SCOTUS Upholds Religious Freedom - Hobby Lobby

#326
#326
Teva makes drugs for respiratory ailments, central nervous system ailments, oncology.

In addition, one in eight generics prescribed in the US is made by Teva.

To pass the purity test, HL should have demanded that their insurance not pay for any of these drugs. What a bunch of hypocrites!
 
#327
#327
LG and other like minded dolts would have a point if Hobby Lobby refused to cover all 20 of the medications mandated by the ACA as well as firing any employee who purchased the drugs out of pocket or through a standalone prescription benefit plan.

Access is not being denied. HL is not making health care decisions for its employees. There is no "war on women" being waged here. The only reason the left is wringing it's hands over the HL ruling is Obama's biggest achievement is turning into one of the biggest **** sandwiches ever forced down the throat of Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#328
#328
lawgator1 said:
I am not aware of it being reported to the Court prior to their decision. Trust me, behind the scenes the reporting of this problem this week is being talked about at the Court.

The Solicitor General should file a petition for rehearing and raise the question of whether HL's religious claims were sincere and genuine based on this. It won't work, but it is important that the groundwork be laid for future cases, to make the Court sensitive to the fact that they need to be wary of such religious exemption claims down the line.
Click to expand...

You realize that this story broke in the beginning of April; long before deliberations occurred. (Case was heard on March 25th).

If you really think this would make any difference (which is asinine but whatever) then you should be pissed at the government prosecutor who failed to do some simple due diligence.
 
#329
#329
lawgator1 said:
Trust me, behind the scenes the reporting of this problem this week is being talked about at the Court..
Click to expand...

Scalia: Hey brah, Hobby lobby was totes insincere.

Roberts: I know, right! They so cray.

Ginsburg: I hope a UF law grad can help us with our discernment in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#330
#330
volinbham said:
You realize that this story broke in the beginning of April; long before deliberations occurred. (Case was heard on March 25th).

If you really think this would make any difference (which is asinine but whatever) then you should be pissed at the government prosecutor who failed to do some simple due diligence.
Click to expand...

I for one hope the admin follows LGs advice and has the Solicitor General file a motion.
 
#331
#331
volinbham said:
And there it is. They questioned your guy and as a result you are seeking to tear them down.

They didn't sue Obama. They sued the government over a law imposing particular changes on their business operations.
Click to expand...

Did you ever have any doubt? With LG it's always about Obama and the Democrats first and foremost.

As soon as I saw LG lecturing others on principle, I LOL'd. But it's 07/01, not 04/01.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#332
#332
This BS about this opening all sorts of doors to religious objection on HC is crazy. Until ACA, how many companies were refusing coverage of blood transfusions (one of the scare tactic examples) or other common HC items?

What we have here is the government coming in and telling everyone they have to cover "x". Some companies objected along narrow, religious grounds in areas that historically be deep beliefs in said religions and the courts agreed that the government didn't find the best way to achieve their goal without infringing on existing rights.

Now we have people claiming the ruling is null and void because HL had some mutual funds available in their 401k. Sure, that obviates all the substance on which the case was heard and decided.
 
#337
#337
Oh crap - I found the real hypocrisy. Teva is a Jewish company - you know, the people that killed Jesus. HL in effect killed Jesus

Quick get the SCOTUS back in session.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#339
#339
volinbham said:
Oh crap - I found the real hypocrisy. Teva is a Jewish company - you know, the people that killed Jesus. HL in effect killed Jesus

Quick get the SCOTUS back in session.
Click to expand...

Can't. SC is too busy talking about this case behind the scenes to reconvene.
 
#340
#340
volinbham said:
Oh crap - I found the real hypocrisy. Teva is a Jewish company - you know, the people that killed Jesus. HL in effect killed Jesus

Quick get the SCOTUS back in session.
Click to expand...

I bet they let atheists in their stores also.
 
#341
#341
MG1968 said:
Access is not being denied. HL is not making health care decisions for its employees. There is no "war on women" being waged here. The only reason the left is wringing it's hands over the HL ruling is Obama's biggest achievement is turning into one of the biggest **** sandwiches ever forced down the throat of Americans.
Click to expand...

Nu uh. People on facebook are telling me that HL isn't covering any contraceptives, they can now control what their employees purchase , and will even demand that their employees become Christians.

Obviously they know what they're talking about. After all, they read it from liberal news sites!
 
#344
#344
Why is everyone criticizing Hobby Lobby. Don't like the ruling - blame the democrat led congress for passing almost unanimously and Bill Clinton for signing into law the RFRA which expanded religion freedoms to "persons" as defined by the Dictionary Act.
 
#345
#345
vols4sure said:
Why is everyone criticizing Hobby Lobby. Don't like the ruling - blame the democrat led congress for passing almost unanimously and Bill Clinton for signing into law the RFRA which expanded religion freedoms to "persons" as defined by the Dictionary Act.
Click to expand...

LG cannot do that.
 
#346
#346
InVOLuntary said:
Heaven forbid a private organization have control of how they spend THEIR money on the unfunded government mandate. HL is not saying you can't use them. They are not dictating anyone's behavior. They are simply stating "WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT!" Which in my opinion within their rights whether or not you agree with it or not.

This is very similar to the position of many moderates when it comes to abortion in general. For instance, I am completely against abortion but I also view it as a personal right of an individual to do with their body what they will. However, I think it is wrong for my tax dollars to go to something I feel personally is wrong. In other words, do what you want just don't expect me to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Like spending one penny arguing whether to place "The Ten Commandments," or "In God We Trust" on a public building.
 
#347
#347
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "tangentially support."

But if so, then that means that Hobby Lobby cannot obtain the relief they request in their lawsuit and their claim should be adjudged as moot and summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...

Another false statement from you.

Hobby Lobby only requested that they not be directly responsible for covering products they find morally objectionable.

If a company manufactures an antibiotic and an IUD, covering the antibiotic supports a company that manufactures an IUD, but it does not directly pay for an IUD. Similarly, investing in a company that makes many products you agree with and a few you don't does not mean that you are intentionally supporting the manufacture of the objectionable product.
 
#348
#348
volinbham said:
Teva makes drugs for respiratory ailments, central nervous system ailments, oncology.

In addition, one in eight generics prescribed in the US is made by Teva.

To pass the purity test, HL should have demanded that their insurance not pay for any of these drugs. What a bunch of hypocrites!
Click to expand...


Huh?

The issue presented here is created by the very claim of Hobby Lobby, itself. The text of the opinion states:

"As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can 'opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.'


To qualify, the opt out must be based on "sincerely held religious beliefs."

The issue that is squarely raised at this point is whether Hobby Lobby can be said to "sincerely believe" in that religious position when it not only offers its employees the option to invest in the company that makes the drugs HL claims are a problem, but then affirmatively matches those funds.

The fact that they both allow it, and contriobute to it, raises in my mind a legitimate question as to whether their opt out is political, or based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

I won't lie, I had always assumed that their concerns about contraception were real and genuine. The company has quite the public reputation for it. But, when you are talking about coming up with standard, universally applicable criteria exempting corporations from complying with the ACA founded on the notion that its religious objection is "sincerely held," you have to wonder when it turns out they allow and even to some degree facilitate employees having a vested financial interest in the companies at issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#349
#349
bamawriter said:
Another false statement from you.

Hobby Lobby only requested that they not be directly responsible for covering products they find morally objectionable.

If a company manufactures an antibiotic and an IUD, covering the antibiotic supports a company that manufactures an IUD, but it does not directly pay for an IUD. Similarly, investing in a company that makes many products you agree with and a few you don't does not mean that you are intentionally supporting the manufacture of the objectionable product.
Click to expand...

Correct. The law required they cover the products (in effect purchase the products). They challenged that law and won. Prior to the passage of that law they were not required to cover such products. It is entirely within their rights to challenge the law in the manner which they did.

The fact that they contribute to mutual funds some of which include companies that manufacture the products is irrelevant legally and is not some indictment of their sincerity.

No one lives by the purity standards that LG and TNRibs are requiring here.

Also, it's discriminatory to demand that only those who meet such extreme purity standards be allowed to petition the courts for remedies.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top