Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hobby Lobby-UDPDATE-Hobby Rob-Me wins this round
#1
Since the decision will come down today and this will be a hot topic, I'm sure, thought I would get everyone interested's opinion.


Note the extending of the olive branch by citing a Fox News article on the subject. [img]/images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]


"Supporters of the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby -- the business at the center of one of this session's most closely watched Supreme Court cases -- are sounding a confident tone ahead of Monday's expected decision in their case challenging ObamaCare's so-called contraception mandate. 

The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer. 


The most contentious is that brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses have challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It is the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago. 

Supporters of Hobby Lobby cite a few factors potentially leaning in their favor, including the tone of oral arguments in March and a unanimous decision last week finding President Obama overreached in making recess appointments to a labor board. 

"Absolutely, we win -- we are very confident after oral argument in March that we will prevail in this case," Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby, told Fox News. She suggested this, too, is a case of government "overreach." 

Citing recent unanimous decisions, she added: "We're hopeful we might see some unanimity here." 

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., also said he's hopeful the court will "uphold the rights of individuals for their expression of their religious freedoms." 

He, too, cited the ruling Thursday that Obama "exceeded his constitutional authority" in speculating that the court might deliver another blow to the administration on Monday. 

The court, though, has surprised onlookers before when it comes to ObamaCare. In the major Supreme Court challenge to the law's individual mandate two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election. 

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," predicted the Supreme Court would rule against Hobby Lobby. 

"I believe that the Supreme Court will find that no business ... should be allowed to [discriminate] against women," he said. "The owner has a right to his or her religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you get to discriminate against women if [they] have different beliefs than what the owner has." 

During arguments in March, Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as the pivotal swing vote, voiced concerns about the rights of both sides of the issue. 

At one point, though, he seemed troubled about how the logic of the government's argument would apply to abortions. "A profit corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," Kennedy said. "Your reasoning would permit it." 

Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000. 

The court has never recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. Indeed, if the court did here, the Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra told Fox News this would be an "entirely unprecedented step." 

But even some supporters of the administration's position said they would not be surprised if the court were to do so on Monday, perhaps limiting the right to corporations that are under tight family control. 

Both sides of the debate are gearing up for a major decision of some sort on Monday, lining up conference calls to press their points on the heels of the ruling. 

The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women's health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions. 

Several justices worried at the argument in March that a decision for Hobby Lobby would lead to religious objections to covering blood transfusions or vaccinations. Prominent Washington lawyer Paul Smith said another important question is how the decision would apply to "laws that protect people from discrimination, particularly LGBT people." 

In the Hobby Lobby case, even if the court finds such a right exists, it still has to weigh whether the government's decision to have employee health plans pay for birth control is important enough to overcome the companies' religious objections. 

It is no surprise that this high-profile case, argued three months ago, is among the last released. 

The other unresolved case has been hanging around since late January, often a sign that the outcome is especially contentious. 

Home health care workers in Illinois want the court to rule that public sector unions cannot collect fees from workers who aren't union members. The idea behind compulsory fees for nonmembers is that the union negotiates the contract for all workers, so they all should share in the cost of that work. 

The court has been hostile to labor unions in recent years. If that trend continues Monday, the justices could confine their ruling to home health workers or they could strike a big blow against unions more generally. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/...rt-ruling/

 
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
Reply
#2
 While I don't agree with Hobby Lobby, businesses should be able to choose what they offer their employees. If you don't like it, don't look for a job there. If you disagree with them, don't shop there.
Reply
#3
But to follow that logic is a dangerous path.  Then a business owner that was anti-vaccination could deny those.  No flu shirt for you.  But the real kicker for me is the hypocrisy of the Hobby Lobby conservatism.  They would deny women an opportunity to birth control.  Yet these are the same conservatives that will rail against taxpayer entitlements to support some of these people after they are born.  I would be willing to bet with thousands of employees Hobby Lobby has a significant number of single working mothers who have kids that qualify for SNAP and Medicaid.  What is a better choice?  A $1000 IUD or an ongoing payment in the form of food stamps and free medical care?  I am of the opinion that Hobby Lobby is in the same bed with Poppa John Pizza.  Any opportunity to poke the President in the eye is taken.  The reasoning is not really important.
 
Natural selection will never favor Evangelical misfits


Reply
#4
First off, it's called Hobby Rob-Me.  Anyone with a fine arts degree knows that.

Hobby Rob-Me is sort of special in that it is a tightly controlled company by a family of devout worshipers of some god.  Their god say's contraception is a sin.  If the ACA makes such closely held companies pay for what their god deems a sin, then the government has forced them to sin.  That blatantly abridges the right to worship as one chooses.  
OTOH, you have to give credence to the 14th amendment, which you can't just dismiss out of hand.  The only fair thing to do is give shareholders the ability to vote on whether to cover contraception.  If more than 50% of the owners vote for no coverage, then no coverage.  If they vote yes, then free contraceptives it is.

Condoms are free at most public clinics.  The pill can be prescribed for other reasons and then should be covered.  

We'll see what happens.  Most pundits think the SCOTUS will find that the first amendment trumps the 14th for corporations like Hobby Rob-Me.
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#5
Quote:But to follow that logic is a dangerous path.  Then a business owner that was anti-vaccination could deny those. 
No, that won't work.  There is no religious tenet I am aware of that makes taking medicine a sin.  

Other problems do arise though.  Christian Scientists may be immune to the ACA since the core of their religion shuns medicine and Jehova Witnesses may be excused from funding blood transfusions.

Leave out the left/right politics and the underlying importance of this decision is more important.  Rights vs rights make for good fights.  LOL.  Poet am I.
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#6
The U.S. and Denmark export the most sperm to the UK which is experiencing sperm shortages after the passage of anti-anonymity sperm laws.
Reply
#7
"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that employers with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare.
The ruling deals directly with only a small provision of Obamacare and will not take down the entire law but it amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.


“Under the standard that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
(Also on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby ruling full text)
The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The court appeared to reject, 7-2, the Obama Administration’s argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under RFRA. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the portion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent that argues companies do not have such rights. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan did not join that section and did not explicitly state their views on the point.
The decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief – a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/su...z368UBF8sE


I am not really surprised, but am very saddened by this decision.

 

 
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
Reply
#8
R_I, does this mean will start to hear southern drawls when we visit London?
Reply
#9
There's a little step in there we should look at more closely.

One's religious beliefs may include things like homosexuality being a sin, but does that mean that renting to a homosexual is a sin?  If so, then landlords can only rent to sin-free people, who by definition don't exist for most religions.

Here, using contraception may be considered a sin, but does that mean that providing health insurance that covers it is?  It's still the individual who uses it who's sinning.

If you interpret this stuff too broadly, you get absurd things, like Christian Scientists being able to deny medical care to non-believers.  And, too narrowly, and you wind up denying legitimate rights to believers.

I just saw the ruling, and am likewise disappointed. Corporations don't have any constitutional rights at all, in my view, and this opens to the door to all kinds of strange things.
 
Reply
#10
Meanwhile, HL can show the world their deep-seated religious beliefs to the child slaves they "employ" to make their cheap crap.  Up to and including holding their little eyes open with clothespins when they dare to sleep.
 
May you build a ladder to the stars
And climb on every rung
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal