SCOTUS Upholds Religious Freedom - Hobby Lobby

#26
#26
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
Click to expand...

Must have missed it, but how does this prevent anyone from having access to birth control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#27
#27
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the employee decide to continue or discontinue working there.
Click to expand...

FYP...

If it's none of my business what a woman does with her body, it's none of my business what he employer chooses to cover on/in her body. Why would I boycott HL for whether they want to cover contraception?

All this "boycott XY&Z" crap is ridiculous.
 
#28
#28
Velo Vol said:
By the way, which amendment is the closely-held corporation one in the Bill of Rights? Maybe an "originalist" can help me out.
Click to expand...

The ACA is an abomination in the first instance. We're so far away from the Constitution your argument has no premise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
BearCat204 said:
Must have missed it, but how does this prevent anyone from having access to birth control?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but that won't stop the usual suspects from screeching about how this decision will result in more back alley, coat hanger abortions.
 
#31
#31
bamawriter said:
Perhaps I don't understand, as I've never gone through the process of purchasing morning after pills, but...

How difficult is it to acquire a morning after pill? I mean, given that multiple variations of the medication are available over-the-counter? Is it that hard? Are they incredibly expensive? When it's as easy to access a medication as it is to access a pack of Twizzlers, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the issue.
Click to expand...
Not hard to get access too just go to a wal greens pharmacy and ask but it's like 50+ dollars for the pill so yeah expensive.
 
#35
#35
Read the dissent and I do not find their argument as to why the applicable provision of the RFRA should not apply to closely-held corporations very compelling.

For those not aware, the applicable provision of the RFRA is "“Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the government demonstrates that application of the burden satisfies the compelling interest test. Primary issue was whether "person" as used in the statute includes a for-profit closely held corporation.

1) 1 USC Section 1: The definition of "person" in determining the meaning of any act of Congress includes corporations, partnerships, associations, etc. The only times this definition is not used is if "context indicates otherwise."

2) There is no explicit statement in the RFRA that "person" as used in the compelling interest test of the RFRA does not use the standard definition or otherwise include for-profit corporations.

3) Thus, the dissent is left arguing that the context indicates otherwise because "the exercise of religion [as used in the statute] is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial entities."

4) However, they admit that prior precedent of First Amendment cases make clear that non-profit entities such as shelters and churches can "exercise religion."

Thus, using the dissent's admissions, "person" as used in the compelling interest test of the RFRA cannot apply to only naturalized persons because at least some entities can "exercise religion." From this point, the opinion fails to explain why the context of the statute supports a finding that "person" as defined in the statute cannot apply to closely held corporations without resorting to activist statements.
 
#36
#36
Sorry if this has been posted already. But Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 types of contraception to it's employees. There are 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate. There's 4 potentially life-threatening drugs and devices that Hobby Lobby cannot provide or will pay for. These drugs include Plan B & Ella along with the morning after pill & the week after pill.
 
#37
#37
Velo Vol said:
By the way, which amendment is the closely-held corporation one in the Bill of Rights? Maybe an "originalist" can help me out.
Click to expand...

A corporation is just a group of individuals who got together and decided to incorporate. If the Supreme Court would've done its job in the first place, Obamacare wouldn't be here.

The government has no right to make you buy anything. Moreover, they sure as hell have no authority to tell businesses how to run their operations or impose mandates on We the People. Government exists solely to defend the nation from aggression and protect individual rights. The authority doesn't exist to meddle in health care, education, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#38
#38
Honestly despite my far left ideals I still don't have too much of a problem with this. HL still provides a lot and I believe that Obama will improvise something to fully cover this
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
zaqhhh said:
Honestly despite my far left ideals I still don't have too much of a problem with this. HL still provides a lot and I believe that Obama will improvise something to fully cover this
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You're probably right. It's sad.
 
#40
#40
I think the bigger, long term problem foreseen by the administration -- and basically acknowledged but sidestepped by the majority -- is how and where do you draw the line on what is a religious belief under the RFRA that justifies exclusion under whatever law we are discussing?

Saying that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe it is against their religious beliefs to have to purchase insurance that includes certain contraception options seems quite genuine. Religious objection to that is well known in our society and has been documented frequently, so it is not difficult to believe that their objection is genuine.

But what happens when the owners say, my religious beliefs compel me to object to having to abide by certain other laws, or parts of laws, that aren't so clear cut? For example, what if next time the owner of a company says "My religious beliefs are that men and women should not be working together, or that women should be child raisers. Thus, I am exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination in the hiring of women"?

Or, what if the owners say "I am a Jehovah's Witness. I oppose any form of blood transfusion. Therefore, I should not have to offer insurance that includes that."

Could get dicey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
I think the bigger, long term problem foreseen by the administration -- and basically acknowledged but sidestepped by the majority -- is how and where do you draw the line on what is a religious belief under the RFRA that justifies exclusion under whatever law we are discussing?

Saying that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe it is against their religious beliefs to have to purchase insurance that includes certain contraception options seems quite genuine. Religious objection to that is well known in our society and has been documented frequently, so it is not difficult to believe that their objection is genuine.

But what happens when the owners say, my religious beliefs compel me to object to having to abide by certain other laws, or parts of laws, that aren't so clear cut? For example, what if next time the owner of a company says "My religious beliefs are that men and women should not be working together, or that women should be child raisers. Thus, I am exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination in the hiring of women"?

Or, what if the owners say "I am a Jehovah's Witness. I oppose any form of blood transfusion. Therefore, I should not have to offer insurance that includes that."

Could get dicey.
Click to expand...

Absolutely could get dicey but this is supposed to be a free country, business should be able to decide those things for themselves.

The free market will be the ultimate judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
But what happens when the owners say, my religious beliefs compel me to object to having to abide by certain other laws, or parts of laws, that aren't so clear cut? For example, what if next time the owner of a company says "My religious beliefs are that men and women should not be working together, or that women should be child raisers. Thus, I am exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination in the hiring of women"?
Click to expand...

This is actually a really good point, and it's actually dealt with in the decision (might have been Kennedy's concurrence (I've read a lot today)).

Basically, it reiterates the fact that RFRA cannot be cited to justify discrimination against race, sex, or sexual preference. Nor can it be used to get out from under tax laws.
 
#43
#43
bamawriter said:
This is actually a really good point, and it's actually dealt with in the decision (might have been Kennedy's concurrence (I've read a lot today)).

Basically, it reiterates the fact that RFRA cannot be cited to justify discrimination against race, sex, or sexual preference. Nor can it be used to get out from under tax laws.
Click to expand...



I understand that. And that's why I said they were careful about it. I just see potential there for some manipulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
#VFL__ said:
Every female should have access to birth control. I think most do and if HL wants to use religious reasons for not covering them, then so be it. Let the consumers decide to continue or discontinue shopping there.
Click to expand...

They do

God gave them legs that close and if that doesn't work, Trojan makes a nice latex condom

Not the taxpayers burden to promote promiscuity
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
Gannon Goodson said:
A corporation is just a group of individuals who got together and decided to incorporate. If the Supreme Court would've done its job in the first place, Obamacare wouldn't be here.

The government has no right to make you buy anything. Moreover, they sure as hell have no authority to tell businesses how to run their operations or impose mandates on We the People. Government exists solely to defend the nation from aggression and protect individual rights. The authority doesn't exist to meddle in health care, education, etc.
Click to expand...

End thread
 
#46
#46
hog88 said:
Absolutely could get dicey but this is supposed to be a free country, business should be able to decide those things for themselves.

The free market will be the ultimate judge.
Click to expand...

Yep I'm ready to see if this does anything to their profits. I'd say probably not a whole lot but the majority of the people that shop there are women so who knows.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top