Page 39 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 1290

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

  1. #381
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,642

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Never made that claim.
    So then there is no diminished access to birth control.

  2. #382
    Sage
    soccerboy22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    A warm place
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    10,723

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Fabulous View Post
    Reading through some of the replies on this thread you'd think that the SC just banned birth control across the board.

    The ruling basically means that companies that have a religious objection to providing insurance plans that cover birth control to their employees can select a plan that does not provide that coverage. I don't know what percentage of women this will actually effect but I'm guessing it is very low. Not only that, this has no effect on the unemployed who will be getting *free* coverage. So don't rush out and buy stock in the abortion industry in anticipation of a boom in the market because of this ruling. The lines at the abortion clinic won't be any longer than they are right now.
    It is actually even smaller than that. It is closely controlled corporations so a publicly traded corporation as of now cannot object based on religious grounds.
    Boston: City of Champions. New England Patriots: 2001, 2003, 2004, 2014, and 2016 Boston Red Sox: 2004, 2007 and 2013 Boston Celtics: 2008 Boston Bruins: 2011 Boston University Men's Hockey: 2008



  3. #383
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,642

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Why not?
    Because this case wasn't about discrimination. It was about requiring an employer to pay for something that they didn't want to pay for. Birth control isn't a Constitutional right. Freedom from discrimination is a Constitutional right.

  4. #384
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,457

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Hi there Polgara, I'm not sure it's that small actually.

    Here's how the IRS defines "closely held corporation":

    Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
    Is not a personal service corporation.
    Basically, "closely held" is a term that covers as much as 90 percent (or more) of all businesses, according to a 2000 study.


    A LOT of people could be affected by the Supreme Courtís birth control decision ó theoretically - The Washington Post
    I don't know. Maybe many small businesses fall under that heading so it might be higher. Do most of those small businesses provide health care - again, I don't know. I understand that BC pills are provided for free at Planned Parenthood, though, so cost should not be a factor for most.

    Greetings, Montecresto.

  5. #385
    Sage


    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,868
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I am claiming that KKK beliefs are based on a theology, just as the HL beliefs are purported to be. I didn't define them as a religious institution, though that might be one way to take my post if you make assumptions.
    The KKK's beliefs are based on hatred. Neither hatred nor the KKK has any relevance to the topic but why let that stop you from trying to project a false association in an attempt to establish "guilt by".

  6. #386
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,292

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I am claiming that KKK beliefs are based on a theology, just as the HL beliefs are purported to be. I didn't define them as a religious institution, though that might be one way to take my post if you make assumptions.
    Fair enough - we'll leave it at that - deal?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #387
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    40,642

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    China & the KKK. How did we stray so far off this ruling?

  8. #388
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,350

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Is it correct that this only affects the "morning after" pill, or is that : It seems that all the employees will still have employer-paid health care, so I call that a win, dollar-wise, against a few who will have to pay for their own birth-control pills. One of the big complaints about the ACA was the fact that men were required to pay for things like birth-control, that they never would have need to use, so this seems fair.

    Greetings, JasperL.
    Greeting to you Polgara

    I can't see anything that limits the decision at all, not to contraception anyway. There is no reason that another employer can't deny any and all coverage for anything birth control related. I can't see why an employer couldn't prohibit coverage for single women and allow it for married women, if that's what their religion demands. And what Ginsberg pointed out is that the reasoning, if applied broadly, could lead to some insane conclusions. The ruling says over and over, this is limited, this is limited, we five men only mean to apply this to drugs used by wimmens for their lady parts, not REAL healthcare needs like vaccinations and other important stuff. So it strikes me as poorly reasoned on its face and obviously result oriented. Sort of like the Gore v. Bush ruling where they said, ONLY THIS TIME!! Please don't cite for precedence!

    But yes, I don't actually care about the ruling all that much, and even with the 'loss' here, the ACA is a big win for women overall. It seems the better route would have been for Congress (the Senate) to have passed the exception that I think passed the House that would have allowed businesses to exempt out of contraception, then the law would have taxpayers fund the coverage. But as I recall, the religious orgs were opposed to even that compromise and demanded that mandatory coverage for contraception be stripped altogether as it applied to their employees.

    Anyway, more than anything I am concerned that the door is now open for profit making corporations to make religious claims, and no matter how much people say otherwise, there are an an almost infinite number of crazy things people might be able to justify with religious beliefs. I hope the impact is as limited as the ruling predicts it will be.

  9. #389
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,457

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Greeting to you Polgara

    I can't see anything that limits the decision at all, not to contraception anyway. There is no reason that another employer can't deny any and all coverage for anything birth control related. I can't see why an employer couldn't prohibit coverage for single women and allow it for married women, if that's what their religion demands. And what Ginsberg pointed out is that the reasoning, if applied broadly, could lead to some insane conclusions. The ruling says over and over, this is limited, this is limited, we five men only mean to apply this to drugs used by wimmens for their lady parts, not REAL healthcare needs like vaccinations and other important stuff. So it strikes me as poorly reasoned on its face and obviously result oriented. Sort of like the Gore v. Bush ruling where they said, ONLY THIS TIME!! Please don't cite for precedence!

    But yes, I don't actually care about the ruling all that much, and even with the 'loss' here, the ACA is a big win for women overall. It seems the better route would have been for Congress (the Senate) to have passed the exception that I think passed the House that would have allowed businesses to exempt out of contraception, then the law would have taxpayers fund the coverage. But as I recall, the religious orgs were opposed to even that compromise and demanded that mandatory coverage for contraception be stripped altogether as it applied to their employees.

    Anyway, more than anything I am concerned that the door is now open for profit making corporations to make religious claims, and no matter how much people say otherwise, there are an an almost infinite number of crazy things people might be able to justify with religious beliefs. I hope the impact is as limited as the ruling predicts it will be.
    Taking human nature into account, you're probably right! Somebody will just have to test it! Using Roe v Wade as an example, this will go on for years!

  10. #390
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:50 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,411

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Equal protection under the law is guaranteed under the constitution. Such a company would not be able to trump such a right. Birth control is not guaranteed by the constitution.

    Tell all your liberal friends on FB and twitter that this is a stupid argument. FFS.



    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    What if a company claims that their religious beliefs preclude equal treatment of blacks or gays? Would you be just as OK with that?
    Some Muslims beliefs include Sharia Law. Is following that also "protected by the Constitution"?

Page 39 of 129 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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