SCOTUS decision in on Hobby Lobby case

[vickie gee]

So, if you are familiar with the case, what are your feelings now that a decision has been reached? Are you thankful that your prayers were answered? Are you in agreement with the decision? Are you in disagreement with the decision? Do you feel this was a victory? Do you want to dress up in one of those pink vagina costumes at the next convention for Democrats and rant about the war on women? Do you have no clue as to how you feel and would rather check out important issues like the Kardashians? Color me curious.

Opinions welcome.

 

[lucky seven]

I'm not familiar with the case because I watch very little news. I don't like the Kardashians so enlighten me.

 

[Debby - LB]

Here is my opinion.. I was shocked at the ruling, I think it has set a dangerous precedent.
Imposing religious views on individuals in the name of corporate policy is a dangerous ruling for all of us when corporations have legal backing to dictate morality to us.
What’s to prevent another employer from objecting to providing access to vaccines or blood transfusions on religious grounds?
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood challenged the coverage requirement under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
I think Justice Ginsburg hit the nail on the head when she said:
"I think the court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers,” “For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.”

 

[Debby - LB]

...and while I'm quoting Justice Ginsburg here are a few other things I read

• The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
• "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
• "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
• "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

• "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]"
• "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
• "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

Interesting reading here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

 

[andi]

I think the slipper slope that needed to be avoided was the government controlling and forcing private corporations to provide any services to their employees If companies are free to provide or not provide health care, minimum wage, specific break times etc. then we as consumers of employment would need to take these things more seriously into consideration when selecting a position. In addition companies would gain the value of employee that there benefits attract. If a Company did not want to provide a service, for whatever reason, financially most likely, but if they want to call it religious, then that's fine also, they could. It wouldn't be seen as taking away an employees right's to a service, they are free to purchase the service independently. Now, if a company refused employment because an employee was purchasing one of these services them selves, THAT would be infringing on the employees religious rights.

 

[Carriage]

Always interesting to see folk shape and then cherry pick their way through an argument. Often the true reasons and meaning are lost and treated as irrelevant.

As this is about the unborn at it's root re. Hobby Lobby and specific to the morning after pill, a different picture and motivation becomes readily appearent. This is NOT about abortion and that it a very important distinction. Abortion is a naturally occuring event and most often not of our own doing. Rather it is about aborticide and that IS of our own doing and IS murder of the unborn. No amount or level of shapeshifting within the argument changes that fact. As it was God and ONLY God who endowed us with the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, the murder of the unborn most certainly steals those rights from the unborn by murder.

Now those in favor of such treatment are want to cite roe v wade and are completely unaware of a supremes ruling that occured after that, which stated in para.

"If personhood were ascribed to the unborn, then the question regarding abortion would be over" (Doe vs. Bolton) Congress at the time failed to act and codify this Personhood. And the "church" was nowhere to be found.

As pro-lifers are always playing defense, I have always marveled at their inability to even present the argument in it's unadulterated form. In addition to defending the defenseless, a little offense would go a long way. That being? Why are some folk so rabid in their maintainance of this most heinous murder? At the end of the day, there is NO excuss, no made up argument, no lie, that should EVER trump the God given rights of the unborn. PERIOD. Indeed MOST Christians don't even know why these murders are are performed ultimately. (Lets see who is discerning enough to pursue that angle). When logic is allowed to see the light of day the argument quickly falls apart.

Am I a corp. lover? Um, H, E double toothpicks, NO. As our founders, I too understand the nature of the corp and feel that it should be abolished to the level the founders held them to. That being? VERY tightly controlled and able to ONLY do the project (as in singular) that they were founded to accomplish, and then, when that project was completed, dismantled. However, this isn't about the corporation or Hobby Lobby as some want to shape it. It is about life.

One last correction if I may. The supremes NEVER ruled on the Constitutionality of the misnamed "affordable care act". Rather they ruled on a very narrow portion of that argumnet, the taxes. Again, as there is NO ennumeration within the Constitution granting the fedgov any authority in this realm by the Master or Creator (States), the fedgov is prohibited from acting in this realm.

This is just more fodder being shaped and presented to create polarization and division. This always seems to work so well for them as most want to be led vs. being the Leaders they were created to be.

Now just as 22 years ago when I ws being interveiwed during my run for State house, I will pre-empt the tired counter argument. When pressed by the "reporter" to compromise my stand on the unborn and do so for the sake or "rape or incest" my counter statement still stands. In response I stated, "As we are talking about the 3-4% of aborticides that occure yearly, hows about we treat as criminal, the remaining 96-97% of aborticides commited yearly NOW and then "discuss" the remaining precious ones that are left". As you might imagine, that was the end of the "interview". And THAT shows the motivation for maintaining the vacuous position of murder of the unborn.

"You will be hated and reviled because of me" Said by the same as said "Let the little children come to me" IF there isn't a problem with the taking of these lives and they are so cheapened, then increasing euthanasia becomes increasingly ok as well. And it is doing just that.

Thanks for your time,

Bb

 

[Riverrose28]

If I'm wrong please set me right, I thought the issue was contraception, and that since Hobby Lobby was owned by a strict religious sect that opposes contraception that was the reasoning behind going all the way to the Supreme. I'm so against this ruling, now mind you I'm Christian, and am also

Catholic which we are not supposed to use contraception at all either, but as the mother of five children if I would have had another one I think we would have been put in the poor house. If I was still employed and worked for Hobby Lobby I woulkd find another job one that would help me afford the prescriptions that I need to survive. Is Hobby Lobby going to pay for the raising of an unwanted child, pay for their education, etc. Dosn't it say in the bible that a wife should submit to her husband? If that is so then a married woman could be pregnant every year of her reproducing life. Crazy, you think we pay out too much in welfare now, just wait.

 

[Debby - LB]

This issue was kind of contraception. From what I understood they were against providing insurance that allowed for the abortion pill, the morning after pill or? As far as I know the insurance they've provided for many years included woman's contraceptives...Although that is against their religion too it was never a dispute. Not being able to hand pick their insurance coverage is the problem and they used their religious beliefs to sue. This is mind boggling to me that a corporation won this case.

 

[Charley]

As I understand it - it is good.

Hobby Lobby is a Christian owned, closely held corporation which has never been open on Sunday. The owners principles of religion have guided them for years. The decision to contest this part of Obamacare was a bold one for any corporation. They stood to loose so much in fines from not conforming to this provision that they probably would have had to close their stores. They should be commended for standing up for their rights.

Why should our government force them to pay for insurance coverage for the morning after pill (abortion pill) for their employees when abortion goes against their beliefs that are protected by our constitution?

Women can still get the pill if they want to use it. This just insures that a closely held corporation whose owner's meet the criteria set in the ruling is not paying for it through the insurance provided to their employees. The women who still want the pills can get them free from Planned Parenthood. And no one has to work for Hobby Lobby if they don't want to.

I feel that the Supreme Court got this one right. Of course, the democrats are spinning it to again try to win elections this fall. It will never change…I hate politics!

btw…this is my humble opinion and has been throughout the wait for the Supreme Court's decision on this case.

 

[vickie gee]

Very well said Charley. It pays to do your homework. Not just any and every corporation could press this type of case. They met the guidelines. Their plan does in fact cover 16 of the 20 types of birth control that insurance companies will cover. They just did not want to (due to their religious beliefs) pay for the 4 types that are abortifaciants. And yes they were subject to huge fines that would have put them out of business. My prayers were answered. My husband's relative is one of the senior vice presidents in the company so therefore I am truly happy for him and his family.

 

[Riverrose28]

So Hobby Lobby owners are of the opinion that the morning after pill is the same as abortion, so what about those whose opinion it is that it is not an abortion but just killing the sperm and egg to prevent pregnancy. Is it not a matter of opionion? Believe me I personally could never have an abortion but way back in the 50 and 60 there where three times could have used a morning after pill. I'm sure there are many young girls that make mistakes, should they suffer the whole rest of their lives trying to raise an unwanted child, without a husband or finiacial help? Having a child is a lifetime comitment they don't leave after 18 years, the worst question yet is to follow. What if you were that unwanted child, maybe abused, even if only verbally, raised poor, hungry, or on welfare because your mother couldn't work because her salary wouldn't cover child care, health care, food, housing, etc. enough said . I think this decision was wrong, and will carry over to other decisions as well. On another subject why didn't the congress pass the equal pay for women bill?

 

[lucky seven]

I totally agree with RiverRose on this one, many years ago in the store breakroom I listened to a man spout off his views on abortion. He made the mistake of asking my opinion. I went up one side of him and down the other. I let him know that in no way did I want ANY man to have control over what I did with MY BODY! I am not talking about rape or incest, if a woman has made a mistake or her life is in jeopardy then let no one pass judgment. I'm not talking about late term abortions but right after the deed is done and the sperm hasn't formed a life. I am a firm believer in birth control. There are too many unwanted children in the system, I don't hear anyone mentioning them. What quality of life do they have, these kids grow up in foster care or warehouse type institutions. One girl who was my friend in my teens was taken in by a foster family. She said her brother was left behind because no one wanted him. I think more dialog should be on what is being done for all the unwanted children. I'm Methodist and read my Bible, please no spouting of Scripture. I'm still looking for the place where it says marriage is for same sex and not between a man and woman.

 

[Debby - LB]

Expanding the rules from a religion to cover a private business should trouble everybody. The ruling allows some for-profit corporations to provide insurance that doesn't cover birth control. .....Can't help it, to me enforcing the religious beliefs of the owners on their employees is wrong.

The irony is until the lawsuit Hobby Lobby covered female contraceptives, including Plan B and others that they NOW object to in the current legal action. They also cover vasectomies. Hobby Lobby's owners object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.... HELLO how you gonna fertilize that egg when the man had the snip-snip you allowed under your insurance plan?

The owners of Hobby Lobby were for contraception before they were against it, they played the religion card only when they would have lost money by being fined for not providing the mandated options for women.

The REAL irony is Hobby Lobby's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug. I wonder why their retirement funds were not managed in a custom portfolio to invest only in Religious value funds? The answer is money. A custom portfolio would cost them more.

 

[andi]

I think what you mentioned is very important Debby and was the other part of this issue that really frustrates me. The idea that a Christian family would use their believe system to manipulate the law for financial gain is disgraceful. The fact that they only chose to pay attention now, when the mandate was being brought forth was so unpopular and would most likely get them great publicity and save them money, speaks volumes to what motivates them.

 

[andi]

As I mentioned before, I do think private companies should have the freedom to offer whatever services they wish, but to use religion as a tool to manipulate the system, the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Debby - LB]

Exactly! that is what bothers me the most about this. It's a shame. Even though I'd still see this as a blow to women's rights, I would have looked up to them for fighting for their religious beliefs and maybe even celebrated their win IF they'd shown true Christian character. I'm sorry I don't respect this company at all.

You are right the ends do not justify the means.

 

[lucky seven]

Hobby Lobby should have provided a comprehensive health care program, not one that mirrors their beliefs. Shame on them, I haven't been in their store yet, now won't go near it. There is always a way to protest. The pocketbook, which is what they seem to care more about. Debby, you and the others really opened my eyes on them. I don't recall seeing anything about this in the newspaper or on our news.

 

[vickie gee]

Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act during his presidency. Hilary's spin speech about the Hobby Lobby victory (in short, won because SCOTUS upheld this law, which is what their job is supposed to be) this week was, for lack of a better description, "very ironic." I have to wonder if a fly on the wall heard her ranting about peyote and Native Americans. Wikipedia gives a detailed description about all the legal jargon about this law. Sorry, I was not able to copy and paste the Wikipedia link so it might sound like I have my own peyote. If you do your homework and research the law only then will you understand the reference to peyote. I realize this law could come back and bite peaceful religions in the butt when non-peaceful religions use it. But then I do recall somebody in a high position in our country said we are no longer a Christian nation.

For the moment I am very pleased that the Green family won their case. Individuals should not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. This boiled down to whether the government could blatantly ignore the Constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of religion and force the Greens to violate their deeply held religious convictions. There is an immeasurable difference in a conviction and an opinion. It is possible for humans to never hold a conviction on anything. It was the family's conviction that they did not want to offer abortive pills because they did not want to contribute to the murder of the unborn.

So, if one is of the opinion that an egg that was fertilized two hours ago is not the beginning of conception they would naturally see these type pills as no problem. But where would one draw the conclusion as to where life actually begins, would it be 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 200 days? Whatever timeframe of one being a little bit pregnant would fit one person's opinion could differ from another person's. Was Mary carrying Jesus in her womb at any specific point, say 4 months or was she with child from the time of conception? Opinion, no opinioin, or conviction? The Greens have a conviction rather than an opinion about when life begins. They do not make employees bring a note to work in the event that they might have used the morning after pill. They don't try to control every aspect of their lives. You could clock out of work and then go have sex like rabbits if that is what you choose. Employees choose to work there and the fact that full time employees make more than twice the minimum wage and part time employees have a very fair rate of pay likely helps attract them in addition to the positive atmosphere. As I sit here typing I see a wall full of crosses all purchased from Hobby Lobby. On the same wall is a decorative plaque that says "The Will of God will never take you where the Grace of God will not protect you."

 

[Riverrose28]

This ruling scares the daylights out of me as well. Mostley because the Supreme Court has now set a precidence for the future. (PLease excuse my spelling) I've been a prisoner in my house all day because of the heat, I have copd and can't breath in the humidity, so I've had a lot of time to think and this is one subject that I was dwelling on. it might sound silly now but not so later on, what about those religious groups from Africa, South America, West burrow Babtist? Isn't this a business for profit, all it would take is some excentric crazy relious group to do the same thing, very simple but, very scary. Sorry I've gone off the deep end about this, but got my big girl panties on.

 

[Riverrose28]

Lets just say that someone from our country converts to an African religion that believes in female circumsion, they start a company that expands and hires thousands of employees, should their relious believes be imposed on these employees? IMO it is a matter of opinion and should not be imposed, just as if a Muslim owned a business here. Being Christian is no different.