• 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

It is difficult to believe that HL didn't know considering they had a "self insured group health plan".
That's what they said.
It's not like they've been caught lying about healthcare promises.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has everything to do with understanding jurisprudence and how the Supreme Court operates. Why would you think this ruling is limited to Hobby Lobby?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

You're the one who said the invitation went out to companies.
Very unspecific.
More of that intentionally sloppy language.

But cutting through the crap, I've said before many times to someone else here, if any company can satisfy the markers noted in the ruling, then they can & should take advantage of the relief.
Right?

Now, why was the case even necessary given Obama said everyone could keep their coverage?
Do you think he lied?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

That's actually a serious problem with the supposedly 'easy' solution the SC suggested was a viable alternative to the mandate. HL is self insured, so if the insurer picks up the cost of the BC options, it's with HL's money, literally. Cigna or whoever administers their healthcare plan, pays the bills, then sends HL a check once a week or whatever for the actual cost of care they paid for on behalf of HL employees, plus a fee. So the objection that is being litigated by larger self insured entities is they WILL be paying for BC, whether it's on the 'list' or not. And they recognize that 'winning' and not having BC on the 'official company list' is an empty gesture with ZERO real world effect and object. If they win, the simple accommodation suggested by the SC won't work. But the majority ignored that and waved their hands and said, no matter, good enough for now.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

That's what they said.
It's not like they've been caught lying about healthcare promises.

And then there's the little problem of China.....


"The arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby proudly touts itself as a Christian company that puts people over profits. However, some staunch Christians say there's a gaping hole in that claim -- namely, China.

Products bearing "Made in China" labels are found all over the shelves at Hobby Lobby, evidence that some of its wares come from Chinese factories that have a reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages. Employees at these facilities often end up working grueling hours in prison-like conditions and never earn enough to escape poverty.

"You cannot call your business 'Christian' when arguing before the Supreme Court, and then set aside Christian values when you're placing a bulk order for cheap wind chimes," wrote Christian author and columnist Jonathan Merritt in a recent article for The Week.

Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to requests for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.

Then there's China's controversial record on abortion......

Christians Call Out Hobby Lobby For Hypocrisy



Their silence speaks volumes.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

But cutting through the crap, I've said before many times to someone else here, if any company can satisfy the markers noted in the ruling, then they can & should take advantage of the relief.
Right?

You've said that to me and I have no idea what you mean by 'satisfy the markers.' What 'markers?' And what kind of 'relief?'

If any company is "closely held" and the owners can reasonably assert that providing any or all of those BC options poses a 'substantial burden' on their free exercise of religion, the SC said they can deny coverage of any one or all 20 BC options by citing RFRA. If that's the kind of 'marker' and 'relief' you are speaking of, no one disagrees with you. If not, you'll have to do a better job of explaining.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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?

Does it say Constitutionalist under my name or Muslim?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.



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.

What about a Fundamentalist Christian who owns a corporation and believes very deeply in 2Thessalonians 3:10 (For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.) Because of this, the Christian has a deeply held moral objection to paying for unemployment insurance. Under current law, non-profits are already exempt from paying unemployment insurance, just like religious non-profits already had an exemption to providing birth control as part of the ACA.

Here the state obviously has a compelling interest to require corporations to pay for unemployment insurance; just as the court deemed the state had a compelling interest to require corporations to provide a portion of health care plans which covered certain care options. But there is clearly a path available to certain non-profits to avoid paying unemployment insurance. So using this ruling, because the court can envision a way for unemployment insurance to be paid without impacting the objecting Christian, that Christian corporation should be exempt from paying unemployment insurance.

Any flaws in that logic?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

And then there's the little problem of China.....


"The arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby proudly touts itself as a Christian company that puts people over profits. However, some staunch Christians say there's a gaping hole in that claim -- namely, China.

Products bearing "Made in China" labels are found all over the shelves at Hobby Lobby, evidence that some of its wares come from Chinese factories that have a reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages. Employees at these facilities often end up working grueling hours in prison-like conditions and never earn enough to escape poverty.

"You cannot call your business 'Christian' when arguing before the Supreme Court, and then set aside Christian values when you're placing a bulk order for cheap wind chimes," wrote Christian author and columnist Jonathan Merritt in a recent article for The Week.

Hobby Lobby remains quiet about its dealings in China. The company did not respond to requests for a list of Chinese factories it does business with, and did not provide information about what percentage of its merchandise comes from China.

Then there's China's controversial record on abortion......

Christians Call Out Hobby Lobby For Hypocrisy



Their silence speaks volumes.

Jonathan Merritt is a Leftist who uses the Evangelical pose to get quoted in sources like The Huffington Post.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You're the one who said the invitation went out to companies.
Very unspecific.
More of that intentionally sloppy language.

But cutting through the crap, I've said before many times to someone else here, if any company can satisfy the markers noted in the ruling, then they can & should take advantage of the relief.
Right?

Now, why was the case even necessary given Obama said everyone could keep their coverage?
Do you think he lied?

Only "sloppy language" to those who don't have a focus on the big picture. I can see where if you really didn't understand the big picture you might have been confused however.

As to your second point can and should aren't always the same thing.

Finally...the "Hobby Lobby" case has nothing to do with "keeping your coverage". It had to do with a company that didn't want to cover certain birth control. It probably would help if you read the decision. It would be much easier to discuss it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Jonathan Merritt is a Leftist who uses the Evangelical pose to get quoted in sources like The Huffington Post.

Are you questioning his faith? Come now bubba, are you really suggesting that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what the Green's believe aren't really Christians?



Looks like the rightwing are trying to use religion to win political battles now. Do you know who else does that? Islamic terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Ginsburg is implimenting a slippery slope fallacy. the narrow ruling only allows for contraception no other restrictions.
it doesn't apply to one religion it applies to all equally so there is no violation of the establishment clause.

nope what was unconstitutional was government thinking that i can violate peoples religious beliefs and practices.

again it only applies to private companies and non-publicly traded companies and it only applies to contraception.

The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

What about a Fundamentalist Christian who owns a corporation and believes very deeply in 2Thessalonians 3:10 (For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.) Because of this, the Christian has a deeply held moral objection to paying for unemployment insurance. Under current law, non-profits are already exempt from paying unemployment insurance, just like religious non-profits already had an exemption to providing birth control as part of the ACA.

Here the state obviously has a compelling interest to require corporations to pay for unemployment insurance; just as the court deemed the state had a compelling interest to require corporations to provide a portion of health care plans which covered certain care options. But there is clearly a path available to certain non-profits to avoid paying unemployment insurance. So using this ruling, because the court can envision a way for unemployment insurance to be paid without impacting the objecting Christian, that Christian corporation should be exempt from paying unemployment insurance.

Any flaws in that logic?

Seems straightforward, but we should probably read up on the RFRA provisions to see if there are any other exclusions/rules.

You would need to bring suit against the government that the FSLA violates your religious beliefs protected by RFRA before we can find out what the judiciary thinks though.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

You asking me who made crap up willy nilly? The conservative morons on the scotus.

Like idiot boy scalia for example... Where in employment division vs smith he wrote his opinion on how natives who use peyote... In a practice far predating Christianity BTW... Can't use religion as an excuse. What a hypocritical dork that guy is.

Face it, the right only likes the ruling because its a sticking of the thumb in Obamas eye. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it at all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.

I agree. It may not be 'unconstitutional' but it sure does reflect on the ruling itself as being a type of legislating from the bench rather than resting on any principle. That's especially true because their 'reasonable accommodation' is for the Feds to just pay for the problem. If that's the case, there are all kinds of rules and regulations I'd like out of if I can get the government to pay on my behalf. Unemployment insurance was an excellent example.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Wow....you are sadly mistaken. Read the decision.

what i know is that liberals are misrepresenting what the ruling means.

see this thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/198350-mediamatters-montage-hobby-lobby-ruling.html

the ruling allows companies to maintain the same policy they had before the administration, not congress, decided to mandate ALL companies provide for free ALL forms of approved forms contraception under ACA.

NO i'm not mistaken.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I agree. It may not be 'unconstitutional' but it sure does reflect on the ruling itself as being a type of legislating from the bench rather than resting on any principle. That's especially true because their 'reasonable accommodation' is for the Feds to just pay for the problem. If that's the case, there are all kinds of rules and regulations I'd like out of if I can get the government to pay on my behalf. Unemployment insurance was an excellent example.

Another thing I noticed is this whole bit about a "narrow" ruling. Its being used as an excuse to ignore any precedence. They just say that this ruling is applied so narrowly that there is nothing else like it. These guys are frauds in robes.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The only contraceptive HL objected to was the type that causes an abortion. The employees who want this coverage can purchase their coverage through the exchanges.

If it's "the morning after" pill, it's not an abortion to me.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Seems straightforward, but we should probably read up on the RFRA provisions to see if there are any other exclusions/rules.

You would need to bring suit against the government that the FSLA violates your religious beliefs protected by RFRA before we can find out what the judiciary thinks though.

But if that's straight forward then "Christian" corporations will have a competitive advantage over corporations with other religious beliefs. These corporations will have a lower labor cost and we will have to pick up the tab. That certainly seems like a clear violation of the establishment clause.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

10478182_10152327058397917_6159482321909028109_n.jpg
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

If it's "the morning after" pill, it's not an abortion to me.

These people don't believe in science so when science says that they are not abortive measures they simply say they don't believe it.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

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.

the cfo probably had an idea

the hr director probably also

the owner...not so much (at least imo)

there is only so much detail i give to the owner....the rest is just superfluous

i want him concentrating on bringing in revenue....not watching what we do and dont insure on a policy

that is why you hire guys like me....i take care of all those details

and we were self insured at one time....really bad decision on previous cfo's part

unless you have thousands of employees, the contingent liability will eat you alive

but when the ACA was passed, a lot of people got very aware of what they had to cover at that point

why? well, because never before had our government mandated certain coverages

and when you open people's eyes to what the law actually read, that is when people starting making waves
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

These people don't believe in science so when science says that they are not abortive measures they simply say they don't believe it.

Science isn't the all knowing oracle of everything. Science is wrong just as much as anything else. If science told you up was down would you believe it or trust your own senses?
 
You asking me who made crap up willy nilly? The conservative morons on the scotus.

Like idiot boy scalia for example... Where in employment division vs smith he wrote his opinion on how natives who use peyote... In a practice far predating Christianity BTW... Can't use religion as an excuse. What a hypocritical dork that guy is.

Face it, the right only likes the ruling because its a sticking of the thumb in Obamas eye. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it at all.

Not going to lie...I'm a conservative and think it's funny as hell how twisted people are over this. As an employer the Hobby Lobby is a progressives wet ****ing dream. They paid $6 an hour over minimum wage and provided health care with 16 different forms of contraception authorized. They were the model of what leftists believed business should be. Let them choose to not cover an abortion pill and watch the left lose their ****ing minds. Hell yes...it's kinda hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom