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

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Samhain said:

The difference is that the court case was about the inability for the ACA contraception mandate to coincide with what an existing law(RFRA) already stated.

I don't believe anything in the FLSA conflicts with the RFRA, but there hasn't been a case asking for clarification either.

Click to expand...

With all respect, that's not an actual answer. The ACA is a law. The FLSA is a law. Regardless on how you feel about the policies, both are constitutional.

So if someone could have a religious objection to a provision of the ACA, why not one of the FLSA? Any time SCOTUS rules that a ruling is limited to this case and only this case, it's a tacit acknowledgement that the case wasn't decided on any principled legal argument but rather it was 5 justices legislating from the bench.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

I'm not dancing at all. There are many reasons why it should be the last resort, the obvious, a fairly complex medical procedure is more involved that using a rubber or the pill. Given the choice, I think most people would choose the least involved form.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought you objected to.
The complexity and risk to one of the entities involved.
If it's not specified someone might mistakenly think you might have felt a little bad about what was being destroyed.
That's the game Liberals play all the time so it's important to make it clear.
Don't you think?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

Again....obviously you are missing the big picture. Let me spell it out to you. The court ruling isn't limited to Hobby Lobby nor is it limited to the 4 forms involved. The court ruling invites companies to ban coverage of all birth control based on religious grounds. Got it now?

Click to expand...

Okay.
Let's say, oh, the NYT says they want to eliminate employee coverage for abortifacients.
Will they be able to?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Erod said:

Yes, because the Democrats feed on the irresponsibility of the subjects they placate, brainwash, and control.

Click to expand...

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

American said:

That"s your opinion.

Click to expand...

No, not opinion. The SC has officially signed off on at least three cases where Catholic employers won the right to deny coverage for all 20 BC options. And the order itself said "The contraceptive mandate... violates RFRA" as opposed to "these four drugs included in the contraceptive mandate....violate RFRA."

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

American said:

That"s your opinion.

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:

That's what I thought you objected to.
The complexity and risk to one of the entities involved.
If it's not specified someone might mistakenly think you might have felt a little bad about what was being destroyed.
That's the game Liberals play all the time so it's important to make it clear.
Don't you think?

Click to expand...

It is clear that you are trying to play a pidgeon hole game here. The reality is, I don't personally have any problem with abortion during the first trimester. As the zygote develops into a fetus which develops into a baby, yes...I like most Americans develop more concern about the actions being taken. I don't agree with late term abortions at all because I believe at that point the development of the fetus has passed beyond an acceptable point. I don't know how much more clear I can make it for you.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:

Okay.
Let's say, oh, the NYT says they want to eliminate employee coverage for abortifacients.
Will they be able to?

Click to expand...

I don't know who owns the NYT, but if they're devout Catholics and can credibly claim they have a religious objection to all forms of BC, then of course they will be able to eliminate coverage for any or all 20 of the BC options.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:

Okay.
Let's say, oh, the NYT says they want to eliminate employee coverage for abortifacients.
Will they be able to?

Click to expand...

Not at this point under this ruling. The NYT is not a religion based company.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

It is clear that you are trying to play a pidgeon hole game here. The reality is,

I don't personally have any problem with abortion during the first trimester

Click to expand...

. As the zygote develops into a fetus which develops into a baby, yes...I like most Americans develop more concern about the actions being taken. I don't agree with late term abortions at all because I believe at that point the development of the fetus has passed beyond an acceptable point. I don't know how much more clear I can make it for you.

Click to expand...

You've been quite clear about the abortion question ... now.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

Again....obviously you are missing the big picture. Let me spell it out to you. The court ruling isn't limited to Hobby Lobby nor is it limited to the 4 forms involved.

The court ruling invites companies to ban coverage of all birth control based on religious grounds

Click to expand...

. Got it now?

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

Not at this point under this ruling.

The NYT is not a religion based company

Click to expand...

.

Click to expand...

So the invitation was lost in the mail?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:

With all respect, that's not an actual answer. The ACA is a law. The FLSA is a law. Regardless on how you feel about the policies, both are constitutional.

So if someone could have a religious objection to a provision of the ACA, why not one of the FLSA? Any time SCOTUS rules that a ruling is limited to this case and only this case, it's a tacit acknowledgement that the case wasn't decided on any principled legal argument but rather it was 5 justices legislating from the bench.

Click to expand...

Because its the courts job to decide conflicts between laws, or with a law itself. ACA, FLSA, and RFRA are all laws, and are considered constitutional by default. Nothing becomes unconstitutional unless someone actually challenges it with a suit AND the courts agree.

If someone wants to argue that they think RFRA trumps FLSA on the grounds of overtime, then they can sue and take it through the courts. Until someone has done that, there is no conflict, and your example doesn't apply.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Samhain said:

Because its the courts job to decide conflicts between laws, or with a law itself. ACA, FLSA, and RFRA are all laws, and are considered constitutional by default. Nothing becomes unconstitutional unless someone actually challenges it with a suit AND the courts agree.

If someone wants to argue that they think RFRA trumps FLSA on the grounds of overtime, then they can sue and take it through the courts. Until someone has done that, there is no conflict, and your example doesn't apply.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:

Yes ... and they claim they weren't aware the abortifacients had been in the coverage.

Click to expand...

It is difficult to believe that HL didn't know considering they had a "self insured group health plan".

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

bubbabgone said:

So the invitation was lost in the mail?

Click to expand...

You are missing the big picture. It probably helps if you have read the decision. Essentially, the Supreme Court said that a company, if owned substantially by a religious organization, can refuse to cover medical procedures that conflict with their religious beliefs, even if the company itself is not a "religious business".e.g., "Hobby Lobby". The NYT is not a religious organization so hence....no "invitiation" was "sent" to the NYT. What you will see as a result of this ruling is more and more religion owned businesses opting out of birth control coverage. That is quaranteed by this decision...unless you are of the naive belief that it only applies to "Hobby Lobby" and the four types of BC they objected to.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

gdgyva said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Navy Pride said:

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.

Click to expand...

How is this a "Victory" for pro-life? Unless an increase in abortions is what you were trying to accomplish.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

How is this a "Victory" for pro-life? Unless an increase in abortions is what you were trying to accomplish.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

americanwoman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Serious? Who's stopping you from buying whatever you need?

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".

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

American said:

Serious? Who's stopping you from buying whatever you need?

Click to expand...

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?

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Mithros said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Moot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Conservative said:

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

Click to expand...

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.