Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Genivaria]

Corporations have zillions of money, they can easily hire mercenary armies; they cannot organize Militia. Militia are Free-born |Citizens wh have proper jobs to go home to when the War is over. Mercenaries just move on to the next War.

You DO realize that the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to non-citizen residents of the United States, right?

This touches on a separate subject, but there was a protest against illegal immigration here in Michigan within a couple of hours drive from where I live (in Vassar; I live in Ypsilanti). One of the protestors carried a sign saying "The Bill of Rights is for CITIZENS".

I wish I'd been there to walk up to that person, point at the sign, and tell them: "You're wrong; go back and read your Constitution". Non-citizens have many of the same rights citizens do, including the right to due process (which is apparently what that protester up in Vassar was wrongly trying to contest).

And that includes gun rights: When I put in a short stint as a contract IT consultant at Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan (BC/BSM), getting a CWL was something of a fad among the male employees (this was in 2011, when the Tea Party was a hot thing). Several of my male colleagues bought handguns, went to classes, and got their licenses — including 2-3 Indian nationals who were here on work visas. The law and the Constitution allow this; in America, guns are not just for American citizens.

So yes, corporations can own guns; they might even be able to organize militias. This is what legal personhood entails: If you're a legal person, you have the right to do anything that any other person can do.

So now I'm just waiting for corporate adoptions...

But the issue is that corporations should not be regarded as persons.

[JesusOfNazareth]

The notion that Hobby Lobby or some like minded company is forcing their religion on others is such a load of crap.
Hobby Lobby is not demanding that the employees pray to the Christian Holy Trinity, get baptized or engage in dietary restrictions.

All they are saying is that there are four types of contraception that they view as abortificients, that they want no part of having any kind of contract that deals with those four methods, and they have the religious freedom to opt out of those four methods.

Let me know when the Hobby Lobby Gestapo appears near the counter of your local pharmacy.

which is why it ISNT A RELIGIOUS THING. the same test YOU use for your example is a good example of why it isn't religious to begin with.

the religious freedom act was passed so that people in odd religions could practices their freaking religion. having a for profit business that has to provide standard insurance has nothing to do with the religious freedom of the stockholders no matter how few of them there are.

The logic of your first statement seems ridiculous on it's face, so please elaborate on how my example proves your case.

"Odd religions?" "Freaking religions?" That's very insulting. I think most secularists view Christianity as an "odd religion" (or "freaking religion") and you also really slam every non-mainstream religion with that statement. It also implies that religious protections are only for non-mainstream religious practitioners, which is stupid.

Try changing your perspective. Look at the Greens and the other Christians of closely held businesses as "conscientious objectors" in the area of abortions. Just as a person selected to be a soldier might opt for imprisonment or limited service on religious/moral grounds, the business owners have opted for limits on how far they're willing to go in regards to birth control and SCOTUS has recognized that the HHS stepped over the line in creating an undue burden which violates the owners' religious beliefs.

In regard to religious beliefs, I'm not aware of any employee's religion that requires the employer to violate the employer's religious beliefs.

[Brickistan]

which is why it ISNT A RELIGIOUS THING. the same test YOU use for your example is a good example of why it isn't religious to begin with.

the religious freedom act was passed so that people in odd religions could practices their freaking religion. having a for profit business that has to provide standard insurance has nothing to do with the religious freedom of the stockholders no matter how few of them there are.

The logic of your first statement seems ridiculous on it's face, so please elaborate on how my example proves your case.

"Odd religions?" "Freaking religions?" That's very insulting. I think most secularists view Christianity as an "odd religion" (or "freaking religion") and you also really slam every non-mainstream religion with that statement. It also implies that religious protections are only for non-mainstream religious practitioners, which is stupid.

Try changing your perspective. Look at the Greens and the other Christians of closely held businesses as "conscientious objectors" in the area of abortions. Just as a person selected to be a soldier might opt for imprisonment or limited service on religious/moral grounds, the business owners have opted for limits on how far they're willing to go in regards to birth control and SCOTUS has recognized that the HHS stepped over the line in creating an undue burden which violates the owners' religious beliefs.

In regard to religious beliefs, I'm not aware of any employee's religion that requires the employer to violate the employer's religious beliefs.

Not religiously based as such, but still a violation...

Dress code comes close to what you're suggesting. It's not based on religion (at least, not in most cases) but it can still violate an employees religious beliefs. Take the headscarf worn by Muslim women, for example. Asking them to remove it is, to them, a violation of their religious beliefs.

As far as I know, here in Europe there's been several cases where a Muslim employee has taken her employer to court over dress code forcing her to remove the scarf. But I'm not aware if any precedence has been set.

[JesusOfNazareth]

The logic of your first statement seems ridiculous on it's face, so please elaborate on how my example proves your case.

"Odd religions?" "Freaking religions?" That's very insulting. I think most secularists view Christianity as an "odd religion" (or "freaking religion") and you also really slam every non-mainstream religion with that statement. It also implies that religious protections are only for non-mainstream religious practitioners, which is stupid.

Try changing your perspective. Look at the Greens and the other Christians of closely held businesses as "conscientious objectors" in the area of abortions. Just as a person selected to be a soldier might opt for imprisonment or limited service on religious/moral grounds, the business owners have opted for limits on how far they're willing to go in regards to birth control and SCOTUS has recognized that the HHS stepped over the line in creating an undue burden which violates the owners' religious beliefs.

In regard to religious beliefs, I'm not aware of any employee's religion that requires the employer to violate the employer's religious beliefs.

Not religiously based as such, but still a violation...

Dress code comes close to what you're suggesting. It's not based on religion (at least, not in most cases) but it can still violate an employees religious beliefs. Take the headscarf worn by Muslim women, for example. Asking them to remove it is, to them, a violation of their religious beliefs.

As far as I know, here in Europe there's been several cases where a Muslim employee has taken her employer to court over dress code forcing her to remove the scarf. But I'm not aware if any precedence has been set.

You seem to have it backward, but I'll address your example.

As far as I know, as dress codes go, it's usually part of the employer-employee contract. I think Disney had this problem in one of their theme parks with a young muslim woman who was portraying a Disney licensed character. The U.S. courts determined that the young muslim woman was in violation of her contract and could either remove her non-sanctioned headware from her costume, move to a position inside the park where she could wear her garb, or quit.

[Ashmoria]

I'm glad the Supreme Court took the side of Life on this issue.

It's not really the side of life. They're allowing companies to refuse birth control in health insurance plans for employees. That's not the side of life.

No, it is on the side of life. But we can have that debate later.

I'm glad the Supreme Court has been being more proactive in protecting religious freedoms.

No, we should have that debate right here and now.

The Court was careful not to actually base its ruling on the idea that the 4 contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby doesn't support serve as abortifacients; what it said was that the plaintiffs BELIEVED they were abortifacients, and that belief was enough.

It would be a little like saying that if the matter comes down to BELIEF, and I BELIEVE that the Moon is made of green cheese, it doesn't really matter what the actual truth is; as far as I'm concerned, it's my BELIEF that takes precedence. As others have pointed out, the contraceptives in question are NOT, in fact, abortifacients — whatever the plaintiffs believe. So this is not a ruling in favor of "life"; it's a ruling in favor of the right to irresponsibly call black pink, ignore any and all efforts at correction by continuing to INSIST that black is pink regardless of the evidence, and get away with it.

As for religious freedom, that too was left at the door. The Court effectively ruled that the resistance of certain Christians to abortion and/or birth control was MORE valid and MORE worthy of legal protection than opposition by Jehovah's Witnesses to transfusions, opposition by Scientologists to psychiatry, or opposition by various fringe religious groups to vaccination (among other beliefs). It wasn't an endorsement of the sanctity of religious belief; it was an expression of support for ONE religious doctrine over others, which makes it especially distasteful.

you left out the part where it only affects women. so those men never have to worry that their healthcare might be compromised.

not that it isn't stupid to think that only women care about contraception.

[Ashmoria]

which is why it ISNT A RELIGIOUS THING. the same test YOU use for your example is a good example of why it isn't religious to begin with.

the religious freedom act was passed so that people in odd religions could practices their freaking religion. having a for profit business that has to provide standard insurance has nothing to do with the religious freedom of the stockholders no matter how few of them there are.

The logic of your first statement seems ridiculous on it's face, so please elaborate on how my example proves your case.

"Odd religions?" "Freaking religions?" That's very insulting. I think most secularists view Christianity as an "odd religion" (or "freaking religion") and you also really slam every non-mainstream religion with that statement. It also implies that religious protections are only for non-mainstream religious practitioners, which is stupid.

Try changing your perspective. Look at the Greens and the other Christians of closely held businesses as "conscientious objectors" in the area of abortions. Just as a person selected to be a soldier might opt for imprisonment or limited service on religious/moral grounds, the business owners have opted for limits on how far they're willing to go in regards to birth control and SCOTUS has recognized that the HHS stepped over the line in creating an undue burden which violates the owners' religious beliefs.

In regard to religious beliefs, I'm not aware of any employee's religion that requires the employer to violate the employer's religious beliefs.

sure. if I am a strict Christian I WISH I could mandate my views onto others. but if I GET to mandate my views on others, even if those views are only influenced by my Christian beliefs (as opposed to actual Christian religious practices) then I am forcing my Christian beliefs on those people. in a contest between allowing the free exercise of my religion in whatever claim I want to make about what that involves and having that religious beliefs affect non-believers (or even people who belong to the exact same denomination as I do but who aren't as strict) im going to have to say that religious freedom means that I don't have to do what you say.

I have a first amendment right to violate YOUR religious beliefs. I can dance on sunday, have extramarital sex, eat philly cheesesteak sandwiches, swim in the same pool as men, use birth control, whatever.

[Ashmoria]

The point is that religious objections aren't legitimate when you're forcing them on other people.

The notion that Hobby Lobby or some like minded company is forcing their religion on others is such a load of crap.
Hobby Lobby is not demanding that the employees pray to the Christian Holy Trinity, get baptized or engage in dietary restrictions.

All they are saying is that there are four types of contraception that they view as abortificients, that they want no part of having any kind of contract that deals with those four methods, and they have the religious freedom to opt out of those four methods.

Let me know when the Hobby Lobby Gestapo appears near the counter of your local pharmacy.

so we can see what you originally said.

you say that forcing religion on others has to involve actual Christian practice: prayer, rituals or personal behavior codes. so how does paying for standard insurance then violate the religion of the hobbylobby owners? it isn't any of those things and is in fact something that their religion doesn't cover--the theology of insurance.

[The Shadow Brotherhood]

I am very happy with this SCOTUS ruling.

In my humble opinion, the only thing a company must provide for it's workers is a payment at or above the minimum wage. If an employer is to pay for healthcare it is part of that employee's negotiated deal.

In the American Constitutional Republic, the deal between the worker and the corporation is a private, consensual contract between two sovereign individuals and/or private entities. If one of the private entities retracts its membership from said contract, the government has no right to by force compel said private entity sustain its position in a private contract. Whether or not a corporation is a private entity is "a person" is COMPLETELY irrelevant as it is indisputably is a private entity.

There is ONE such exception to this case, and that is if the rejection of the contract between private individuals is part of a collective effort to discriminate against a religious or ethnic group. As a united Republic, these actions are unacceptable, especially under the civil rights act of 1964.

However, this is easily distinguishable from the conditions that the Supreme Court ruled on, so I should think this is an acceptable ruling with minimal negative effects. This definitely is entirely irrelevant from women's rights. It is ironic these women think they are owed abortive birth control just as a result that they are living but don't think the children they would be aborting even are entitled to live. Also ironic is that our entitlement mentality has grown so grotesque that refusing to give someone something for free against your will is equivalent to refusing to let them buy it on their own accord.

It is also worth mentioning that the several million dollars we give to planned parenthood per year should be going to something and that Hobby Lobby voluntarily provided 16 OTHER forms of birth control before the court case.

I honest to God don't understand the controversy unless you really believe the government has the right to force businesses to do things.

[Ashmoria]

I am very happy with this SCOTUS ruling.

In my humble opinion, the only thing a company must provide for it's workers is a payment at or above the minimum wage. If an employer is to pay for healthcare it is part of that employee's negotiated deal.

In the American Constitutional Republic, the deal between the worker and the corporation is a private, consensual contract between two sovereign individuals and/or private entities. If one of the private entities retracts its membership from said contract, the government has no right to by force compel said private entity sustain its position in a private contract. Whether or not a corporation is a private entity is "a person" is COMPLETELY irrelevant as it is indisputably is a private entity.

There is ONE such exception to this case, and that is if the rejection of the contract between private individuals is part of a collective effort to discriminate against a religious or ethnic group. As a united Republic, these actions are unacceptable, especially under the civil rights act of 1964.

However, this is easily distinguishable from the conditions that the Supreme Court ruled on, so I should think this is an acceptable ruling with minimal negative effects. This definitely is entirely irrelevant from women's rights. It is ironic these women think they are owed abortive birth control just as a result that they are living but don't think the children they would be aborting even are entitled to live. Also ironic is that our entitlement mentality has grown so grotesque that refusing to give someone something for free against your will is equivalent to refusing to let them buy it on their own accord.

It is also worth mentioning that the several million dollars we give to planned parenthood per year should be going to something and that Hobby Lobby voluntarily provided 16 OTHER forms of birth control before the court case.

there is no covered abortive birth control.

women aren't demanding birth control coverage the government is. just as it demands cancer coverage. just as it demands that insurance cover your children up to age 26.

when everyone is covered by insurance we don't need to give any money to planned parenthood. their extremely important services will be covered by insurance instead of being subsidized by the feds.

[Mavorpen]

This definitely is entirely irrelevant from women's rights. It is ironic these women think they are owed abortive birth control just as a result that they are living but don't think the children they would be aborting even are entitled to live.

Psst. None of the contraceptives in this case are aborticides. Absolutely none of them.

I honest to God don't understand the controversy unless you really believe the government has the right to force businesses to do things.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Ashmoria]

This definitely is entirely irrelevant from women's rights. It is ironic these women think they are owed abortive birth control just as a result that they are living but don't think the children they would be aborting even are entitled to live.

Psst. None of the contraceptives in this case are aborticides. Absolutely none of them.

I honest to God don't understand the controversy unless you really believe the government has the right to force businesses to do things.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

no kidding. we have forced business to do things for 100 years now and it is working out pretty well.

[Othelos]

I am very happy with this SCOTUS ruling.

In my humble opinion, the only thing a company must provide for it's workers is a payment at or above the minimum wage. If an employer is to pay for healthcare it is part of that employee's negotiated deal.

In the American Constitutional Republic, the deal between the worker and the corporation is a private, consensual contract between two sovereign individuals and/or private entities. If one of the private entities retracts its membership from said contract, the government has no right to by force compel said private entity sustain its position in a private contract. Whether or not a corporation is a private entity is "a person" is COMPLETELY irrelevant as it is indisputably is a private entity.

There is ONE such exception to this case, and that is if the rejection of the contract between private individuals is part of a collective effort to discriminate against a religious or ethnic group. As a united Republic, these actions are unacceptable, especially under the civil rights act of 1964.

However, this is easily distinguishable from the conditions that the Supreme Court ruled on, so I should think this is an acceptable ruling with minimal negative effects. This definitely is entirely irrelevant from women's rights. It is ironic these women think they are owed abortive birth control just as a result that they are living but don't think the children they would be aborting even are entitled to live. Also ironic is that our entitlement mentality has grown so grotesque that refusing to give someone something for free against your will is equivalent to refusing to let them buy it on their own accord.

It is also worth mentioning that the several million dollars we give to planned parenthood per year should be going to something and that Hobby Lobby voluntarily provided 16 OTHER forms of birth control before the court case.

I honest to God don't understand the controversy unless you really believe the government has the right to force businesses to do things.

all forms of regulation are 'forcing businesses to do things'.

[The Shadow Brotherhood]

I am very happy with this SCOTUS ruling.

In my humble opinion, the only thing a company must provide for it's workers is a payment at or above the minimum wage. If an employer is to pay for healthcare it is part of that employee's negotiated deal.

In the American Constitutional Republic, the deal between the worker and the corporation is a private, consensual contract between two sovereign individuals and/or private entities. If one of the private entities retracts its membership from said contract, the government has no right to by force compel said private entity sustain its position in a private contract. Whether or not a corporation is a private entity is "a person" is COMPLETELY irrelevant as it is indisputably is a private entity.

There is ONE such exception to this case, and that is if the rejection of the contract between private individuals is part of a collective effort to discriminate against a religious or ethnic group. As a united Republic, these actions are unacceptable, especially under the civil rights act of 1964.

However, this is easily distinguishable from the conditions that the Supreme Court ruled on, so I should think this is an acceptable ruling with minimal negative effects. This definitely is entirely irrelevant from women's rights. It is ironic these women think they are owed abortive birth control just as a result that they are living but don't think the children they would be aborting even are entitled to live. Also ironic is that our entitlement mentality has grown so grotesque that refusing to give someone something for free against your will is equivalent to refusing to let them buy it on their own accord.

It is also worth mentioning that the several million dollars we give to planned parenthood per year should be going to something and that Hobby Lobby voluntarily provided 16 OTHER forms of birth control before the court case.

there is no covered abortive birth control.

women aren't demanding birth control coverage the government is. just as it demands cancer coverage. just as it demands that insurance cover your children up to age 26.

when everyone is covered by insurance we don't need to give any money to planned parenthood. their extremely important services will be covered by insurance instead of being subsidized by the feds.

I agree with you that it would be preferable to have everyone covered by insurance rather than having to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

I also agree it is the government that is demanding the coverage, although many so called women's rights groups are the major advocates for such an action. Sorry for any failure of communication.

As far as abortive birth control I will respond to all of my friends who disagree with me on this subject at once:


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1185 ... bby-ob-gyn

1. This evidence, even slanted the best possible way against Hobby Lobby's claim these contraceptives are abortive still support the theory that in rare cases the said contraceptives can be abortive. Maybe for Hobby Lobby, a 1% chance is too much. Religion doesn't need to be backed by science in order to be valid. You and I can say "that's stupid" but they are still guaranteed religious freedom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... h-control/

"That’s false. As Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. explained in his opinion for the court, the effect of its ruling on these women’s access to contraception is “precisely zero.”

The reason is this: the regulations under the Affordable Care Act already provide that if a religiously affiliated employer has a genuine religious objection to including those services in its insurance plan, the insurer must provide them separately at no cost to the employee. The government had limited that work-around to nonprofit organizations — such as universities and hospitals. The Supreme Court simply held that religiously oriented for-profits should get the same accommodation. In other words, when there is an alternate way of providing services to employees without forcing religiously motivated businesses to compromise their principles, the government must choose the path that is “least restrictive” of religious freedom."

2. So to be blunt the women still get reimbursed birth control via their health plan under the ACA. Once again why women's rights are irrelevant.

3. Had this verdict been ruled the other way nothing would have stopped the government from forcing Hobby Lobby to cover aborticides. And yes, there is a definitive difference between safety regulations and a minimum wage and healthcare standards as opposed to forcing companies to do what the government tells them, whenever whoever is in power says so. That is fascism. Don't let the apparent social conservatism of said case fool you. Fascism does involve extreme persecution of so called 'inferior peoples' like 'gays' so that may seem apparently like a far right ideology, but the government cannot tell a company to do something UNLESS IT THREATENS their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in our Constitutional Republic.

Because a women is choosing to become impregnated due to her own free will, you cannot make the false argument that Hobby Lobby indeed is threatening her liberty. You might believe in the "right to become pregnant and have birth control", but because that is not a natural born right and rather a self-inflicted condition it is not the government NOR the business's responsibility to manage-- it is hers, and hers alone. And that is beauty of America. Your choice and your responsibility. These, in reality, are not mutually exclusive.

[Urran]

They're not against contraception, they just don't want to pay for it because it goes against what they believe in. I think religious freedom is guaranteed in the constitution and ruling in the opposite way would have infringed on that right. You can't force someone to go against their morality.

[Ashmoria]

there is no covered abortive birth control.

women aren't demanding birth control coverage the government is. just as it demands cancer coverage. just as it demands that insurance cover your children up to age 26.

when everyone is covered by insurance we don't need to give any money to planned parenthood. their extremely important services will be covered by insurance instead of being subsidized by the feds.

I agree with you that it would be preferable to have everyone covered by insurance rather than having to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

I also agree it is the government that is demanding the coverage, although many so called women's rights groups are the major advocates for such an action. Sorry for any failure of communication.

As far as abortive birth control I will respond to all of my friends who disagree with me on this subject at once:


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1185 ... bby-ob-gyn

1. This evidence, even slanted the best possible way against Hobby Lobby's claim these contraceptives are abortive still support the theory that in rare cases the said contraceptives can be abortive. Maybe for Hobby Lobby, a 1% chance is too much. Religion doesn't need to be backed by science in order to be valid. You and I can say "that's stupid" but they are still guaranteed religious freedom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... h-control/

"That’s false. As Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. explained in his opinion for the court, the effect of its ruling on these women’s access to contraception is “precisely zero.”

The reason is this: the regulations under the Affordable Care Act already provide that if a religiously affiliated employer has a genuine religious objection to including those services in its insurance plan, the insurer must provide them separately at no cost to the employee. The government had limited that work-around to nonprofit organizations — such as universities and hospitals. The Supreme Court simply held that religiously oriented for-profits should get the same accommodation. In other words, when there is an alternate way of providing services to employees without forcing religiously motivated businesses to compromise their principles, the government must choose the path that is “least restrictive” of religious freedom."

2. So to be blunt the women still get reimbursed birth control via their health plan under the ACA. Once again why women's rights are irrelevant.

3. Had this verdict been ruled the other way nothing would have stopped the government from forcing Hobby Lobby to cover aborticides. And yes, there is a definitive difference between safety regulations and a minimum wage and healthcare standards as opposed to forcing companies to do what the government tells them, whenever whoever is in power says so. That is fascism. Don't let the apparent social conservatism of said case fool you. Fascism does involve extreme persecution of so called 'inferior peoples' like 'gays' so that may seem apparently like a far right ideology, but the government cannot tell a company to do something UNLESS IT THREATENS their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in our Constitutional Republic.

Because a women is choosing to become impregnated due to her own free will, you cannot make the false argument that Hobby Lobby indeed is threatening her liberty. You might believe in the "right to become pregnant and have birth control", but because that is not a natural born right and rather a self-inflicted condition it is not the government NOR the business's responsibility to manage-- it is hers, and hers alone. And that is beauty of America. Your choice and your responsibility. These, in reality, are not mutually exclusive.

no one who cares about abortion is against contraception of any kind. complete access to contraception lowers the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus the incidence of abortion.

I think that hobbylobby should be required to offer the same insurance package that everyone else has to offer. nothing more, nothing less.

[Mavorpen]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1185 ... bby-ob-gyn

1. This evidence, even slanted the best possible way against Hobby Lobby's claim these contraceptives are abortive still support the theory that in rare cases the said contraceptives can be abortive.

Read your own damn source.

The facts are summarized in the table above. There is no evidence that Plan B, Ella, or the Mirena cause abortion by any definition. The evidence that the ParaGard might affect implantation for a small percentage of women, thus leading to what some conservatives would call abortion, is thin. But we don’t have the information to discount it completely.

So no, there is NO evidence whatsoever that they cause abortions.

3. Had this verdict been ruled the other way nothing would have stopped the government from forcing Hobby Lobby to cover aborticides.

Hobby Lobby doesn't cover aborticides. None of the contraceptives in this case are aborticides.

[Ashmoria]

there is no covered abortive birth control.

women aren't demanding birth control coverage the government is. just as it demands cancer coverage. just as it demands that insurance cover your children up to age 26.

when everyone is covered by insurance we don't need to give any money to planned parenthood. their extremely important services will be covered by insurance instead of being subsidized by the feds.

I agree with you that it would be preferable to have everyone covered by insurance rather than having to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

I also agree it is the government that is demanding the coverage, although many so called women's rights groups are the major advocates for such an action. Sorry for any failure of communication.

As far as abortive birth control I will respond to all of my friends who disagree with me on this subject at once:


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1185 ... bby-ob-gyn

1. This evidence, even slanted the best possible way against Hobby Lobby's claim these contraceptives are abortive still support the theory that in rare cases the said contraceptives can be abortive. Maybe for Hobby Lobby, a 1% chance is too much. Religion doesn't need to be backed by science in order to be valid. You and I can say "that's stupid" but they are still guaranteed religious freedom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... h-control/

"That’s false. As Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. explained in his opinion for the court, the effect of its ruling on these women’s access to contraception is “precisely zero.”

The reason is this: the regulations under the Affordable Care Act already provide that if a religiously affiliated employer has a genuine religious objection to including those services in its insurance plan, the insurer must provide them separately at no cost to the employee. The government had limited that work-around to nonprofit organizations — such as universities and hospitals. The Supreme Court simply held that religiously oriented for-profits should get the same accommodation. In other words, when there is an alternate way of providing services to employees without forcing religiously motivated businesses to compromise their principles, the government must choose the path that is “least restrictive” of religious freedom."

2. So to be blunt the women still get reimbursed birth control via their health plan under the ACA. Once again why women's rights are irrelevant.

3. Had this verdict been ruled the other way nothing would have stopped the government from forcing Hobby Lobby to cover aborticides. And yes, there is a definitive difference between safety regulations and a minimum wage and healthcare standards as opposed to forcing companies to do what the government tells them, whenever whoever is in power says so. That is fascism. Don't let the apparent social conservatism of said case fool you. Fascism does involve extreme persecution of so called 'inferior peoples' like 'gays' so that may seem apparently like a far right ideology, but the government cannot tell a company to do something UNLESS IT THREATENS their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness in our Constitutional Republic.

Because a women is choosing to become impregnated due to her own free will, you cannot make the false argument that Hobby Lobby indeed is threatening her liberty. You might believe in the "right to become pregnant and have birth control", but because that is not a natural born right and rather a self-inflicted condition it is not the government NOR the business's responsibility to manage-- it is hers, and hers alone. And that is beauty of America. Your choice and your responsibility. These, in reality, are not mutually exclusive.

no one who cares about abortion is against contraception of any kind. complete access to contraception lowers the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus the incidence of abortion.

I think that hobbylobby should be required to offer the same insurance package that everyone else has to offer. nothing more, nothing less.

[JesusOfNazareth]

The logic of your first statement seems ridiculous on it's face, so please elaborate on how my example proves your case.

"Odd religions?" "Freaking religions?" That's very insulting. I think most secularists view Christianity as an "odd religion" (or "freaking religion") and you also really slam every non-mainstream religion with that statement. It also implies that religious protections are only for non-mainstream religious practitioners, which is stupid.

Try changing your perspective. Look at the Greens and the other Christians of closely held businesses as "conscientious objectors" in the area of abortions. Just as a person selected to be a soldier might opt for imprisonment or limited service on religious/moral grounds, the business owners have opted for limits on how far they're willing to go in regards to birth control and SCOTUS has recognized that the HHS stepped over the line in creating an undue burden which violates the owners' religious beliefs.

In regard to religious beliefs, I'm not aware of any employee's religion that requires the employer to violate the employer's religious beliefs.

sure. if I am a strict Christian I WISH I could mandate my views onto others. but if I GET to mandate my views on others, even if those views are only influenced by my Christian beliefs (as opposed to actual Christian religious practices) then I am forcing my Christian beliefs on those people. in a contest between allowing the free exercise of my religion in whatever claim I want to make about what that involves and having that religious beliefs affect non-believers (or even people who belong to the exact same denomination as I do but who aren't as strict) im going to have to say that religious freedom means that I don't have to do what you say.

I have a first amendment right to violate YOUR religious beliefs. I can dance on sunday, have extramarital sex, eat philly cheesesteak sandwiches, swim in the same pool as men, use birth control, whatever.

Poppycock in support of Lies.

There are no Chistians, strict or otherwise, who want to mandate that kosher delicatessens sell shellfish and pork. Christians are not demanding it, either. Christians are not forcing their beliefs on Jews (as much as we'd like to share the Gospel with them).

You DO have a right to act in any secularly lawful way that is not a part of a religious code that you do or don't subscribe to, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO COMPELL PERSONS OF OTHER RELIGIONS TO SUPPORT YOUR BEHAVIOR IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. By all means, feel free to dance on Sunday, have extramarital sex, eat philly cheesesteak sandwiches, swim in the same pool as men, use birth control, whatever. Just don't expect religious person's support for what they think to be your sinful behavior.

[Ashmoria]

sure. if I am a strict Christian I WISH I could mandate my views onto others. but if I GET to mandate my views on others, even if those views are only influenced by my Christian beliefs (as opposed to actual Christian religious practices) then I am forcing my Christian beliefs on those people. in a contest between allowing the free exercise of my religion in whatever claim I want to make about what that involves and having that religious beliefs affect non-believers (or even people who belong to the exact same denomination as I do but who aren't as strict) im going to have to say that religious freedom means that I don't have to do what you say.

I have a first amendment right to violate YOUR religious beliefs. I can dance on sunday, have extramarital sex, eat philly cheesesteak sandwiches, swim in the same pool as men, use birth control, whatever.

Poppycock in support of Lies.

There are no Chistians, strict or otherwise, who want to mandate that kosher delicatessens sell shellfish and pork. Christians are not demanding it, either. Christians are not forcing their beliefs on Jews (as much as we'd like to share the Gospel with them).

You DO have a right to act in any secularly lawful way that is not a part of a religious code that you do or don't subscribe to, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO COMPELL PERSONS OF OTHER RELIGIONS TO SUPPORT YOUR BEHAVIOR IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. By all means, feel free to dance on Sunday, have extramarital sex, eat philly cheesesteak sandwiches, swim in the same pool as men, use birth control, whatever. Just don't expect religious person's support for what they think to be your sinful behavior.

and I don't expect their support. that would be silly.

I expect to be paid for my work and to get the same benefits that everyone else gets regardless of where I work.

[JesusOfNazareth]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1185 ... bby-ob-gyn

1. This evidence, even slanted the best possible way against Hobby Lobby's claim these contraceptives are abortive still support the theory that in rare cases the said contraceptives can be abortive.

Read your own damn source.

The facts are summarized in the table above. There is no evidence that Plan B, Ella, or the Mirena cause abortion by any definition. The evidence that the ParaGard might affect implantation for a small percentage of women, thus leading to what some conservatives would call abortion, is thin. But we don’t have the information to discount it completely.

So no, there is NO evidence whatsoever that they cause abortions.

3. Had this verdict been ruled the other way nothing would have stopped the government from forcing Hobby Lobby to cover aborticides.

Hobby Lobby doesn't cover aborticides. None of the contraceptives in this case are aborticides.

Then the govt. needs to bring a new case to the SCOTUS and lay out that evidence AND pit that evidence against the Religious Freedom Act. Not that I think they'd win.

[Mavorpen]

Just don't expect religious person's support for what they think to be your sinful behavior.

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that we expect this.

[The Black Forrest]

Seems there is an effort for a bill called: Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act.

http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/ind ... 03b5fec6a9

[JesusOfNazareth]

Poppycock in support of Lies.

There are no Chistians, strict or otherwise, who want to mandate that kosher delicatessens sell shellfish and pork. Christians are not demanding it, either. Christians are not forcing their beliefs on Jews (as much as we'd like to share the Gospel with them).

You DO have a right to act in any secularly lawful way that is not a part of a religious code that you do or don't subscribe to, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO COMPELL PERSONS OF OTHER RELIGIONS TO SUPPORT YOUR BEHAVIOR IN OPPOSITION TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. By all means, feel free to dance on Sunday, have extramarital sex, eat philly cheesesteak sandwiches, swim in the same pool as men, use birth control, whatever. Just don't expect religious person's support for what they think to be your sinful behavior.

and I don't expect their support. that would be silly.

I expect to be paid for my work and to get the same benefits that everyone else gets regardless of where I work.

That's just stupid. Not everyone at every company gets the same benefits. If "company A" gives a five percent discount to it's employees and "company B" gives a ten percent discount are you going to sue for an additional 5% discount? Should "company A" sue "company B" and force them to only offer their employees a 5% discount?
Like I said, your position is stupid.

[JesusOfNazareth]

Seems there is an effort for a bill called: Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act.

http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/ind ... 03b5fec6a9

This bit of stupidity won't get passed the House of Representatives. It's simply an off-year election ploy, designed to try and take folks minds off of the economic issues.

[The Black Forrest]

and I don't expect their support. that would be silly.

I expect to be paid for my work and to get the same benefits that everyone else gets regardless of where I work.

That's just stupid. Not everyone at every company gets the same benefits. If "company A" gives a five percent discount to it's employees and "company B" gives a ten percent discount are you going to sue for an additional 5% discount? Should "company A" sue "company B" and force them to only offer their employees a 5% discount?
Like I said, your position is stupid.

Too bad that is not what she said.