• Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby
    177 replies, posted
[quote]In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs[/quote] I'm pretty sure that makes Al-Qaeda legally unobjectable
[QUOTE=Lightran;45255044]Haha, /pol/? You see an emotionally stunted stormfag anywhere? There is no one who's health and safety is in trouble here, once again you are avoiding the point and just getting upset.[/QUOTE] oh my god yes there is avoiding pregnancy is not the only thing birth control can do
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;45255037]Leave? If you think that you've won, and the only other thing you can contribute is your own pointless gloating, then, you know, bugger off.[/QUOTE] Says the user who's contributed jack shit to this entire thread lol [QUOTE=LordCrypto;45255054]oh my god yes there is avoiding pregnancy is not the only thing birth control can do[/QUOTE] Once again [QUOTE=toaster468;45254596]Also note how this only applies to contraceptive methods that could cause (in the opinion of the leadership of Hobby Lobby) an abortion. Those options were only 4 types of types of contraceptives that would have to be supplied, [b]the other 16 were not objected to.[/b][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lightran;45255044]Haha, /pol/? You see an emotionally stunted stormfag anywhere? There is no one who's health and safety is in trouble here, once again you are avoiding the point and just getting upset.[/QUOTE] you seem a bit angrier when you keep attacking my character and assuming that i don't have a father lmao honestly yeah you do put on the persona of a /pol/ user [editline]30th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Lightran;45255055]Says the user who's contributed jack shit to this entire thread lol[/QUOTE] Calling people names doesn't contribute to anything but the number of people who decide to stop listening to you fyi
[QUOTE=Lightran;45254396]Sorry liberals, this isn't socialism. It is not a corporation's job to insure that a woman can hop from penis to penis.[/QUOTE] Contraceptive solutions have a lot more uses than just allowing a woman to "hop from penis to penis". But hey let's slut shame women for no reason because we're all uneducated fucking hicks. On the topic of allowing these companies to discriminate based on contraceptive availability, how is that any different than the aforementioned vaccinations/blood transfusions? Why are they protected but contraceptives are not? When medically prescribed, I fail to see the difference.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;45255063]you seem a bit angrier when you keep attacking my character and assuming that i don't have a father lmao honestly yeah you do put on the persona of a /pol/ user [editline]30th June 2014[/editline] Now you're just being a dirty troll, I expected better from someone with over 5000 posts, but I'm guessing a good majority of those are shitposts. Also if I was from /pol/ I'd be advocating religious theocracy by now. Calling people names doesn't contribute to anything but the number of people who decide to stop listening to you fyi[/QUOTE] Now you're just being a dirty troll, I expected better from someone with over 5000 posts, but I'm guessing a good majority of those are shitposts. Also if I was from /pol/ I'd be advocating religious theocracy by now.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45255056]Why not? Also Lightran is the most obvious gimmick people, good lord you all fall for the dumbest gimmicks.[/QUOTE] I don't have a problem with it and nor do the leadership of Hobby Lobby. The problem comes in when they are forced to do something they feel is not right. Being a private company they should be allowed to do that and because they offer many other forms of birth control I see no real issue with their decision.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;45254839]Not when their "Religious freedom" directly affects the health and freedoms of others see: literally every case about desegregation where the defendant used freedom of religion you should have learned in a basic government class that this goes against one of the biggest precedents in the Supreme Court's history[/QUOTE] If you want to bring up precedent, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner"]Sherbert Test[/URL] provides a precedent for religious beliefs overriding government action, and was reaffirmed by the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act"]RFRA[/URL], which is what this case cited as standing law as the basis for the ruling. The Sherbert Test is very simple. The individual has to prove that they 1. Have a sincere religious belief, and 2. That the government is substantially interfering with the person's ability to act on that belief. In this case, a person who opposes abortion on religious grounds has a clear religious motivation not to personally finance abortions, and a law that forces them to is substantially interfering with that. The court recognized these pretty much right off the bat. So now the ball is in the government's court, to prove that 1. The government is acting towards a 'compelling state interest', and 2. That the government action causing the problem is the least invasive means possible. And the government couldn't do either. Abortion alone is not considered a compelling state interest, and while the health of employees certainly is, the availability of other contraceptive methods was considered sufficient by the court, especially considering the company isn't forbidding the use of non-covered contraceptives but rather will not pay for them. For the second point, an exemption that provides government-paid healthcare for specific parts of insurance could rectify the solution, providing coverage for employees without forcing the employer to pay for it. The point is, this isn't overturning precedent, it's reaffirming precedent. Questions like this would be inevitable when the government passed a law mandating specific implementation of healthcare, but so far it all seems consistent with existing legislation.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45255099]Contraceptive solutions have a lot more uses than just allowing a woman to "hop from penis to penis". But hey let's slut shame women for no reason because we're all uneducated fucking hicks. On the topic of allowing these companies to discriminate based on contraceptive availability, how is that any different than the aforementioned vaccinations/blood transfusions? Why are they protected but contraceptives are not? When medically prescribed, I fail to see the difference.[/QUOTE] The difference is a person's life could depend on a vaccine or blood transfusion.
I feel like I should point this out: Hobby Lobby is more than happy to pay for vasectomies for male employees. So yeah. Hobby Lobby will pay for a surgery that literally only has one purpose: risk-free unprotected sex. Hobby Lobby will not pay for pills that negate the effects of periods on women, though, because of muh Jesus. Which page of the bible says that contraceptive pills are bad again?
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255131]The difference is a person's life could depend on a vaccine or blood transfusion.[/QUOTE] having a child is a pretty life-changing thing dude
[QUOTE=The Calzone;45255157]I feel like I should point this out: Hobby Lobby is more than happy to pay for vasectomies for male employees. So yeah. Hobby Lobby will pay for a surgery that literally only has one purpose: risk-free unprotected sex. Hobby Lobby will not pay for pills that negate the effects of periods on women, though, because of muh Jesus. Which page of the bible says that contraceptive pills are bad again?[/QUOTE] Please read before you try to chime in. If you would have bothered to read about the case you would have known what you just said was stupid. [editline]30th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tacosheller;45255163]having a child is a pretty life-changing thing dude[/QUOTE] Life changing not life threatening. Besides there are other methods of not having a baby other than 4 forms of contraceptive's that Hobby Lobby feels they shouldn't offer.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45255099]Contraceptive solutions have a lot more uses than just allowing a woman to "hop from penis to penis". But hey let's [b]slut shame[/b] women for no reason because we're all uneducated fucking hicks. On the topic of allowing these companies to discriminate based on contraceptive availability, how is that any different than the aforementioned vaccinations/blood transfusions? Why are they protected but contraceptives are not? When medically prescribed, I fail to see the difference.[/QUOTE] I'm literally laughing out loud, Flak do yourself a favor and start undergoing gender reassignment therapy, you are no longer a man.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255131]The difference is a person's life could depend on a vaccine or blood transfusion.[/QUOTE] What about women that end up having several month long periods?
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;45255179]What about women that end up having several month long periods?[/QUOTE] I can't even believe your inability to read. [b][i][u]ONLY PILLS THAT CAUSE ABORTIONS WERE OBJECTED TO BY HOBBY LOBBY[/u][/i][/b] Was that clear enough for you? You can still buy contraceptives that change your period.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255164]Please read before you try to chime in. If you would have bothered to read about the case you would have known what you just said was stupid.[/QUOTE] Please, enlighten me then. What exactly is the reason that legitimizes paying for vasectomies for men, but not contraceptive pills for women? [QUOTE=toaster468;45255198]I can't even believe your inability to read. [b][i][u]ONLY PILLS THAT CAUSE ABORTIONS WERE OBJECTED TO BY HOBBY LOBBY[/u][/i][/b] Was that clear enough for you? You can still buy contraceptives that change your period.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=toaster468;45255198]PILLS THAT CAUSE ABORTIONS[/QUOTE] holy shit now I know why you think that, it's because you genuinely think that abortion pills exist there's no such thing as abortion pills. morning after pills prevent conception by preventing an egg from dropping in to the uterus, therefore preventing sperm from reaching it. There are no such things as abortion pills.
[QUOTE=Lightran;45255177]I'm literally laughing out loud, Flak do yourself a favor and start undergoing gender reassignment therapy, you are no longer a man.[/QUOTE] "boo hoo people think women should be treated like human beings" if dudes get to fuck a lot of girls, why can't girls fuck a lot of dudes why does fucking people make someone less respectable
[QUOTE=The Calzone;45255205]Please, enlighten me then. What exactly is the reason that legitimizes paying for vasectomies for men, but not contraceptive pills for women?[/QUOTE] Because the company was going to offer contraceptives to women.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255131]The difference is a person's life could depend on a vaccine or blood transfusion.[/QUOTE] And a person's life can't depend on having an abortion?
I honestly just perplexes me the that the government can say that one's religious beliefs somehow give them more rights that any other ideology. If I come to a conclusion based on facts and reason, I should have the same rights as a person who come to a conclusion based on a religious text.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255198]I can't even believe your inability to read. [b][i][u]ONLY PILLS THAT CAUSE ABORTIONS WERE OBJECTED TO BY HOBBY LOBBY[/u][/i][/b] Was that clear enough for you? You can still buy contraceptives that change your period.[/QUOTE] No, I know about that. However, I'm arguing your claim that the difference between contraceptives and a vaccine/blood transfusion is that someone's life could depend on it. Also, I find it hilarious that you threw a fit about me answering someone's question up above.
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;45255225]And a person's life can't depend on having an abortion?[/QUOTE] Because life threatening abortions aren't what they were referring to. They don't want to offer optional abortions. Also there are other ways of getting abortions through other means if your life depends on it and you cannot afford with without your insurance.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255268]Because life threatening abortions aren't what they were referring to. They don't want to offer optional abortions. Also there are other ways of getting abortions through other means if your life depends on it and you cannot afford with without your insurance.[/QUOTE] Tell me you're talking about a legitimate medical procedure. Please tell me you're not suggesting something extremely dangerous and illegal.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255268]Because life threatening abortions aren't what they were referring to. They don't want to offer optional abortions. Also there are other ways of getting abortions through other means if your life depends on it and you cannot afford with without your insurance.[/QUOTE] yea, the ol' clothes-hangar-abortion-on-the-kitchen table worked back in the 50's, it can work now too.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;45255205]Please, enlighten me then. What exactly is the reason that legitimizes paying for vasectomies for men, but not contraceptive pills for women? holy shit now I know why you think that, it's because you genuinely think that abortion pills exist there's no such thing as abortion pills. morning after pills prevent conception by preventing an egg from dropping in to the uterus, therefore preventing sperm from reaching it. There are no such things as abortion pills.[/QUOTE] I am not saying I agree with the company, I am literally saying the reason for why there was a lawsuit in the first place. Do not confuse that with agreeing with them. [editline]30th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45255274]yea, the ol' clothes-hangar-abortion-on-the-kitchen table worked back in the 50's, it can work now too.[/QUOTE] Yes or you could use Planned Parenthood. But yes please use more strawmen they are quite funny.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45255125]If you want to bring up precedent, the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner"]Sherbert Test[/URL] provides a precedent for religious beliefs overriding government action, and was reaffirmed by the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act"]RFRA[/URL], which is what this case cited as standing law as the basis for the ruling. The Sherbert Test is very simple. The individual has to prove that they 1. Have a sincere religious belief, and 2. That the government is substantially interfering with the person's ability to act on that belief. [/QUOTE] not quite because the individual in this case is hobby lobby not hobby lobby's christian founder, how do you prove that the company then has a sincere religious belief [editline]30th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=toaster468;45255281]I am not saying I agree with the company, I am literally saying the reason for why there was a lawsuit in the first place. Do not confuse that with agreeing with them. [editline]30th June 2014[/editline] Yes or you could use Planned Parenthood. But yes please use more strawmen they are quite funny.[/QUOTE] planned parenthood doesn't work nearly as well as contraception
[QUOTE=Sableye;45255299] planned parenthood doesn't work nearly as well as contraception[/QUOTE] Wait, what? Planned Parenthood offers information and other services as well as contraceptive measures, how could an organization be compared to a medicine?
[QUOTE=Sableye;45255299]not quite because the individual in this case is hobby lobby not hobby lobby's christian founder, how do you prove that the company then has a sincere religious belief[/QUOTE] Because it is [i]family owned[/i]. The owners have a sincere religious belief. I swear to god half the arguments in this thread have [i]already been brought up in the article[/i]. [quote]In arguments earlier this year before the Supreme Court, some justices had asked whether there was a difference between a large publicly held company with shareholders, etc., and a smaller, private company with only a few owners. Today's ruling seeks to draw a line between those two by saying that the RFRA does indeed protect the rights of [b]closely held[/b] corporations. ... The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, attempts to quell some of these concerns, limiting the ruling to only the contraceptive mandate, and specifically stating that it should not be understood to apply to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations. "It is [the Dept. of Health and Human Service's] apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA — no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers — that would lead to intolerable consequences,” reads the majority opinion. “Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question — for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many [b]closely held corporations[/b] could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. [b]RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome[/b].”[/quote] It then even goes on to pre-empt the 'this could be used to discriminate' argument. [quote]Alito also attempts to shoot down worries about illegal hiring practices being masked by RFRA claims, explaining that, “The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.”[/quote] This is all based on precedent established by the RFRA, it's not overturning anything. The only thing that has changed is that this is the result of the government mandating healthcare, so it has to be addressed from the perspective of government law versus religious liberty, and that's exactly what the RFRA was written to address. Read the article before you go and make points that the Supreme Court justices have already answered.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255344]Wait, what? Planned Parenthood offers information and other services as well as contraceptive measures, how could an organization be compared to a medicine?[/QUOTE] yea thats kind of his point. If contraception was offered by all employers then that kind of circumvents planned parenthood.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45255354]yea thats kind of his point. If contraception was offered by all employers then that kind of circumvents planned parenthood.[/QUOTE] So what is the problem, the company doesn't have to do something they morally object to and women can still get abortions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.