Hobby Lobby Decision

sprinkles said:
That's not why he's in prison though. He's in prison because his supposed religious objection was completely a front and a fraudulent abuse of the system.

If he was actually for real they probably wouldn't have put him in prison (they still probably would've took all his stuff though)
Click to expand...
How is that different than hobby lobby?
 
sprinkles said:
Corporate personhood was originally invented so that the entity could legally be represented and have interests in court as it pertains to lawsuits and such. It legally allows a corporation to sue, and to be sued, which is kind of important.

However it was never intended to have individual rights like a real person does. For example the corporate person is not allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

I was going to post something, but this pretty much covers it.

Their argument only makes sense if you think that state power does not have the right to interfere in religious or cultural practices (which it usually doesn't) and corporations have the right to religious sentiments (they usually don't)

but at the same time it seems inconsistent to allow corporations to have ethical positions and not religious ones.
 
sprinkles said:
Hovind failed spectacularly because he's a bumbling goof that can't keep his shit straight.

Hobby Lobby is far more dangerous.
Click to expand...

So it's not different. Okay then.
 
sprinkles said:
No, it is different because with Hovind they said "You're an idiot. Go to jail." The complete opposite is happening here.
Click to expand...

Yeah but now we as a society realize that Hovind was right all along so we need to free him.
 
This is why we need a single payer system. Let's bypass all the corporate crap and create our own insurance based on fairness and equality; a government insurance of the people, by the people, and for the people.
 
It doesn't bother me that contraceptives aren't covered. They're not covered in Canada. If I want the pill or some other birth control product I have to pay for that shit myself. So to me, it just seems a bit obscene that people get up in arms over birth control pills.

I think what I do not like about this situation is that it sets a precedent for future situations where corporations can get out of certain things and claim their religious freedom. I do not believe that anyone should be above certain laws and standards because of whatever God they believe in. I wonder if this was a Muslim owned business if this would have passed, too, or if it's exclusive to those who are Christian. That, to me, is an issue.

Fuck the birth control. I get people don't want to pop out babies and stuff but that's small potatoes compared to the bigger picture and NOT the issue people should be focusing on.
 
Our country is so off track its not even funny. Unfortunately I think the only thing that will change it at this point is the people saying enough is enough. Congress wont make the change against themselves so the people are going to have to do it.
 
casie said:
I was going to post something, but this pretty much covers it.

Their argument only makes sense if you think that state power does not have the right to interfere in religious or cultural practices (which it usually doesn't) and corporations have the right to religious sentiments (they usually don't)

but at the same time it seems inconsistent to allow corporations to have ethical positions and not religious ones.
Click to expand...
Being ethical in business and following religious guidelines or beliefs are very different IMO. No company should be able to force their religious views onto their employees…that means Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, etc, etc.
I would never dream of forcing my opinions of what is right and wrong on my employees if I were a company owner or CEO.
 
Also I think that the REAL issue is getting over shadowed by these idiots trying to make this a women's issue. Oh look! Women can't get the pill but men are still covered for X Y AND Z! WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS. WE NEED FEMINISM!

Ughhhhhhhhhh.

That's not the fucking point. It's the precedent it sets.

I hate people.
 
I think that one of the larger issues that this decision fails to address is what constitutes fair and equal health care coverage. It's important to look what is included in one's coverage and question the coverage itself since the employee is paying a rather hefty premium already and deserves a better reason than being offered the pill would be against their employer's conscience? Who's conscience? I find it odd as most corporations seem to be whole heartedly lacking in the morality department, religious institutions included. Only individuals within the corporation can have a conscience and if they think it immoral to consume birth control, then they shouldn't take it. The moral high ground is allow the people paying into health plan the right to decide what should or shouldn't be included. Yes, the people should decide that.

There really is no reason that it can't be covered. I pay about $6,000 a year for my health insurance and my employer pays the rest. This whole thing should be a non-issue by now. Something as cheap and ready available as the pill should be included as part of a person's comprehensive health plan. It is in the best interest of the patient, family, and society at large. Should an employer get to decide that for us?
 
SpecialEdition said:
Also I think that the REAL issue is getting over shadowed by these idiots trying to make this a women's issue. Oh look! Women can't get the pill but men are still covered for X Y AND Z! WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS. WE NEED FEMINISM!

Ughhhhhhhhhh.

That's not the fucking point. It's the precedent it sets.

I hate people.
Click to expand...

Jimmers said:
I think that one of the larger issues that this decision fails to address is what constitutes fair and equal health care coverage. It's important to look what is included in one's coverage and question the coverage itself since the employee is paying a rather hefty premium already and deserves a better reason than being offered the pill would be against their employer's conscience? Who's conscience? I find it odd as most corporations seem to be whole heartedly lacking in the morality department, religious institutions included. Only individuals within the corporation can have a conscience and if they think it immoral to consume birth control, then they shouldn't take it. The moral high ground is allow the people paying into health plan the right to decide what should or shouldn't be included. Yes, the people should decide that.

There really is no reason that it can't be covered. I pay about $6,000 a year for my health insurance and my employer pays the rest. This whole thing should be a non-issue by now. Something as cheap and ready available as the pill should be included as part of a person's comprehensive health plan. It is in the best interest of the patient, family, and society at large. Should an employer get to decide that for us?
Click to expand...

What is really scary to me is the power this gives to corporations…it gives them the power to discriminate based on personal beliefs that are not held by all their employees. This could apply to a huge swath of other issues.
The other really terrible precedent that this court has been setting is that they are applying their rulings into law. This is actually not the job of the Supreme Court, they are not elected by the people and they essentially have no term limits even if we could vote them out - which we cannot. The way our government is supposed to run is with the Congress and President creating and retracting laws….not the SCOTUS…this was very evident in the Dread Scott Decision right before the Civil War…the Court came down on the side of the slave owner to which President Lincoln replied - (paraphrasing here)" That is too bad for Mr. Scott, I am going to emancipate the rest of the slaves.” Because the court decides for that particular case…it doesn’t re-write or strike down, or create laws - that would be a Monarchy.
The SCOTUS should have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby if that is what they chose to do, and Hobby Lobby could have done what they appealed for. But no one else.
Because it isn’t supposed to apply across the board like that…instead what they did was they struck down a law (which only congress and the President are supposed to have the power to do) and applied it across the country.
So now we have, in the words of Justice Ginsberg “a minefield” of potentially harmful cases that will be created because of this precedent of allowing religious discrimination to become law, but not only that, because corporations are “people” they can religiously discriminate.
Such bullshit.
 
George Takei on the issue:

A 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (comprised of all men) delivered a stunning set-back for women’s reproductive rights in the Hobby Lobby case yesterday. The conservative majority ruled that a crafts chain store (here, one with over 500 outlets) whose owners espouse “sincere religious beliefs” can refuse to provide insurance covering contraception to its female employees.The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion. Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).

In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.
As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.
We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others. Our personal beliefs stop at the end of our noses, and your should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms.

While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscious should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts–in their pocketbooks. I won’t be shopping there, and women everywhere should exercise their right of protest and refuse to shop there as well.

-George Takei
Click to expand...

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/hobby-lobby-aint-church-its-profit-business
 
Dragon said:
George Takei on the issue:
We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others. Our personal beliefs stop at the end of our noses, and your should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms.
Click to expand...

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/hobby-lobby-aint-church-its-profit-business
Click to expand...
There should be a correction there….it should read - "We are a nation that respects white conservative Christian religious beliefs…"
 
Skarekrow said:
Being ethical in business and following religious guidelines or beliefs are very different IMO. No company should be able to force their religious views onto their employees…that means Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, etc, etc.
I would never dream of forcing my opinions of what is right and wrong on my employees if I were a company owner or CEO.
Click to expand...

But they aren't so different. After all, if you believed on a secular ethical basis that, as a CEO, you have no obligation to give contraception to your employees as part of their health plan, how is this different to believing it on a religious basis? On either a conceptual or a practical level? And as a CEO you constantly have to impress your opinions of what is right or wrong - that is the fundamental point of a CEO who establishes professional ethics, corporate social responsibility, or any other norm that is beyond generating the maximum profit possible. Unless you believe that, as a manager or CEO, your only responsibility is to generate that outcome.

SpecialEdition said:
Also I think that the REAL issue is getting over shadowed by these idiots trying to make this a women's issue. Oh look! Women can't get the pill but men are still covered for X Y AND Z! WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS. WE NEED FEMINISM!

Ughhhhhhhhhh.

That's not the fucking point. It's the precedent it sets.

I hate people.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that it is at least part of the point - after all, it's at least partly about whether or not contraception is a lifestyle or a health issue for women (or both) and who controls that distinction. I think it is totally fair that women make that decision.
 
casie said:
But they aren't so different. After all, if you believed on a secular ethical basis that, as a CEO, you have no obligation to give contraception to your employees as part of their health plan, how is this different to believing it on a religious basis? On either a conceptual or a practical level? And as a CEO you constantly have to impress your opinions of what is right or wrong - that is the fundamental point of a CEO who establishes professional ethics, corporate social responsibility, or any other norm that is beyond generating the maximum profit possible. Unless you believe that, as a manager or CEO, your only responsibility is to generate that outcome.
Click to expand...

Ethics are more broad than religion. CEO's that have disagreeable ethics will be called out as a stinky turd, and they don't have the religion to hide behind and cry and say you're discriminating.

The thing about ethics is that they work for everybody. We run into problems persecuting religious freedom but with ethics you can flat out tell somebody they suck pretty much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top