Page 58 of 129 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068108 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 1290

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

  1. #571
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    As I posted to another person earlier, Ginsburg's dissent expresses my fear of establishment of religion in this case...

    "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

    The scotus has fabricated a precedent where all the lower courts are now supposed to be bound by in future rulings regarding religion opting out of law... for whatever religious reason. If the scotus and the lower courts do not rule consistently on this from religion to religion regardless of any bias that that religion claims that they can now bring to the fore... then the courts are making an establishment of religion.

    It's a pick your poison situation now. Either stand by this ruling and consistently let any religious discrimination trump law, or have the courts ignore this precedent and just make **** up willy nilly... which has the side effect of saying it only applies to the one religion... violating the establishment clause.

    Either way sucks terribly and both ways can arguably be unconstitutional.
    Do you not know about RFRA, which was the law that SCOTUS applied to this decision?

    I suggest some research on RFRA. It was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Do you want to know the main reason RFRA came into being? It was to protect the Native Americans (remember - the people who had you all worked up last week, worrying about their rights and thoughts on that trademark thing?). RFRA was intended to keep the government from intruding on Native Americans' sacred land. Everyone from the ACLU to the Catholic Church supported RFRA.

    All of a sudden, Ginsburg - who was an ACLU attorney who supported RFRA - has an issue with its application. She launches into an hysterical hypothetical about gelatin, pigs, and transfusions. How realistic do you think it is that people will all of a sudden not get blood transfusions covered by their insurance? Good grief.

    HHS made a decision to force all employers to offer 20 forms of birth control to their employees in their insurance. HHS disregarded RFRA, and SCOTUS (the honest ones) upheld RFRA< which again was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

    So the ones who made up **** willy nilly were the dissenters, not the ones who ruled in favor of it. Ginsburg supported a law in 1993 that she chose to ignore in 2014.

  2. #572
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I never said that, but please make up your own strawman. What I was pointing out is there are many types of contraception not 'readily accessible' to some women, especially poor women. Can they buy condoms with a high failure rate? Yes. Can they afford the $1,000 for an IUD and more for the doctor visit? Not if they're poor.

    The cost of birth control: By the numbers - The Week

    And there are many good reasons to include contraception as part of health insurance. Same reason there are good reasons to include pills for high blood pressure as part of health insurance, or drugs for high cholesterol, etc. I pointed some out, which ones do you disagree with?
    Poor women are covered by Medicaid, are they not? The ruling won't impact Medicaid. It impacts certain corporations only.

  3. #573
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Yes Vance I can hear you gnashing your teeth and stomping your feet. Surprised it took you so long. Just keep your religion out of my government.
    RFRA has been on the books for 21 years. Why is it only bothering you now with this case? RFRA was made a law to protect people with religion from government intrusion. I don't want religion in my government either, but at the same time, those with religion don't want government in their religion (which is their First Amendment right). It really works both ways.

  4. #574
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    1) Cheap and readily accessible to everyone - some are, but women can't always take the cheapest generic versions that are readily accessible to the poor. And there's a good reason why there are 20 options and not ONE or TWO.

    2) There is no reason whatsoever to make them part of health insurance - they're a basic part of healthcare for women, and an integral part. For some women, pregnancy can be life threatening because of medical conditions, and effective contraception is medically important. In those cases, and in cases where contraception is used for reasons other than pregnancy protection, they're as necessary to be covered by health insurance as antibiotics or drugs for blood pressure, blood sugar, etc. And that's if you don't accept prescription drugs/devices for pregnancy prevention and planning for pregnancies as a damn fine reason to include them as part of health insurance, like almost all other prescription drugs/devices.
    Poor people are covered by Medicaid. This ruling doesn't impact poor people. In fact, it only impacts the HL employees.

    There are 16 forms of birth control still available to women who work at HL. Which of the 4 drugs that HL won't provide are prescribed for blood pressure and blood sugar? I'm diabetic, and know all about what meds are prescribed to maintain a healthy blood sugar level. The IUD isn't one of them.

  5. #575
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by zgoldsmith23 View Post
    You realize, pulling out isn't as effective, right?
    It's more effective than not pulling out.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #576
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I never said that, but please make up your own strawman. What I was pointing out is there are many types of contraception not 'readily accessible' to some women, especially poor women. Can they buy condoms with a high failure rate? Yes. Can they afford the $1,000 for an IUD and more for the doctor visit? Not if they're poor.

    The cost of birth control: By the numbers - The Week

    And there are many good reasons to include contraception as part of health insurance. Same reason there are good reasons to include pills for high blood pressure as part of health insurance, or drugs for high cholesterol, etc. I pointed some out, which ones do you disagree with?
    Yep and this ruling has nothing to do with high blood pressure pills or any other medication. it strictly deals with private family businesses and birth control.

    you are strawmaning the conversation but please continue.

  7. #577
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Any claim that they would make based upon Sharia would have to be in regards to what they would provide or do, but not what an employee could do outside the workplace. So they could make women who worked in their company wear burkas while on the job but they could not enforce that rule outside of the workplace. The same principle is what is being applied to HL. HL is not going to provide what they do not religiously support, but they aren't even trying to stop women from getting what they want on their own.
    Yes, that's all true.

    But I guess I'm a little unclear about what the point is. I guess as a libertarian you object outright any employer regulations, so I'm hesitant to start any debate with that as the starting point. But 'what they provide or do' in the workplace is broad enough to include gender based discrimination of any kind, including a head covering, or requiring women to have male escorts in public, refusing to promote them to a position where they'd be supervising men, etc. I'd oppose that, I guess you'd say the women should find another place to work.

  8. #578
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Yes Vance I can hear you gnashing your teeth and stomping your feet. Surprised it took you so long. Just keep your religion out of my government.
    nope justices upheld the 1st amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
    no religion entered the government. the SCOTUS was doing it's job and protecting peoples religious views and practices.

    please see the first amendment if you have any issues.

  9. #579
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Yes, that's all true.

    But I guess I'm a little unclear about what the point is. I guess as a libertarian you object outright any employer regulations, so I'm hesitant to start any debate with that as the starting point. But 'what they provide or do' in the workplace is broad enough to include gender based discrimination of any kind, including a head covering, or requiring women to have male escorts in public, refusing to promote them to a position where they'd be supervising men, etc. I'd oppose that, I guess you'd say the women should find another place to work.
    HL already offers birth control so what is your problem?

  10. #580
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,943
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The court says it does apply to closely held corporations but it does not say that the ruling does NOT or cannot apply to publicly held corps, only that it's less likely and none have made a claim so far. But what if a Saudi buys 50.01% of a public company? Can they make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows, but there is nothing in the ruling preventing such a claim under RFRA.
    It's like I always say, time will tell. those who disagree with the ruling usually are all doom and gloom and put forth the most worst case scenario as the path we are headed down and the other side is all happy and full of joy thinking the whole has changed for the better with just one ruling. But in the end, in most cases not much changes as 99.9% of us are left uneffected.

    Now there are rulings that do effect close to everyone, but I highly doubt this was one of them.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

Posting Permissions

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