DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 SUPREME COURT Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge Published June 30, 2014FoxNews.com 1.3K June 26, 2014: People leave the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.AP The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees. The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign. "Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News after the decision was announced. The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." The court's four liberal justices dissented. The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners. But Alito held that in the case before the court, the religious objections cited were legally legitimate, under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule. "If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would," Alito wrote. The question now before the Obama administration is how it might try to accommodate businesses that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers. Alito suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations -- by letting the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said. Alito clarified that the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said. The Supreme Court challenge was brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The for-profit businesses challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It was the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago. Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court were those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000. The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses. The Obama administration argued it's not just about birth control, and that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Didn't give a shit either way, I just like watching fake outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Well good for the Supreme Court. Not that it's a hot button issue for me but it's nice to see we are allowed few shredds of liberty. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Sotomeyer and Ginsburg were livid. corrupt sombeeches couldn't care less about our country, nor about our Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 Let businesses be ran however the owners wish. Employees can decide if they wish to work for them. Customers can decide if it is a big enough issue for them to quit purchasing products from Hobby Lobby. The government shouldn't be involved in the process at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted June 30, 2014 Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 AHAHAHAHHA The irony of Big Government progressives complaining about the government taking their rights away is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Let businesses be ran however the owners wish. Employees can decide if they wish to work for them. Customers can decide if it is a big enough issue for them to quit purchasing products from Hobby Lobby. The government shouldn't be involved in the process at all. I partially agree. If that were true though, would we still have segregated places in the south? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 I partially agree. If that were true though, would we still have segregated places in the south? You would think with having a black wife I would be completely opposed to the idea of segregated privately owned businesses.I am not and it has only to do with limited government involvement. I don't think the government should be policing that sort of thing. Let the market solve the problem. There would be businesses more than glad to cater to the customers that Bob Joe the Racist is snubbing. He would be out of business and the government would have had zero involvement in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Let businesses be ran however the owners wish. Employees can decide if they wish to work for them. Customers can decide if it is a big enough issue for them to quit purchasing products from Hobby Lobby. The government shouldn't be involved in the process at all. I don't care much about abortion and even less, if possible, about paying for somebody's contraceptives which they can get for just about free anywhere in the fucking country. I might just go buy some shit at Hobby Lobby whether I need it or not. I'll stop and have a chick-fil-a on the way home WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Well Chik-fil-a is fantastic. So that's a different story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 You would think with having a black wife I would be completely opposed to the idea of segregated privately owned businesses.I am not and it has only to do with limited government involvement. I don't think the government should be policing that sort of thing. Let the market solve the problem. There would be businesses more than glad to cater to the customers that Bob Joe the Racist is snubbing. He would be out of business and the government would have had zero involvement in the process. Yes, NOW that's true. Now (I'd hope) that even in the deepest southern parts of America that store would go out of business. But what if this were always true. What if essentially Jim Crowe was never outlawed, segregation always existed past the point of the slaves being freed. Then we'd have a different issue. Then its civil rights and it is keeping our country from progressing socially. Then we could still live in a country where blacks were completely second class citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 makes as much sense as the veteran with pstd forming a coalition of the right to carry guns no matter what in texas. all these guys might want to check into wingdale for evaluations before they start standing on a soap box and spewing bullshit, left or right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 So this sets the precedence for companies to not comply with regulations on the basis of religious beliefs. Now, while I agree that you shouldn't be forced to do things against your religious belief, this does open up a whole new world of possibilities. On a small scale, you have Ahmed's kebab shop refusing to serve any women not accompanied by a man, or not wearing head coverings. On a large scale, you have Robert Kraft decreeing that no pork products can be consumed by any Pats players because it goes against his Jewish upbringing. Dangerous territory here, allowing businesses to just opt out of any laws they don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 I partially agree. If that were true though, would we still have segregated places in the south?Growing up in Carrollton Ohio one of the rites of passage was having your first beer joint called Coley's stag.(it was torn down here is it go but they have a reunion every year) Men only, (but everybody comes to the reunions) beer ham sandwiches being soup Chili and pool tables. A place where the old factory workers and farmers could hang out with the boys (away from the wives) in the 40s 50's and 60's. But I really don't think this decision has anything to do with segregation just forcing people to go against their beliefs. I know some of you guys who don't share others beliefs think its cool to fuck with them, but I don't. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 So this sets the precedence for companies to not comply with regulations on the basis of religious beliefs. Now, while I agree that you shouldn't be forced to do things against your religious belief, this does open up a whole new world of possibilities. On a small scale, you have Ahmed's kebab shop refusing to serve any women not accompanied by a man, or not wearing head coverings. On a large scale, you have Robert Kraft decreeing that no pork products can be consumed by any Pats players because it goes against his Jewish upbringing. Dangerous territory here, allowing businesses to just opt out of any laws they don't like. Except for the fact that dealing with the public has nothing to do with the situation but I know those damn conservatives piss you off and this case was brought for the sole purpose of fucking with them. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Also I've been told that Hobby Lobby pays for 16 other types of birth control, just not the morning after chemical abortion pill. But haters gonna hate.... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 So this sets the precedence for companies to not comply with regulations on the basis of religious beliefs. Now, while I agree that you shouldn't be forced to do things against your religious belief, this does open up a whole new world of possibilities. On a small scale, you have Ahmed's kebab shop refusing to serve any women not accompanied by a man, or not wearing head coverings. On a large scale, you have Robert Kraft decreeing that no pork products can be consumed by any Pats players because it goes against his Jewish upbringing. Dangerous territory here, allowing businesses to just opt out of any laws they don't like. Give me a fucking break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Also I've been told that Hobby Lobby pays for 16 other types of birth control, just not the morning after chemical abortion pill. But haters gonna hate.... WSS Good thing all the other 16 kinds have a 0% failure rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Give me a fucking break. Yeah, you may baulk. But if companies can legitimately get away with doing things on religious grounds, you have to give that right to every religion, and there are a bucket load of laws in the various religious texts out there, before you even get to the interpretive ones. What if some big oil company refuses to comply with mandated emissions limits, on the basis that they have a strongly held belief that god created the earth and therefore global warming is a myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Except for the fact that dealing with the public has nothing to do with the situation but I know those damn conservatives piss you off and this case was brought for the sole purpose of fucking with them. WSS I feel like you've been in a real pissy mode lately, in this thread and others. Like a in a weird, passive aggressive, teenage girl kind of way. Posts like the one above seem to be more common. Ignore this comment or respond if you like. Idc. Just my observation. Feel free to say something to attempt to insult my ideas or myself back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Good thing all the other 16 kinds have a 0% failure ratevery true. I think we should extend the time frame to the 12th or 13th trimester.WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 very true. I think we should extend the time frame to the 12th or 13th trimester. WSS Umm... How is that in anyway on sarcastic footing equal to my point? I see nothing wrong with the day after pill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 woodpecker won't understand that, Steve, he's still a maladjusted butt of the board. Meanwhile: ***************** Dangerous territory here, allowing businesses to just opt out of any laws they don't like. Chris ***************** Yes, Chris? "Dangerous territory allowing businesses to opt out of laws...." just like Obamao and Holder's regime? They flat out refuse to go by laws they don't like, and they don't have any kind of religious freedom excuse. And not one word about it from libs, even Chris. Guess what? That's that old hypocrisy showing up again. If it fits their liberal agenda/subculture... they get to opt out of laws, make unconstitutional decrees. Nothing matters... until it happens to be what libs don't want. THEN they "stand on principle". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 woodpecker won't understand that, Steve, he's still a maladjusted butt of the board. Meanwhile: ***************** Dangerous territory here, allowing businesses to just opt out of any laws they don't like. Chris ***************** Yes, Chris? "Dangerous territory allowing businesses to opt out of laws.... just like Obamao and Holder's regime? They flat out refuse to go by laws they don't like, and they don't have any kind of religious freedom excuse. So you disagree with this judgement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Of course I do. Forcing employers to violate their legitmately held religious beliefs is contrary to our U.S. Constitution - it's just extreme arrogance by this dicktitorial regime. All this talk about "common sense" when it comes to gun control, but no common sense when it comes to other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Of course I do. Forcing employers to violate their legitmately held religious beliefs is contrary to our U.S. Constitution - it's just extreme arrogance by this dicktitorial regime. All this talk about "common sense" when it comes to gun control, but no common sense when it comes to other issues. Um...? you agree with the judgement then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Wait, I disagree with your silly judgement on most issues. Yes, I obviously agree bigtime with this decision by the Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Wait, I disagree with your silly judgement on most issues. Yes, I obviously agree bigtime with this decision by the Court. So you agree with the big companies being able to opt out of laws, but disagree when it's 'Obamao' doing it? I'm just trying to be clear on which side of the argument you will land because you seem to be contradicting yourself with outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 The judgement refers to not forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. Any court would know that contraception is a legit religious belief. It doesn't mean that all corporations can violate pollution laws. get a grip on your hot toddy over there, Chris. (do you really think this Obamao admin has any kind of religious basis for breaking all the laws they are breaking? Seriously?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Umm... How is that in anyway on sarcastic footing equal to my point? I see nothing wrong with the day after pill It doesn't make any difference what you see wrong with anything in this situation. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.