SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby

[Heywood]

I like your solution though. So I guess that means that liberals will go for that?

They will in light of the decision. When this shakes out I suspect you will see something like I suggested.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't surprise me, it's a sensible way to nullify a poor ruling. Don't want the courts clogged up with businesses claiming precedent for a little mid year boost to their numbers anyway.

[Jaysyn]

Corporations have more advantages than just liability protection. They can issue stock to raise capital....They hve perpetual existence...etc.

Well those are advantages for the corporation itself, not the individual.

Hobby Lobby could have restructed itself as a sole proprietorship and under Obamacare the owners would still need to engage in an activity that violated their religious beliefs. The fact that the business was structured as a corporation has nothing to do with whether or not Obamacare as implemented violates peoples free excercise of religion.

Hypocrisy #1. Hobby Lobby had no issues with these *exact same* birth control medications before the ACA went live.

Hypocrisy #2. Hobby Lobby's retirement plan invests in the very companies that make the birth control medications that they now don't want to cover.

Hypocrisy #3. Hobby Lobby's main supplier is China, the abortion capital of the planet, as well as one of the 20 worst when it comes to child labor abuses. Oh yeah, they also don't allow religious worship.

So how come Hobby Lobby is ok with these costs of doing business? They could easily change mutual funds or get the garbage they sell from India, Pakistan or Indonesia instead of China. Why are you so blind to their hypocrisy & political grandstanding?

[Heywood]

Gotta say though, if we did either give a rebate or allow a per diem then I fail to see what motivation Hobby Lobby (or anyone else) would have had for bringing this to trial anyway - they wouldn't have been able to save a dime, their quarterlies wouldn't have improved. :throws hands in the air:

Employees who don't need contraception or who are savy enough to buy it cheaper without out going thru the insurance middleman will find Hobby Lobby a more attractive place to work.....every month they get this little bonus called the contraception coverage per diem that they can spend on what ever they want. It might allow Hobby Lobby to attract a higher caliber of employee then they would otherwise. It might allow Hobby Lobby to not pay as much to attract the same caliber of employee.

[Jaysyn]

Gotta say though, if we did either give a rebate or allow a per diem then I fail to see what motivation Hobby Lobby (or anyone else) would have had for bringing this to trial anyway - they wouldn't have been able to save a dime, their quarterlies wouldn't have improved. :throws hands in the air:

The Little Sisters are doing this exactly. They will probably get smacked down considering Alito's comments in the ruling.

Still waiting to see a Christian response to my preceding post.

[Heywood]

So how come Hobby Lobby is ok with these costs of doing business? They could easily change mutual funds or get the garbage they sell from India, Pakistan or Indonesia incomes to child labor abuses. Oh yeah, they also don't allow religious worship.
stead of China. Why are you so blind their hypocrisy & political grandstanding?

Hobby Lobby's "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with the constitutionality of that clause of the law.

Now here is one to think about. The Affordable Care Act did not contain a severability clause(it was included in drafts but was taken out of the final version). Since a portion of the law was struck down couldn't an argument be made that the entire law is subsequently struck down?

[Jaysyn]

Hobby Lobby's "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with the constitutionality of that clause of the law.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. Oh look, another religious-type who doesn't mind a little hypocrisy as long as it's coming from their side.

[Heywood]

Hobby Lobby's "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with the constitutionality of that clause of the law.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. Oh look, another religious-type who doesn't mind a little hypocrisy as long as it's coming from their side.

Negative Jaysyn

It is you who are deflecting. This thread is about the SCOTUS ruling but now you want to make it about Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy.


For the sake of argument, lets just assume what you claim is true...that Hobby Lobby's owners are hypocrites. What does Hobby Lobby's owners being hypocrites have to do with the validity of the ruling? Absolutely nothing.....so why bother discussing it other than you want to trash the owners of Hobby Lobby?

[Jaysyn]

For the sake of argument, lets just assume what you claim is true...that Hobby Lobby's owners are hypocrites. What does Hobby Lobby's owners being hypocrites have to do with the validity of the ruling? Absolutely nothing.....so why bother discussing it other than you want to trash the owners of Hobby Lobby?

Because if they have been doing these things for the past 10 years then they shouldn't have been able to show cause to even bring it to the SCOTUS. There has to have been harm done before the SCOTUS will even see your case. There was no actual harm in this case.

It's a bad ruling & I won't be able to not have just a touch of schadenfreude the 1st time a Muslim business owner uses this ruling to force his workers to wear burkas, stop eating bacon, not shave their beards & fast for Ramadan.

Also, I was asking why you, personally, can't seem to see hypocrisy.

[The Grand Nudger]

For the sake of argument, lets just assume what you claim is true...that Hobby Lobby's owners are hypocrites. What does Hobby Lobby's owners being hypocrites have to do with the validity of the ruling?

Everything, since it was decided upon the basis of the sincerity of their belief, and not it's accuracy. Did you actually read the fucking ruling or the justices comments? Apparently, they sincerely hold this conviction where it costs them money (employee benefits) but not where it makes them money (their investments).

Is it so strange to sggest that an exception to the one precludes ones involvement in the other, legally? Like, if you want to be a non-profit (so as to avoid those taxes)....you can't then, you know...report profits.....