Page 99 of 129 FirstFirst ... 4989979899100101109 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 990 of 1290

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

  1. #981
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    That"s your opinion.
    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?
    <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>

  2. #982
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    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?
    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.
    <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. #983
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Okay.
    Let's say, oh, the NYT says they want to eliminate employee coverage for abortifacients.
    Will they be able to?
    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.

  4. #984
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Okay.
    Let's say, oh, the NYT says they want to eliminate employee coverage for abortifacients.
    Will they be able to?
    Not at this point under this ruling. The NYT is not a religion based company.
    <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>

  5. #985
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,285

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    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.
    You've been quite clear about the abortion question ... now.

  6. #986
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,285

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Not at this point under this ruling.
    The NYT is not a religion based company
    .
    So the invitation was lost in the mail?

  7. #987
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #988
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    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.
    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?

  9. #989
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Yes ... and they claim they weren't aware the abortifacients had been in the coverage.
    It is difficult to believe that HL didn't know considering they had a "self insured group health plan".

  10. #990
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    So the invitation was lost in the mail?
    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.
    <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>

Posting Permissions

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