Page 100 of 129 FirstFirst ... 50909899100101102110 ... LastLast
Results 991 to 1,000 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #991
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    if that is correct...let me ask you a question

    do you think that every owner of every company across the USA knows what coverage is in his/her insurance that is given to their employees?

    i would bet you thousands of dollars they dont or didnt....

    And when the ACA passed, a lot more got interested, because NOW the government is mandating something....it is no longer a choice, but the owners were being told they MUST do this and that

    So like HL, we took a real good look at what our company had to provide

    My owner didnt have an issue with anything, but he could have.....and we could have been part of the same lawsuit

    The only reason a lot of owners looked, was now they were being forced to do something.....

    You may not think so, but that in itself, is enough to make some people hate the law
    Of course that is possible....except that Hobby Lobby had a "self insured group health plan" making it difficult to believe that the owners didn't know what their own companies insurance plan was covering.

  2. #992
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I believe this is a great victory for us who are pro life. It is significant that the 5 justices who voted in the majority were Roman Catholic. God bless them.
    How is this a "Victory" for pro-life? Unless an increase in abortions is what you were trying to accomplish.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #993
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,435

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    How is this a "Victory" for pro-life? Unless an increase in abortions is what you were trying to accomplish.
    People only support this here because they also hold the same beliefs. They would be up in arms, literally probably, had it been a decision that benefited a Muslim owned company. Accusations of 'Sharia Law' would be filling these pages instead. Like I said I personally want IUD coverage and I'm not going to cry about it not being offered but when the government decides it's okay to deny it to me based on religious objections that is what worries me.
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  4. #994
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Thats an incredbily naive statement. Have you read the decision? What makes you believe that this is limited to Hobby Lobby and their 4 forms of birth control? Do you understand how the Supreme Court and jurisprudence operate?
    Seems you have a record in this thread of basically insinuating that people who disagree with you are naive, don't get the big picture or the like. I guess we'll see what the outcome really is, and I doubt you own a crystal ball.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  5. #995
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    People only support this here because they also hold the same beliefs. They would be up in arms, literally probably, had it been a decision that benefited a Muslim owned company. Accusations of 'Sharia Law' would be filling these pages instead. Like I said I personally want IUD coverage and I'm not going to cry about it not being offered but when the government decides it's okay to deny it to me based on religious objections that is what worries me.
    Serious? Who's stopping you from buying whatever you need?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #996
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    It's pretty sad you need to have a reason that is accepted by government for them to not force you to provide other people services. It's also annoying that the SC once again used the "state interest" argument that basically amounts to "for the greater good and to hell with human rights".

  7. #997
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,435

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Serious? Who's stopping you from buying whatever you need?
    Nobody, did you even read that I have no problem buying my own contraceptives and that doesn't bother me at all?

    But now are you going to tell me seriously that if it had been a Muslim owned company that denied a certain prescription which would normally be covered under the insurance provider to their employees based on their Muslim beliefs and the SC backed them up that you would support that decision?
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  8. #998
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    But what's the legal argument that justifies one but prevents the other? When the Supreme Court makes a decision it will be used by lower courts to make other determinations. That's why they need to be based on substantial legal basis. For example, we get the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman.

    What's the test here? What philosophy did the court use to decide the case? They said that providing all forms of contraception provides a justifiable state benefit, but since they could *imagine* a way to provide the same benefit that they *thought* might be less intrusive, even if their hypothetical "easier" method does not exist nor has any potential to exist, then a for profit company can avoid paying an otherwise lawful obligation.

    And because the justices used "the government could just pick up the tab" as their hypothetical less intrusive solution and virtually any corporate obligation could be "less intrusively" paid for by the government, then the door is wide open for a corporation to object to essentially anything on religious grounds.
    I believe the RFRA is what codified that the government could override religious belief objections so long as the state had a compelling interest and that it didn't create a burden on compliance with no other way to achieve results. Contraception could be handled via direct subsidies from the structure of the ACA or they can drop the prescription requirement for contraception, which the ACOG stated would be a safe recommendation. Because of that, the ACA can't create a penalty( in HL case, 475 million/year ) since there are alternatives. Based on your argument, it appears your opinino is the RFRA is too strong in its ability to limit the government's ability.

    Furthermore, they ruled that a closely held corporation was not only a person, but was a person that represented the beliefs of its owners. Since the purpose of incorporation is to distance oneself from the legal liabilities of the corporation, it's difficult to see how this does not severely weaken the liability shield provided by incorporating. After all, if my corporation is a manifestation of my religious beliefs, then should I not also share in the legal liability?
    They ruled that a "closely held corporation" is just like a sole proprietor, who already had the ability via the RFRA to reject the contraception mandate. They defined the CHC as 5 or less people owning 50% of the company.

    I agree with your point regarding limited liability. This case could be used to remove that shielding, and open the CHC owners to liability. It seems like an appropriate trade off. If you want the RFRA to apply to your corp, then accept the liability of that choice.

  9. #999
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Of course that is possible....except that Hobby Lobby had a "self insured group health plan" making it difficult to believe that the owners didn't know what their own companies insurance plan was covering.
    Great point. Other self-insured groups, like Catholic hospitals, have gotten exemptions from some of the mandates since they end up directly paying the bills.

  10. #1000
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What part of FREE from Planned Parenthood do you not understand? Eliminating 4 contraception drugs isn't taking away women's health care. Keep spouting the leftwing lies. You leftwing zealots better understand what Obama is doing to "your" country and "mine." Really is sad
    Jasper made an excellent point that shines a spot light on conservative hypocrisy.

    Conservatives want women to be responsible for their sex lives and then set up barriers to prevent them controlling their sex lives.


    Here's another one.....

    Conservatives say they want to repeal Obamacare but then want to sue Obama for not implementing Obamacare fast enough.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •