U.S. justices uphold firms' religious objections to contraception

Comments (174)
REnninga wrote:

Another 5-4 split decision in an important case, not persuasive for either side. Once again, the Court merely adding to the divisiveness in our American socio-politics.
The nation’s highest court needs to clean up its act and work as hard to reach consensus in its decisions as we average Americans are asked by judges to work for consensus decisions when we are empaneled on juries.
I guess when you reach the top there’s no one to scold you if you fail to do your job.

Jun 30, 2014 10:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
tmc wrote:

We desperately need a single payer or socialized healthcare system.

Jun 30, 2014 10:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DocJanardan wrote:

What if company owners believe all vaccinations are against their religion? What is they claim any external intervention (drugs, surgery etc) is against their religion?

Jun 30, 2014 10:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

chief justice john roberts (R) catholic corporate supreme court of the united states of america just leveled another blow to try to strike down Roe v Wade, which gives women – and the men who love them – control over their own bodies and lives. Time for the majority of Americans – who are outraged over these attacks on OUR civil rights by this puppet supreme court – to overturn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which essentially says religious organizations take precedence over OUR rights. Time for a Constitutional Amendment that protects us FROM religious interference. Time to elect only Independents and Democrats who want to restore democracy in America and stop this forced march to 3rd world status.

Jun 30, 2014 10:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
thisoldman wrote:

So now companies have religious rights in addition to 1st, 4th and 14th amendment rights. All that’s left is the 2nd amendment and the right to vote.

Jun 30, 2014 10:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:

When will we be free of the Right Wing tyrants? Just lose one of them and we could get all these bad decisions overturned.

Jun 30, 2014 11:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
explorer08 wrote:

A shame that the citizenry is hurt, once again, by religious fantasy.

Jun 30, 2014 11:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Hawk420 wrote:

“A true victory for the Constitution and the citizens of this nation. No more imperial presidency! ”

Since the president neither wrote nor passed the law by fiat this is not a ruling against the president.

What they did was codify Sharia Law into the US federal code by the US Taliban party.

The idea that some non-religious profit making organization gets to decide Well We object to the law based on some old belief and The high court goes Yeah Okay that is Sharia Law

Jun 30, 2014 11:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cnileolman wrote:

I wonder if there will be a rush to Christian Science among business owners and a new court decision that allowing business owners to avoid providing health insurance at all.

Jun 30, 2014 11:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Praise The Lord!

Jun 30, 2014 11:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse

This seems to be a very tempered, accommodating solution. It does not expand the rights of private businesses any more than is already available to religious institutions. Further, it allows someone who wants coverage to seek the alternate path already set in-place.

Jun 30, 2014 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
azig wrote:

Next will be end of life drugs in nursing homes, Then Cancer treatments for those that believe it’s “Gods Will” and on and on.
It is disgusting seeing what we are descending to.

Jun 30, 2014 11:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RyanKarl39 wrote:

The biggest corporation in the world, the United State government, just lost to smaller family-run companies. That’s always a win in my book.

Jun 30, 2014 11:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
0okm9ijn wrote:

Why would this ruling not apply to my religious objection to blood transfusion. This court is going down the lane of Roe v. Wade, fishing in policy water.

Jun 30, 2014 11:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
docroc wrote:

It’s a pity Christians can’t concentrate on the real teachings of Christ instead of meddling in everything else. American fundies would be just as bad as Islamic fundies if not for our legal protections against their depredations.

Jun 30, 2014 11:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that apparently religiosity is a valid excuse to refuse to obey the law, does this mean that, as a Pastafarian, I have the right to refuse to work on Fridays (which are holy days in my faith)?

Jun 30, 2014 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

The only objection Hobby Lobby had was having to provide the morning after pill. They did not want to be a party to abortion. They did not object to providing other types of birth control. While I was in line to pick up a prescription at Walgreen’s yesterday, I saw a display for Plan B. The packet was on sale over the counter for $49.99. Hobby Lobby has not prevented any employee from walking into Walgreen’s and buying that product for themselves. No woman’s “righta” are being violated. This year when I got the bill from my doctor for my annual exam, I still owed $127.00. Not every test or procedure is covered by insurance. This is no different.

Jun 30, 2014 11:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

raptor666-This has absolutely nothing to do with hiring an employee because of their beliefs and you know it. Stop with the straw man arguments.

Jun 30, 2014 11:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

When corporations are people, there is no accountability. The whole point of corporations is to abdicate personal responsibility and liability. Otherwise, why incorporate?

This whole right-wing trend of corporations = people is a scam. It will come back to haunt us.

Jun 30, 2014 11:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillChuck wrote:

This is what happens when you start trying to legislate personal responsibility, unintended consequences. Get the feds out of the bedroom and personal lives of citizens and we can go back to concentraiting on real problems not these made up ones.
If you want birth control, buy it, it’s not that expensive and readily available.

Jun 30, 2014 11:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
QuietThinker wrote:

A victory for theocracy over the Constitution. The whole point of religious freedom is to prevent people from imposing their beliefs on others. The Supreme Court right wingers continue to put corporations and the rich above citizens and the Constitution.

Jun 30, 2014 11:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
angelo9000 wrote:

What about money you pay your employees? They may use it for things your object to on religious or moral grounds, but you still are required to pay them. What about taxes? You may object to war capital punishment or on religious grounds, but you are still required to pay taxes.

Jun 30, 2014 11:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RockyBob wrote:

What’s next? Are the five morons of the Supreme Court really willing to support whatever sharia law dictates, if a corporation’s owners happen to be Islamic? Or Hindu? Don’t hire anybody if they eat meat. Most religions discriminate by gender; is hobby lobby exempt from failing to promote any women, if that happens to violate the religious beliefs? Of course, the moron five can’t see beyond the end of their noses, so they don’t consider any other religious beliefs to be on par with their particular religion.

Jun 30, 2014 11:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JulsMan wrote:

Not sure how the 5 could have justified getting something so easy wrong. And every right-wing nut on this forum, how do you plan to stand before your maker and justify why you against helping or indifferent to helping family’s plan how many children they have but are obsessed with your right to bring your gun into Starbucks?!?!

I’m a fiscal conservative but you’ve made a party stink so bad that i can no longer hold my nose and vote for it. IF the democrats ever moderated on unions and taxes … the GOP would be finished!!

Jun 30, 2014 11:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RGR wrote:

Justice Alito “said the ruling applies only to the birth control mandate” and wouldn’t necessarily apply to claims for exemptions from things “such as vaccinations and blood transfusions.” Which, being translated, means: “we’ll only exempt you from things good Catholics like us disapprove of–don’t expect us to shelter the silly taboos of all those crazy religions we don’t like!”

Jun 30, 2014 11:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

The Supreme Court is in error (yet, again) in allowing employers to ask for an exemption on religious grounds.

In essence, the Supreme Court is allowing an employer to deny “freedom of religion” as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

In other words, the employer is forcing the employee to accept the religious beliefs of the employer, which is a violation of the employees’ civil rights.

The fact that contraceptive devices may be available in the market is immaterial. It is the fact of an employee being singled out by the employer for what is nothing less than “religious persecution”.

Jun 30, 2014 11:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Oh well. Can’t win them all. Obviously, I would have preferred a different decision here, but it is a relatively narrow ruling and does little to affect the ACA. Hobby Lobby gets to go bare back. Not my problem.

Jun 30, 2014 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
lotuslandjoe wrote:

This is unbelievably wrong.
Nobody should be able to deny someone else treatment that their doctor will recommend.

Jun 30, 2014 11:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Freedom on the ground of religion, choose;

Jun 30, 2014 11:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RichardJR wrote:

What’s next? Christian Scientist owners object to healthcare entirely?

Jun 30, 2014 11:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
liberatedmind wrote:

this was already possible people..

all they had to do was submit a form stating religious reasons prevent them from providing coverage and at that point the company doesnt have to pay for it the insurance company is required by law and still is required by law to cover it, period. Nuns are not the only people working at catholic facilities

Jun 30, 2014 11:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RockyBob wrote:

Whatever happened to the idea “shall make no laws pertaining to the establishment of religion”? It cuts both ways; the founding fathers feared government suppression of religion, but they also feared government imposition of religious craziness on the rest of us. Giving special exemptions and privileges to some religious entities certainly violates the founding fathers intentions.

Jun 30, 2014 11:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RichardJR wrote:

Moonhill this particular ruling was about birth control, but, it opens the door for any religious belief to be used as an excuse by a business. Why is any other firmly held religious belief different from this particular one?

Jun 30, 2014 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

Hawk420- Hahaha. You guys are a joke. If women want pills, they can have pills. A business should not be forced to supply them. I can see it now, if the decision went the other way and a woman had a reaction to said ills, could she sue that company for buying them for her? See how stupid that sounds? Forcing companies to buy pills for women is wrong.

Jun 30, 2014 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DonD1977 wrote:

Relitigating the social progress of the past 50 years only further marginalizes social conservatives – this is the kiss of death for buseinesses that follow Hobby Lobby’s lead.

Jun 30, 2014 11:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

Raptor666

It is interesting that you represent a company from the Middle East where religious intolerance has led to sectarian violence, yet feel vindicated by this Supreme Court ruling that increases religious intolerance in the US.

This is not about morality in terms of pro-life or pro-abortion, it is about the rights supposedly guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Your statement that religious beliefs take precedence over the US Constitution is very disturbing, since what you would rather have is the US descend into civil war to preserve your religous beliefs, by denying others the same right.

Your statement is disturbing because that is where this nation is headed with the new liberalism and multicutural movements, that personal beliefs are more important than civil law that treats all people equally in terms of race, religion, national origin, etc.

This nation will not survive if the present trend continues.

Jun 30, 2014 11:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Another example of the religious right demanding special treatment, at the expense of just plain folk that happen to be connected to them by work, but don’t necessarily adhere to there right wing crazy religion.

I could see if the worker had accepted a position with a church, or religious service group, but why do non religious people, have to be held to the archaic standard of the owners faith??

After all, this is the 21st century folks….

Jun 30, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

@Quiet In every company I have ever worked for they have shown me the benefits plan and what my costs will be. it’s pretty simple, as I had the choice to choose or not. Much like in the 1980′s when companies had fertility benefits, only to find the costs were exorbitant to the detriment of all employees. So they cancelled that benefit.

Hobby Lobby basically said “our plan does not include these “benefits”"–and they would not subsidize them. Period. If an employee does not like that restriction they can (a) pay for them or (b) not join the company. Pretty simple, AND it does not restrict any employee’s ability to secure those services elsewhere. So this is a victory for the Constitution.

The company said we will not provide that benefit in our medical plan for moral reasons.

@Hawk and since the POTUS has unilaterally postponed implementation of the ACA on numerous occasions, it is HIS signature legislation–promoted by HIS party without one Republican vote. Do not obfuscate the fact that he has embraced it and flogged it all along the way. His signature legislation is the disaster (legally, financially, implementation) that even the mot objective individuals said it would be. Social engineering under the guise of health insurance. Obviously, you haven’t read the actual legislation.

Jun 30, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jakku wrote:

Seriously, are these companies living in the 15th century? Where does it say in the bible that contraception is bad. That belief is based purely on the unscientific notion that life begins at birth. It does not and is not supported by medical knowledge. Are these justices really any good sitting there and voicing their personal bigoted opinions when the large body of scientific kknowledge refutes their beliefs. What is the use of a court that always rules on their personal beliefs rather than on the constitution? This is absolutely a blow to health and the wellbeing of women. Contraception is the primary source of prevention of many diseases that can be transmitted to women. I will never shop at Hobby Lobby again. They can go to hell.

Jun 30, 2014 11:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jay1963 wrote:

It’s distressing to see people pretending that this decision liberates citizens from government overreach. The Court has removed important employees’ protections against the arbitrary dictates of their employers. Empowering low-income workers to seek decent benefits is one of the many great gifts of the Affordable Care Act.

Jun 30, 2014 11:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RockyBob wrote:

JustMan, you’ve got it all wrong. Our country prospered in the 50s and 60s largely because of a highly progressive taxation rate and unions, in a way that we’ve not seen since. Ronald Reagan’s war on unions and his crazy trickle down theory have been the undoing of our robust economy. New Yorker magazine had it right in a cartoon. Showed a Reagan style fatcat bemoaning trickle-down. “The problem with trickle-down is, it means there’s a damned leak!”

Jun 30, 2014 11:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
andyoo wrote:

you have the right to not work for those that does not provide you every type of healthcare…just like they have rights to not to provide you every type of healthcare.
It’s a compensation package…you don’t have to take it.
I don’t see a problem here.
government should not be telling everyone to do exactly what they liked.
it’s a bad week for obama in the court…losing every battle because he had pushing the limit too much.
Now he is asking 2 billion of tax money to deal with the illegal immigrant childs…it does not take 2 billion to hire buses to send them back to Mexico.

Jun 30, 2014 11:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jay1963 wrote:

It’s distressing to see people pretending that this decision liberates citizens from government overreach. Empowering low-income workers to seek decent benefits is one of the chief advantages to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Court has now removed a vital protection for workers from the arbitrary dictates of their employers.

Jun 30, 2014 12:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
andyoo wrote:

“kiss freedom goodbye….unless you’re white rich and Christian.”
what freedom? freedom for government to tell your business what your compensation package should be?
boss should give what they want to give and you have the freedom to not work for them and go to competitors that give better package.
now that is freedom. not required by obamacare freedom…
you guys did twist stuff around.

Jun 30, 2014 12:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jay1963 wrote:

It’s distressing to see people pretending that this decision liberates citizens from government overreach. Empowering low-income workers to seek decent benefits is one of the chief advantages to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Court has now removed a vital protection for workers from the arbitrary dictates of their employers.

Jun 30, 2014 12:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lazywolf wrote:

Thank you, SCOTUS. Three great decisions in as many days. How do you like us now, Barry?

Jun 30, 2014 12:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash0866 wrote:

Poor Sandra Fluke…

Jun 30, 2014 12:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
andyoo wrote:

you don’t have rights for birth control under the consitution… just saying.

Jun 30, 2014 12:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash0866 wrote:

The right thing was done. Glad to see it. Let’s hope the tide continues to change. I think we have had enough of the fundamental transformation. I just hope we change it back before more damage is done. Have a nice day!!

Jun 30, 2014 12:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CM4 wrote:

No American should have to accept that he/she has to violate his/her religious beliefs in order to start a business. If a worker wants access to contraception or abotion as part of his/her employer-provided health care coverage, then go to work for an employer who offers that coverage. Don’t take a job with an employer who does not offer that coverage and then try to use the courts as a weapon to force your will on the empoyer.

Jun 30, 2014 12:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NeilMurray wrote:

So corporations really are persons: they can have religions. How do they get to church, chapel, temple, whatever? On the wings of the dove? Of course, the best solution to this travesty is for employees of affected companies to seek jobs elsewhere. And I for one will never patronize Hobby Lobby.

Jun 30, 2014 12:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Plenty of other businesses got complete waivers from Obamacare. Why is anyone upset that Hobby Lobby is not being forced to pay for the morning after pill? Where in the Constitution does it say anyone has a right to free contraception or free healthcare?

Jun 30, 2014 12:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Evo1 wrote:

This is an extremely stupid decision. What if a corporation doesn’t want to pay for coverage for childhood vaccinations, or surgery, or any medical treatment at all? Can they just claim to belong to one of the several religions that oppose such procedures?

Alito is simply wrong: a corporation isn’t just a “group of people”. His definition of a corporation as an organization by a group of people for a particular purpose is no different than the definition of a government. To somehow extend INDIVIDUAL rights to such a group stands the whole concept of such rights on its head. The whole point of rights is to protect the individual from the power of people organized into a group, because the Founding Fathers understood that such organized groups tend to try to force their beliefs and values on others, leveraging the power of the group to overcome the rights of the individual.

Jun 30, 2014 12:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Obama gave complete waivers from Obamacare to his friends, delayed the employer mandate when it looked like it would be detrimental to Democrats running for reelection. Now the liberals have their panties in a bunch because the SCOTUS ruled that Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to provide the morning after pill. I’m loving it!

Jun 30, 2014 12:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

EconCassandra wrote: “”It is the fact of an employee being singled out by the employer for what is nothing less than “religious persecution””.
NOT TRUE. Nobody is being singled out. Whether you use BC or not, no company should have to pay for you. Please show us how anyone is “singled out”??????

Jun 30, 2014 12:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
olepcola wrote:

My problem with this is the notion that corporations are capable of religious beliefs. They are not. What this amounts to is religious bigotry, in which, to my amazement, a things religious beliefs were held above a person’s rights. Corporatism to the max. We are not a capitalistic economy, we are servants to corporations now. Not as bad as a king, I hope. The king at least had to worry about the peeps as they may come and lynch him.
And to say in the opinion that htis only applies to contraception, means that the justices who voted for it, knew it was bad law, see Bush v Gore.
When a ruling is said to only work in one instance it is bs.

Jun 30, 2014 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mickymanatiso wrote:

having sex is a choice not a medical condition. Why should a company have to pay for that . And as far as religion goes I think they want you to be married and not casual sex from the bar. People just translate the Bible to fit their needs at the moment.

Jun 30, 2014 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MyInput wrote:

I think that our healthcare system needs an overhaul. Should not be dependent on employers, ridiculous!!
Having said that, this current decision is just as ridiculous, as, employers can now chalk up anything they don’t want to cover on religious beliefs. So, now, before you accept a job offer, you’ll need to find out what the religious beliefs are of the owner\ceo\whatever.

Jun 30, 2014 12:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MyInput wrote:

I think that our healthcare system needs an overhaul. Should not be dependent on employers, ridiculous!!
Having said that, this current decision is just as ridiculous, as, employers can now chalk up anything they don’t want to cover on religious beliefs. So, now, before you accept a job offer, you’ll need to find out what the religious beliefs are of the owner\ceo\whatever.

Jun 30, 2014 12:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
olepcola wrote:

If you respect the notion of the SCOTUS, do not read this decision. It is so convoluted as to be putrifying. Accept it as the law of the land, accept the messy consequences, but do not read it. To get to this decison they to build a maze of legal manuevering that could and can never be duplicated.
Money = Specch
Corporations = People
Corporations > People

Jun 30, 2014 12:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SCGuardian wrote:

Just another instance of the Supreme Court upholding a Religious belief of a Corporation over the benefit of the Citizen Worker. In doing this, they, the Supreme Court’ have open the door for every Business, whether or not a Corporation, to entangle the ACA Act in Lawsuits based upon whatever criteria they profess to believe in or not to believe in. What if some company filed a lawsuit that stated they believed in faith-healing or say, Scientology and they didn’t believe in Medicines or Doctors. Will the Supreme Court say that that company didn’t have to participate in the ACA and that the Workers were on their own? Quite possibly!!!!!!

Jun 30, 2014 12:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlock1965 wrote:

I’m not sure what the big deal is about contraceptives has part of a medical insurance prescription package. If it is not included, then use condoms!! Cheaper and easily accessible!! GEEZZ!!

Jun 30, 2014 12:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I cannot wait until some Muslim business owner decides to use this ruling to force Islamic beliefs onto a Christian. We’ll see how much they support religious freedom THEN.

(Of course, they don’t support religious freedom at all – they support the right for Christians to impose their will on all society…in other words, they support Sharia Law)

Jun 30, 2014 12:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

@ COindependent, moonhill and a whole lot of others who don’t seem to get the point of this ruling:

This is NOT simply about an old-style “cafeteria plan”, denying someone the right to medical treatment elsewhere, etc.

What this is about, pure and simple, is allowing an employer to discriminate against an employee simply because their religious beliefs are not the same.

As you said, “the company said we will not provide that benefit in our medical plan for moral reasons”, which is WRONG no matter how you look at it.

It doesn’t even matter what the underlying issue might be, in this case pro-life versus pro-abortion.

THIS IS ABOUT LEGAL RIGHTS, NOT RELIGIOUS MORALITY.

Using the law to force YOUR religious beliefs or perception of morality on someone else is WRONG.

Unless and until the US Constitution is changed to allow religious discrimination, THIS SUPREME COURT RULING IS WRONG!

What is so difficult for you people to understand that fact?

Jun 30, 2014 12:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SCGuardian wrote:

Digressor. Notice that they said Corporations were People a while back? Recent decisions are showing us that they are no longer doing their job for our Citizens but slewing their decisions towards Corporations. Next they might throw out our Freedoms gained over the years and give their bed-mates, the Corporations, the right to define what Rights and Freedoms that our Citizens and Workers are to be entitled to. Da*n the Constitution and Bill of Rights and every Law and Regulation protecting those Rights and Freedoms.

The United States of America may be doomed to become the United Corporations of America very soon, perhaps when the Far Right takes total control of the Presidency and Congress.

Jun 30, 2014 12:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Spm-suze wrote:

How did they get this right, Moonhill and all you others that think this is so great? Not everyone takes birth control pills for birth control. I take them for medical reasons. After all they are hormones and are used for many other purposes than just simply birth control. I have a propensity for tumor growths, this is one way to keep certain types of tumors from growing, so I should just have to risk that because I take a job for a company that has moral objections birth control?

Jun 30, 2014 1:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

JustProduce:

How can there be discrimination when all corporations were being treated the same?

The issue isn’t whether everyone is treated the same. It’s whether everyone is treated the same and treated fairly. I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. Why? Because guess what, they’re not individuals. They are groups with much more power, influence, and money than individuals. Granting them equal rights only allows them to exercise their influence to limit the rights of everyone else by buying elections and lobbying for legislative decisions.

Jun 30, 2014 1:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mwzl wrote:

The supreme court just gave employers the power to impose their personal dogma to employees.
Women are again at the loosing end.

This used to be a decent country

Jun 30, 2014 1:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeBopman wrote:

The real issue will come up when other companies owned by people who are members of a religion that is not Christianity will not be allowed to impose their religious views on their employees, just because their religion is not Christianity. Only Christians will be allowed to force employees from another religion to obey the employer’s religion

Jun 30, 2014 1:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
raptor666 wrote:

oh good… now when I want to hire someone…or fire someone…I will just need to explain how my….religious beliefs…require this of me… thank the gods for the supreme court…now I need not be concerned about the law….

Jun 30, 2014 1:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

This is a major victory for those whose ultimate goal is to establish Sharia Law in the United States. (Sharia Law is defined as “a moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion”.)

The radical rightwing Christians in this country will stop at nothing in their efforts to subvert the Constitution and turn our democracy into a theocracy, where they are allowed to force their moral codes and religious laws on the entire society, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual. Essentially, they want to turn the United States into a western version of Iran.

Watching the right wing conduct themselves the way they have been in the past decade reminds me of a quote from Sinclair Lewis:

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Looks like it has arrived; and it has infested the Supreme Court, half of Congress, and towns & cities all across America.

Jun 30, 2014 1:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
captainhurt wrote:

Making birth control difficult…to create more unwanted humans. Yeah , great idea…NOT!!

Jun 30, 2014 1:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
captainhurt wrote:

Mixing religion and law…a really really bad idea.

Jun 30, 2014 1:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bear87 wrote:

Really astroz. Where is this a victory for the Constitution. You just lost another benefit taken away by your government. I”m guessing you don’t mind that. Basically taking more and more of it away. Hell. My take on it. Lets get rid of all insurance. You own a house and it burns down and you can afford to rebuild – then to bad. Move into an apartment. IF you have a car and can’t afford to pay for it or fix it or the person you run into – then to bad – ride the bus, taxi or better yet walk. You get sick and if you can’t afford the doctor or the hospital – to bad – I guess you’ll have to self medicate.

Jun 30, 2014 1:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

For those of you who have expressed anger at the seeingly arbitrary Supreme Court decisons, there is a solution. I rarely bring this up, except in frustration at the plethora of inane comments, because no one seems to understand how critical this piece of information really is in terms of this endless wrangling over civil rights that is tearing this nation apart (again).

Pay attention to what I am about to say.

———————————–

(1) The US Supreme Court GAVE ITSELF the right of “Judicial Review” in a case called Marbury v. Madison (1801).

(2) “Judicial Review” is a legal concept that the Supreme Court uses to “interpret” the US Constitution.

(3) NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it specifically grant ANYONE the right to interpret what it says.

(4) ALL changes were intended to be by Constitutional Amendment.

(5) In other words, since 1801 the US Supreme Court has been acting in complete violation of the US Constitution, as it was written in 1776.

(6) THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO RULE ON CONSTITUTIONAL CASES LIKE THIS ONE.

(7) THAT is why the US is having so many many problems with civil rights issues.

(8) STOP THE SUPREME COURT FROM ACTING UNLAWFULLY, is the easiest solution to all of this mess.

Jun 30, 2014 1:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

If you don’t like the terms under which you are employed, you have the right to (a) find another job or (b)start your own company and impose your own rules. If you don’t have the skills to do either, then live with it or do something about it. You are a product of the decisions only you can make.

Liberals love the part of imposing rules (and who pays) on other people (For the children, what about the poor? are the common screeds). Why is it they never say “personal responsibility” is just that — personal.

The poor have no obligation or requirement to get pregnant. A woman is legally protected from having uninvited sex. If you don’t want to get pregnant it’s binary–no sex, no pregnancy. If you are not intelligent enough to figure it out, then you shouldn’t be having sex. It’s only in the “modern and informed age of the 21st century” (sarcasm intended) that this is now a political issue promoted by a POTUS who believes you are incapable of making any decision without government influence.

You’re right–you have 100% control of your body. If you cannot control yourself, then it’s your problem–not your employer’s, not mine. Figure it out on your own. And, then you wonder why the out-of-wedlock birth rates are off the chart? Fools!

Jun 30, 2014 1:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jarocks2 wrote:

I think some of you are missing the bigger issue here. This ruling has opened the door for any small business to demand the right to deny employees services on religious grounds. Can’t wait to see companies demanding exemption from labor laws.

Jun 30, 2014 1:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mynameisMJ wrote:

So nice to know that corporations can make life choices for me. Freedomz!

Jun 30, 2014 1:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LordBeaker wrote:

Welcome to Iran

Jun 30, 2014 1:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

As a Liberal with a capital “L,” I want to point out to all the ULTRA conservatives and ULTRA liberals, those who seem to like to use name calling, offer dire predictions about the end of the world, and, in general hate anyone else’s opinions if they don’t share the same opinion, that this is a very LIMITED ruling affecting ONLY a certain type of closely held private corporation. These companies aren’t General Motors in terms of number of stock holders.
This affects the religious sensibilities and values regarding “morning after” type contraceptives, which many believe to be a type of abortion. I do not believe the firms were against all types of contraception, just this one type.
For all my fellow liberals out there, lighten up! This one is not the end of the world. I, by the way, am more liberal than Nancy Pelosi. This one is a done deal. Let’s move on. NEXT TOPIC!

Jun 30, 2014 1:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

Hobby Lobby has always covered contraception. Hobby Lobby has always covered and will continue to cover contraception.

(Lefties, please repeat the above until it sticks. Thanks)

Jun 30, 2014 1:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

As a culture and as a “People”, we must fight to save our FREEDOMS, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we do not, George Orewell’s “1984″ will become our reality and our Government will OWN us. We will become slaves to the political Elite’s whims! Call it a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Jun 30, 2014 2:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

@astroz — The Supreme Court Decision re. Hobby Lobby has profound implications. It was never about contraception, but whether a company may assert religious values in its business practices.

For example, a for profit company may now chose to discriminate against employment of LGBT on religious grounds. The Court would have a difficult time refusing a favorable ruling with the Hobby Lobby case as decided.

A company may observe and enforce Sharia Law as part of their operation. How would the Supreme Court be able to refuse?

Jun 30, 2014 2:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
shatzy48 wrote:

Another politically driven 5-4 decision. We must write very unclear laws since decisions like this are seemingly always 5-4. I guess when the President oversteps his grounds it’s easy to agree on and we get 9-0. At least the opinion suggests an alternative method for obtaining birth control.

Jun 30, 2014 2:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

@Econ Actually, it is the specific task of the SCOTUS to interpret the laws of this country relative to their constitutionality. Otherwise, you run the risk of the liberal majorities in Congress proposing (like the Dems did the year ACA passed) to impose their social engineering on the populace. It is also their task to maintain the separation of power among the three branches–but the libs are on a mission to radically transform this country–so the SCOTUS has no standing with you. If it was George Bush doing the same, you all would be having a conniption.

You also end up with proposals like the FCC to regulate content on the news services–a direct violation of the first amendment. Or cities like Chicago and WDC imposing onerous firearm possession laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Or a POTUS who legalizes illegals in spite of our laws, or runs guns into Mexico.

Or the Boulder county clerk issuing same sex marriage licenses in violation of the state Constitution. I always find it interesting that the libs can overtly ignore the law to suit their needs.

Using that logic, you are promoting anarchy–and you just might get it.

Jun 30, 2014 2:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Dear mynameis MJ–Hobby Lobby is NOT making life choices for anyone. Any employee is free to purchase abortion inducing drugs if they so desire. The SCOTUS said Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to provide them for the employee. Also, the employee is free to work for someone else is they don’t like the benefits at HL.

Jun 30, 2014 2:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RichardJR wrote:

@EconCassandra So who does get to decide what the wording of the constitution means? Every individual gets to decide for themselves?

@Coindependent This has nothing to do with the terms of employment, everything to do with the current law of the land. The current law requires employers to provide this coverage. Except, no of course, it doesn’t if the corporation objects to it on religious grounds.

Jun 30, 2014 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BrianBradshaw wrote:

“Good government should abide by natural law, and, as Catholic Church teaches, natural law prohibits certain things, such as abortion, that Catholics in public life can oppose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

Jun 30, 2014 2:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

@ COindependent –

Typical wealthy (non)soluition based on a “fairy tale” that the US supposedly a level playing field and you are master of your own fate.

Have you personally tried to find a job in this wealthy-run economy, or faced the reality of losing your job without the necessary social connections to become an entrepreneur?

And don’t bother to bring up the fantasy of more education, which only works when the wealthy class hasn’t exported all of our jobs overseas, just so they can get more profit from captial investment.

In a nutshell, this is what is wrong with this nation:

The wealthy class subscribes to the belief in the Protestant Work Ethic, Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism (i.e. survival of the fittest), all neatly wrapped up in the new propaganda package called “American Exceptionalism”.

There is no such thing, nor does the “value system” you proclaim to believe in exist anywhere except in your fevered imagination.

As the saying goes, “walk a mile in my shoes” and I would be willling to listen to what you have to say. As such, your “advice” is nothing more than empty quasi-religious screed, designed only to patronize and demean those who you consider to be less human than you.

I put a question to you, my friend. Based on what each of us has said here today, which of is more human?

Jun 30, 2014 2:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

So now corporations have freedom of religion – freedom to inflict their religion on all their employees.

Jun 30, 2014 2:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
reasonablemom wrote:

Does this mean that an employer who is a devout Christian Scientist is only required to provide a Christian Science healer as their health care benefit even if their employees prefer standard medical care?

Jun 30, 2014 2:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

@ COindependent –

You state, “Actually, it is the specific task of the SCOTUS to interpret the laws of this country relative to their constitutionality”.

Where, EXACTLY, in the US Constitution does it give the SCOTUS the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?

I would be exceedingly interested in having you prove me wrong.

Jun 30, 2014 2:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Thomsonx1 wrote:

Good! Now we have to take down the whole Obama care Scam, The dumb Liberals will say this is some rich whitey thing, when its burdening the working class. Where the freedom in the Obamacare crap? Socialist pig !!!Get your heads out of your pooper

Jun 30, 2014 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

COindependent:

“If it was George Bush doing the same, you all would be having a conniption.”

Actually, no, I wouldn’t. Because an idea stands or falls on it’s own merits, not those of the person delivering it. Your line of thinking is exactly what leads us into partisan bickering and hatred. Stop thinking in black and white. It’s not liberals versus conservatives (or at least it shouldn’t be). Be intellectually honest and accept or reject ideas based on the idea, not which party presents it.

Jun 30, 2014 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Lol, to my liberal friends out there, no worries, there will be other opportunities to undo this decision, especially since demographics are shifting heavily in your favor as time goes on.

It’s only a matter of time before the SCOTUS is just as moderate and centrist as the rest of the country.

Jun 30, 2014 2:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AngryPirate wrote:

Great. Pro-life politicians care more about the unborn child than the born child. Do everything they can to deter responsible family planning but actively fight against any social assistance to support the single mother or couples who can’t afford or are not equipped to raise a child. You can’t expect it to work and it isn’t.

Jun 30, 2014 2:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SixthRomeo wrote:

I don’t think this is over. Legal scholars, especially of the US Supreme Court, will disagree with this decision. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was already found to be unconstitutional; this is NO SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN on people who believe they are superior to their employees. It is about the decisions that companies can tell the corporate slaves what they can do or cannot do. This will be brought up again in the SCOTUS. Personally, I don’t believe any type of contraceptive should be covered by health insurance; as I don’t believe any type of insurance should cover fertility clinics and test tube babies, for all the sense that insurance companies cover these things they may as well cover the purchase of beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages at any bar or store that sells them; including street fairs and carnivals. On the other hand, you touch me with your Islamic religious beliefs; and that is the result of this decision: it says all those Muslims who masquerade as Christians can interfere with your life. Islam is politics, not religion, this places religion in politics and the New Testament denies the Kingdom of God to all those who support such a thing.

Jun 30, 2014 2:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan still covers 16 different contraceptives. There are only 4 that they did not want to cover. The liberals are foaming at the mouth over that.

Jun 30, 2014 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
onemind wrote:

Like it or not, the Constitution gives every citizen the freedom of the free exercise of their religion, to protect primarily the minority from the majority’s ability to oppress them by law. The majority in this nation desires to force all people of faith from the ability to operate a business or profession unless they violate their beliefs, submitting to the will of the majority. This decision is exactly the type of protection the Bill of Rights intended, the tyranny of the majority over the minority in certain areas (such as speech and religon) would be checked. Good decision.

Jun 30, 2014 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DavidPun wrote:

I asked a friend of mine who works at Hobby Lobby. It appears to be true that they have some issues, but from what I understand it is not with contraceptives but with abortifacients, since they believe abortion to be the taking of a human life, which of course it is! HOWEVER, apparently the Hobby Lobby near where I live, is now giving people the chance to either accept the Health Insurance provided by Hobby Lobby, or to receive payment in kind, i.e. they will provide employees with the money it would cost Hobby Lobby to provide the insurance and they can buy their own insurance. The person I know chose the Hobby Lobby policy ….and….lo and behold they are covered for contraceptives!! And the insurance does not report any details of what services are provided to Hobby Lobby so the company.
So I think this is more about an issue of resistance to political correctness and restriction of freedom.

Jun 30, 2014 2:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

Actually OSU–I am non-partisan per my moniker. I think, therefore I do not subscribe to the politicized BS of either party. Harry Reid is as much a dolt as John Boehner.

I think the two major parties, acting in concert, have done significant damage to this country. I despise both R’s and D’s and their politics. Thus, you have our borders totally compromised, politicians become multi-millionaires upon entering the Beltway, while exempting themselves from the same laws they impose on the populace. I despise the corruption that runs through Congress and all the way to the White House, the IRS and the DOJ.

No self-righteous partisan would embrace term limits as the starting point–which I have promoted on numerous occasions. Nor would that same partisan promote a flat-tax, and a balanced budget, which would eliminate the tax code and deficit spending as a means of granting political favors to K street.

Jun 30, 2014 2:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
yubamary wrote:

@COindependent good posts. Hobby Lobby is still covering birth control. If you have birth control why would you need abortion coverage.
I also believe that I heard that Sibelius was the person responsible for putting that into the health care law. She is not a law maker therefore should not have had any input.

I’m sure women that want an abortion are still able to go to some state or federal agency and get one.

If I owned a company I should not be forced to provide something my faith is opposed to. When you go to work for someone they tell you what they will pay and what benefits they will offer you. If you don’t like either or any of them you are free to get a job elsewhere.
I feel the Supreme Court ruled correctly on this.

Jun 30, 2014 3:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
astroz wrote:

I’m amazed at some of the signs people carry and some of the comments regarding this case. Not sure if some are honestly confused or just spreading confusion. No one is being told they can’t use contraception. The ruling simply states that the government can not force employers in some cases to violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to pay for an employees contraception. In the same way, should tax payers (many of whom have deep religious beliefs about abortion) be forced to fund abortion on demand? This case would imply that they should not. And rightfully so.

Jun 30, 2014 3:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
breezinthru wrote:

Christians are a national embarrassment and an impediment to social progress.

I think I now know how the English felt when they ran the many of the Puritans out of England and off to the Netherlands. Netherlanders were famous then for their religious tolerance, but even they could barely tolerate the Puritans.

However, there are too damn many ultra-orthodox Christians in the US to run them all off… a pity. Besides, who would take them?

Jun 30, 2014 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mcoleman wrote:

Hurray for freedom?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t what we have in this decision is a reduction in freedom, i.e. women who work for certain companies will not have insurance based access to contraception?

It’s funny how the Right can interpret a reduction in options as “freedom”, but then again, they are the masters of contradiction.

Mike

Jun 30, 2014 3:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

@ SixthRomeo –

Clearly, this will never be over unless the American people can realize that the SCOTUS’ unlawful interpretations of the US Constitution IS the same underlying problem that lies beneath not just civil rights issues, but directly influences ALL of our tax, trade, banking, economic, environmental, gay rights, marriage and educational problems as well, just to name a few off the top of my head.

The SCOTUS, since it usurped the power of judicial review beginning with Marbury v. Madison (1801), has as a “loose cannon” on the deck of the American judicial system, unlawfully intruding itself into virtually every single case involving the issue of “States Rights”, mainly taking the side of federal government to the dimunition of States Rights, and by that method has denied the Amerian people their own rights under state law.

The US Constitution was NOT written for the benefit of an ever-expanding federal government, but as a limit on federal power.

We are NOT the country the Founders intended, but the country they attempted wisely to prevent.

ALL OF WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS DUE ENTIRELY TO SUPREME COURT MEDDLING WITH OUR BASIC RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE SCOTUS HAS BEEN AN EFFORT TO DENY STATES RIGHTS — AND THUS THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW — IN FAVOR OF THE EXPANSION OF FEDERAL POWER THAT IS NOW BEING MISUSED BY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS THAT ARE DESTROYING THIS NATION.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT WILL TEAR THIS NATION APART.

WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND?

Jun 30, 2014 3:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

captainhurt wrote:
“Making birth control difficult…to create more unwanted humans. Yeah , great idea…NOT!!”

Thanks for pointing that out… you’d think that if the radical right TRULY wanted to reduce abortions as much as possible like they claim, they would be thrilled about things like birth control, condoms and emergency contraceptives. But they hate and oppose those things, too.

Because the truth is, their opposition to abortion is not about “protecting the fetus”, their opposition to contraception is not about “the sanctity of life”, their opposition to sex education is not about “perverting the minds of children”.

The only thing they really care about is punishing women for having sex – because they hate sex and they hate the fact that most people enjoy sex.

They are descended from puritans – to them, the ONLY reason for people to have sexual intercourse is for procreation. And if you ever sex for FUN (you godless sinner, you), without intending to have a child? Well, they are going to do everything in their power to make SURE you have that child so you can suffer those unintended hardships for the rest of your life!

But funny thing about pregnancy… is that it only affects women. So fortunately for the men making these laws, they are not affected by the laws they pass! And they wonder why women feel like they are being persecuted for their gender…

Jun 30, 2014 3:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Funny how the left wants you to believe that birth control by contraception is a disease that must be covered by insurance and not a choice of men and women in this country. Not to mention that contraception is extremely inexpensive. The liberals of the country want to politicize everything in order to use it to be divisive. Next thing you know they will be pushing to force insurers and employers for coverage of marijuana for anyone that wants to sit around high on someone else’s nickel.

Jun 30, 2014 3:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Elizabeth5250 wrote:

White/Native american Christian and the Right Wing Christians are winning in the battle to TAKE my “Freedom of Religion”. To MAKE me lose my my right to believe and live as I Chose and HAVE to live and believe as THEY want me too.

Jun 30, 2014 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
techritter wrote:

Concerned Women (for the declining white population) of America

Jun 30, 2014 3:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Factoidz wrote:

This is a win for American and Americans. NO ONE should be forced to pay for murdering a baby.

Jun 30, 2014 3:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

USofRat wrote: “The only thing they really care about is punishing women for having sex – because they hate sex and they hate the fact that most people enjoy sex.”

This is a classic example of a liberal trying to divide, in this case by sex. It is really quite irrational if you think about what USofRat is saying. Any group that hated sex would cease to exist after a generation or so. Hum, perhaps paying for contraception for all the liberals would not be a bad idea after all…

Jun 30, 2014 3:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

As a Liberal with a capital “L,” I want to point out to all the ULTRA conservatives and ULTRA liberals, those who seem to like to use name calling, offer dire predictions about the end of the world, and, in general, hate anyone else’s opinions if they don’t share the same opinion, that this is a very LIMITED ruling affecting ONLY a certain type of closely held private corporation. These companies aren’t General Motors in terms of number of stock holders.
This affects the religious sensibilities and values regarding “morning after” type contraceptives, which many believe to be a type of abortion. I do not believe the firms were against all types of contraception, just this one type.
For all my fellow liberals out there, lighten up! This one is not the end of the world. I, by the way, am more liberal than Nancy Pelosi. This one is a done deal. Let’s move on. NEXT TOPIC!

Jun 30, 2014 3:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
diluded001 wrote:

I can see both sides having a fairly good argument on this issue. My personal take is that religious freedom is very important. You should be free to worship and make decisions based on your religion. Free right up until it starts costing me money. When one person’s religious belief harms public health and burdens the tax base, that is crossing the threshold into regulated interstate commerce. To those who say you don’t have to work at Hobby Lobby if you don’t like their policy, I would counter Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to stay in business if it violates their religious principles.

Jun 30, 2014 4:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

mcoleman wrote: “”"”Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t what we have in this decision is a reduction in freedom”"”" You are wrong. Any woman at any time in the USA can buy contraceptives. Now you stand corrected.

Jun 30, 2014 4:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
EconCassandra wrote:

Whine, whine, bbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaa … !

Whine, whine bbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa … !

Jun 30, 2014 4:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
timebandit wrote:

Five old male Catholic justices voted to take away women’s reproductive health care choices. The four dissenting justices were female.

American women are not going to forget this, especially younger voters.
Good luck at the polls come November and 2016, GOP.

Jun 30, 2014 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

“”"”ALL OF WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS DUE ENTIRELY TO SUPREME COURT MEDDLING WITH OUR BASIC RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.”"” Can you please point us to the basic right of contraceptives in the Constitution? Thanks in advance :)

Jun 30, 2014 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

If HHS wants to make sure that everyone can get birth control without a co-pay, there are lots of ways to do that without infringing upon anyone’s religious conscience. Indeed, HHS tried to argue that it had no other way to fulfill its purpose even though it already provided exemptions to many others. In providing those other religious exemptions, HHS showed the Court that it can provide exemptions in the pursuit of its goal. This undermined HHS’ argument that it cannot provide the exemption to Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood because that would undermine what it was trying to accomplish.

Jun 30, 2014 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BGoldberg wrote:

Families that decide to expand are still families, private families with their by laws written to mirror their familty values. This ruling was based on that fact. That a family who has convictions that are led by their faith should be exempt because they are a family run business that decided to offer goods and services to the public. This is a family run business that is not open on Sundays, sells products that other believers can purchase, and they are not trying to pretend to be followers of a religion just to get out of something, they are genuine and it was just to allow them the exemption. If you are worried about a woman’s health that works at this place, tell her to either circumvent the company’s insurance and get b.c. another way or just don’t have sex when you are ovulating.

Jun 30, 2014 4:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Factoidz wrote:

Wow, check this guy:
EconCassandra wrote: @ COindependent –
You state, “Actually, it is the specific task of the SCOTUS to interpret the laws of this country relative to their constitutionality”.
Where, EXACTLY, in the US Constitution does it give the SCOTUS the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?
I would be exceedingly interested in having you prove me wrong.

LOL. Go back to 9th grade, they’ll prove you wrong, EconCassandra.

Jun 30, 2014 4:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

reposting Moonhill…”Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan still covers 16 different contraceptives. There are only 4 that they did not want to cover. The liberals are foaming at the mouth over that.”

Are there any lefties here capable of understanding the above sentence? I haven’t seen any yet. Hobby Lobby still covers contraceptives. Are you guys really this ignorant?

Jun 30, 2014 4:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@USofRationality

Very well said.

@4825

It’s pretty obvious he meant that they hate the idea of sex as something people do other than for the expressed purpose of having children.

@ Everyone Else:

The issue here isn’t about contraceptives. It’s about whether a corporation should be granted the right to enforce rules based on a religious affiliation. It’s a question of whether a corporation can even have a religion. Ask yourself…when’s the last time you saw an LLC at church on Sunday? At a Bible study?

Corporations are not individuals, and should not be treated like individuals.

Jun 30, 2014 4:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@COindependent

My apologies for assuming your political stance. I’m certain we disagree about many things, but at least we can agree that partisan politics is a waste of time.

Jun 30, 2014 4:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

@ OSU Accepted–no blood, no foul.

Jun 30, 2014 5:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sspider wrote:

These companies are employers, no matter who owns/runs the company. They are forcing their beliefs on their employees, placing limits on their insurance coverage based on religion. If they choose not to use these products, fine, but what about their employees’ freedoms? As usual , the court rules in favor of the 1%, while the 99% suffers.

Jun 30, 2014 5:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

Wow, where do all you liberals get off thinking that you are somehow “entitled” and “deserve” free birth control/free abortions paid for by your employer?

What is wrong with you people?…seriously.

Jun 30, 2014 6:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

Another example of the American Taliban. Sadly this could lead to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions

Jun 30, 2014 6:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

In the United States, contraceptive use saves about $19 billion in direct medical costs each year.

This has absolutely nothing to do with cost, in fact many believe that the contraceptive use ultimately lowers premiums because family planning is much more costly.

This has everything to do with religious zealots shoving their beliefs on what is effectively a form of compensation. It would be akin to a company paying you in dollars that could only be used in their ‘approved’ locations. Disturbing decision to say the least.

Jun 30, 2014 7:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Not disturbing at all. This decision stops no one from getting contraceptives. It just allows you and me to not be forced to provide those contraceptives for others if we have a religious belief against it. It is an excellent outcome for all Americans. It is the way it was before the disastrous obamacare law and the way it is again. Government should not be able to force citizens to purchase anything.

Jun 30, 2014 7:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
yooper wrote:

Europeans already think the U.S. is being run by yokels. With their socialized healthcare, contraception and abortion are available to anyone who needs either. By respecting science, they have better outcomes and longer life at lower cost than the U.S. The U.S. ranks 37th in the developed world for life expectancy and has the highest rate of unintended pregnancy and abortion. This decision is the result of having 5 Catholic men on the Supreme Court who use their religious dogma to trump science and women’s health.

Jun 30, 2014 8:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

What could possibly be the difference between a religious objection to blood infusions and a religious objection to birth control of any type except that one applies exclusively to women?

Next, companies will refuse to hire single women, or Jews, or gays, or African Americans for religious reasons, and the SCOTUS has just flung the door wide open for that to happen. Companies will suddenly be finding Jesus left and right to save a buck or two.

At some point, SCOTUS is going to have to define which religions can claim exemptions. What about Satanism? What about Islam? Voodoo? Wiccans? It’s going to get messy, and it’s going to get weird.

This is what is likely to happen; they’ll backpedal when their morals actually cost them more from lost customers than paying for birth control coverage.

I was told a couple of months ago that I could find a particular product at Hobby Lobby, but I knew their position on this issue so I bought it somewhere else. So far, Hobby Lobby is down 16 whopping dollars – small potatoes for sure – but I’ll never shop at Hobby Lobby. I vote with my money. I’m hoping a lot more people do the same. It all adds up.

Jun 30, 2014 8:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

@pyradius and crod526….Guys, as moonhill stated, Hobby Lobby still covers around 16 different contraceptives. Do you really believe that by not covering ONLY abortificients (which by the way, can still be bought by the employee), that this will cause a huge spike in unwanted pregnancies? Are you really that ignorant? Really? Please, please, please, lefties, take a critical thinking class.

Jun 30, 2014 8:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Quietthinker, you have it all backwards…hobby lobby is not imposing its beliefs on anyone. it is a private company that the employees can choose to work for or not. they can choose to work for a company that provides the healthcare they want. one of the reasons I choose the company I did was because of its health benefits and other benefits. What the SCOTUS decided was that liberals cannot impose their beliefs on a private company.

Jun 30, 2014 8:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Julsman,
easily, abortion is not “planning”. the family planning takes place prior to jumping in bed or the back seat of a car or where ever and doing what is necessary to prevent a pregnancy…and folks need to accept responsibility for their actions.

Jun 30, 2014 8:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

EconCassandra, you state
“In other words, the employer is forcing the employee to accept the religious beliefs of the employer, which is a violation of the employees’ civil rights.”

That is not correct, the employees have the right to work elsewhere.

Jun 30, 2014 8:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

AlkalineState,
I wish all on the left or the right would approach a decision like you have.

Jun 30, 2014 8:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

RichardJR…
you are touching on something the right needs to think about.

also, imposing Muslim beliefs on others is not correct either. but private companies should have different restrictions and in this case, religious beliefs are not forced on citizens.

Jun 30, 2014 8:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

RichardJR, in this case religious beliefs are not forced on anyone. the employees can evaluate their benefits, just like they do their wages and decide where it is best for them to work.

Jun 30, 2014 8:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

Again, what the clueless non-critical thinking right do not realize (as I posted in my previous comment which they happily ignored) benefits are COMPENSATION. Simple then, since employees are already paying for these as part of an employees compensation, they can simply provide the equal amount of CASH for use on said benefits. Why on earth would anyone think that “health insurance” is different than cash when it comes down to it?

Jun 30, 2014 8:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

So if a corporation decides that people contract cancer because they are being punished for sinning against God, and that they should not have to pay for cancer treatments for such reprobates, there is NOTHING to stop them, right?

Jun 30, 2014 9:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

BENNIE_Q_SHAFT
thanks for that opinion

Jun 30, 2014 9:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

We typically see the left call the folks who disagree with them as “trolls” and as being divisive, hateful, etc. Look at some of these comments from the left (however, the postings of those on the right have not always been polite either):
• When will we be free of the Right Wing tyrants? Just lose one of them and we could get all these bad decisions overturned.
• A shame that the citizenry is hurt, once again, by religious fantasy.
• Next will be end of life drugs in nursing homes, Then Cancer treatments for those that believe it’s “Gods Will” and on and on.
It is disgusting seeing what we are descending to.
• Another example of the religious right demanding special treatment, at the expense of just plain folk that happen to be connected to them by work, but don’t necessarily adhere to there right wing crazy religion.
• I will never shop at Hobby Lobby again. They can go to h3ll.
• I cannot wait until some Muslim business owner decides to use this ruling to force Islamic beliefs onto a Christian. We’ll see how much they support religious freedom THEN.
• The radical rightwing Christians in this country will stop at nothing in their efforts to subvert the Constitution and turn our democracy into a theocracy, where they are allowed to force their moral codes and religious laws on the entire society, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual. Essentially, they want to turn the United States into a western version of Iran.
• Christians are a national embarrassment and an impediment to social progress.
• White/Native american Christian and the Right Wing Christians are winning in the battle to TAKE my “Freedom of Religion”. To MAKE me lose my my right to believe and live as I Chose and I represent a company from the middle east…and this is great news… we don’t plan to hire any ….christian employees….
• HAVE to live and believe as THEY want me too.

Jun 30, 2014 9:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dragonass wrote:

In Michigan, if you are on medicaid not only can you get a prescription to get tylenol or aspirin, but now women can get prescriptions for condoms for their male partners. Many of these people also smoke 3-4 packs of cigs a day, or can afford iphone 5s, or readily admit to illegal drug use (or you find it on a tox screen). Why should we as taxpayers, or businesses for that sake, have to pay for something that is a lifestyle choice and actually a personal responsibility. If you dont want to get pregnant dont have random sex or pay for your own birth control. Perhaps requiring people to have some modicum of self respect, self control, and actual responsibility would require them to act like the intelligent human beings they should be instead of like animals whose rational control and thought is abdicated in the presence of pheromones.

Jun 30, 2014 9:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
purcelc wrote:

If the women of America had balls, they’d not patronize businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, that overtly deprive their employees of the health care benefits that all progressive employers provide.

Jun 30, 2014 9:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

do we believe only those not on the left are hateful and divisive?

Jun 30, 2014 9:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

So I wonder why Hobby Lobby throws their morals out the door when it comes to doing business with China, land of the forced abortion and child labor? Oh right, that actually helps their bottom line. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Jun 30, 2014 10:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
yubamary wrote:

Wow it appears that everyone is making a fuss about Birth Control for women. It takes 2 so how come the men aren’t upset about the fact that women can get birth control pills for free but they can’t get condoms for free. They cost about the same.

So in other words everyone thinks that Birth Control is up to the woman.

I for one think people should pay for their own birth control period.
And please don’t mention that poor people can’t afford it they get theirs free or I should say the taxpayer pays for them.

Somewhere along the line we are supposed to have Personal Responsibility or does that not exist anymore. Does the Government have to be in everything that we do including when we have children, how we feed them, what we feed them when to take them to the doctor when not to when to go to sleep when to get up when to drink water
etc, etc.,

Jun 30, 2014 10:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

We must learn to distinguish between logic, reason, and legal. They are not necessarily synonymous. Obviously our decisions have been along party lines and not always based on what is logical and or reasonable. But too many of us believe based on how we were raised, or taught or influenced to believe.
The questions we must face are: should we let the government decide for us or make our own decisions; whether we should be accountable for our individual decisions (and accept the consequences of our decisions) or live as we wish and expect someone else to bail us out; whether we should make excuses for ourselves and others or understand; whether we should pay or receive retribution for the past or move on (thankful that we have grown, learned and become stronger for the tough times of the past). We must have the opportunity to choose our future, not have it determined by others (and understand we may make the wrong choices and accept the consequences).
The decision by the SCOTUS was reasonable and logical in this case. Workers have a choice and in this case a lot of choices other than Hobby Lobby. No one is forced to believe as a Christian. Benefits are compensation just as an hourly wage and the employee can discern if this acceptable prior to employment or even after employment. It is not forcing anyone to have a baby they do not want. Those opposed to this decision really need to study it to understand it and not jump to conclusions.
Concerning the behavior of some Christians, consider Gandhi’s statement:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Jun 30, 2014 10:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I was really hoping someone would answer this question:

So if a corporation decides that people contract cancer because they are being punished for sinning against God, and that they should not have to pay for cancer treatments for such reprobates, there is NOTHING to stop them, right?

Jun 30, 2014 10:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

Another fun fact:

“When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare’s contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.”

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

Jun 30, 2014 11:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

Some say keep business’s out out of bedrooms and doctors offices. I think it would be great to keep government out of both places. Government should also stay out of the dictionary – changing the meaning of words – like honesty, transparent, and others.

Jun 30, 2014 11:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Letting companies claim religious liberty flies in the face of 200 years of interpretation. Also, so-called “religious liberties” of companies lets them deny benefits to employees to which they are legally entitled.

Jun 30, 2014 11:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MacMan wrote:

Wow! This is judicial activism on unprecedented scale, by five people who believe in made up deities and talk to them regularly.

Now they have ensouled corporate entities and the rest of us sit in bewilderment, while the insane are running the asylum.

This is why religious people should not be allowed to hold public office: they think the voices in their heads are the highest authority.

Jun 30, 2014 12:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MacMan wrote:

Wow! This is judicial activism on unprecedented scale, by five people who believe in made up deities and talk to them regularly.

Now they have ensouled corporate entities and the rest of us sit in bewilderment, while the insane are running the asylum.

This is why religious people should not be allowed to hold public office: they think the voices in their heads are the highest authority.

Jun 30, 2014 12:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

@MacMan – Amen!

Jul 01, 2014 1:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeBopman wrote:

As somebody else noted, we now have a Supreme Court that believes that corporations are people but women are not.

Jul 01, 2014 3:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013 wrote:
“RichardJR, in this case religious beliefs are not forced on anyone. ”

I don’t have any particular religion. If I want to go to an employer who reuses to provide a particular medication that offends their religion *but not mine*, then they are forcing their religious beliefs onto me.

Jul 01, 2014 3:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Marla wrote:

In addition to voting in your interests (especially at local levels) one of the most powerful tools we have is to organize. In the case of Hobby Lobby and their ilk, we can hobble them by boycotting their establishments and refusing to work for them. We should also let them know precisely how we feel! No money and no employees =’s OUT OF BUSINESS!

Here is the address for their corporate headquarters, let’s start a snail mail avalanche.

David Green (CEO and Founder)
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
7707 S.W. 44th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73179

Jul 01, 2014 4:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin, your logic is not logical. any insurance policy has options. the insurer can choose what options are best for their situation. the insurance provider offers the different options at different prices. the insurer can choose which coverage which is suitable (justifiable). an employer offers different wages based on skills, experience, etc. employers have offered different wages and different benefit packages based on the need for workers. the worker makes their decision based on the total compensation package (including wages and benefits). its all about choices, which you and many of your lefty buddies are obviously against.

Employers have to compete for the competent employee.

this law applies to privately owned companies, not all companies. As you have stated many times about repubs and righties, their comments are along party lines and they get their opinions from FOX and their politicians.
Bakhtin, your are the hypocrite in this situation. This is decision that is in the middle and yet you hold the leftist view.

using your example, if nation X allows a person to pray in a school, and nation Y, does not, then nation Y is forcing their belief system on that person.

yes the many on the right are cheering and many on the left are crying and ranting.

let me ask you a question, if a an private company owned by agnostics choose not to offer the option or some other benefit for financial or other reasons (other than “religious”), would you find that acceptable?

as you have stated about the righties, the lefties comments are rants and they appear to want organize “harass” them (i.e., crucify them for their belief).

Jul 01, 2014 5:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USARealist wrote:

@Maria – kudos to you. You are the only leftie who disagrees with this ruling that seems to understand freedom. Don’t like Hobby Lobby lefties? Then don’t work or shop there. Hopefully you will rub off on your authoritarian leftie brethren.

@ready2013 – spot on. I apologize to the lefties for any insults I hurled. I’m genuinely frustrated so many do not understand this case.

Jul 01, 2014 7:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013 wrote:
“Bakhtin, your logic is not logical. any insurance policy has options. the insurer can choose what options are best for their situation.”

Then show me the car insurance that doesn’t cover the third party.

Jul 01, 2014 7:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

Marla —- So, let’s boycott a company because they believe in the right to life? Is that what you are saying? I am not religious AT ALL, but if the owner or owners of a company have a certain belief, why can you not simply respect it? So Hobby Lobby won’t provide contraception, go buy it on your own. I think lefties are mad because Obama got slapped on the wrist…again.

Jul 01, 2014 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

CSParty wrote:
“it is a drug that you are required to make a choice to use.”

Yet you want to take that choice away and give it to an employer? Your argument is incoherent.

Jul 01, 2014 11:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

Bakhtin —– It’s a contraceptive and people can buy them if they want, reqardless of what any company thinks. Now I realize there are people like you that want things given to them, but contraceptives are a choice, not a necessity.

Jul 01, 2014 1:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CSParty wrote:

Bakhtin wrote: “”"”Yet you want to take that choice away and give it to an employer?”"”" Wow, so you are suggesting that Hobby Lobby decides whether a worker can take a contraceptive? The employer can’t stop anyone from taking them, but if their belief is not to use them, maybe Obama should have written the law differently. NOBODY can stop a person from choosing a pill, but pay for it yourself.

Jul 01, 2014 1:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

CSParty wrote:
“people like you want things given to them”

I see that the idea of working for a living and getting health insurance as part of the salary package is unknown to you.

CSParty wrote:
“Wow, so you are suggesting that Hobby Lobby decides whether a worker can take a contraceptive?”

If Hobby Lobby refuse to provide the insurance that provides the individuals choice of contraceptive, how can that individual choose to obtain that contraceptive? It is no longer in the insurance package – who made that decision: Hobby Lobby or not?

Your FoxBot line of “Waaaah… they can buy it themselves” is ridiculous. They could buy the whole healthcare insurance themselves. Those who get shares as part of their salary could buy them themselves. People who have a car provided could buy their own car. The real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world many employers offer alternatives to cash as part of the income package which commonly include health insurance.

The issue here is not whether they could buy it themselves, but whether it is morally acceptable for a business like Hobby Lobby to push their religion onto employees by dictating that they will only provide insurance that fits their religious beliefs.

You clearly admire the concept of religious belief trumping secular law. I don’t.

Jul 02, 2014 1:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

ready2013

Radical Islam supports laws being made based on religious belief. You support laws being made based on religious belief. The principle is the same.

In a secular country, state laws over-ride religious beliefs. What Hobby Lobby *should* have done, if they are really so stupid as to have a religious issue with providing insurance that provides a contraceptive they imagine their god would not like, is provide no insurance and give their employees a cash alternative so they can buy their own insurance. Problem solved.

Instead, Hobby Lobby decided to be activist and divisive and turn it into a conflict between religion and law. The SC supported religion. So do you. So do Islamic radicals.

Jul 02, 2014 1:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin, no the liberals are the ones making this an issue. your first statement concerning support of laws being made based on religious belief is superficial…all laws except laws based on scientific fact is a law based on some belief of what is acceptable or not acceptable.
the real issue here is a privately owned company is allowed to offer benefits it chooses to or not to offer benefits…That is really the issue. My company makes those choices every year…what health benefit package should we offer and what cost is it…

the problem is liberals want to dictate what other do and don’t (just as they accuse the right of) and the liberals are making this a bigger issue than it is…that’s the way they get attention and try to get supporters…when protesters were asked what “medicines” were in question, most could not answer.

your question about third party & insurance…if I understand your question, let me say this. insurers offer insurance based on “demand” or what they feel is necessary to sale a policy and the associated cost (risk). They will offer base policies and offer options on top of that. There appears to be no relation to your question and the hobby lobby issue.
you say that hobby lobby should have…first it is hobby lobby that is running the business, making the investment, taking the risk and providing folks the opportunity to work. their appeal to potential employees is their total compensation package (wages, health benefits, sick & vacation policy, life insurance, etc.). thus, they make choices (which obviously the liberals do not like folks being able to make choices) that will affect who will be interested in working with them, and the better the benefits, the potential for better workers.
Liberals do not want to consider all of this…many workers (and politicians who have not grown up/matured in the business word) do not understand the complexity of running a “successful” business and thus have all these “ideas” and “answers” on how the business should be run.

concerning belief systems (i.e. religion or lack thereof), all folks have a belief system (i.e., religious beliefs)…some Christian, some Muslim, Hindu, agnostic, etc. and all have faith. not every decision a person makes is based on scientific/engineering evaluations and self verification.

Jul 02, 2014 8:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

But I do want to add this…this is a critical and scary issue for both the left and right, the liberal and the conservative, the religious and non-religious.

When people have choices, there is always a risk associated with the decision. Martin Luther King Jr., made choices, Christ made choices, Gandhi made choices, Mandela made choices and some of the consequences of such choices meant deep sacrifices. There are choices individuals make and nations make. And there will be consequences of these.

I do not believe Christians, those on the right, conservatives, understand fully what the consequences of some of their initiatives may lead to. But as I have stated, I do not believe the liberals/ left understand how to implement their ideals…they do not look into the details enough and are more concerned with a voter base.

Jul 02, 2014 8:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MacMan wrote:

@CSParty

What part of “corporations cannot hold beliefs” do you not understand?

The only reason these religious nuts on the Court “ensouled” a corporate entity is because it it required by the mythology they believe in, so they decided that mythology trumps federal law. This is after every single one of them said during the confirmation hearings that their religion will not impact their decisions on the bench.

How about if your employer decides that they will opt out of covering your prostate exam, because they find it offensive to their religion?

Hobby Lobby has no problem investing in companies which make contraceptives, so their refusal to comply with federal law is inconsistent, as well as nutty.

And “Obama” didn’t get “slapped on the wrist,” the Affordable Care Act was dully passed by Congress and then signed into law by President Obama.

Why do people who talk to invisible voices believe that such beliefs should be exempt from the law, as it applies to all of us.

Never vote for anyone religious. These people should be on medication and have infested this country and turning pockets of it into the Christian equivalent of the Taliban: guns, god and “your laws do not apply to me.”

Jul 02, 2014 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MacMan wrote:

@CSParty

What part of “corporations cannot hold beliefs” do you not understand?

The only reason these religious nuts on the Court “ensouled” a corporate entity is because it it required by the mythology they believe in, so they decided that mythology trumps federal law. This is after every single one of them said during the confirmation hearings that their religion will not impact their decisions on the bench.

How about if your employer decides that they will opt out of covering your prostate exam, because they find it offensive to their religion?

Hobby Lobby has no problem investing in companies which make contraceptives, so their refusal to comply with federal law is inconsistent, as well as nutty.

And “Obama” didn’t get “slapped on the wrist,” the Affordable Care Act was dully passed by Congress and then signed into law by President Obama.

Why do people who talk to invisible voices believe that such beliefs should be exempt from the law, as it applies to all of us.

Never vote for anyone religious. These people should be on medication and have infested this country and turning pockets of it into the Christian equivalent of the Taliban: guns, god and “your laws do not apply to me.”

Jul 02, 2014 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

MacMan…first of all, you have a religion…it is yourself that you worship.

second, you want to group “all contraceptives” into your decision to strengthen your argument which makes it a false argument,

third, you want to assume folks with religion cannot make objective decisions…maybe you need to look at science, technology and engineering a little differently…many of the research, practices, and designs were made by religious people…and they work.

Comparing Christianity to the Taliban is nothing short of idiotic…

As any decision…if an insurance policy or compensation wasn’t what I expected or wanted, I would look elsewhere or negotiate…not demand I get it for free.

you are concerned about these folks letting their religious backgrounds influence their decisions…well?

Jul 02, 2014 2:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

Bakhtin,
Fact…insurance companies offer options above the base plans…its nonsense if you believe otherwise.

Fact…you do have a belief (faith based lifestyle)…you trust the designers of auto, trains, airlines….I am sure you did not design, build and inspect these so you do trust…that is faith

Fact…religion has not been placed above the law…no one is forced to have a specific belief or support a specific religion. A privately owned company would like to choose its compensation package…the package is not based on the employee believing as the employer, the employee has choices

I doubt you have any clue what the Average Republican understands …I would like to see the average IQ of the demos in the south…

you skirt the issues… actually you make your point well…all should support your opinions, your opinions are always right. you believe family owned business cannot choose what they want to offer as a compensation policy…you want the government to dictate wages, compensation and tell folks what they can’t believe…

concerning a belief in an “imaginary deity”, prove that there isn’t.

who has said that “an imaginary deity will not like it”? this is a strong indication you do not understand a belief in a higher set of standards (other than the ones you have settled on). based on the liberal’s statements, it is obvious why they do not want a deity to exist. Liberals are scared they will be held accountable. it is clear why the religious want to believe in a higher power, they hope that somehow the evil folks in the world will be held accountable for their actions.

it’s amazing you cannot see a difference in the practice of Islamic government and the decision this week. you obviously do not want to evaluate too deeply…you would rather consider them the same…that way you can simplify your argument…it would be too painful to question your own belief system.

of course, I don’t believe you chose to answer my specific questions…you seem to jump around them…just like you accuse others of doing.

enjoy the 4th…it is only in this great country can we enjoy discussion like this and still be united.

Jul 03, 2014 1:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.