Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Hobby Lobby decision from SCOTUS, Hobby Lobby Wins

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014.

Page 1 of 30
  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From Scotus Blog live:

    Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #1
  2. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JIMV, Jun 30, 2014
    #2
    Tahuyaman and (deleted member) like this.
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good for Hobby Lobby for having the courage to stand up for their 1st amendment rights.
     
    Professor Peabody, Jun 30, 2014
    #3
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This means home healthcare workers will not be forced to join a union.
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #4
  5. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Public unions will no longer be able to "shanghai" workers and press them into service despite the worker's own objections.
    Excellent!
     
    Yosh Shmenge, Jun 30, 2014
    #5
  6. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can see this being applied to other issues like the bakery that refused to serve Gay folk under religious grounds.
     
    JIMV, Jun 30, 2014
    #6
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    >>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

    It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    Kennedy's opinion emphasizes that in this particular case, a mechanism for accommodating employers is "already in place" so that the majority opinion does not require the Govt to create "a whole new program or burden on the Govt" - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    The Court says that RFRA requires the Govt to provide closely-held corporate objectors the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organization objectors. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #7
  8. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Women's health is now a "burden"? Who are these misogynist clots?
     
    Margot2, Jun 30, 2014
    #8
  9. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cue the screaming and wailing from the zealous left. Why should the government, like the HHS, be able to force someone that owns a business to surrender his closely held rights to follow his religious beliefs?

    Employees wanting abortifacients specifically should know that they are more than welcome to drop by a drug store and pick them up themselves.
     
    Yosh Shmenge, Jun 30, 2014
    #9
  10. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Contraception is now a religious belief for the majority of Americans?
     
    Margot2, Jun 30, 2014
    #10
  11. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not just not join, but more important, be forced to pay union dues whether they join or not. This is potentially a very big case. probably far larger than the Hobby Lobby case.
     
    JIMV, Jun 30, 2014
    #11
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Freedom wins, authoritarian government loses.
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #12
  13. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeeeeeessssss!!!!!!
     
    MolonLabe2009, Jun 30, 2014
    #13
  14. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And those folk can now provide without issue. They just cannot force other folk with differing religious views to do the same.
     
    JIMV, Jun 30, 2014
    #14
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #15
  16. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read the decision and post number six. You have things so ass backwards here.
     
    Yosh Shmenge, Jun 30, 2014
    #16
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More on the closely held question: We have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA's applicability to publicly traded corporations . The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations each owned and controlled by members of a single family and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    Link to the decision:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

    - - - Updated - - -

    To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #17
  18. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,284
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, Government can force people/companies to buy/provide health insurance, but the government can't force companies to provide birth control.

    What's the difference?

    Aren't these two rulings contradictory?
     
    MolonLabe2009, Jun 30, 2014
    #18
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Paraphrasing more from Justice Alito's opinion: The dissent is concerned about the possibility of disputes among the owners of a privately held corporation about this coverage. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by (for example) dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure, and courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving such disputes. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.qq3S3lzw.dpuf

    - - - Updated - - -

    Healthcare is hardly a religious issue.
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #19
  20. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A woman now is slave to her owners. Thou shall conceive harlot! This nation is descending into madness one court decision after another. This decision will ensure that Hillary is indeed going to be the next POTUS. The women of this country cannot allow the courts to hold them in bondage any longer. The next two terms of Hillary will see seats open up. When they get filled, the right wing will be out of power for the next 40 years. There is only so much conservatism laced with bible thumping the nation can endure. This may be the last straw.
     
    Woolley, Jun 30, 2014
    #20
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More nonsense.
     
    Hoosier8, Jun 30, 2014
    #21
  22. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More like silliness pretending to be serious
     
    JIMV, Jun 30, 2014
    #22
  23. Smartmouthwoman

    Smartmouthwoman Bless your heart Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    55,913
    Likes Received:
    24,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Obama slap down #14

    Luv it.
     
    Smartmouthwoman, Jun 30, 2014
    #23
  24. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Our friends from the left are pretty quiet today...I guess they are waiting for their Obama talking points before they arrive at spontaneous identical opinions through 'research and logic'.
     
    JIMV, Jun 30, 2014
    #24
  25. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They just need someone with the time and money to take it all the way to the SCOTUS. I'd donate money to make that happen. There's a reason that religious freedom is in the FIRST Amendment.
     
    Professor Peabody, Jun 30, 2014
    #25
Page 1 of 30

Share This Page