Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Maineiacs]

Not in so many words, no, but effectively that's what this means for many people.

I think that's what I meant when I said, "Granted that for poor people, it's effectively the same thing ..."

Sorry. Missed that. I meant no offense.

[The American Natives]

=
Oh look. Two people who completely agree with Rush Limbaugh that Sandra Fluke was just being a slut wanting free birth control when she testified about a friend losing her ovaries to a cyst because she was denied contraceptive coverage.

Yeah, that's exactly what you being wrong about sharia law and this ruling is. Us thinking some lady is a slut because her friend lost her ovaries.
Speaking as a slut myself, find an argument that relies less on "hurr dem racist islamophobe conservatives," "won't someone PLEASE think of the sluts," and "hehe maybe i'll appeal to their emotion with an accusative shitpost."

[The American Natives]

Why is avoiding small pox and avoiding pregnancy different things?

I can't believe someone made this argument in a serious fashion. Relieve humanity by telling us you're being sarcastic.

[Charva]

I am pleased by the ruling. I don't remember a stipulation in the Bill of Rights saying you loose your rights when you become a share-holder.

Neither do I recall an absolute right to abortion or contraception anywhere in the Bill of Rights either, but I suppose that is up to debate.

[Trollzilla]

It is my position that these companies are more likely using religious freedom as a smoke screen to avoid their legal responsibilities to provide employer funded health care benefits to their employees. This is more about corporate profits than it is religious freedom.

Hit. Nail. Head.

This so very much.

As you probably have heard already, the US Supreme Court disagrees with me.

[Trollzilla]

Bet that's not what they're actually deciding, though.

no

its more "if corporations are people too, can they have a religious conscience that overrules some details of federal law?"

or "if you own a corporation yourself can your religious beliefs count as the beliefs of the corporation?"

My gut feeling though, was that there was more to it than that under the surface. My reason is that these corporations never before demanded religious exemption to allowing employees to have contraceptions or abortions but now that they have to help the employees pay for the stuff, now they are claiming religious exemptions.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

I am pleased by the ruling. I don't remember a stipulation in the Bill of Rights saying you loose your rights when you become a share-holder.

Neither do I recall an absolute right to abortion or contraception anywhere in the Bill of Rights either, but I suppose that is up to debate.

We are not talking about abortion here. We're talking about contraception. They are not the same thing in any way shape or form.
No, there is no right to contraception, but as Justice Ginsburg said in her dissent:
"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." I had a better one but I'm to lazy to search for it right now, and that one works.

[The Black Forrest]

Awesome.

If you want to have sex, it's not the employers responsibility to pay for it or deal with the consequences of you having sex. Sex is a choice, not a disease or sickness.

Pregnancy is a medical condition, preventing unwanted medical conditions is basically what vaccinations and there like are for and corporations still have to provide for them. Why is avoiding small pox and avoiding pregnancy different things?

Some religions don't like vaccines.....

[Mavorpen]

Why is avoiding small pox and avoiding pregnancy different things?

I can't believe someone made this argument in a serious fashion. Relieve humanity by telling us you're being sarcastic.

No, really, why ARE they different things?

[Farnhamia]

I am pleased by the ruling. I don't remember a stipulation in the Bill of Rights saying you loose your rights when you become a share-holder.

Neither do I recall an absolute right to abortion or contraception anywhere in the Bill of Rights either, but I suppose that is up to debate.

Hobby Lobby has no shareholders, it's a privately-held corporation.

[The Black Forrest]

=
Oh look. Two people who completely agree with Rush Limbaugh that Sandra Fluke was just being a slut wanting free birth control when she testified about a friend losing her ovaries to a cyst because she was denied contraceptive coverage.

Yeah, that's exactly what you being wrong about sharia law and this ruling is. Us thinking some lady is a slut because her friend lost her ovaries.
Speaking as a slut myself, find an argument that relies less on "hurr dem racist islamophobe conservatives," "won't someone PLEASE think of the sluts," and "hehe maybe i'll appeal to their emotion with an accusative shitpost."

What are you trying to say?

[Gauthier]

I am pleased by the ruling. I don't remember a stipulation in the Bill of Rights saying you loose your rights when you become a share-holder.

Neither do I recall an absolute right to abortion or contraception anywhere in the Bill of Rights either, but I suppose that is up to debate.

Oh right, because abortion and contraception were state of the art back when the Bill of Rights were written. Firearms were muzzle-loaded muskets back then but people still argue the Second Amendment applies to miniguns.

[The Black Forrest]

Why is avoiding small pox and avoiding pregnancy different things?

I can't believe someone made this argument in a serious fashion. Relieve humanity by telling us you're being sarcastic.

Possibly. Maybe you can teach the jebus club; the pill isn't only about sex.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

Pregnancy is a medical condition, preventing unwanted medical conditions is basically what vaccinations and there like are for and corporations still have to provide for them. Why is avoiding small pox and avoiding pregnancy different things?

Some religions don't like vaccines.....

Some quotes from Justice Ginsburg's dissent is applicable here:
She said that it's a decision with wide breadth, not a narrow one. Quotes:
"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[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"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."

[Dakran]

Listen very carefully...

CORPORATIONS. ARE. NOT. ACTUALLY. PEOPLE.

People have freedoms, artificial entities DO NOT.

Corporations are an extension of personhood, because they are that person's property.

By that logic, my books are people, my tv is a person, my clothes are people, and so is my food because I own those.

I'm not entirely sure how to feel about this ruling. Pretty sure I won't like it though.

[Ashmoria]

I side with the company. If your regligious beliefs are against it, you should not have to deal with it.

That's so simplistic it's not even childishly cute...

Besides, they're paying for legalized murder.

And the Oxymoron of the Year Award goes to Anthony Willman, for describing birth control as "legalized murder"!

I have been out doing errands but I assume that the employees of hobby lobby will end up with the same deal that employees of religious business do--a separate free rider directly from the insurance company. no babies will be saved by this ruling.

[Doitsu-san]

Awesome.

If you want to have sex, it's not the employers responsibility to pay for it or deal with the consequences of you having sex. Sex is a choice, not a disease or sickness.

1) There are other uses of contraception than just preventing pregnancy/things relating to sex
2) Contraception can stop passage of diseases and sickness through sexual contact so actually your point about disease and sickness doesn't hold
3) There wouldn't be "consequences" from sex if contraception is used, now that people are not gonna have that coverage though...

If you wish to have sex, you should fund it yourself. It isn't the employer's responsibility to pay for an employee's sexual activities when the activities are a risk taken with consent and not necessary to everyday life or the health of a human being.

[Gauthier]

1) There are other uses of contraception than just preventing pregnancy/things relating to sex
2) Contraception can stop passage of diseases and sickness through sexual contact so actually your point about disease and sickness doesn't hold
3) There wouldn't be "consequences" from sex if contraception is used, now that people are not gonna have that coverage though...

If you wish to have sex, you should fund it yourself. It isn't the employer's responsibility to pay for an employee's sexual activities when the activities are a risk taken with consent and not necessary to everyday life or the health of a human being.

Obviously the part about contraceptives preventing actual diseases and not just being for baby prevention flew over your head.

[Liriena]

1) There are other uses of contraception than just preventing pregnancy/things relating to sex
2) Contraception can stop passage of diseases and sickness through sexual contact so actually your point about disease and sickness doesn't hold
3) There wouldn't be "consequences" from sex if contraception is used, now that people are not gonna have that coverage though...

If you wish to have sex, you should fund it yourself. It isn't the employer's responsibility to pay for an employee's sexual activities when the activities are a risk taken with consent and not necessary to everyday life or the health of a human being.

It's been over two years already and we still have to put up with this slut-shaming bullshit?

[Mavorpen]

1) There are other uses of contraception than just preventing pregnancy/things relating to sex
2) Contraception can stop passage of diseases and sickness through sexual contact so actually your point about disease and sickness doesn't hold
3) There wouldn't be "consequences" from sex if contraception is used, now that people are not gonna have that coverage though...

If you wish to have sex, you should fund it yourself. It isn't the employer's responsibility to pay for an employee's sexual activities when the activities are a risk taken with consent and not necessary to everyday life or the health of a human being.

So basically they shouldn't cover vaccines either, then.

[Trollzilla]

WOOHOOO!!!! COURTS RULED IN FAVOUR!?!?! AMAZING!!! AWESOME!!! AW YIS!!!! GO HOBBY LOBBY!!!

Am I the only one who thinks it's sad that there's someone out there who roots for a corporation successfully lobbying for the power to impose their own religious values on their employees?

I would not object if they had come out on day and said we are a religious corporation. Instead they spent the last decade or so as a secular corporation. Along comes Obama care and the contraception mandate and all of sudden these guys are secular but religious. That is what I object to. Do you know what this does to the public credibility of actual religious groups?

The corporations won at the expense of true religion.

[The American Natives]

I can't believe someone made this argument in a serious fashion. Relieve humanity by telling us you're being sarcastic.

No, really, why ARE they different things?

I'm sorry, I can't help you if you think the development of human life is exactly the same thing as an infectious disease that takes life. You need to take that up with your psychiatrist.

Such completely moronic comparisons are why the far-right groups in America think liberals are crazy. You can make a better comparison.

[Estrain (Ancient)]

1) There are other uses of contraception than just preventing pregnancy/things relating to sex
2) Contraception can stop passage of diseases and sickness through sexual contact so actually your point about disease and sickness doesn't hold
3) There wouldn't be "consequences" from sex if contraception is used, now that people are not gonna have that coverage though...

If you wish to have sex, you should fund it yourself. It isn't the employer's responsibility to pay for an employee's sexual activities when the activities are a risk taken with consent and not necessary to everyday life or the health of a human being.

But according to the ACA it is the employer's responsibility to pay for their employees health coverage at least in some way. Contraception is a vital piece of health care and health coverage. But sex is an everyday life thing? (for a lot of people, barring asexual people and the like) Contraception stops unwanted pregnancy from happening, disease spreading, etc.
Also, again to quote Justice Ginsburg:
"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."
Contraception isn't cheap, and a lot of people cannot afford to pay for it on their own.

[The American Natives]

Possibly. Maybe you can teach the jebus club; the pill isn't only about sex.

Jebus is my favorite meme.

[Ashmoria]

Interestingly enough, Roberts voted against this decision. Under any other circumstances, I would have said that what you're showing is unrealistic, but then again, the court has decided that at least some corporations are now indeed people with full rights.

Maybe it's just my watching Orphan Black, but I'm just waiting for some biotech company to try for the corporate parent angle...

The Court really should have checked itself at the absurdity of imagining that a legal abstraction could have religious feelings.

That said, I'm going to need to read the decision in detail to see how many doors were left open. I do not, however, put ANY faith at all in Justice Alito's attempts to exclude the application of this ruling to other cases by merely saying "This ruling should not be construed as saying <insert parade of horribles here> ..."

Weasel words like that have little real force.

alito has a bit of a history of being utterly wrong about the impact of his rulings. remember the "that's not true" mouthing at the state of the union speech?