• 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

Ockham said:
You're certainly free to have an opinion but I don't think it's an exaggeration at all.
Click to expand...

The ruling was deliberately made narrow.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
I agree. This is a win for constitutional rights but not a breach in the hull of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

This is a decision I actually didn't expect. I was starting to think we were stepping backwards in the Constitutional protection of freedom of religious expression. I'm not religious, but many others are, and it was starting to trend against them.

The upshot I see in all of this is that SCOUS ruled that HHS doesn't supercede the First Amendment.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
Seems about right. Now waiting for the justification from both sides on their views of it. On the base, I think there is great concern on how far that religious freedom of a company can go. If there is a Jehova Witness run company, can they outlaw paying for certain procedures, etc. And does a company now have the right to not serve people based on religious holdings?
Click to expand...

No, the ruling specifically stated it does not protect discrimination disguised as religious belief.

BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. Syllabus
Should not be understood to hold that all insurance mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which up- held the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s reli- gious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate. Pp. 45–49
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge | Fox News
Click to expand...

This is pretty much proof that Scalia is a partisan hack and has no interest in actual jurisprudence but is instead interested only in advancing the conservative movement of the moment.

Scalia wrote the decision that said that an Oregon Law which allowed someone to be fired for Peyote, even if it was used for deeply held religious ceremonies. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself".

In otherwords, Scalia believes deeply in Christian religious freedom, but other religions are just not welcome.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ockham said:
You're certainly free to have an opinion but I don't think it's an exaggeration at all.
Click to expand...

Contraception is such a narrow item, that didn't impact me either way. How exactly has the impact of this decision about Obamacare diminished it's impact on me?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
I don't think it impedes it that much. Let's face it, in the gran scheme of things contraception wasn't going to break the bank. There are far more expensive parts of Obamacare that are not going to go away and this hardly impedes it in a significant way IMO.
Click to expand...

It impedes HHS's authority.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
I agree. This is a win for constitutional rights but not a breach in the hull of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Well like I said in another post here, how far does that religious freedom of a company go. Can they claim that a procedure such as a transfusion, etc. shouldn't be paid for because it goes against their religion?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I found it interesting that in BOTH decisions, they were rather narrow and apply pretty much to a much more defined group and the Court passed up the opportunity to make a sweeping decision which would have turned the nation to the hard right.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
It impedes HHS's authority.
Click to expand...

Not in a real significant way IMO though. The main, and IMO the most important parts of the ACA, are still in tact.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:
Sadly, this decision will probably result in an increase in abortions. Good job Christian lobby group!
Click to expand...

That is such a bs argument. Contraception is easily obtained if needed, many times for free. If an employee of Hobby Lobby wants to not get someone pregnant they can always "pull out" as well. Sadly, such an argument makes people seem dumber than a bag of nails and perhaps, just perhaps --- those that are shouldn't pass on their gene pool. So I agree - Good job Christian lobby group!
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Basically the Supreme Court sidestepped the bigger more important issue if larger publicly traded company's can hold religious beliefs, but a closely held one like Hobby Lobby can. Really people are going to think this decision by itself will do more than what it actually does.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm reading through the opinions of Alito, Kennedy & Ginsburg. Interesting musings.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Amadeus said:
This is what Obama gets for trying to compromise. He should have gone with true Socialized Medicine, which would have avoided this situation.
Click to expand...

It would have never passed and the Democrats know it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
Not in a real significant way IMO though. The main, and IMO the most important parts of the ACA, are still in tact.
Click to expand...

I agree, and have said that.

This wasn't a positive ruling for HHS in any way, shape or form. That is the reality.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

disneydude said:
Sadly, this decision will probably result in an increase in abortions. Good job Christian lobby group!
Click to expand...

That's fine as long as I don't have to pay for it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
Well like I said in another post here, how far does that religious freedom of a company go. Can they claim that a procedure such as a transfusion, etc. shouldn't be paid for because it goes against their religion?
Click to expand...

I suppose one day we'll find out, but that seems unreasonable while the Hobby Lobby case seemed to be quite reasonable. The belief that abortion is murder is one widely held by widely accepted religion in this country. Snake-handling and Peyote cults (or "blood transfusions are evil" cults) would have one hell of an uphill battle trying to establish a similar argument against ObamaCare. The fact that the Hobby Lobby already provides over a dozen forms of contraceptive and only objects to 4 that the FDA claims can destroy a fetus is pretty good evidence that this isn't about anything BUT religious convictions.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
I agree, and have said that.

This wasn't a positive ruling for HHS in any way, shape or form. That is the reality.
Click to expand...

That is correct, HHS lost on this one.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

soccerboy22 said:
Basically the Supreme Court sidestepped the bigger more important issue if larger publicly traded company's can hold religious beliefs, but a closely held one like Hobby Lobby can. Really people are going to think this decision by itself will do more than what it actually does.
Click to expand...

What it actually does is get Obamacare's foot off the neck of Hobby Lobby only in the case of the 4 drugs they listed for the reasons they listed. It is not a poison pill to Obamacare and it will have precious little affect on companies outside of Hobby Lobby and virtually none on ObamaCare.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

TheNextEra said:
Well like I said in another post here, how far does that religious freedom of a company go. Can they claim that a procedure such as a transfusion, etc. shouldn't be paid for because it goes against their religion?
Click to expand...

Exactly. What possible legal distinction can you possibly make between contraception and blood transfusion? Or what about psychiatric drugs?

The only difference is that many Christians are anti-contraception. Anti-psychiatric dogmas et al are held by other religions, like Scientology.. Which apparently don't count.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Papa bull said:
What it actually does is get Obamacare's foot off the neck of Hobby Lobby only in the case of the 4 drugs they listed for the reasons they listed. It is not a poison pill to Obamacare and it will have precious little affect on companies outside of Hobby Lobby and virtually none on ObamaCare.
Click to expand...

Obamacare itself won't be impacted.

This was a victory for the First Amendment, and a loss for HHS.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
Obamacare itself won't be impacted.

This was a victory for the First Amendment, and a loss for HHS.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

soccerboy22 said:
Basically the Supreme Court sidestepped the bigger more important issue if larger publicly traded company's can hold religious beliefs, but a closely held one like Hobby Lobby can. Really people are going to think this decision by itself will do more than what it actually does.
Click to expand...

This is precisely my issue with the judgment. A corporation is a legal separate entity. Because it's NOT the owner/s. This makes corporations appear to be able to hold beliefs of it's owners and thus can potentially tear down the wall between the owners and the business.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

tres borrachos said:
This is a decision I actually didn't expect. I was starting to think we were stepping backwards in the Constitutional protection of freedom of religious expression. I'm not religious, but many others are, and it was starting to trend against them.

The upshot I see in all of this is that SCOUS ruled that HHS doesn't supercede the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

It is exactly what I expected. But what most don't seem to realize is that his decision is not, per se, a 'win'. IMO, businesses can begin finding many services morally objectionable and begin refusing to pay for them. As that occurs more and more people will be forced to buy their insurance through the exchanges, thus bringing us closer to the 'single payer' system that Obama wanted from the very beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom