Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision

  • Thread starter Thread starter EI 903
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I don't want my employer involved in my health care. The fact that they're at the table at all in this discussion is really unsettling to me.
 
I'm very disturbed by today's ruling. If they don't have to provide birth control because of religious belief what happens if the employer does not believe in immunization or blood transfusions? What if the employer refuses to have its healthcare plan cover people who are non-Christian because of their faith? The implications will be far reaching and are very worrisome they could claim they don't have to cover gay people under their health plan because of the bible. God knows that is a fundie wet dream not having to help gay people. Hellblazer is right I don't want their sky friend dictating my healthcare plan with the place I work at.
 
Id like to start off by saying affordable birth control is one of the best things we can have in this country.
Like goddess said, what happens when the employer is against vaccines or chemotherapy. What if your companies CEO doesn't believe in modern medicine at all. Let's not forget they're may be some scummy employers out there that will say it's "against their religion" just to save a few bucks.
 
Pikonic said:
Id like to start off by saying affordable birth control is one of the best things we can have in this country.
Like goddess said, what happens when the employer is against DIRTY, CRAPPED BRIEFS or chemotherapy. What if your companies CEO doesn't believe in modern medicine at all. Let's not forget they're may be some scummy employers out there that will say it's "against their religion" just to save a few bucks.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to get healthcare out of the employer's hands in the first place.
 
It's not really like this is surprising. Hobby Lobby doesn't like gay people or women who they consider 'loose'. They're not even open on Sundays due to the day of rest. Honestly their entire model is like this.
 
Pikonic said:
Id like to start off by saying affordable birth control is one of the best things we can have in this country.
Like goddess said, what happens when the employer is against DIRTY, CRAPPED BRIEFS or chemotherapy. What if your companies CEO doesn't believe in modern medicine at all. Let's not forget they're may be some scummy employers out there that will say it's "against their religion" just to save a few bucks.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think we all oppose DIRTY, CRAPPED BRIEFS!
 
This is one of the reasons I really dislike our current health care system. It's broken beyond belief and only serves to punish the poor. One of my best friends attempted suicide earlier this year, ended up racking up a whole bunch of medical bills even with insurance, and it's really breaking them now. His wife is trying to sell her service dog now because she can't afford to keep him anymore.

I'm really wary of this SCOTUS decision, but the fact that these people can interfere in the health care of others is indicative of a much bigger problem with the health care system.
 
This is entirely motivated by greed, plain and simple.

This has nothing to do with religion and the people voting on it know that. They just wanna see how long they can keep using it as an excuse to please their millionaire donors.

If it was about religion they would've extended it to beyond health care. Here they're specifically focusing in on health care because they wanna get above existing legislation.
 
I don't want to sound like the militant kind of atheist, but I just don't get why religion has any particular say in anything. At heart, it's just a belief. If I believed, say, that gay people are all evil and excluded them, that would be bigotry and I'd be in the wrong. But if I say, "My religious beliefs are that gays are evil, it's here in the Bible," suddenly it becomes a big issue with people arguing my side.
 
For what it's worth, I don't think it's anything to get worked up about. Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation, one with a majority of its stock owned by about five people who all hold similar religious beliefs, and as such the corporation is considered an extension of them. They're not going to court to deny their employees health coverage, and certainly not to ban birth control; they already provide numerous different types of birth control in their health plan. As far as I can suss out, what they were objecting to was paying for abortifacients, which go against their belief that life begins at conception. Their employees can get abortions all they like, but Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for what they see as the ending of a life.

This ruling thus has a very specific set of circumstances which wouldn't apply elsewhere. Nobody is going to be legalizing corporate human sacrifice or banning birth control.
 
Slowboat to China said:
For what it's worth, I don't think it's anything to get worked up about. Hobby Lobby is a closely-held corporation, one with a majority of its stock owned by about five people who all hold similar religious beliefs, and as such the corporation is considered an extension of them. They're not going to court to deny their employees health coverage, and certainly not to ban birth control; they already provide numerous different types of birth control in their health plan. As far as I can suss out, what they were objecting to was paying for abortifacients, which go against their belief that life begins at conception. Their employees can get abortions all they like, but Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for what they see as the ending of a life.

This ruling thus has a very specific set of circumstances which wouldn't apply elsewhere. Nobody is going to be legalizing corporate human sacrifice or banning birth control.
Click to expand...
The exemption is allowed if:
1. The corporation is closely held (closely held corporations employ about 50% of the country's workforce, so it's not as rare as you'd think)
2. It's a sincerely held religious belief. (the government conceded this point because bad lawyering. Hobby lobby would have probably lost here because they had investments in companies that made the birth control they supposedly objected to)
3. The government can still achieve its goal in a less restrictive way (but there were already workarounds in place for churches).

The belief is that certain forms of birth control cause abortion. This belief is objectively false, but the court wasn't allowed to consider that as long as it's a "sincerely held belief". Government lawyers stupidly gave them that for free, expecting it to be shot down on other grounds. The real problem with the decision is that you can count on selective enforcement with some religions getting favorable treatment over others. It's very easy to have a predetermined decision and work backwards to achieve that outcome.
 
Right now, church groups are using the legal precedent set by this to try to "opt out" of the anti-LGBT job discrimination executive order the President is about to sign. A slippery slope indeed.

If you're not me, or my doctor, you should have zero control over my medical options. Period.
 
StallChaser said:
The exemption is allowed if:
1. The corporation is closely held (closely held corporations employ about 50% of the country's workforce, so it's not as rare as you'd think)
2. It's a sincerely held religious belief. (the government conceded this point because bad lawyering. Hobby lobby would have probably lost here because they had investments in companies that made the birth control they supposedly objected to)
3. The government can still achieve its goal in a less restrictive way (but there were already workarounds in place for churches).

The belief is that certain forms of birth control cause abortion. This belief is objectively false, but the court wasn't allowed to consider that as long as it's a "sincerely held belief". Government lawyers stupidly gave them that for free, expecting it to be shot down on other grounds. The real problem with the decision is that you can count on selective enforcement with some religions getting favorable treatment over others. It's very easy to have a predetermined decision and work backwards to achieve that outcome.
Click to expand...

The third point is really the major part of this. There are apparently government programs to provide these medications intended for employees of religious non-profits with similar beliefs. The real implication is that these programs must now be open to employees of for-profit organizations.

This ruling doesn't mean women can't get IUDs or the day-after pill, or apparently (if the analysis I've seen is to be believed) that they'll have to pay hardly any extra for it.

And honestly while I can see the reasoning behind having the IUDs covered under law as they are both ordinary birth control and require a prescription (I'm personally opposed to the ACA but at least that part is internally consistent), it seems strange that having Plan B covered is required under law. It's not prescription and most OTC medications and contraceptives aren't covered, or at least if they are nobody told me how to get my insurance to cover them.

The Knife's Husbando said:
If you're not me, or my doctor, you should have zero control over my medical options. Period.
Click to expand...

They aren't controlling it. They're declining to pay for it.
 
Hmm... Ill probably get some flack for this, but here goes!

I believe The Suprem Court made the right decision. The boss isn't "deciding womens choices" it is jut not paying for them. It does seem to be a bit narcissistic to ask your boss to basically fund your sexual choices, and to treat pregnacy as if it is a "disease." Birth control really isn't that expensive. Why should a boss have to pay for it if it violates his religious beliefs to do so? Hobby Lobby provides for many forms of contracepion ( which I again question why they should have to) but not "morning after pills" pill which kill fertilized eggs ( which they believe are potential babies.) I think many people on the left are dismissive of religious liberty concerns, because most ( not all) do not hold deep religious beliefs themselves.
 
FifthColumn said:
Hmm... Ill probably get some flack for this, but here goes!

I believe The Suprem Court made the right decision. The boss isn't "deciding womens choices" it is jut not paying for them. It does seem to be a bit narcissistic to ask your boss to basically fund your sexual choices, and to treat pregnacy as if it is a "disease." Birth control really isn't that expensive. Why should a boss have to pay for it if it violates his religious beliefs to do so? Hobby Lobby provides for many forms of contracepion ( which I again question why they should have to) but not "morning after pills" pill which kill fertilized eggs ( which they believe are potential babies.) I think many people on the left are dismissive of religious liberty concerns, because most ( not all) do not hold deep religious beliefs themselves.
Click to expand...

So going with this theme then, my Jehovah's Witnesses boss can freely opt out on paying for my blood transfusion, or my Islamic boss can opt out of paying for any prescription drug that is coated with animal (read pork) gelatin, or my Hinduism/Buddhism boss can opt out of paying for any drug with any animal component? Like a daily life-sustaining drug like Insulin ?

No thank you. I'd rather not play Russian roulette with my healthcare options when I sign on as a new hire. The whole point of health insurance is the fact you don't have to pay up front.

But let's be honest here. This Isn't about Islam/Hindu/other faiths. This is about Conservative Christianity still doing their damnedest to control women's sexuality. Conservative Christianity can't even define it's own sexuality- well, beyond the words "NO!" and "DERP!"- so why the hell do they think they can do it for other people? Pisses me off to no end.
 
Last edited:
FifthColumn said:
Hmm... Ill probably get some flack for this, but here goes!

I believe The Suprem Court made the right decision. The boss isn't "deciding womens choices" it is jut not paying for them. It does seem to be a bit narcissistic to ask your boss to basically fund your sexual choices, and to treat pregnacy as if it is a "disease." Birth control really isn't that expensive. Why should a boss have to pay for it if it violates his religious beliefs to do so? Hobby Lobby provides for many forms of contracepion ( which I again question why they should have to) but not "morning after pills" pill which kill fertilized eggs ( which they believe are potential babies.) I think many people on the left are dismissive of religious liberty concerns, because most ( not all) do not hold deep religious beliefs themselves.
Click to expand...
Health insurance belongs to the employee. The employer should have no more say over how employees use it than they do over paychecks. It's theirs. Also, birth control is tied into health insurance, which has minimum standards for what needs to be covered. It adds zero cost (and may even save money) because pregnancy is expensive. When they added birth control to health insurance for government employees, there was no increase in cost, so this is a proven fact. How can someone be paying for something if it has zero or negative cost?

All modern contraceptives work by preventing fertilization. There's no fertilized egg to kill, so this abortion argument is a moot point. In fact, if even a single pregnancy that could have been prevented by a contraceptive was aborted(which has happened, a lot), that would be an abortion caused by lack of contraceptives. The only reason this fact doesn't end the argument is that fundies aren't being honest. They want to control other people's sexuality, and screaming "abortion" is a means to an end.

And finally, I'm only dismissive of religious beliefs when they are abused to control or harm other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom