALLY. Got a list of which specific ones HL allegedly provides?

Sure. You can Google it. It's all over the internet. The SCOTUS case was about 4 specific forms of BC in the list of 20 mandated by the ACA. HL is still providing 16 forms of birth control. If there was any case where Google will give you this information in thousands of different links, this is it.

 

[Ocean007]

Sure. You can Google it. It's all over the internet. The SCOTUS case was about 4 specific forms of BC in the list of 20 mandated by the ACA. HL is still providing 16 forms of birth control. If there was any case where Google will give you this information in thousands of different links, this is it.

Why should I Google it? YOU made the claim that "HL provides 16 forms of birth control to its female employees." I'm curious; why can't YOU provide the list of those specific contraceptives?

 

[tres borrachos]

Why should I Google it? YOU made the claim that "HL provides 16 forms of birth control to its female employees." I'm curious; why can't YOU provide the list of those specific contraceptives?

Because I'm not your research assistant, ocean. If you want to get information, kindly find it yourself. If I'm lying, you should have no problem proving me wrong.

 

[Papa bull]

...I guess that means I don't have to pay the portion of my tax that pays for war because killing goes against my religious views.

Yeah. I think you should just go for it and if the IRS has a problem with it, you just tell 'em you'll sic the supreme court on them. Lemme know how that works out for ya!

 

[KLATTU]

But let me guess: things like Cialis and Viagra are all covered, eh?

Yeah , and so are 16 other forms of contraception, including birth control control pills. What they diecn't mention that on Rachel Maddow's show? LOL

 

[Ocean007]

Because I'm not your research assistant, ocean. If you want to get information, kindly find it yourself. If I'm lying, you should have no problem proving me wrong.

Ah, so you CAN'T provide the list. I didn't think so. So you'll understand why I don't buy your claim about the 16 forms of birth control that HL allegedly "provides to its female employees."

 

[Papa bull]

Ah, so you CAN'T provide the list. I didn't think so. So you'll understand why I don't buy your claim about the 16 forms of birth control that HL allegedly "provides to its female employees."

Do your own homework. Obamacare mandated 20 different forms of contraceptive and Hobby Lobby only rejected 4. If you really have to know which they were, you can do your own homework on this. The fact that they only rejected four in the Obamacare mandate should establish that they're good with the other 16. Provided you use a little logic and know basic math, of course.

 

[Ockham]

Why should I Google it? YOU made the claim that "HL provides 16 forms of birth control to its female employees." I'm curious; why can't YOU provide the list of those specific contraceptives?

The write identifies the sources which are found here

The Institute also recommended coverage for the“full range” of “contraceptive methods” approved bythe Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as
“sterilization procedures” and “patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
IOM Report 10; see id. at 102-110. FDA-approved contraceptive methods include oral contraceptive pills, diaphragms, inject
ions and implants, emergency contraceptive drugs, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). FDA,
Birth Control: Medicines To Help You, http://
Birth Control: Medicines To Help You (last visited Sept.18, 2013) (
Birth Control Guide).

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-0354.pet_.aa_1.pdf

Here's the transcript of the arguments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf

 

[Slartibartfast]

...I guess that means I don't have to pay the portion of my tax that pays for war because killing goes against my religious views.

Seriously! We can use this decision to ignore laws we don't like by the thin veneer or religion. I guess a society of laws is no longer a priority for this country.
The scotus just opened a giant can of worms