Hobby Lobby Decision

[muir]

What needs to happen is for both those groups that seem to identify with either the occupy or the tea party to realise that despite their relatively petty political differences they are BOTH getting screwed by a third party and if they don't both face upto this and join together against their common enemy they will both find the rug pulled out from underneath them

 

[Lark]

If you were, would you admit it?

This crap about liberals making shit up just to cause problems does seem pretty convenient to me. You don't seem to recognize that there may be a point to it at all, to you they're just being pointless and dramatic, which - in my opinion - is utter bullshit.

Look, we both know how things play out when you embark upon a lot of name calling and moody posting like this so do you want to log in when you're feeling better and we'll talk then?

 

[Lark]

Actually…in the news today, there is a deluge of lawsuits that aim to exploit this new law…the one I posted is just one of many out there right now. The Reformation of Religion Act that was Republican sponsored and signed bi-partisanly by Clinton protected that people from be persecuted for any religious beliefs…it is only now with this decision, that the radicals are coming out of the woodwork and trying to take advantage of the opening it has given them.

And why do you think that would be? Possibly its the sort of thing an enlightened judiciary would do to draw of any poison and identify the toxic elements?

Anyway, that's the radical religious elements, which everyone has always known about and, to be very frank, I dont believe pose any threat what so ever of managing to shape society at all, besides, paradoxically, providing the cultural liberals with bogeys they deseperately need to drive their own agenda which is threatening more than they'd ever, ever guess at because, in the main and in my experience, they are not the sorts of people who engage in that much deep thought about what direction they think things are going in.

 

[sprinkles]

What I meant was that the mass of conservatives or liberals are generally the pragmatic sorts but it is the militants of each camps, themselves minorities, which are dangerous, they are willing to exploit any opportunity, including legislation of this kind in this instance, to try and spark the sort of total struggle of their dreams in which their own moderates, as much as the oppositions militants, will have to take part.

Not everyone wants war but that doesnt make a difference if enough people can be persuaded they dont have a choice and any offence is really defence.

Although, as I've said at the outset, I dont see this action as radical conservatism on the offensive, I still see it as the courts trying to head off a deluge of political law suits which would have been aimed at putting anyone falling short of secularisms expectations and standards in a corner.

This sounds stupid but its sorts of dirty tactics which are routine on the extremes, I've known free marketeers and commies both to send bricks to the offices of NGOs they hate, often with charitable status, with the postage under paid, knowing that they'll have to pick up the tab on the postage. Those are just simple examples of "monkey wrenching", aimed at putting people "out of business", using economic muscle to shut up opposition and disable it.

What you're doing could be just as underhanded and dirty. Maybe you don't want 'war' but you still want your way so you're going to muddy the waters and talk about how they want to silence people with dirty tactics. You want to point away from what is happening, possibly in hopes that it will actually happen.

Go ahead and claim you're not a bigot but don't pretend that people don't do this stuff, because there's closet homophobes and white supremacists all the time. I've directly known people who swear up and down that they aren't racists but when you catch them out they're talking about getting rid of and killing niggers. You can't fool me.

 

[Skarekrow]

And why do you think that would be? Possibly its the sort of thing an enlightened judiciary would do to draw of any poison and identify the toxic elements?

Anyway, that's the radical religious elements, which everyone has always known about and, to be very frank, I dont believe pose any threat what so ever of managing to shape society at all, besides, paradoxically, providing the cultural liberals with bogeys they deseperately need to drive their own agenda which is threatening more than they'd ever, ever guess at because, in the main and in my experience, they are not the sorts of people who engage in that much deep thought about what direction they think things are going in.

I do not believe this to be a run of the mill response to radical liberalism…IMO this is nothing but radical conservatism by right wing Christian groups who would be much happier in a fascist Christian nation than a nation where everyone truly has religious liberty.
But that is my opinion based on what I have read and from my own personal experiences here in the US…you are entitled to your own...I’m not sure that you have the clearest view of how things are here in the US being based in the UK…or perhaps you do…I don’t really know you so I won’t jump to too many conclusions.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Lark

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act sought to fix any loopholes that where in the previous law. This new ruling was unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

 

[Lark]

What you're doing could be just as underhanded and dirty. Maybe you don't want 'war' but you still want your way so you're going to muddy the waters and talk about how they want to silence people with dirty tactics. You want to point away from what is happening, possibly in hopes that it will actually happen.

Go ahead and claim you're not a bigot but don't pretend that people don't do this stuff, because there's closet homophobes and white supremacists all the time. I've directly known people who swear up and down that they aren't racists but when you catch them out they're talking about getting rid of and killing niggers. You can't fool me.

I just want to be sure I've read you right here.

You've posted more than once that I'm a bigot.

You're not implying that I'm a homophobe and white supremacist?

This is how you discuss political topics? Well, I can do without it, I gave you a chance and took you off ignore with a couple of other people who'd maybe been posting at their worst on particular days but there's little in the way of an excuse for this kind of behaviour.

I hope you're going to think about this because you're representing for a particular position, here, offline, in life in general, and if this is the way you're going about it you're only going to confirm peoples worst suspiscions about everyone of your particular political stripe.

 

[Skarekrow]

Robert Reich weighs in on the ruling...

On Monday the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Affordable Care Act, ruling that privately-owned corporations don’t have to offer their employees contraceptive coverage that conflicts with the corporate owners’ religious beliefs.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs in the case, were always free to practice their religion. The Court bestowed religious freedom on their corporation as well–a leap of logic as absurd as giving corporations freedom of speech. Corporations aren’t people.

The deeper problem is the Court’s obliviousness to the growing imbalance of economic power between corporations and real people. By giving companies the right not to offer employees contraceptive services otherwise mandated by law, the Court ignored the rights of employees to receive those services.

(Justice Alito’s suggestion that those services could be provided directly by the federal government is as politically likely as is a single-payer federal health-insurance plan–which presumably would be necessary to supply such contraceptives or any other Obamacare service corporations refuse to offer on religious grounds.)

The same imbalance of power rendered the Court’s decision in “Citizens United,” granting corporations freedom of speech, so perverse. In reality, corporate free speech drowns out the free speech of ordinary people who can’t flood the halls of Congress with campaign contributions.

Freedom is the one value conservatives place above all others, yet time and again their ideal of freedom ignores the growing imbalance of power in our society that’s eroding the freedoms of most people.

This isn’t new. In the early 1930s, the Court trumped New Deal legislation with “freedom of contract”–the presumed right of people to make whatever deals they want unencumbered by federal regulations. Eventually (perhaps influenced by FDR’s threat to expand the Court and pack it with his own appointees) the Court relented.

But the conservative mind has never incorporated economic power into its understanding of freedom. Conservatives still champion “free enterprise” and equate the so-called “free market” with liberty. To them, government “intrusions” on the market threaten freedom.

Yet the “free market” doesn’t exist in nature. There, only the fittest and strongest survive. The “free market” is the product of laws and rules continuously emanating from legislatures, executive departments, and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the free market. It defines and organizes (and often reorganizes) it.

Here’s where the reality of power comes in. It’s one thing if these laws and rules are shaped democratically, reflecting the values and preferences of most people.
But anyone with half a brain can see the growing concentration of income and wealth at the top of America has concentrated political power there as well–generating laws and rules that tilt the playing field ever further in the direction of corporations and the wealthy.

Antitrust laws designed to constrain monopolies have been eviscerated. Competition among Internet service providers, for example, is rapidly disappearing–resulting in higher prices than in any other rich country. Companies are being allowed to prolong patents and trademarks, keeping drug prices higher here than in Canada or Europe.

Tax laws favor capital over labor, giving capital gains a lower rate than ordinary income. The rich get humongous mortgage interest deductions while renters get no deduction at all.
The value of real property (the major asset of the middle class) is taxed annually, but not the value of stocks and bonds (where the rich park most of their wealth).
Bankruptcy laws allow companies to smoothly reorganize, but not college graduates burdened by student loans.

The minimum wage is steadily losing value, while CEO pay is in the stratosphere. Under U.S. law, shareholders have only an “advisory” role in determining what CEOs rake in.
Public goods paid for with tax revenues (public schools, affordable public universities, parks, roads, bridges) are deteriorating, while private goods paid for individually (private schools and colleges, health clubs, security guards, gated community amenities) are burgeoning.

I could go on, but you get the point. The so-called “free market” is not expanding options and opportunities for most people. It’s extending them for the few who are wealthy enough to influence how the market is organized.

Most of us remain “free” in the limited sense of not being coerced into purchasing, say, the medications or Internet services that are unnecessarily expensive, or contraceptives they can no longer get under their employer’s insurance plan. We can just go without.

We’re likewise free not to be burdened with years of student debt payments; no one is required to attend college. And we’re free not to rent a place in a neighborhood with lousy schools and pot-holed roads; if we can’t afford better, we’re free to work harder so we can.

But this is a very parched view of freedom.
Conservatives who claim to be on the side of freedom while ignoring the growing imbalance of economic and political power in America are not in fact on the side of freedom. They are on the side of those with the power.

Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton.

 

[Lark]

I do not believe this to be a run of the mill response to radical liberalism…IMO this is nothing but radical conservatism by right wing Christian groups who would be much happier in a fascist Christian nation than a nation where everyone truly has religious liberty.
But that is my opinion based on what I have read and from my own personal experiences here in the US…you are entitled to your own...I’m not sure that you have the clearest view of how things are here in the US being based in the UK…or perhaps you do…I don’t really know you so I won’t jump to too many conclusions.

I'm not sure it could be described as fascism, unless you're talking about fascism in the Orwellian sense, he suggested that future fascism wouldnt look anything like fascism in the past or domestic fascism wouldnt look like foreign fascism.

I think its a bit simpler than that, its the nasty side of either liberty or democracy, kind of refashioning society and the law like some sort of eighties high school culture.

 

[sprinkles]

I just want to be sure I've read you right here.

You've posted more than once that I'm a bigot.

You're not implying that I'm a homophobe and white supremacist?

This is how you discuss political topics? Well, I can do without it, I gave you a chance and took you off ignore with a couple of other people who'd maybe been posting at their worst on particular days but there's little in the way of an excuse for this kind of behaviour.

I hope you're going to think about this because you're representing for a particular position, here, offline, in life in general, and if this is the way you're going about it you're only going to confirm peoples worst suspiscions about everyone of your particular political stripe.

Same to you.

 

[Skarekrow]

I'm not sure it could be described as fascism, unless you're talking about fascism in the Orwellian sense, he suggested that future fascism wouldnt look anything like fascism in the past or domestic fascism wouldnt look like foreign fascism.

I think its a bit simpler than that, its the nasty side of either liberty or democracy, kind of refashioning society and the law like some sort of eighties high school culture.

We have already seen huge privatization of the public sector, a de-unionization of the labor force, and violent austerity.
We have seen the rapid decline of political and economic conditions for the working class while just the opposite for the ruling class.
Workers are doing more and more for less and less pay…the US prisons have 25% of all the world’s prisoners for only 5% of the world’s population.
The media is monopolized…and our police are more and more militarized.
The vote of the common man has been trumped by the corporations with the most money thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings.
Sounds pretty fascist to me.

 

[sprinkles]

Look, we both know how things play out when you embark upon a lot of name calling and moody posting like this so do you want to log in when you're feeling better and we'll talk then?

No, it was moody posting the first time I did it. Now this is just me not liking you and not being afraid to admit it. I've seen plenty enough to reach a conclusion.

I'm talking this way because you probably deserve it.

 

[Lerxst]

My opinion is Hobby Lobby isn't even a Christian business. I wouldn't have allowed it to bring that in.

If it were up to me, I'd have ruled that a business is not allowed to claim denomination for legal purposes unless the majority of services it offers are overtly and obviously exclusive to that denomination or religion.

Corporations are people... thank you blood-sucking lawyers and an incompetent 19th century supreme court for that. Thanks to that, corporations are granted all the same rights as people, including freedom of religion.

It's fucked up.

Change that amendment and corporations go back to being controlled by government charters and the individuals in charge, held accountable. No more corporate person hood, no more hiding behind the Bill of Rights. They'll revert to the same status they had in much of the pre-19th century, where they were formed for a specific purpose and once that was served, they would/could be dissolved. Or if they violated the terms of their charter, endangered people or broke the law, they could also be dissolved.

Think of how many businesses today would simply cease to exist if they no longer had "person" status!

 

[sprinkles]

Corporations are people... thank you blood-sucking lawyers and an incompetent 19th century supreme court for that. Thanks to that, corporations are granted all the same rights as people, including freedom of religion.

It's fucked up.

Change that amendment and corporations go back to being controlled by government charters and the individuals in charge, held accountable. No more corporate person hood, no more hiding behind the Bill of Rights. They'll revert to the same status they had in much of the pre-19th century, where they were formed for a specific purpose and once that was served, they would/could be dissolved. Or if they violated the terms of their charter, endangered people or broke the law, they could also be dissolved.

Think of how many businesses today would simply cease to exist if they no longer had "person" status!

So if one company ends up with a rogue or incompetent employee that causes some mishap that injures thousands of people and this one employee fucks off to BFE and can't be found, the entire company deserves to be disolved for that?

With an organization how are you supposed to handle problems where the perpetrator is not easy to get at, it is not clear who the perpetrator is if anyone, or no individuals are clearly at fault?

Are you supposed to wreck everyone else's living involved the company just because of some vendetta that may not have a clear target?

No. I don't agree with you.

 

[Skarekrow]

Corporations are people... thank you blood-sucking lawyers and an incompetent 19th century supreme court for that. Thanks to that, corporations are granted all the same rights as people, including freedom of religion.

It's fucked up.

Change that amendment and corporations go back to being controlled by government charters and the individuals in charge, held accountable. No more corporate person hood, no more hiding behind the Bill of Rights. They'll revert to the same status they had in much of the pre-19th century, where they were formed for a specific purpose and once that was served, they would/could be dissolved. Or if they violated the terms of their charter, endangered people or broke the law, they could also be dissolved.

Think of how many businesses today would simply cease to exist if they no longer had "person" status!

Yes, there was corporate personhood, but they didn't have the ability to supersede their own employees freedom of religion until this ruling…that is why it is an issue.
Our supreme court also had that wonderful ruling equating money with free speech, that ruling only benefits those with large amounts of money and unequally tips the scale in their favor.
They do not have the same rights as the people…but they are quickly changing that, at least here in the US.

 

[Skarekrow]

But as a corporation, doesn't it have that right? if they are providing the insurance, don't they have a right to choose? The answer is yes, they do. Rather the real solution is not to prevent corporations from making the decisions which affect the use of their money, but having insurance available to everyone which is not restricted by what a corporation decides is appropriate forms of contraception.

I think what's happening is that what people are seeing as "rights" should really be understood as "privileges". It is a courtesy when corporations say they will provide particular benefits to their employees, because they know it creates goodwill and increases their positive reputation, enhances consumer trust, and subsequently boosts their bottom line, but they are not under any obligation to provide these things.

I’m sorry but you are wrong….they are obligated to provide health insurance (determined by the number of employees they have and how many hours each works) so for the bigger companies - the answer is yes, they do have to provide health insurance. The ACA closed the ever widening gap that allowed the insurance companies to NOT insure someone…so now, health insurance is a requirement. If your employer does not provide it, you are still obligated to buy a policy for yourself, if you do not then you will be fined at a subsequently higher rate each year. If you cannot afford insurance then the government will subsidize it for you.
Your employer did not have the right to choose what your insurance covered and what it didn’t…a simple way to look at this is suppose you worked for a Christian Scientist group who didn’t believe in doctors at all, but instead opted to pray away the illness. Before this ruling, your employer could not interfere, as your medical health really should not be decided by your boss…that should be your business and your doctors business and nobody else’s whom you don’t wish to be a apart of it. Now that this has passed…who knows…but I do know that it will not be left just at Hobby Lobby….there have already been a bucketful of lawsuits claiming religious rights against all sorts of things….but the main ones so far have been against the LGBT community.

 

[ThomasJ79]

agree, to rule that they had no right to decide what they cover, would bring up a host of another set of issues. I don't think it's as black and white as everyone is making the decision out to be. This oversimplistic, alarmist, slippery slope reasoning against the decision wreaks of extremism. The Court did not likely feel it had the right to rule against a private corporations rights to determine what it will spend it's own money on.



I think even if it was a Muslim owned business, the issue would still be the same because the concern would be requiring a corporation to spend money to cover something it doesn't want to pay for. If Hobby Lobby were a small store with small amount of employees, it would not be as significant an issue, but because it's a major chain store with hundreds of thousands of employees, the decision became significant.



But as a corporation, doesn't it have that right? if they are providing the insurance, don't they have a right to choose? The answer is yes, they do. Rather the real solution is not to prevent corporations from making the decisions which affect the use of their money, but having insurance available to everyone which is not restricted by what a corporation decides is appropriate forms of contraception.



Agree. I think it's less about corporations and more about having options which do not restrict access to health care from employers only. I am not sure if that's going to end up being a single payer system or universal health care. However, as long as corporations are the main providers of health care, this issue will always be a problem because it's essentially wrong to dictate what a corporation can do with it's own money.



I think what's happening is that what people are seeing as "rights" should really be understood as "privileges". It is a courtesy when corporations say they will provide particular benefits to their employees, because they know it creates goodwill and increases their positive reputation, enhances consumer trust, and subsequently boosts their bottom line, but they are not under any obligation to provide these things.

Pics,

I agree with the idea that corporations shouldn't have to spend money on something that hurts their bottom line, but corporations claiming that birth control pills will hurt their bottom line is absurd. I have yet to see any data that would demonstrate that excluding birth control coverage would significantly reduce insurance premiums. Not only that, but having women who become pregnant because they weren't taking birth control definitely does increase the demands made upon the insurance company and can cause an increase in premiums, as the following article explores:

http://business.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/

This battle has very little to do with cost and much more to do with conflicting ideologies about the role of government, our employer, and religion in our lives. Basically, the insurance premiums will remain the same, except now your employer can decide what is on the coverage.

 

[sprinkles]

I take your point that I was incorrect about the requirement to provide health insurance but the point still stands that they have the choice to decide what type of insurance you get which is their right because it is still their money at the end of the day. That will always be a fact, like it or not.

Actually it's not their money. It's the employees money being spent on their behalf.

The entire point of employer sponsored insurance is to have an extra form of compensation package - i.e. it's actually part of what the employee is given for working there.

Seeing it as something that the company is forced to pay out is the wrong attitude, along the lines of saying "These people expect to get paid MONEY for working here! Such nerve!" and only furthers the employees-as-slaves mentality.

Health coverage is a form of compensation and also an investment in employee security and retention - healthy employees are better employees right? Such an alien idea right? I know!

 

[sprinkles]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...by-lobby-case-with-not-my-bosss-business-act/

Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Mark Udall fought back today against the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling with plans for legislation intended to restore the contraceptive coverage requirement under the Affordable Care Act.

Joined by fellow Democrats from both chambers of Congress and women’s rights groups, the senators urged Republicans to support the bill they have nicknamed “Not My Boss’s Business Act.”

“We are here to ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to healthcare,” Murray, of Washington state, said, speaking at the Capitol. “I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decision about their own health care and their own bodies.”

READ: Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

It’s an issue that Democrats hope will sway voters in the midterm elections. With their control of the Senate in jeopardy, Democrats are trying to energize and awaken liberal voters who tend to sit out congressional elections.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made clear that politics were at the center of the debate. He said he intends to bring the bill to a Senate vote as soon as next week, adding that anyone who opposes the measure faces the risk of being “treated unfavorably come November with the elections.”

The bill, the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act, mandates that employers cannot disrupt coverage for contraception or other health services that are guaranteed under federal law. It comes a week after the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that closely held for-profit companies can deny contraceptive coverage under their company health plans if it goes against a sincerely held religious belief.

Although the court issued a narrow ruling focused on contraception in the Hobby Lobby case, some Democratic leaders fear the decision sets a precedent that could allow employers to deny other health care coverage based on religious beliefs.

“If bosses can deny birth control, they can deny vaccines, HIV treatment or other basic health services for employees or their dependent,” Murray said.

 

[Skarekrow]

@pics

Originally Posted by picsI take your point that I was incorrect about the requirement to provide health insurance but the point still stands that they have the choice to decide what type of insurance you get which is their right because it is still their money at the end of the day. That will always be a fact, like it or not.

This was one of the main reasons that the ACA was drafted…but not so our employer could pick and choose what to cover and what not to cover…it was so the insurance companies couldn’t screw people over quite as badly as they have been. The ACA set a base line for what insurance is required to cover and things that were extra things to be paid for as the people wanted them.

Things like birth-control or mental health services are good examples (but certainly not the only ones) of services that insurance rarely covered. So as imperfect as the plan is (I would have preferred a single-payer plan) it fixed many issues that were wrong with the way insurance companies covered (or didn’t cover) people. If you had a pre-existing condition, it was near impossible to find coverage, I know this from personal experience…that is now illegal.

And in fact…many of those people whom you heard about “losing” their coverage after the ACA started…were people who in fact had plans that barely covered anything at all. Their plans were cancelled because they were “garbage” plans…made to look like folks had good coverage but when they went to actually use it would find out there were fine-print stipulations in their policies that wouldn’t cover hardly anything. The ACA said they had to provide this basic amount of coverage, and since they weren’t, they had to change their policies. Now they are required to insure services such as birth-control and mental health where they didn’t before.

It also said that employers with over…I think it was 50 full-time employees…had to provide medical insurance by law. That is also why we have seen asshole companies like Wal-Mart cutting people’s hours to just under full time to snake their way around the law.
It did not however give the employers a choice of what they wished to cover and what the didn’t want to cover…that baseline was made and set in the law by Medical Doctors and Specialists - until now.

Like other’s have said, this precedent goes beyond medical insurance when just the day after this ruling was made, quite a few groups sent letters to President Obama requesting the ability to either end, or not provide employment to anyone who is LGBT under religious grounds.
Which is exactly what Jesus would have done I might add…lol.

The main issue here is that this ruling gives your employer and mine the ability to object to almost anything on the ground of religious liberty…and this religious liberty these corporations are given supersedes actual people like you and me…so for us, our religious liberty only comes secondary to our employer…that is ridiculous and is a clear violation of the Constitution guaranteeing our freedom of religion and from religion should we so choose.