Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:29 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
#21
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Hey, I like shopping there. They got some dope ish.

I've never actually been in in a Hobby Lobby, but my fiance' claims they are garbage compared to Michael's.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
Reply
#22
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
They are, I've worked at both..lol.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#23
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I haven't had time to read it yet, but the whole opinion is on line here:
Burwell v Hobby Lobby

I read a summary of it, and I believe the biggest thing they argued for was that their 'expression of religious freedom' (i.e., not funding the morning after pill) did not operate contra to governmental interest (it didn't put anyone's life in danger, prevent them from receiving treatment, etc) especially because Hobby Lobby still funds 16 other forms of cotnraception. I don't think jehovah's witnesses could argue the same about blood transfusions, since that literally is denying treatment, nor Catholic companies complaining about condoms, since they in and of themselves prevent disease.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#24
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
Make sure to thank the Supreme court and Hobby Lobby for raising the abortion rate in the US!
Reply
#25
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It means The Supreme Court has ruled that some for profit companies do not have to pay for certain kinds of employee contraceptives (morning after pill) under The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). More broadly it means that closely held (few stockholders) corporations have the right to religious freedom under the 1st Amendment. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/s...raception/


It means, in practice, that the religious can have more freedom to deny freedom to others, than others have freedom to refuse to submit to restrictions imposed by the sensibilities of the religious.

(June 30, 2014 at 1:21 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Cite it as precedent in all manner of failings of the unsaved masses in denying services, coverage, housing, employment, etc.

No Chik-fil-a for you! You don't handle SNAKES !!!!!!!

Not quite understanding what you are getting at here, but the government isn't a "closely-held" private company.


But it is the unremitting goal of some to make the government operate more or less like a closely held private company with an army, a nuclear arsenal, a multilayer system of internal enforcers, a system of prisons with death rows, and an ability to rally stupid patriotism for the services of those holding the company.
Reply
#26
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 1:45 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I read a summary of it, and I believe the biggest thing they argued for was that their 'expression of religious freedom' (i.e., not funding the morning after pill) did not operate contra to governmental interest (it didn't put anyone's life in danger, prevent them from receiving treatment, etc) especially because Hobby Lobby still funds 16 other forms of cotnraception. I don't think jehovah's witnesses could argue the same about blood transfusions, since that literally is denying treatment, nor Catholic companies complaining about condoms, since they in and of themselves prevent disease.

This was shared on my fb, thought it was an interesting tack on the ruling:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...t_but.html

Quote:That’s why I see this entire thing as something of an embarrassment for the religious right. Ever since the lawsuits began over the HHS contraception coverage mandate, the claim has been that the attacks are not about sex but about religion—which presumably has broader implications than simply resenting women's sexual liberation. But this decision limits the employer's religious reach exclusively to judgments about the employee's personal use of her own vagina, and no further. "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," Alito writes.

This feels like an extremely reductive view of religion: As simply a way to codify reactionary beliefs about human sexuality. Or, as Atrios put it on Twitter, "religion is now only about unapproved fucking." And it’s ultimately not good for the religious right to have one of its own—Alito—limit the scope of legitimate religious grousing to matters of sexuality, as if religion has nothing else going for it. Hobby Lobby may have won this battle. But it won at the price of portraying the Christian right as little more than a movement of sex-obsessed busybodies.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
Reply
#27
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 1:45 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I read a summary of it, and I believe the biggest thing they argued for was that their 'expression of religious freedom' (i.e., not funding the morning after pill) did not operate contra to governmental interest (it didn't put anyone's life in danger, prevent them from receiving treatment, etc) especially because Hobby Lobby still funds 16 other forms of cotnraception. I don't think jehovah's witnesses could argue the same about blood transfusions, since that literally is denying treatment, nor Catholic companies complaining about condoms, since they in and of themselves prevent disease.

This was shared on my fb, thought it was an interesting tack on the ruling:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...t_but.html

Quote:That’s why I see this entire thing as something of an embarrassment for the religious right. Ever since the lawsuits began over the HHS contraception coverage mandate, the claim has been that the attacks are not about sex but about religion—which presumably has broader implications than simply resenting women's sexual liberation. But this decision limits the employer's religious reach exclusively to judgments about the employee's personal use of her own vagina, and no further. "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," Alito writes.

This feels like an extremely reductive view of religion: As simply a way to codify reactionary beliefs about human sexuality. Or, as Atrios put it on Twitter, "religion is now only about unapproved fucking." And it’s ultimately not good for the religious right to have one of its own—Alito—limit the scope of legitimate religious grousing to matters of sexuality, as if religion has nothing else going for it. Hobby Lobby may have won this battle. But it won at the price of portraying the Christian right as little more than a movement of sex-obsessed busybodies.

Totally agree with that. They won on paper but made themselves look like asses. Though, knowing them they would try to regulate anything to do with asses as well...
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#28
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 12:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Supreme Court Rulings:

Yesterday:
"Corporations are people too."

Today:
"Corporations have religious freedom."

Tomorrow:
"Corporations have voting rights."

What the fuck? A corporation can't be religious oriented, an association can, a corporation cannot be, religious freedom is usually for individuals, not for collective people.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#29
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 2:51 pm)blackout94 Wrote: What the fuck? A corporation can't be religious oriented, an association can, a corporation cannot be, religious freedom is usually for individuals, not for collective people.

Actually, that part I get. They mean a corporation owned by a very small like-minded group of people can have a religious orientation. Hobby Lobby is entirely family owned.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#30
RE: So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby
(June 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(June 30, 2014 at 2:51 pm)blackout94 Wrote: What the fuck? A corporation can't be religious oriented, an association can, a corporation cannot be, religious freedom is usually for individuals, not for collective people.

Actually, that part I get. They mean a corporation owned by a very small like-minded group of people can have a religious orientation. Hobby Lobby is entirely family owned.

But one thing is the orientation of the people another thing is the collective entity. The entity is formed by the people but both are separate. Objection of conscience can happen if a particular employer is against something, but the whole corporation can't be religious biased. Associations and foundations can, but corporations and enterprises can't, usually they search for profit only.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hobby Lobby Manowar 4 958 July 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Last Post: ShaMan



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)