So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[The Grand Nudger]

A less generous reading of what "closely held" means , in this context, is that the healthcare choices of a large group of people are being "closely held" by a controlling minority.

If we just had a single payer system, these fuckers wouldn't have had shit to complain about in the first place......

[Jackalope]

If we just had a single payer system, these fuckers wouldn't have had shit to complain about in the first place......

Oh I dunno - I bet a Venn diagram of those who are interested in interfering with others family planning choices, and those who would pitch a bitch about single payer would be revealing.

[Jenny A]

OK so I finally got around to reading the damned decision.

Here's a summary:

1. The case is NOT really about rights under the free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment.

2. It is about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), in which Congress gave religious objectors to federal laws a statutory right to exemptions in some cases:

"Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion

even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, …

[unless the Government] demonstrates that application of the burden to the person …

is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest."

3. RFRA does not exclude closely held corporations. And this is reasonable since corporations are a legal fiction and the real owners are the shareholders.

4. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation who's shareholders all believe contraceptives are morally wrong for religious reasons.

5. The Affordable care act would be less burdensome on owners of Hobby Lobby if it did not require them to pay for contraception insurance directly and instead used direct payment for such contraception by the federal government through general taxes.

6. This is not 1st Amendment case. And it is a matter of weighing the specific circumstances on a case by case basis as directed by congress in the RFRA.

In other words, expect many more Hobby Lobby type cases.

[Esquilax]

If Hobby Lobby as a corporation has strongly held christian beliefs, when can we expect it to start donating all the profits to helping the poor?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What do you think of that?

It's a basic self-help situation. If the women employees feel that they are getting the short end then they should quit to show their displeasure.

The Court's action is the same as it was in the Dred Scott case. Scott couldn't do anything about it since he lacked power. The women can take matters into their own hands and get what they want, but only if they themselves demand it and insist on getting it. But they won't because they are the very ones who always vote against their own self-interests.

Of course since the troops are fighting for their freedom maybe the troops will give them heath care.

Sometimes if people want freedom they have to fight for it themselves. Otherwise they have to wait until their oppressor decides to stop stepping on their necks.

If the Court wasn't composed of just Catholics and Jews maybe it could give fewer corrupt decisions.

[Jenny A]

If Hobby Lobby as a corporation has strongly held christian beliefs, when can we expect it to start donating all the profits to helping the poor?

When Christians begin giving everything away to the poor as suggested by Jesus.

[Esquilax]

If Hobby Lobby as a corporation has strongly held christian beliefs, when can we expect it to start donating all the profits to helping the poor?

When Christians begin giving everything away to the poor as suggested by Jesus.

That's exactly my point: if these people want their religious convictions imposed upon other people, why should they get to pick and choose what counts as a part of their religion and what doesn't?

Because from the outside looking in, that sure as hell just looks like some rich assholes wanting special exemptions from the law based on whatever is convenient for them at the time.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Congress could have prevented the courts from reviewing the ACA but it didn't. Then Obama and his clowns started handing out exemptions like candy to all who asked for one. So now it's up to the individual to either accept however his overlord treats him or else quit. In a way the case is much ado about nothing but in another way it indicates that our political system will soon disintegrate because of a scarcity of shared values. It happened before and the Civil War was the result. It's doubtful that people are willing to physically fight now but they might simply stop caring.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, tyhat's because that -is- what it is. Unfortunately, it was also an arguable case. That happens sometimes. Sometimes things are legal (or legally defensible) when we don't feel that they are "right". Happens alot with regards to business and law.

Again, this would be a fine law, I really do think that. If peoples healthcare weren't tied to their employers as it is. What that tells me is that the reason that I feel that it is "wrong" may be due to me noticing a flaw in some other related system - and how this new law exacerbates that problem. IOW, the problem isn't with the ruling, it's with how the ruling can be practically applied (and can't...or shouldn't) in our current system.

I don't think that people should have to pay for medical services - for others, that they have a religious gheiss against. I don;t think they should have gheiss..but that's besides the point. I -also- don't think that those religious people should have a say in what options are available to those other people. The reason that they do is because our system is fucked up. If we had fixed the system, then we would have made this case irrelevant (and we always have the option of doing that). Further, judging between fixing the system and this ruling, this ruling actively impedes resolution on the other issue - while fixing the system leaves both people happy -on the grounds of this case-. Maybe those people would still be unhappy with the thought that their employees might be having abortions, but no one gives a shit, it wouldn't be relevant. I know that fixing the system isn't something that's going to happen fast - and I agree that this was a legitimate issue, couldn't we have just given these assholes a rebate?

[Jaysyn]

I don't mind the idea that the owners of closely held corporations have 1st Amendment rights. I do mind the idea that for profit companies or business owners can get away without paying for legally mandated employee benefits just because they object to them on religious grounds.

"Closely-held" companies amount to around 90% of employers in the US.

It's a bullshit metric. The only real solution to this is for workers to quit / strike en masse, we get our shit together with single payer health care, or we amend the Constitution ala the ongoing response to the Citizen's United ruling.