Appeals Court: Hobby Lobby Can Challenge Contraception Mandate

[Jroc]

Still fighting the good fight

Appeals Court: Hobby Lobby Can Challenge Contraception Mandate, And Will Likely Win

DENVER (AP) — An appeals court said Thursday that Hobby Lobby and a sister company that sells Christian books and supplies can fight the nation's new health care law on religious grounds, ruling the portion of the law that requires them to offer certain kinds of birth control to their employees is particularly onerous, and suggesting the companies

shouldn't have to pay millions of dollars in fines while their claims are considered. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said the Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain, along with Mardel bookstores, not only can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn a portion of the Affordable Care Act, but can probably win. The judges unanimously sent the case back to a lower court in Oklahoma, which had rejected the companies' request for an injunction to prevent full enforcement of the new law. "Hobby Lobby and Mardel have drawn a line at providing coverage for drugs or devices they consider to induce abortions, and it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable,

" the judges wrote. "The question here is not whether the reasonable observer would consider the plaintiffs complicit in an immoral act, but rather how the plaintiffs themselves measure their degree of complicity."

Appeals Court: Hobby Lobby Can Challenge Contraception Mandate, And Will Likely Win | CNS News

 

[OriginalShroom]

Wonderful.

There is no way that Obama or anyone else would require a Muslim Business owner to supply Pork Sandwiches to their employees.

 

[g5000]

I am stipulating that what was reported in the opening post is accurate, without reading the actual decision. CNS News is a hack yellow journalism site.

While I applaud the court's decision to protect the first amendment in the case of employer's being forced to provide birth control coverage in violation of their religious beliefs, I am deeply troubled by the court allowing the plaintiff to use irrational thinking in deciding what is in violation of those beliefs.

In so many words, the court said if the bookstore owner believes the color red causes abortions then it is okay for the bookstore owner to ban the color red.

...it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable...

That's nuts.

But I firmly believe no employer should be forced to provide actual birth control coverage if that violates their religious beliefs.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I am stipulating that what was reported in the opening post is accurate, without reading the actual decision. CNS News is a hack yellow journalism site.

While I applaud the court's decision to protect the first amendment in the case of employer's being forced to provide birth control coverage in violation of their religious beliefs, I am deeply troubled by the court allowing the plaintiff to use irrational thinking in deciding what is in violation of those beliefs.

In so many words, the court said if the bookstore owner believes the color red causes abortions then it is okay for the bookstore owner to ban the color red.

...it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable...

That's nuts.

But I firmly believe no employer should be forced to provide actual birth control coverage if that violates their religious beliefs.

Actually that is the standard now.


I've been trying to find the article I had read not too long ago.. But the general gist of it was that it is not longer what a "reasonable" person would find offensive, but what anyone would find offensive. This was in dealing with offensive material. The article pointed out that a news magazine that had a photo of a woman breastfeeding on the cover is now considered too offensive to have out in public, especially in an area where a woman may see it.

 

[Clementine]

I am stipulating that what was reported in the opening post is accurate, without reading the actual decision. CNS News is a hack yellow journalism site.

While I applaud the court's decision to protect the first amendment in the case of employer's being forced to provide birth control coverage in violation of their religious beliefs, I am deeply troubled by the court allowing the plaintiff to use irrational thinking in deciding what is in violation of those beliefs.

In so many words, the court said if the bookstore owner believes the color red causes abortions then it is okay for the bookstore owner to ban the color red.

...it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable...

That's nuts.

But I firmly believe no employer should be forced to provide actual birth control coverage if that violates their religious beliefs.

Actually that is the standard now.


I've been trying to find the article I had read not too long ago.. But the general gist of it was that it is not longer what a "reasonable" person would find offensive, but what anyone would find offensive. This was in dealing with offensive material. The article pointed out that a news magazine that had a photo of a woman breastfeeding on the cover is now considered too offensive to have out in public, especially in an area where a woman may see it.

Yup, big brother says it's necessary, in every aspect of life, to cater to the least sophisticated people among us. Sadly, that group is growing in leaps and bounds, thanks to government interference in schools and everything else. If you're a reasonably intelligent person, be prepared to bend over for the idiots or big brother will kick your ass.

It should have simply been a matter of not forcing people to do something against their religion, though we're already in trouble because one has to come up with a valid reason to stop government from dictating virtually everything. And it's only a good reason if they say it is okay. There is no more deciding for yourself what you will or won't support. You no longer have that choice. Welcome to the transformed America where liberty and freedom have been traded in for servitude to government.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am stipulating that what was reported in the opening post is accurate, without reading the actual decision. CNS News is a hack yellow journalism site.

While I applaud the court's decision to protect the first amendment in the case of employer's being forced to provide birth control coverage in violation of their religious beliefs, I am deeply troubled by the court allowing the plaintiff to use irrational thinking in deciding what is in violation of those beliefs.

In so many words, the court said if the bookstore owner believes the color red causes abortions then it is okay for the bookstore owner to ban the color red.

...it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable...

That's nuts.

But I firmly believe no employer should be forced to provide actual birth control coverage if that violates their religious beliefs.

Why is that nuts? I don’t have a problem if you wish to ban the color red on your own property within your own business. There is nothing wrong with that. You have a right to be an idiot and you have a right to ram your company into the ground.

 

[g5000]

I am stipulating that what was reported in the opening post is accurate, without reading the actual decision. CNS News is a hack yellow journalism site.

While I applaud the court's decision to protect the first amendment in the case of employer's being forced to provide birth control coverage in violation of their religious beliefs, I am deeply troubled by the court allowing the plaintiff to use irrational thinking in deciding what is in violation of those beliefs.

In so many words, the court said if the bookstore owner believes the color red causes abortions then it is okay for the bookstore owner to ban the color red.

...it is not for us to question whether the line is reasonable...

That's nuts.

But I firmly believe no employer should be forced to provide actual birth control coverage if that violates their religious beliefs.

Why is that nuts? I don’t have a problem if you wish to ban the color red on your own property within your own business. There is nothing wrong with that. You have a right to be an idiot and you have a right to ram your company into the ground.

You and Clementine actually get to the gist of the actual problem. The actual problem is the government telling people how to run their business down to that level to begin with. That someone has to go to court to fight over whether or not they have to provide birth control to their employees is the real insanity in this whole mess.

The federal government is way, way, way outside its intended boundaries.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am stipulating that what was reported in the opening post is accurate, without reading the actual decision. CNS News is a hack yellow journalism site.

While I applaud the court's decision to protect the first amendment in the case of employer's being forced to provide birth control coverage in violation of their religious beliefs, I am deeply troubled by the court allowing the plaintiff to use irrational thinking in deciding what is in violation of those beliefs.

In so many words, the court said if the bookstore owner believes the color red causes abortions then it is okay for the bookstore owner to ban the color red.



That's nuts.

But I firmly believe no employer should be forced to provide actual birth control coverage if that violates their religious beliefs.

Why is that nuts? I don’t have a problem if you wish to ban the color red on your own property within your own business. There is nothing wrong with that. You have a right to be an idiot and you have a right to ram your company into the ground.

You and Clementine actually get to the gist of the actual problem. The actual problem is the government telling people how to run their business down to that level to begin with. That someone has to go to court to fight over whether or not they have to provide birth control to their employees is the real insanity in this whole mess.

The federal government is way, way, way outside its intended boundaries.

We certainly agree on that point. Unfortunately, most people miss that entirely. Instead the left is busy looking at how popular BC is as though that has any connection with rights and freedoms of the business owners and the right is too busy demanding that religious freedom is allowed without realizing if we simply allowed freedom in the first place this would not be a problem at all.

 

[Moonglow]

How about the freedom of the worker that wants birth control in their medical coverage?

 

[g5000]

How about the freedom of the worker that wants birth control in their medical coverage?

Why should an employer be responsible for your birth control? You can buy it with your wages. Free yourself!

 

[Moonglow]

Why should an employer care about your medical needs at all?

 

[g5000]

Why should an employer care about your medical needs at all?

Exactly. You should be buying your health insurance the same way you buy your life, home, and auto insurance.

That way, you get REAL freedom. Freedom to choose which coverages you want or don't want. Freedom to pick from a wide variety of insurance companies from anywhere in the US. And you don't automatically lose your health insurance if you lose your job. And you get long time customer discounts for staying with the same insurance company even if you switch jobs.

FREEDOM!

 

[g5000]

Why should an employer care about your medical needs at all?

Why should an employer be responsible for your sex life?

 

[Agit8r]

It should be interesting to see if SCOTUS does some 5-4 precedent-overturning activism in favor of Hobby Lobby.

 

[g5000]

It should be interesting to see if SCOTUS does some 5-4 precedent-overturning activism in favor of Hobby Lobby.

According to the OP, the appeals court was unanimous. Not split at all.

 

[Clementine]

Why should an employer care about your medical needs at all?

Exactly. You should be buying your health insurance the same way you buy your life, home, and auto insurance.

That way, you get REAL freedom. Freedom to choose which coverages you want or don't want. Freedom to pick from a wide variety of insurance companies from anywhere in the US. And you don't automatically lose your health insurance if you lose your job. And you get long time customer discounts for staying with the same insurance company even if you switch jobs.

FREEDOM!

You nailed it!!

If only the government would allow health insurance companies to compete the way auto insurance companies do, we'd see great deals. Competition is what brings prices down, not government control.

Auto insurance gets cheaper all the time and they offer more to win you over. Health insurance would be the same way and, like with auto insurance, you'd choose your deductible and level of coverage.

It's a damn good thing that insurance exists. It's not the companies who are evil. Health care costs have gone up and some big pharms seems to have cornered the market. Government killed competition and companies had to cover costs, which meant that big pharms and hospitals could charge whatever they wanted. Many couldn't afford insurance because they were not employed or it was too costly. The rest of us picked up the tab with higher medical bills.

Some can't afford insurance because the government doesn't allow competition across the country. That brings medical costs up since hospitals overcharge the ones with policies. Even with Obamacare, the prices won't go down and everyone will be stuck with higher insurance payments and higher medical bills. And since the insurance companies are forced to cover more things, they have to keep raising prices. Big pharms, which Obama sided with, are the winners in Obamacare. The rest of us are between a rock and a hard place.

Great point that losing one's job mean losing insurance. That was always so screwed up and you couldn't get group rates on insurance without being employed at certain companies. Again, it's that lack of competition and government manipulation.

Government needs to back off rather than exert even more control over private businesses.

 

[Agit8r]

It should be interesting to see if SCOTUS does some 5-4 precedent-overturning activism in favor of Hobby Lobby.

According to the OP, the appeals court was unanimous. Not split at all.

That is beside the point. Precedent states that employers can not force their religion on employees by exempting themselves from federal taxing powers:

Freedom FROM Religion - Broowaha

 

[Moonglow]

many hospitals and clinics are privately owned by the docs and other philanthropist and have been for many years. The cost of healthcare and well as college is due to the amount of pay that is given to the CEO's and CFO's, and other heads of depts.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why should an employer care about your medical needs at all?

He shouldn’t. It is one of the worst developments in the way we purchase healthcare. It is also one of the cornerstones that has been fucking our system up. Many of the problems that we had with the uninsured could be addressed if employees did not always receive healthcare through their employer. Unfortunately, that is a really good setup for the HC company as the company provided a stop gap to cut peoples insurance off.

 

[g5000]

many hospitals and clinics are privately owned by the docs and other philanthropist and have been for many years. The cost of healthcare and well as college is due to the amount of pay that is given to the CEO's and CFO's, and other heads of depts.

Yep. And this allows them to hold geographically limited insurance companies hostage when it comes to negotiating price.

And you are held hostage because your company may only have 50 employees, and therefore absolutely no bargaining power at all. And if one person in your company uses a lot of healthcare, everyone in the company gets their rates raised.

But your auto insurance rates don't go up if someone on the other side of your state has an auto accident.

If our health insurance system was more like all other insurance, we would have buckets of money available to provide compassionate assistance for the catastrophically sick.