Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims

Comments (120)
DCX2 wrote:

Regarding the argument that they won’t cover abortion drugs…Plan B doesn’t prevent implantation, it delays ovulation. And the primary purpose for the vast majority of IUDs is to prevent ovulation, not emergency contraception. On the scientific grounds alone, their case is without merit.

Mar 25, 2014 10:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Religious freedom must be for an individual. The whole point of religious freedom in this country is to keep a group from attempting to impose their religion on any individual.

On that premise alone a business or corporation cannot not be considered an individual. If it is allowed to, then based on religious freedom it can discriminate against anyone on any religious grounds including who they wish to hire, fire or sell to, let alone what kind of medical insurance they can provide their employees.

Mar 25, 2014 11:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

If my god tells me that I should not hire women or minorities, would the Supreme Court allow me to discriminate as an expression of religious freedom?

Mar 25, 2014 11:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

michaelsuperman

Religious freedom must be for an individual. The whole point of religious freedom in this country is to keep a group from attempting to impose their religion on any individual.

But the government can impose laws on a individual or group that go against their religious beliefs? See how that works…

Mar 25, 2014 11:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

The Supreme Court has already weighed in on this issue with their guidance on the Colorado religious order (sisters of the poor) saying that this order did not have to provide contraceptive care…
I don’t see much difference here – just substitute a secular company (hobby lobby) for the religious order.. Constitution allows freedom of religious belief – seems like a straightforward decision..

Mar 25, 2014 11:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Poneros wrote:

Yet more crazies trying to enact christian sharia law.

Mar 25, 2014 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

Hopefully they can become exempt.We need all the people,getting out of this thing,as possible.There is strength in numbers.

Mar 25, 2014 11:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
fragmatizm1 wrote:

what happened to taking are of those unable to speak for themselves ? America needs to give the unborn the same rights we gave to women and blacks

Mar 25, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jataat wrote:

He forgets that its the minorities pouring babies into the world 5 and 10 per family. Focus on that not a mandate in which 70 percent of the country is already responsible with procreation.

Mar 25, 2014 11:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jrj906202 wrote:

No reason corporations shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate.It’s their business.If you think business shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate,then govt shouldn’t either.Govt discriminates all the time.Taxes shouldn’t go up,as a % of income,as income rises.That’s discrimination.Obamacare is highly discriminatory.It gives free health insurance for some,while charging high prices for others.That’s not even insurance,which bases rates on risk to the insurer.Not to mention,biases in hiring,where govt practices “affirmative action”,hiring minorities in high numbers.

Mar 25, 2014 11:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse

The Supreme Court needs to remember we have separation of church and state in this country. Employers should not be able to discriminate against their EMPLOYER health plan by injecting their own beliefs. If an employee is opposed to abortion or contraception they can just not do it. It is a plan for employees…in a country where health insurance is now a mandatory…it is not a bully pulpit for employers.

Mar 25, 2014 12:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Hawk420 wrote:

All I see is a case where a corporation is claiming it has the right to religious freedom.

Just so I am clear corporations are NOT people

Mar 25, 2014 12:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lysergic wrote:

Shariya law coming to your neighborhood soon

Mar 25, 2014 12:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ES-NC wrote:

So the individuals that started this privately held company have no rights?

Mar 25, 2014 12:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rjd757 wrote:

So let me get this straight; are these ladies being FORCED and COERCED into using birth control methods against their will under Obama Care? Or, is the birth control provision under the insurance policy a feature that they can choose to use should they decide not to get pregnant?

Mar 25, 2014 12:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Hawk420 wrote:

jrj906202 either your completely ill informed or you just don’t care about facts. The Government does not charge High Prices to some people. The Government does not sell health care. You need to qualify for medicare or Medicaid or VA health care but you do not buy the coverage although you may have a co-pay but you do not buy the coverage.

The tax code does not discriminate it simply has a different rate on different levels of income. That is not discrimination in fact nothing personal is involved you make so much it is taxed at this rate you make this much more it is taxed at another rate. Unless you have no idea what it means to discriminate you really have no bases for your rant. Affirmative Action is NOT discrimination and if your one of those it discriminates against white folk guys you have just proved yourself a fool. The fact is Straight White Males have a bias in their favor making a playing filed level is not discrimination although it may feel that way to the people who have been getting the bias in there favor for generations.

Mar 25, 2014 12:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SandyC69 wrote:

To DCX2. You are correct in one point, that is does not prevent implantation, but you are incorrect that is delays ovulation. The Plan B pill is called the morning after pill, which, should intercourse result in conception, this pill will stop the implantation of the fertilized egg.

Mar 25, 2014 12:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Emberskary wrote:

That’s crazy. So, if they can discriminate based on their beliefs, why couldn’t any and everyone else do the same? This person may believe in some sort of racial supremacy and denying healthcare to other races, or to people who are old, or ill, or look a certain way or have a certain set of standards they don’t agree with. Religion is merely belief or a set of beliefs, that doesn’t make them solid ground to stand on in order to oppress others. This is basically legalized discrimination based on belief, not fact, not reason, not accountability and certainly not concerns that can be seen in real life other than in peoples’ own imaginations. Birth control is practical in many cases and personal. It’s is scary that in this day and age this kind of thing is still such an issue. Are people really that ignorant still? I feel depressed at that thought.

Mar 25, 2014 12:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SandyC69 wrote:

Again to DCX2, IUD’s do not stop ovulation. They stop contraception, just like a birth control pill does not stop ovulation, but does stop contraception.

Mar 25, 2014 12:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
maxnew40 wrote:

If they are allowed to not follow the law based on religion it will also be OK for Muslim cab drivers to not pick up women that are not accompanied by a male family member, Muslim shop owners can ask women to leave the store. I am sure the GOP doesn’t care about those consequences since they seem to believe that all women are second class citizens at best.

Mar 25, 2014 12:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TomMariner wrote:

As everything in ACA, this is an obvious vote-getter by dividing the country.

As I understand it, the Administration, that has granted literally hundreds of changes, extentions, exemptions, etc. to the Affordable Care Act by fiat, is hanging tough that Christian organization owners MUST abandon their religious beliefs or be forced out of business by draconian fines.

This is not just a law enforcement issue — it is a direct and public attack on the Christian Church — because hating them appeals to the “base”. Worse, yet most of the Supreme Court Justice’s votes could be counted on even before arguments, ending the fiction (and their duty) they would make decisions based on the facts of the case.

One more ultra-liberal Supreme Court Justice and the country will be gone, at least for a generation, possibly forever. Why exactly do you think our President ordered HIS Senate to abandon 180 years of filibuster rules to require only a majorit vote for any “Advise and Consent”?

Mar 25, 2014 12:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Corporations are fiefdoms, America must declare separation of Corporate and State. Oligarchism may have a business purpose, but is a threat to Democratic rule by the many, and not the few. Shameful SCOTUS completely missed the mark in a Citizens United ruling, corporations are not alive and having no voice in Democracy. Fro to do so, wealth disparity creates feudalistic (dictatorial) rule.
-
Universal Health is needed to preserve the Hospital. ER is the only alternative for the many, as such will break the Hospital bank.
-
morbas(i)

Mar 25, 2014 12:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DH.Barr wrote:

The crux of the Citizens United decision was that you do not give up your free speech rights just because you go into business and create a corporation. If that is the case, then why should you have to give up your religious freedom to form a corporation?
After conception, you have a unique, replicating human genome – many religious folks interpret this as the beginning of life and their beliefs preclude the taking of this life. In the past, such religious beliefs have given people an exemption from military service in time of war. How can we now say that the government can compel people to set aside these beliefs or face penalties under law?

Mar 25, 2014 12:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
malcat wrote:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

–There it is…The First Amendment. Please point out where people who own businesses can be denied their right to practice their faith. I’ve looked and looked…I can’t find it.

Mar 25, 2014 12:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

Corporations of any kind are legal constructs, not individuals. They have a purpose, and in the pursuit of that purpose they have a degree of free speech.

However, corporations, especially corporations that were formed to serve the general public by selling goods and services, and employ individuals from the general public, they DON’T have the right to ‘worship’ or ‘practice religious speech’.

Hobby Lobby is NOT the family of the owners. Hobby Lobby is a business formed to sell things to people. The whole *point* of a corporation is to separate the individual from the business activities.

Mar 25, 2014 12:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

The difference is that the Sisters of the Poor is entirely and completely staffed by Roman Catholic Nuns. They *are* a religious organization.

Hobby Lobby, however, is not entirely staffed by members of a religious order. Therefore the business owners do not get to impose their religious beliefs on all their employees as a precondition of working there.

Mar 25, 2014 12:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
thereyUgo wrote:

People 1st stop talking about discrimination. There is not discrimination here. If we are a country of rules then we should act like it. The only actual law of the land in the US constitution. All other laws are supposed to be based on right grant per this document. And the main purpose of this document is to place controls and limit on what the Government can impose on the FREE people of this country. Nobody in this fight is denying anyone the right to birth control or an abortion. It is about who should pay for it. The government has no right to make that decision or force any party whether person or corporation. All corporation are required to follow many of the same legal aspect of the law and others. So on one hand you can’t say they have the rights of a individual on some matters and turn and say they don’t when it comes to other matters.

Mar 25, 2014 12:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

The issue here isn’t that the owners of Hobby Lobby are being prevented from practicing their religion; they’re very free to do so.

What the owners are trying to do is impose *their* religious beliefs on *all* their employees, regardless of whether or not their employees follow the same religion. They are attempting to evade the law by claiming religion without recognizing the fact that their business is NOT their family.

And that is discrimination. That’s requiring that you follow *their* religious beliefs as a condition of employment, not *your* religious beliefs. Do business owners, by virtue of simply having employees, suddenly have the power to prevent their employees from practicing freely? According to Hobby Lobby, the answer is “Yes.”

Mar 25, 2014 12:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Funken_A wrote:

So it is ok for a public employer to enforce their religious views on their employees.

That’s not America….. that is fascism. All employers must make all options available to employees and it is their personal choice on whether they choose to use those options

Mar 25, 2014 12:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Crash866
The purpose of separation of church and state is two fold. For the individual to have freedom of religion and for the state to regulate what that means. The state of course already does so. That is why we have laws against refusing medical attention to children, using many drugs, human or animal sacrifice… etc., etc. based on your religious beliefs.

In case you haven’t noticed… all of our constitutional freedoms are regulated by the state.

Mar 25, 2014 12:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wwylieiii wrote:

Corporations are deemed, under the law, to be separate entities from those who own or operate them. They have separate identity, rights, and responsibilities. As a result of this distinction, corporate shareholders are protected from liaibility in legal actions against the corporation. IF the Supreme Court decides that the owners’ beliefs are inseparable, and indistinguishable, from that of the corporation…then should they not LOSE these protections under the law? In other words, IF Hobby Lobby wins its case, its owners should LOSE the protections corporations afford under the law because they will have demonstrated that there is no separation of identity under the law.

Mar 25, 2014 12:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
diluded0000 wrote:

If a corporation wants to exercise their freedom of religion, and only hire people who don’t use birth control, that is fine. But the preamble to the US Constitution also talks about providing for the common welfare. I think that justifies the public health concerns addressed by Obamacare, and the birth control provision.

And I get sick of people whining about “reverse discrimination”. That isn’t a thing. When you try to impose your morals or belief system on other people, and someone says you can’t, you aren’t being discriminated against. You are being stopped from oppressing people.

Mar 25, 2014 1:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

DH.Barr: “The crux of the Citizens United decision was that you do not give up your free speech rights just because you go into business and create a corporation. If that is the case, then why should you have to give up your religious freedom to form a corporation?”
The problem is lack of accountability for denigrate advertisement under a corporate political guise. Shameful SCOTUS did not allow for accountability, visa vice the persecuted victim rights for justice.
-
Religion should also declare separation form Corporate, as Christianity concerns the welfare of the disadvantaged in opposition to fiefdom’s indifference.
-
morbas(i)

Mar 25, 2014 1:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoutherRican wrote:

Soon Christian Corps, will claim to be tax exempt, just like churches. As a former Christian I love to use those hypocrites as my example when it comes to paying taxes. When the tax man comes their church claims tax exemptions, they quickly forget the words of their founder on taxes “”Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. See only parts of the religion they like they practice.

Mar 25, 2014 1:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoutherRican wrote:

Forgot, most of your supreme court members are Christians, which way you think they will go?

Mar 25, 2014 1:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Lets set term limits for supreme court justices! No more religion in politics. Justice is supposed to be blind, but some of them are peeking.

Mar 25, 2014 1:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
InisMagrath wrote:

If a corporation can claim religious freedom in order to ignore compliance with generally applicable laws, what is to stop corporations from claiming their religious beliefs mean:
– they can refuse to hire women,
– child labor laws don’t matter
– they take 10% of their employee’s pay for their church
– they can ignore worker safety laws, if someone gets killed on the job it must be God’s will,

and on and on and on… It will be a blank check for companies to ignore all laws they don’t like.

Mar 25, 2014 1:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

@SoutherRican – the question isn’t how many are Christian, it’s how many are men.

Mar 25, 2014 1:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

euro-yank
No

Mar 25, 2014 1:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kehenaliving wrote:

THIS IS A BAD PRECEDENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE A MONEY GRUBBING BUSINESS THE SAME RIGHTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL. ARE THEY GOING TO LET BUSINESSES VOTE NEXT? THEY ALREADY BUY CONGRESS.

Mar 25, 2014 1:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sprw1 wrote:

The U.S. has gone raving mad. Supreme Court passes Obamacare and then decides companies have the same religious freedoms as individuals

Mar 25, 2014 1:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

michaelsuperman
Yeah I get and so will you after this done…

Mar 25, 2014 1:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zanado wrote:

DCX2– Plan B is taken after intercourse to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.get you facts straight.
Euro-yank and michaelsuperman –the goverment , libery and morals can not force you to kill. Preventing a fertilized egg to implant, is like killing a potential child. Thats how you started your life.With what right do you take that chance from anybody?

Mar 25, 2014 1:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Romas wrote:

So the ultra right of the supreme court is ready to violate the constitution and say that corporations with religious owners have a right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Oh sure all you witty commentators will say a corporation isn’t the government but by running to the government to get their mandate authorized they in essence become seevants of said government.

Mar 25, 2014 1:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CecilNixxon wrote:

I can’t wait until the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby. Scientology will then swoop in to take care of their own business – and they have the legal clout to bring to bear. Then we shall see what religious intolerance can really do.

Mar 25, 2014 1:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
percy1 wrote:

If the “conservatives” vote for this, it’s going to be the final proof that all of Scalia’s “constructivism” is just a facade for making up whatever decision he wants to. Corporations refusing to follow laws because of the religion of their owner is just out to lunch. This isn’t even “corporations are people”, this is “corporations are a person”. Corporations cannot make religious decisions, cannot adhere to a religious faith.

Mar 25, 2014 1:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Apache1036 wrote:

The United States Supreme Court is not a court of justice; it is a corrupt Court that favors the wealthy and big business. A far as the Supreme Court cares, the people of the United States can go to Hell. All of the misfits sitting on the Supreme Court should hang their head in shame and submit an immediate resignation.

Mar 25, 2014 1:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
imar327 wrote:

The people that work at Hobby Lobby are “at will” employees, which means they can be fired for any reason, at any time. They can petition for relief in court by suing the company for discriminatory practices, but that doesn’t guarantee them a job with the company. HL should just fire anyone that demands “free” contraception, and let them take it to court. See what happens.

Mar 25, 2014 2:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tuscar wrote:

A corporation is meant to be a separate legal entity to protect its owners from legal repercussions aimed at the corporation, because it is a distinct entity which is independent of the owners.

This case blurs that line, and opens up a corporation’s owners to the possibility of the loss of personal holdings if the corporation is brought into a lawsuit.

What a slippery slope this case is bringing to corporate laws.

Mar 25, 2014 2:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
markhahn wrote:

Which form of contraception they like should be irrelevant – any more than the corporation can object to what the employee’s pay is spent on. the issue here is that the employer is attempting to control the employee’s out-of-work life.

Mar 25, 2014 2:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
taggert wrote:

It would not surprise me if Roberts court extended the power of corporations even more; him and Alito allowed Scalia to pull the court even closer to Mussolini’s fascist corporate state.

Mar 25, 2014 2:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
auger wrote:

How can they limit legislation allowing corporate religious beliefs to reproductive rights? Why not, for instance, allow public corporate support for a political candidate based on the companies predominant religion? It’s absurd

Mar 25, 2014 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

markhahn–No one is trying to control an employee’s out-of-work life. They can do whatever they please so long as they pay for it themselves, which is what people did for decades before Obamacare came along.

Mar 25, 2014 2:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Romas–the employees are free to do what they wish. This is a case where the employer is being forced to do something against his religious beliefs. The employee can buy all the contraception they want. Just like they did before Obamacare. If you don’t like the company you work for, or the benefits they provide, quit and go work somewhere else.

Mar 25, 2014 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Burns011–Hobby Lobby is NOT forcing their religion on any of their employees. Their employees can do as they wish. They can go purchase the morning after pill if they like. Hobby Lobby will not prevent them from doing that. Not many businesses close their doors on Sundays like Hobby Lobby. They put their beliefs into practice. If an employee wants to purchase a certain contraceptive, they are free to do so. Hobby Lobby won’t even know about it. Insurance doesn’t pay all expenses. Should Obamacare force companies to provide free Viagra also?

Mar 25, 2014 2:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

If the owners of a closely-held corporation are allowed to inject their personal religious beliefs into how the corporation acts, then they should also be held personally accountable and liable for any wrongs committed by their corporation. In other words, the “veil of the corporation” should not be a one-way mirror; it should be equally transparent or opaque in both directions.

Mar 25, 2014 2:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mypittzerelli wrote:

I’m curious as to where this ends, if Hobby Lobby prevails. If a Jehovah’s Witness owns a company, can his insurer refuse a claim in which a patient requires a blood transfusion, since that violates their beliefs? Then there’s Scientologists, who don’t believe in any kind of psychiatric drugs or care. If the owner is a Sceintologist can’t he use his beliefs to refuse to pay for that kind of care?

Mar 25, 2014 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

“The Supreme Court needs to remember we have separation of church and state in this country.” – No, there is an establishment clause that prevents government from actively promoting and implementing a specific religion. Its intent is to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. It also has no application to business.

Mar 25, 2014 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
roninkai wrote:

Corporations are groups of people and are not the same as individuals.
Corporations are a dodge made-up by business to avoid fines for wrong doing and paying their share of taxes.
What they are claiming is a corporation has more rights than an individual. Which is insane and not-rational.

Term limits for the SCOTUS, these neocon-ideologs have no place on the bench.

Mar 25, 2014 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DCX2 wrote:

@SandyC69 – sorry, you’re wrong. Plan B does not prevent implantation. It only acts to postpone ovulation. That’s the scientific consensus now. Once an egg is fertilized, Plan B does not stop it from implanting in the uterus.

Mar 25, 2014 2:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

‘Verrilli argued that the court would be “skating on thin constitutional ice” if it ruled for the challengers because of the impact it would have on employees.’

The impact it would have on employees is not a constitutional argument here.

Mar 25, 2014 2:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DrBilly wrote:

So if I’m CEO and my religion refuses medical treatment, I can take away all my 200,000 employees’ health insurance

Mar 25, 2014 3:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
slimedog wrote:

Why should a minority of people who say they believe in fairy tails be able to dodge taxes and overrule a law laid down by the Federal Government? The Earth is not square.

Mar 25, 2014 3:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
afterallthat wrote:

To me, we are witnessing the dawn of tyranny in America. Nobody in Washington is helping Americans. Nobody.

Mar 25, 2014 3:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
canonsensical wrote:

A truly “god-awful” decision if Kennedy blinks. The Constitution means “freedom from religion”. A Hobby Lobby ruling will swamp the courts with litigation for years to come. Pandora’s Box on steroids, but I don’t know if SCOTUS thinks that far ahead. We’ll see in June.

Mar 25, 2014 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SoutherRican wrote:

They are opening a Can of Worms, what happens when the Westboro Baptist Church makes it’s religious claims. Then again some religions are against Gays. AND religious-based objections to government regulations, may include paying Taxes, if founder is against it. Christian Church’s always forget what Jesus taught them when the tax man cometh, “”Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, but when it comes to spending those funds they want a say as if they payed.

Mar 25, 2014 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WestRon wrote:

It seems to me that this is not about freedom to practice your religion, but rather about freedom to force your beliefs on others. (In this case your employees)

Mar 25, 2014 3:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
justbeamensch wrote:

With shysters like Scalia, Thomas and Alito on the bench, the USA will soon become the Saudi Arabia of the Western Hemisphere.

Mar 25, 2014 3:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
johnrf wrote:

Suppose I don’t believe in blood transfusions and you work for me and I refuse to pay for your sick child’s health care? I can’t wait to see how much damage the supreme court is willing to do to our country to punish us for electing Obama, TWICE.

Mar 25, 2014 3:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
HuskerGirl wrote:

To be honest, I’m uncomfortable with the concept of the government mandating that my birth control be covered or provided by society.

Nothing is free. We fought for control of our bodies. Along with that control comes responsibility. It sounds like a step back for us to say what we do in our bedrooms is non of your business but you have to pay for it.

Mar 25, 2014 3:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CornwallKevin wrote:

Stop giving the rights of individuals to corporations. Corporations are not people!

Mar 25, 2014 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:

These Right wing judges won’t be happy until we have a Fascist government that controls every facet of our lives. They just check off another notch and another freedom goes down. If it furthers corporations and those that own them,Joe American will get hung out to dry.

Mar 25, 2014 3:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Randy549 wrote:
If the owners of a closely-held corporation are allowed to inject their personal religious beliefs into how the corporation acts, then they should also be held personally accountable and liable for any wrongs committed by their corporation. In other words, the “veil of the corporation” should not be a one-way mirror; it should be equally transparent or opaque in both directions.’

Exactly! We need a re-write of the laws governing Corporations. We need personal responsibility. Republicans should be all over this since they talk about ‘responsibility’ all the time.

Mar 25, 2014 3:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
acspore wrote:

Is this a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Or is this a government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporation? This is madness. Is there no more common sense in America? No wonder all the wealth keeps going to the 1%ers.

Mar 25, 2014 3:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:

I have never seen a corporation in church on it’s knees praying to ANY god(s). I don’t remember any entry in the Bible saying bring your corporations to me. Corporations are not people. The Supreme Court simply made a massive mistake. Those that own corporations may be, but the law has provisions for PEOPLE to not partake of any service if they wish to. For a company to use this to manipulate its employees into a particular mindset because the owner feels that way is not defensible.

Mar 25, 2014 3:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:

I have never seen a corporation in church on it’s knees praying to ANY god(s). I don’t remember any entry in the Bible saying bring your corporations to me. Corporations are not people. The Supreme Court simply made a massive mistake. Those that own corporations may be, but the law has provisions for PEOPLE to not partake of any service if they wish to. For a company to use this to manipulate its employees into a particular mindset because the owner feels that way is not defensible.

Mar 25, 2014 3:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
HolyFux wrote:

Welcome to the broader scope of “Citizens United.”

Mar 25, 2014 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I am already avoiding Hobby Lobby, but if this passes maybe we can find out which other companies want to discriminate against women by interefering in womens’ health care. I would like to boycott all such companies. It should be public record,right?

Mar 25, 2014 3:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

>>As a former Christian

that means you were never a true Christian to begin with as it’s impossible to be a former one once you are truly saved.

Mar 25, 2014 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

One solution would be that Hobby Lobby could just pay the $2,000 fine and not provide ANY insurance coverage. They would save a lot of money, they would not have to violate their religious beliefs and the employees could enroll in Obamacare on their own and get all the “free” contraception they want.

Mar 25, 2014 3:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
riposte wrote:

keep your rosaries off my ovaries, is a very apropos..once, the door is opened for everyone to apply their religious feelings upon others, we defeat, the entire reason for coming to the USA….

Mar 25, 2014 3:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

” you would see religious objectors come out of the woodwork with respect to all of these laws,” Justice Elena Kagan”

This comment displays the profound disrespect secularists have for those who hold religious convictions.

“Out of the woodwork”?

Not to mention the implication that those who act upon their beliefs are lying about their motivation.

Mar 25, 2014 4:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Supreme court entertains notion of Sharia law as a form of ‘religious freedom.’ Hobby Lobby regrets bringing lawsuit.

Mar 25, 2014 4:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
well.why.not wrote:

The idea of ensuring access to birth control for all seems sound; the idea of compelling private interests to do it seems less sound. If the idea behind Obamacare is to spread the risks by requiring all to participate, then why not make contraceptives available to be paid for by the government (send in your receipt for a refund), and eliminate the controversial mandate from private plans. One more step on the road to an eventual single payer health care system.

Mar 25, 2014 4:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bahutch wrote:

So a Liberal member of the SC thinks you can get an employee healthcare coverage for “roughly” $2000 per year???? Really??? What world is she living in, and what is Kennedy thinking? The employer is hurt in that context by having to pay the extra cost of Ins. to provide the service. In that case he is still paying for the service he objects to in reality. Plus most employers have group policies, and those group rules would not allow for some employees to get money while others got Insurance, and salary is treated differently in both the employees case and the employers case than the expense of Insurance. If salary was given, additional taxes would be due, and the employee could end up in a higher bracket as well.

Mar 25, 2014 4:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Laborman wrote:

This is definitely a Pandora’s Box that would be really, really dumb for the justices to open. This time you may agree with the employers. But there are a lot of whacko religious beliefs out there. And some companies could just use the “religious” excuse to get out of paying for important and widely popular government programs.

Mar 25, 2014 4:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Laborman wrote:

This is definitely a Pandora’s Box that would be really, really dumb for the justices to open. This time you may agree with the employers. But there are a lot of whacko religious beliefs out there. And some companies could just use the “religious” excuse to get out of paying for important and widely popular government programs.

Mar 25, 2014 4:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Laborman wrote:

This is definitely a Pandora’s Box that would be really, really dumb for the justices to open. This time you may agree with the employers. But there are a lot of whacko religious beliefs out there. And some companies could just use the “religious” excuse to get out of paying for important and widely popular government programs.

Mar 25, 2014 4:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Businesses are made up of a group of individuals. Government should not be able to force any individual to go against their religious beliefs. No one should want them to be forced to do so. This is just one group (you know who they are) trying to tell another group how they must live.

Mar 25, 2014 4:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gledoux686 wrote:

if it does, it would be no better than the Citizens United decision…

Mar 25, 2014 4:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Al123 wrote:

“f my god tells me that I should not hire women or minorities, would the Supreme Court allow me to discriminate as an expression of religious freedom?”

Do you think that’s worse than ending another human’s life? Tell me how you got to that conclusion.

Mar 25, 2014 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Laborman-Hobby Lobby closes it’s doors every Sunday as a result of their religious beliefs. They don’t just talk the talk. They walk the walk. This is not some frivolous lawsuit to get out of providing insurance to employees.

Mar 25, 2014 4:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
indymind wrote:

China wants evidence is the headline. O.K. their planes and icebreakers are looking in the right place. If they cannot find any, they should look elsewhere.

Mar 25, 2014 4:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
indymind wrote:

China wants evidence is the headline. O.K. their planes and icebreakers are looking in the right place. If they cannot find any, they should look elsewhere.

Mar 25, 2014 4:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PhillyJimi wrote:

Isn’t it obvious, once you can use religious to ignore parts of Obamacare then you use religious reasons ignore all of Obamacare. I believe god will heal my employees thus I am exempt!

We have to have a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment and the government has to protect the influence of any religion being imposed on the individual citizens. Health care is health care which includes Birth Control Pills and abortion.

Mar 25, 2014 4:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PhillyJimi wrote:

Isn’t it obvious, once you can use religious to ignore parts of Obamacare then you use religious reasons ignore all of Obamacare. I believe god will heal my employees thus I am exempt!

We have to have a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment and the government has to protect the influence of any religion being imposed on the individual citizens. Health care is health care which includes Birth Control Pills and abortion.

Mar 25, 2014 4:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

“On the question of whether the companies can ultimately win their claim on the birth control provision, Kennedy hinted at some sympathy for the government. He wondered whether the objecting companies might have alternative means to avoid providing the coverage. Rather than face fines for not providing the contraception coverage, might they instead be able to pay employees more to buy their own health insurance, thereby circumventing their religious objections?”

Answer is no because of the law that we had crammed down on us that says we must buy or pay a fine, except those that Obama decides to illegally subsidize or exempt. Forcing someone to buy something they may or may not want to is a joke and the law needs to be repealed. Plain and simple.

Mar 25, 2014 5:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DBMan wrote:

Corporations are people, my friend-Mitt Romney. Balony!

Mar 25, 2014 5:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Bring on the American Taliban!

Mar 25, 2014 5:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
elsewhere wrote:

Interesting … if they find for the plaintiff does that mean the whole law is toast? There is no severance in the law so if one part if unconstitutional then the whole thing is.

Mar 25, 2014 5:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Wait for it. Corporations whose religion prohibits them from paying taxes. Poor corporations.

Mar 25, 2014 5:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
spoc69 wrote:

Maybe the constitution has become irrelevant to the times, especially when comes to allowing privileged to so impose their will on others. Has it, or its convoluted interpretation, become an obsticle to freedom? We should not allow persecuted by employers for ones religious beliefs!

Mar 25, 2014 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Contraception should not even be an issue. My corporation believes that young men should be sterilised at birth. If they pass a basic skills and employment test at age 23, they could become eligible for cloning, using DNA from their hair. Don’t blame me. My religion states that! Do you hate my freedom as a business owner?

Mar 25, 2014 6:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DKarasin wrote:

Some religions don’t believe in health care. If the court finds in favor of the companies suing, then those companies could not offer health care at all due to religious exemption.

Courts have found that parents that do not believe in health care were negligent if a child dies due to not taking the child to the doctor or hospital when gravely ill.

It seems to me that these facts would put the court in a paradox.

Corporations only exist because government allows them to. People exist no matter what the government says. People die no matter what and corporations can go on for ever. My own uneducated opinion is that companies or corporations are not people although the SCOTUS seems to feel I am wrong on that matter.

Mar 25, 2014 6:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dmso wrote:

Every taxpayer is affected when our money, courts, and Constitution are being used to allow “cases” like this to clutter the legal system. The Supreme Court already ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional so why is it ruling on it again? The government shouldn’t be making any exemptions to it. If a law isn’t applicable to everyone equally then it shouldn’t be a law. What’s next, nudists and business owners making a federal case out of “No shirt, No shoes, No service”? These paranoid factions in our society need psychiatrists, not lawyers. Since when does paying an insurance premium give you the privilege of writing the policy? We all pay into insurance but don’t get to make the rules how it’s administered. I for one object to having my prescription drug premiums pimped out to doctors and pharmacists to administer drugs that enhance or produce sexual gratification for men with erectile dysfunction. I doubt the Supreme Court would accept that case being it consists mostly of old and probably impotent men.

Mar 25, 2014 7:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MooseDr wrote:

A female employee is “quite directly, quite tangibly harmed,” Kagan said.

Yeah, the female employee would lose her power to murder her kid.

Mar 25, 2014 7:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dmso wrote:

The Supreme Court should be ashamed for even considering this employer’s argument. Besides it already ruled that the ACA is constitutional. There shouldn’t be any exemptions. If a law can’t be applied to everyone equally it shouldn’t be a law. If an employer can force their religious beliefs on employees because it pays their insurance premium,what’s to stop them from arguing that since they pay employees’ wages they can dictate what food they buy, what entertainment, charity or church they contribute to, anything they may pay for with their wages? And how does the employee know the employer is practicing all it preaches–maybe the employer is buying birth control for themselves!

Mar 25, 2014 8:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

I did not approve of the most recent war with Iraq. I was not allowed to withhold my taxes to make certain that my money was not funding that war.

The federal government makes decisions that are collectively binding upon its citizens. An employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga may choose whether or not to take advantage of the birth control funding that is offered by their employer, but the employer can not choose to disregard a federal mandate.

Mar 25, 2014 8:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Nurgle wrote:

Welcome to the CCSA! Christian Corporate States of America. I am physically sickened by the policy direction of this country. Scandinavia and France are looking better and better every day. Use your vote and your wallets people!

Mar 25, 2014 8:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

So now your boss will decide what they will cover as part of your health care.

Mar 25, 2014 10:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kevan123 wrote:

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard come before the supreme court. If you are a christian and don’t believe in abortion or pills that cause abortion…..don’t have an abortion or take such pills. I fail to see how Hobby Lobby inc can be considered a christian. Clearly this is the most absurd thing I have ever seen in my life!

Mar 25, 2014 10:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

DH.Barr wrote:
“After conception, you have a unique, replicating human genome – many religious folks interpret this as the beginning of life and their beliefs preclude the taking of this life.”

Great. Then the religious folks don’t have to take contraception. They have that choice. What, exactly, are the religious folks whining about?

Mar 25, 2014 11:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

malcat wrote:
“There it is…The First Amendment. Please point out where people who own businesses can be denied their right to practice their faith. I’ve looked and looked…I can’t find it.”

Please point out where anybody is being denied the right to practice their faith. If the religious fundamentalists don’t want to take contraception, they don’t have to. Beer on the shelf of 7/11 doesn’t means 7/11 is forcing teetotallers to drink beer.

The problem is more that businesses are saying “we don’t believe in contraception, so you can’t have it and we don’t care what your beliefs are”.

Mar 25, 2014 11:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
chuck2 wrote:

We can only guess that the Founders are wondering why they missed all the newly found loopholes that are making Corporations some form of person, exempt from being jailed if found guilty. They tried to prevent such stuff as in Court now as they feared the religious camel being allowed to put it’s snout under the tent of a free nation, as we all know will not stop there.

Wonder how long before the great documents of this nations founding, our freedoms are not more then museum materials. History provides most great nations fell due to rot, not invasions, and past four or five decades there has been an increasing odor of rot.

Mar 26, 2014 1:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BaiJiuUSA wrote:

religion is a made-up thing. It is a story that a person believes in.

Just like…I believe the 49ers are the best football team ever!! that’s a nice story but not true. religion is a story that is molded by one’s own personal thoughts. it can not be quantified.

If i believe broccoli is bad for my health, then it is bad for my health. is this religion…some can consider it to be.

And hence why the first amendment is written the way it is. religion is not a tangible thing. get it out of my government. People must be able to have the option to do what they want according to their values and beliefs, not someone else’s.

Hobby Lobby should be required to follow the law like everyone else. there are no special circumstances. if so…then… i believe it is wrong to pay taxes. I want a law written strictly for me and my religion. The religion of BAIJIUUSA!! In my religion everything is free, stealing cheating, etc… there are no laws and you can’t persecute me because i am practicing my religion!!

any person that is anti-abortion is ignorant of the 1st amendment. it is a religious issue!! does that dividing cell have a birth certificate? social security account? can it be considered a dependent on my taxes?

Mar 26, 2014 1:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jk052879 wrote:

How does not paying for someone’s contraceptive equate to Sharia Law as some have suggested? I don’t see a lawsuit where Hobby Lobby is forcing it’s employees not to use contraception. They just don’t want to pay for it.

According to Planned Parenthood, the morning after pill costs between $30-$65. If you are having unprotected sex so often that the cost of the pill becomes too much to bear, then pay for some condoms like back in the day.

Mar 26, 2014 9:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AndrewNelson wrote:

The ACA is a law, right? Weather or not we accept corporations as people, they are still bound by the law. Since when does a person (corporate or actual) get to decide which laws they are going to observe? This isn’t about religious freedom, it’s about corporations being above the law.

Mar 26, 2014 10:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
questforfair wrote:

The United States has an established church that preaches a morality of libertine excess with no one held accountable. The prologue to the Constitution says that it is being established “for ourselves and our posterity.” The established church wants me to pay a tithe in furtherance of its belief that human life in utero is unworthy of respect. I must pay a tithe to fund abortion inducing birth control though I think it morally wrong. This to assure a right derived in Roe v. Wade from “emanations” and “penumbras.” The First Amendment by contrast is expressly stated. In England they are incinerating the carcasses of aborted babies. Shades of Weimar where before the Nazis they only killed the insane, the elderly and the deformed, lives without value to the state. Auschwitz and Belsen were soon to follow. God save America. Edmund Burke said it best. If you want folks to love their country, the country ought to be lovely. Make no mistake the law is a teacher and now it teaches us to forget the past.

Mar 26, 2014 9:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
questforfair wrote:

I own a Kosher delicatessen, can the Government refuse me a beer license if I don’t open on Saturday?

What if I own my business through stock in a wholly owned corporation? Do I lose my rights?

Hobby Lobby is not Exxon; it is owned in large measure, if not totally, by a Christian family.

Mar 26, 2014 9:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
buffycar wrote:

What if you work for a company owned by a Jehovah’s Witness? Are you going to be unable to receive a blood transfusion because it’s against their religion? Thank goat I’m an atheist.

Mar 30, 2014 11:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.