• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Alito states in his opinion that the ruling only applies to contraception. Its no broader than that.

Also, you can certainly have strongly held beliefs about anything but that doesn't mean it trumps the constitutional rights of others.

Precedent says the government may restrict religious freedom in some cases (like in the case of the Amish paying social security taxes) but it must do so in the least restrictive way possible.

In no way does this ruling say religious rights trump all other laws. In fact, there was a famous/infamous case where someone was denied the right to take peyote since that individuals religious right did not trump the law. There's plenty of subtletys here involving the religious freedom restoration act and others.

P.S Please tell your liberal friends on FB and twitter to calm the hell down and breath into a paper bag. Its no wonder you people have the reputation of being histrionic knee jerkers.



The Court ruled on religious claims conflicting with a law applied to the general population. It has nothing to do with birth control, except that was the topic of the religious claim. But Muslim owned businesses can certainly assert laws that violate Sharia Law should be invalidated.

And who are you to say a person can't hold sincerely held religious views that require them to not serve interracial couples because they disapprove of them marrying? It conflicts with the Civil Rights Acts and perhaps other laws, but the Congress and now SC say your religious views trump those laws in some cases.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What doesn't? The ruling applies to all employers. The SC said it's unlikely for big employers to file a claim based on religious grounds, but they don't limit their holding to closely held corps or define them, that I saw. If you can find it in the ruling, please point it out.
From what I saw their ruling pertains only to "closely held" corporations/employers.
They are the ones most likely to object on the religious grounds established by the Religious Freedom Act to begin with.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

Oh dear, your god is impotent to protect the 54,000,000, but he's going to bless the church with a terrible record of child abuse and humanitarian failure. What the hell is going on in here?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

This isn't a pro-life victory, but if you want to delude yourself by all means. This is a victory for religious freedom. In the end what these drugs do or don't do are irrelvant. It is the fact that the Greens feel that they do something against their religion as they interpret it. All the other forms of conception, which many Roman Catholics see as also against their "pro-life" stance, do not violate the Greens' religious principles.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

do you really want to use the post office as a federal entity that is working well?

ATLANTA—The U.S. Postal Service cut costs and boosted its revenue for the first time in five years but still ended its fiscal year with a $5 billion loss and no end in sight to its fiscal woes.

The Post Office saved $1 billion as it consolidated facilities and 20,000 employees took buyouts. That helped it to narrow its operational loss to $1 billion from $2.4 billion.

The agency also boosted revenue by 1.2% to $66 billion in the period ending Sept. 30. The improvement was due mainly to growth in it package-delivery business, which rose 8% to $12.5 billion as postal customers increased their online spending.

In recent years, the Postal Service has teamed up with United Parcel Service UPS +0.08% and FedEx Corp. FDX +0.07% , which will hand off their packages to USPS mailmen to deliver the last mile to homes. That business is expected to continue to grow. "The future of packages—that's seven days a week," said Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

Earlier this week, Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +0.16% said that it would tap the Postal Service to deliver orders on Sunday, beginning immediately.

Still, the package business is only about a fifth of total Postal Service revenues. First-class mail revenue fell 2.4% and total mail volume fell nearly 1%, compared to the prior year, even with an uptick in the 2012 election cycle.

The agency is saddled with a congressional mandate that requires it to prefund $5.6 billion annually for health benefits for future retirees. The agency defaulted on the payments for the third time last year, but still has to account for the charge in earnings. It used up its credit line with the U.S. Treasury Department, which means it has no borrowing room.

The agency doesn't receive an annual taxpayer subsidy. It is reimbursed by Congress for services like delivering mail to the blind, and it raises revenue by selling stamps and postal-related products.

Postal Service Records Seventh-Straight Yearly Loss - WSJ


they are inept in so many ways, it isnt funny

not all of that is their fault....a lot of it is because of congress

but efficient? no

well ran? no

just another bloated agency.....another proverbial hole in the boat, we keep floating....just barely

Yes I do want to make the post office as a government entity that is doing very well sans the Republican hamstringing on it.

The GOP passed a really stupid law saying that the PO has to fund its retirement 75 ****ing years in advance and do it in just 10 years. That mandate puts the PO in the hole around 5 to 6 billion dollars every year before they do a single damn thing. No other private nor public organization has done or has to do anything even remotely close to that. This is the Republican shotgun blast in the bottom of the boat so that they can say that government orgs don't work. Take that stupid Republican hamstring off the post office and in the just the first half of the fiscal year it's made a billion dollar operating costs PROFIT.

That's not the only hamstringing that the GOP has done to the USPS. They have very tight restrictions making it against the law for them to make a freegin' copy of a document that you need a copy of. The PO could do loads of things to make it even more profitable but it literally takes an act of congress to merely LET THEM DO ANY DAMN THING AT ALL. And guess whose standing there making sure that they can't expand their abilities and improve their performance. Yeppers... the Grand 'ol Party poopers.

So tell your party to stop trying to destroy the government by blowing holes in it.

*edit... btw... now that the PO has a giant pool of money they've raised for their retirement, you just watch how it gets pilfered away from them. That's a foretelling from me to you that you can bank on.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I agree - You should question why the four liberal justices ruled according to their ideology and not the constitution they are tasked to uphold.

Or you could try to find out why your boys refuse to rule on precedent and instead just fabricates one time bias laws from the bench. Then you can actually begin to understand how a nation of laws is supposed to work and therefore learn what is and isn't unconstitutional instead of doing these throw-away non sequiturs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

This isn't a pro-life victory, but if you want to delude yourself by all means. This is a victory for religious freedom. In the end what these drugs do or don't do are irrelvant. It is the fact that the Greens feel that they do something against their religion as they interpret it. All the other forms of conception, which many Roman Catholics see as also against their "pro-life" stance, do not violate the Greens' religious principles.

That's what I heard too. Something like 14 types of contraceptives are fine with them, it is only the 4 that could cause abortion. The ruling if I understand it right only effects family owned companies of a certain size. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That's what I heard too. Something like 14 types of contraceptives are fine with them, it is only the 4 that could cause abortion. The ruling if I understand it right only effects family owned companies of a certain size. Correct me if I am wrong.

Technically it is "closed" corporations, but it is pretty much family run. Think of Bluth family from Arrested Development.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

heh.jpg
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Technically it is "closed" corporations, but it is pretty much family run. Think of Bluth family from Arrested Development.

Thank you. The technical term for these things always averts me. But as long as everyone knows what is meant I think is the important thing. Closed Corporation, I got it as long as my old brain remembers it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Alito states in his opinion that the ruling only applies to contraception. Its no broader than that.

Well, if it's that's true and it's no broader than that, it's just a case of legislating from the bench. The Senate considered and rejected the exemption HL wanted, and now the SC approved that bill through judicial fiat. But I don't know why the ruling would be limited to just contraception. It involves broader stakes than that, and even those applauding the decision recognize that.

Also, you can certainly have strongly held beliefs about anything but that doesn't mean it trumps the constitutional rights of others.

You'll have to be specific. What in the constitution, for example, demands that businesses serve interracial couples? Laws require that, but the RFLA trumps those laws per the SC today, in some cases, perhaps, depending etc.

In no way does this ruling say religious rights trump all other laws. In fact, there was a famous/infamous case where someone was denied the right to take peyote since that individuals religious right did not trump the law. There's plenty of subtletys here involving the religious freedom restoration act and others.

Yes, but the RFRA effectively overruled that SC holding with peyote, or at least required a higher standard. So presumably that would be allowed under the new law.

And it doesn't say religious rights trump laws in all cases, just some cases, and in particular drugs used by women to plan for pregnancy. One reason people are concerned is the ruling does open a door to crazy claims.

P.S Please tell your liberal friends on FB and twitter to calm the hell down and breath into a paper bag. Its no wonder you people have the reputation of being histrionic knee jerkers.

I don't do Facebook and only read twitter occasionally. Sorry, can't help you there.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Thank you. The technical term for these things always averts me. But as long as everyone knows what is meant I think is the important thing. Closed Corporation, I got it as long as my old brain remembers it.

Actually I was technically wrong as it is closely held corporations rather closed. Errors like that is probably why I got a B in my Business Associations class. But joking aside yeah you pretty much have the right idea, legal names aren't all that important as long as you can tell the difference between a closely held and publicly traded corporations.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That's what I heard too. Something like 14 types of contraceptives are fine with them, it is only the 4 that could cause abortion. The ruling if I understand it right only effects family owned companies of a certain size. Correct me if I am wrong.

But another company could and presumably will ban all forms, not just the 14 or 16. All they need to do is assert a deeply held religious conviction, and the courts presume it's legitimate. And it isn't limited to family companies, at least not anything I saw said so. The only limit is practical - it's less likely GE will assert deeply held religious beliefs as it has thousands of owners, but the ruling didn't say GE couldn't make the assertion.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

From what I saw their ruling pertains only to "closely held" corporations/employers.
They are the ones most likely to object on the religious grounds established by the Religious Freedom Act to begin with.

That may be practically true, but the ruling didn't set any limits on who can file these claims. It certainly didn't specify any kind of 'closely held' test that anyone can identify. What if a Saudi buys 50.01% of Bank of America? Can it make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But another company could and presumably will ban all forms, not just the 14 or 16. All they need to do is assert a deeply held religious conviction, and the courts presume it's legitimate. And it isn't limited to family companies, at least not anything I saw said so. The only limit is practical - it's less likely GE will assert deeply held religious beliefs as it has thousands of owners, but the ruling didn't say GE couldn't make the assertion.

So what? If you want to be free to ****, then feel free to be responsible for the consequences yourself. Why should anyone else be responsible for your behavioral choices?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What I found interesting is even though they saw the mandate a violation of religious freedom, they cited federal law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) that the abortion pill mandate was in violation. The court did not need to reach the larger question of whether the Obamacare mandate also violates Americans’ First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Or you could try to find out why your boys refuse to rule on precedent and instead just fabricates one time bias laws from the bench. Then you can actually begin to understand how a nation of laws is supposed to work and therefore learn what is and isn't unconstitutional instead of doing these throw-away non sequiturs.

Is there a precedent concerning the right of government to demand that they have the right to force companies to provide contraceptives?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Actually I was technically wrong as it is closely held corporations rather closed. Errors like that is probably why I got a B in my Business Associations class. But joking aside yeah you pretty much have the right idea, legal names aren't all that important as long as you can tell the difference between a closely held and publicly traded corporations.

Thank You once again.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Is there a precedent concerning the right of government to demand that they have the right to force companies to provide contraceptives?

In no way does precedent mean you have to have exactly the same case prior to refer to. That's just a dodge.

But in no way does a court have the right to make a law or a ruling on a law that applies singularly... unlike laws are intended to do. We are all supposed to live by the same laws... so for them to say that only this brand of Christianity in this case does this ruling apply. That is bogus crap.

It's creating a precedent for future cases where no structure need apply to rulings. Therefore creating a nation of men instead a nation of laws.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But another company could and presumably will ban all forms, not just the 14 or 16. All they need to do is assert a deeply held religious conviction, and the courts presume it's legitimate. And it isn't limited to family companies, at least not anything I saw said so. The only limit is practical - it's less likely GE will assert deeply held religious beliefs as it has thousands of owners, but the ruling didn't say GE couldn't make the assertion.

Thanks to Soccerboy I now have the correct term, closely held corporations is what this ruling applies to. Or as I stated family owned business with deeply held religious views. Not your publicly traded corporations like GE.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

In no way does precedent mean you have to have exactly the same case prior to refer to. That's just a dodge.

Then help me out. In the context of your post, and the law, how are you using the word precedent?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The KKK members beliefs are based on their interpretation of the Bible. It is a theology. That it is what the rest of us believe to be a hateful theology is irrelevant. I most certainly am not 'attempting' anything. I have already stated I completely agree with the ruling, I have zero motivation for vilifying what you perceive to be my opposition, because I don't think the outcome of the ruling should be changed.

I do believe the court has opened up the right of KKK members to discriminate. Nevertheless, it is still probably the correct ruling.
The bible is an excuse, and a lame one at that.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The bible is an excuse, and a lame one at that.

So, we all get to decide when the Bible is a lame excuse and when it isn't? Is that what you are advocating?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Then help me out. In the context of your post, and the law, how are you using the word precedent?

You either rule by referring to similar cases of government and corporate issues (not just contraception related) OR in some cases where there isn't you have to realize that you are creating precedent. This is what they did.

Mind you that Scalia has in the past wailed against using precedent to make his rulings because he declares himself a "textualist" which is his fancy way of saying, "I just want to make **** up as I go."
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

No it's not.

The law is that insurance companies must provide birth control for free.
So if you don't have health insurance, no free birth control.

We also have federal laws about entering this nation illegally but liberals don't seem to give a damn about those laws.

No, it's not.
 
Back
Top Bottom