Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

[pam]

Awesome news. 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Monday morning. The court said the government can't require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.

 

The justices' 5-4 decision Monday is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies' health insurance plans.

 

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30471147&nid=148&title=supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-hobby-lobby-&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

[Guest]

Thank goodness there is still some freedom in the US. 

[The Folk Prophet]

It's actually a bit surprising it went this way. I figured it was all downhill from here on. Good to see there's still some hope remaining.

[Windseeker]

The latest court decisions have dealt a blow against tyranny. Unions got a throat punch as well today. 

 

[pam]

It's actually a bit surprising it went this way. I figured it was all downhill from here on. Good to see there's still some hope remaining.

 

Working at Hobby Lobby part time, we're kept pretty up to date on this.  I was pretty sure it was going to go in Hobby Lobby's favor.  I wasn't worried.  Just glad to get the result this morning.

[Palerider]

Where is the Applause button.....lol

[mordorbund]

Where is the Applause button.....lol

 

Applause, laugh, and thanks -

 

What have I been paying you for?! 

[andypg]

Personally, I'm extatic over this!   Been following this from the beginning as there are many Catholic organizations and dioceses also filing suits against the HHS Mandate.

 

This inspires confidence. It should have been a 9-0 decision, but I'm glad the right side won.

 

Just thought I should mention, EWTN (the largest Catholic channel in the country, and one of the best Christian channels) lost their suit against the HHS Mandate and are hoping to get an appeal. Though if they lose the appeal they'll have to cut staff, pay a fine, or shut down. All of those possibilities are sad and would be a loss in terms of Christian media.

 

So the battle is not done yet! Keep on praying!

[Windseeker]

Wow ...the other side is frothing over this

 

 

...This ruling doesn't just affect women. We should ALL be mad. Corporations are not people. And religious freedom isn't a licence to discriminate based on cherry picking religious 'principles'

 

...Soon they will be telling us what religion we should worship to be employed. The Gate just swung open.

 

...The fascist five are systematically dismantling our Constitution, and the brain dead teanuts are cheering for it, while of course telling us what patriots they are, and how much they love the Constitution.

 

...When will Hobby Lobby start selling Chastity belts and burquas? 

 

...Why are an employer's beliefs more important than the employee's? Employee's are hired to produce goods and services, not to live under an employer's belief system.

 

... Followers of Christ aren't called "the flock" for nothing.. baaaaaaa

 

...ANY woman who votes Republican must be stupid or completely at the mercy of a man. In either case, I hope they enjoy being second class citizens. I wouldn't stand for it.

 

...The Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws in correlation to the United States Constitution. It is now legislating laws on the behalf of the rich and powerful.

 

...what about my freedom of religion? I am not Christian, I don't beleive as Christians do, why should they have the right to impose on my life? Any woman who is cheering this decision is a fool. The War on women will be a war on you as well.

 

...What happened to separation of church and state ???

 

...supreme court of the bible , what happened to church & state being separate

 

Real though provoking stuff...

 

...Individuals demanding free pills over free will.

 

 

Not forcing others to provide them what they want is forcing religion and prohibiting their right..to have what they want when they want. 

 

 

.

[Guest]

Oh for crying out loud. Melodrama much?

[Windseeker]

One more thought...

 

Victims scare me. 

 

...Cain was a "victim"

...the Nazi's were "victims"

...the Bolsheviks were "victims"

...the Lamenites were "victims"

 

"Victims" have washed this earth in Blood

 

Satan wants everyone to be a "victim".

 

don't think like a victim.

[Palerider]

Applause, laugh, and thanks -

 

What have I been paying you for?!

Lol!!!!

[MarginOfError]

I think this is a stupid decision...on the same order of stupidity as Citizens United.  But I haven't read the full decision to see the implications, and I'll do my best not to be melodramatic.  

 

But I still think it's a stupid decision.

[prisonchaplain]

The secular fundamentalists keep saying Hobby Lobby won the right to deny their workers "easy access" to contraception.  In fact, SCOTUS agreed that it should not be required to pay for abortificents (sp?) for them.  Why did the court agree?

 

1.  Corporations are often treated as persons, under the law.  This is nothing new.  It's appropriate here because of the unified faith of Hobby Lobby's (and the other company) very few owners.

 

2.  HHS made no attempt to seek "least restrictive means" of attaining its goal of free contraceptives for all.  It has granted other exemptions, so how can it argue that there were no alternatives here?

 

3.  HHS can easily remedy this gap by either paying for the contraceptives directly (by taxing us), or by requiring insurance companies to foot the bill.

 

And so, this is a victory of morals and perception.  The ACA bullied people of sincere religious conviction, and SCOTUS drew a line.  Why the secular fundamentalists are so outraged is that they WANT to force Christians to pay for abortion-inducing contraceptives.  After all, they are secular, and they are ideological fundamentalists.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think this is a stupid decision...on the same order of stupidity as Citizens United.  But I haven't read the full decision to see the implications, and I'll do my best not to be melodramatic.  

 

But I still think it's a stupid decision.

 

Why?

[pam]

Keep in ind that this wasn't so much about contraception.  They aren't against contraception.  What they are against is being required to provide such things as the morning after pill etc.

[prisonchaplain]

Why secularists and activists want to force those who disagree with them to do their bidding is beyond me.  Revenge?  Petty power-wielding?  Public humiliation?  Why force a pro-life Christian to buy her morning after pill?  Why?  God still condemns it, no matter how many of their moral opponents they get to pay for their sin and foolishness.

 

Come, Lord Jesus, come!

[Just_A_Guy]

The Hobby Lobby majority, summarized in (relatively) plain English

[Shoot_The_Moon]

So here is the question...
 
Why does Hobby Lobby refuse to provide the Mirena IUD and the Paragard IUD as well as the morning after pills under their insurance?
 
From The Atlantic magazine (http://theatln.tc/V7MKLL):
 
"This case centers around specific religious objections to contraceptives that prevent an [fertilized] egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, which plaintiffs believe are tantamount to abortion. Out of the 20 Food and Drug Adminstration-approved birth control methods, the two companies involved in the case—Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood—object to four: two kinds of emergency contraceptive or “morning after” pills, and two types of intrauterine devices, or IUDs."
 
 
I know that there are several LDS women what use these IUDs, (my wife included).
 
So, that brings up an interesting question. Does birth control that prevents a fertizlied egg from implanting and growing equate to abortion, or does the breath of life happen somewhere down the road?

[Maureen]

...So, that brings up an interesting question. Does birth control that prevents a fertizlied egg from implanting and growing equate to abortion, or does the breath of life happen somewhere down the road?

 

Excellent question Shoot_The_Moon. This has been discussed in the past if you're interested in reading.

 

http://lds.net/forums/topic/46517-13m-a-day-fine/?hl=%2Bhobby+%2Blobby

 

M.

[prisonchaplain]

So, that brings up an interesting question. Does birth control that prevents a fertizlied egg from implanting and growing equate to abortion, or does the breath of life happen somewhere down the road?

 

As far as the courts are concerned, if the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that life begins at conception, then government must honor their sincerely held religious belief.  Most pro-lifers would say that once the egg is fertilized life has begun.

[kduncan99]

To the critics:

 

Stop emoting and get the facts as Hobby Lobby was covering 16 out of 20 birth control prevention pills or other devices. They just did not want to pay for the 4 methods that were abortion related, after conception pills.  Women have the right to choose whether or not they get pregnant, but Hobby Lobby was not willing to go as far as paying for them to choose to kill an unborn child.

[MarginOfError]

Why?

I disagree with the notion that the religious practices of an owner can be extended into the corporation.  This same disagreement is at the heart of why I object to the Citizens United decision.  My understanding is that the corporation, as a concept, exists to shield the owner from liability should the corporation fail.  So it bothers me that we are extending all of the attributes and beliefs of the owner onto the corporation that is supposed to be the barrier.

 

In some sense, this is why I think corporations like the cake company shouldn't be able to refuse service to same sex couples, unless they are sole proprietors.  If you are going to take the protection offered by the corporation, you give up other elements of control.

 

But in the end, I guess it doesn't really matter.  If the concern is that the owners of these corporations would be committing sinful negligence by paying for these forms of contraception, and the Supreme Court rules that the government should pay for it with tax revenues to grant the exemption, then I guess these owners are still going to burn in hell.  Yay!  everyone wins! </sarcasm>

[Just_A_Guy]

 My understanding is that the corporation, as a concept, exists to shield the owner from liability should the corporation fail.  So it bothers me that we are extending all of the attributes and beliefs of the owner onto the corporation that is supposed to be the barrier.

 

In some sense, this is why I think corporations like the cake company shouldn't be able to refuse service to same sex couples, unless they are sole proprietors.  If you are going to take the protection offered by the corporation, you give up other elements of control.

 

I understand the reasoning here, because it's precisely the rationale conservatives and libertarians have warned about for half a century:  government involvement is government control. On the other hand, I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

 

Corporate law was never intended as means by which government could control the day-to-day activities of a business enterprise.  Rather, it arose because society decided that it was in the best interests of the economy generally to incentivize risk-taking by giving individual business owners some measure of fiscal immunity should their enterprises fail or otherwise be saddled with financial liabilities that cannot be met.

 

Under your thesis--which I understand to be that offering or denying any government benefit, regardless of that benefit's original purpose, is an acceptable means of incentivizing behavior that the majority deems as desirable--then there's nothing preventing a future Republican president from denying welfare benefits to voters who refuse to end their affiliation with the Democratic Party.  ("They're still free to vote how they want--but why should we subsidize that kind of behavior?")  There's nothing to prevent a conservative Christian mayor from instructing his police and fire chiefs not to respond to any calls from a local women's clinic that happens to provide abortions ("They are still free to perform whatever procedures they want; but I'm not putting my guys' lives and taxpayer dollars on the line to defend those reprobates.")  And there's nothing preventing Congress or a state legislature from denying the Church its corporate status and/or ability to own property, or denying passports/visas to LDS missionaries, if the Church refuses to stop teaching the sinfulness of gay sex.  ("They can still say whatever they want; but we're not going to facilitate it')

 

I know you'd never intentionally do this; but if I understand your position correctly--your argument basically becomes an intellectual foundation for majority-rule totalitarianism.  Over the past decade we have seen a truly remarkable pivot from "I'm in the minority--you can't make me do that!" to "You're in the minority--you''d better do as you're told if you want to work, own a business, or find any other means of feeding your family and keeping them off the street!". 

 

No, MoE.  Individuals have a God-given right to provide for themselves and their families without passing a political or ideological litmus test; and a government that seriously tries to abridge that right is going to be seen as illegitimate by the individuals whose rights are so abridged.

 

 

But in the end, I guess it doesn't really matter.  If the concern is that the owners of these corporations would be committing sinful negligence by paying for these forms of contraception, and the Supreme Court rules that the government should pay for it with tax revenues to grant the exemption, then I guess these owners are still going to burn in hell.  Yay!  everyone wins! </sarcasm>

 

This reasoning seems to say that one's tax revenues being used to partially fund a reprehensible objective makes one just as morally culpable as if one had fully funded that reprehensible objective.

 

Under that all-or-nothing logic, wouldn't it be fair to say that you (as a taxpayer) are just as guilty for the horrors of the Iraq war as you would have been if you, personally, had bankrolled the whole thing?

 

And the idea of government telling an individual (or group of individuals) "your moral code is inconsistent, so we will prevent you from living it at all--or, if you choose to live it, condemn you to a life of poverty by denying you some of the essential benefits of the American free enterprise system and bar you from working in certain key professions" should scare the beejeebies out of anyone.

[mordorbund]

JustAGuy - how limited to you think this "limited" ruling is. It's supposed to only apply to the 4 forms of birth control mentioned, but I don't see why that wouldn't expand to other medical treatments that are religiously objectionable (blood transfusions for instance).