Surpreme Court, Hobby Lobby case, today...

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
After listening and watch three hours of CSPAN's coverage... can Obama's socialized medicine force a for profit religious corportation to pay for health insurance that provides abortion, destroying a human embryo through medication, their 13,000 employes or face a two thousand dollar fine, per employee, if they refuse...

~~~



~A"fter a year and a half of opposing the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate, the evangelical-owned craft store chain has become shorthand for the corporate fight for religious liberty—one that concerns not only Obamacare critics, or fellow Christians who worry that certain contraception methods are abortifacients, but now, Americans overall.

It's expected to be the most high-profile case the Supreme Court reviews this year. CT can refresh your memory. [Infographics below.]

CNN called Hobby Lobby's oral arguments, scheduled for March 25, a "high-stakes encore" to Obamacare. Left-leaning news site Mother Jones warned readers about the potential "revolutionary outcomes, from upending a century's worth of settled corporate law to opening the floodgates to religious challenges to every possible federal statute to gutting the contraceptive mandate."

Hobby Lobby's case—to be argued along with Mennonite-owned furniture makers Conestoga Wood Specialties—represents the fate of nearly 100 other businesses and non-profits who have filed suit against the contraceptive mandate. (Churches and other houses of worship had been granted an exemption.)

Their legal challenge has generated an outpouring of amicus briefs—filings of relevant opinion and testimony from interested stakeholders who aren't directly involved, such as congressmen, scholars, religious groups, and theologians. With 84 filings, the case represents "among the largest amicus efforts ever," according to The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Religion News Service summarizes the two central questions for the Supreme Court to consider:
• Does Hobby Lobby as a corporation have religious rights protected by the First Amendment?
• Have those rights been violated under a 20-year-old statute that sets a high bar for government interference of religious freedom?

That statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, prevents the government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion without compelling government interest.

"Some flippantly say 'A business cannot be a Christian' but the truth is, every business is either moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, depending the values they base their business on," said megachurch pastor Rick Warren. "When the government starts coercing businesses to violate their religious, moral, and ethical values, that is a flagrant violation of our Constitution."

As illustrated in this thorough RNS profile of the Hobby Lobby founder, Steve Green—a billionaire, Southern Baptist, and avid Bible-collector—believes his beliefs are indeed part of his company, which is why they carry Christian merchandise and close on Sundays. He won't compromise on his pro-life convictions to run his business, so Hobby Lobby refuses coverage for 4 of the ACA's 20 contraceptive methods, including intrauterine devices and morning-after pills:


Those, the FDA acknowledges, could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Blocking implantation would "terminate life" says Green. "We won't pay for any abortive products. We believe life begins at conception."

Hobby Lobby opponents argue that the religious liberty cause should not override an individual's rights to a full range of health care options, particularly for women.

The Supreme Court could rule either way. CNN reports that so far "three federal appeals courts around the country have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two other appeals courts have upheld it. That 'circuit split' made the upcoming Supreme Court review almost certain."

The high court's decision on the case is expected to be announced in June. Two infographics by the Becket Fund are below.

CT previously previewed the top contenders and the core question at stake: Whether for-profit companies have religious rights, via the court's extension of corporate "personhood" in Citizens United. Religion Clause's Howard Friedman told CT this is "one of the most difficult legal questions I've seen."

Appeals courts have disagreed on whether for-profit corporations with religious owners are allowed free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Seventh Circuit and Tenth Circuit have said yes. But the Sixth Circuit and Third Circuit have said no.

Most of the legal action has been on the for-profit side (47 cases and counting), where—out of the 39 lawsuits decided on the merits of their complaints—33 have secured temporary bans against the mandate's enforcement and 6 have been denied, according to a helpful scorecard kept by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

CT has chronicled the many legal developments regarding the contraceptive mandate, including most recently on the nonprofit side where a court ruled that the mandate splits religion into worship or good works."

~~~

Lawsuits in many states are challenging the right of government to violatie religious freedom rights across the country...

where in the hell are the christian conservatives on this issue?

amicus
 
Socialized medicine will be repealed in 2017, I can't wait to hear you squeal like a stuck pig....

amicus
 
Socialized medicine will be repealed in 2017, I can't wait to hear you squeal like a stuck pig....

amicus

Assuming that this daydream of your'n will actually come true, are you sure you're going to be alive by then to hear anything, Granddaddy Cyclops?

As I understand it, you've been breaking down over the years like a rusty beach chair left on the surf and exposed to salt water. Your ears might go the way of your eye. Ain't gonna be much pig squealin' to hear, I reckon!

tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif
 
Hobby Lobby is a "religious corporation"?

Who knew?

(Besides Amicunt, of course...he's omniscent).

In any event, it's going to be a difficult case for teh Supremes.

They have to balance the Republican need for corporate profits against the Republican desire to punish sluts.
 
It will be an interesting range of opinion no matter how the vote goes.



Christians must be put into a closet...
 
If you engage in commerce, you have to follow the same rules every other company follows. Hobby Lobby is going to get slapped down.
 
How long before the crosses have to come off the churches because they can be seen, and thus offend, from a public road?
 
What gives a corporation the right to get involved in employees health care?

What if a sugar corporation decides it is against their religion to pay for diabetes care?

Religious grounds are completely subjective they could cut out anything they want to save money.
 
What gives a corporation the right to get involved in employees health care?

What if a sugar corporation decides it is against their religion to pay for diabetes care?

Religious grounds are completely subjective they could cut out anything they want to save money.

Nothing gives them a right. What gives the government the same right? Nothing...

Yes, they could. If it is a bad thing they do, the market will punish them.

If the sugar corporation decides that its insurance plan will not cover diabetes, then there will be a market created for diabetes insurance and diabetics will probably not apply for the job just as sluts are free to not apply to Hobby Lobby where their only tangible benefit is being able to sleep in with their latest Saturday Night Special...
 
Nothing gives them a right. What gives the government the same right? Nothing...

Yes, they could. If it is a bad thing they do, the market will punish them.

If the sugar corporation decides that its insurance plan will not cover diabetes, then there will be a market created for diabetes insurance and diabetics will probably not apply for the job just as sluts are free to not apply to Hobby Lobby where their only tangible benefit is being able to sleep in with their latest Saturday Night Special...

So what you are saying is any employer should be able to offer or exclude any insurance they want at any whim they want at any time they want. No rules at all.

Should corps. be able to pick the doctors they chose?

Should corps be able to pick how long you are hospitalized?

Should they be able to review your health records before they hire you?
 
So what you are saying is any employer should be able to offer or exclude any insurance they want at any whim they want at any time they want. No rules at all.

Should corps. be able to pick the doctors they chose?

Should corps be able to pick how long you are hospitalized?

Should they be able to review your health records before they hire you?

Of course. If they are capricious, they will get the employees they deserve and if it offends the public enough, they will get the sales they deserve. You cannot use law and government to control what people do and still consider yourself to be free and living in a land steeped in liberty.
 
How many people have made the conscious decision to give none of their business to Hobby Lobby and Chic-fil-A?


That is how liberty and discrimination work.


One is willing to lose a sale and one is unwilling to purchase.
 
Of course. If they are capricious, they will get the employees they deserve and if it offends the public enough, they will get the sales they deserve. You cannot use law and government to control what people do and still consider yourself to be free and living in a land steeped in liberty.

So government should have no regulations and everyone should be able to do what ever they want?

GE should be able to dump chemicals in a river and let the market decide if we still want to buy from them?
 
So government should have no regulations and everyone should be able to do what ever they want?

GE should be able to dump chemicals in a river and let the market decide if we still want to buy from them?

I am sorry to be so blunt, but that is one of the most childish (and beloved by the Liberals) form of argumentation; if you do not agree with what I find reasonable laws and protections, then you must believe in NO laws and protections.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Frédéric Bastiat

I sense a special animus here towards the word corporations and in your hypotheticals. A corporation has to answer to not only its consumers but to its shareholders who have the right to divest, sink the stock, and close up the corporation. A corporation which through malice or ignorance which brings harm to others can easily be taken to court both criminally and specifically under general laws against harm, the mere addition of proactive and anticipatory specificity and nuance earning no greater protection for a bad player is a bad player and an ignorant player is still an ignorant player.

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Cornelius Tacitus
 
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whatever corporation believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
 
Nothing gives them a right. What gives the government the same right? Nothing...

Yes, they could. If it is a bad thing they do, the market will punish them.

If the sugar corporation decides that its insurance plan will not cover diabetes, then there will be a market created for diabetes insurance and diabetics will probably not apply for the job just as sluts are free to not apply to Hobby Lobby where their only tangible benefit is being able to sleep in with their latest Saturday Night Special...

So when taxpayers have to foot 100% of the unemployed diabetics medical bills you won't say a word, right?
 
I am sorry to be so blunt, but that is one of the most childish (and beloved by the Liberals) form of argumentation; if you do not agree with what I find reasonable laws and protections, then you must believe in NO laws and protections.
Throwing out the freedom card when brought to it's logical conclusion does not really work for you and I.

Okay so now we have come down to what is reasonable. This is good, and I agree with you. Reasonable people can disagree on what is reasonable and come to a consensus or negotiated settlement. Government can regulate everyone right out of business and has in our industrial sector over the last 30 years.

I, personally, feel that it is not reasonable for a corporation to dictate their beliefs on their employees when it come to health care. It gives the employer too much say in the employees personal lives. You can disagree.

I like that they are closed on Sundays and I like the reasons why. We all could use a day of rest for religious reasons or not.
 
If you engage in commerce, you have to follow the same rules every other company follows.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
If they want to preach "god's word" as an established business model, then they can get tax exempt status as a church from the IRS, then then can argue they shouldn't have have to follow the business laws in the US.

GE should be able to dump chemicals in a river and let the market decide if we still want to buy from them?
Good question. There are religious fundamentalists who believe God wants us to use the earth however we see fit and he'll protect us. If Hobby Lobby can argue, and win, that they shouldn't have to follow ACA laws because it's against their religion, there's absolutely nothing to stop a chemical company from claiming they are a "religious corporation" and that they don't have to follow EPA rules. No difference at all.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who has ever warned about Sharia law and also supports Hobby Lobby in this case is a full-fledged hypocrite.
 
Good question. There are religious fundamentalists who believe God wants us to use the earth however we see fit and he'll protect us. If Hobby Lobby can argue, and win, that they shouldn't have to follow ACA laws because it's against their religion, there's absolutely nothing to stop a chemical company from claiming they are a "religious corporation" and that they don't have to follow EPA rules. No difference at all.

It is a slippery slope for sure.

On the other hand where does religious freedom fit in this day and age? We have to protect the constitution that give folks religious freedom. To many times the courts have sided with secular humanist specifically when it comes to public property. It is sad that some traditional items could not be kept for historic reasons. For example the 10 commandments in a court room. Where do people think our laws and principles come from?
 
Back
Top