Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control

[Jarlaxle]

This ruling will be irrelevant. Insurance companies - even Hobby Lobby's - will still provide contraceptive coverage to women because it's cheaper than the alternatives, i.e. pregnancy.

Dude...just stop, you're humiliating yourself. Hobby Lobby is self-insured!

 

[jknowgood]

corporations are fictitious entities used by individuals to shield themselves from personal liability they exist to allow jurisdiction to be asserted over an entity or by an entity.

they are not humans. no one ever contemplated corporations having first amendment rights.

but the rabid right wouldn't be singing the same tune if islam was the majority religion.

i'm embarrassed by the decisions being issued by this court.

i do however think if you want to claim you have the right to impose your religion on your employees, then you shouldn't be able to shield yourself from liability for debt, or the torts and criminal actions of your corporation

good luck with that.

You speak personal responsibility? Why can't women have that and pay for their birth control, and not demand everyone else pay for it.

Hobby lobby already covered 16 versions. They disagree with you.

Why can't a woman take personal responsibility and pay the $9.00 a month for her own birth control?

 

[OriginalShroom]

i dont care what they are. they already covered 16 of the 20. Im not worried, im patient...the chaos will happen.

You are confusing cases..

Hobby Lobby offered 16 of the 20... They objected to the 4 because they can cause abortions.

These other companies apparently object to all 20. They are also family owned businesses and believe that they should not have to pay for a person to be use contraceptives. Since they are family owned businesses, but the H/L ruling, they have the religious right not to pay for them.

I see no problem with that.

Their employees can still get their contraceptives, they just aren't going to be able to force their employer to pay for them.

no 2 of the 4 do not, the other two i havent researched to see.

I do because now you are cherry picking laws. When you serve the public you are not a private business in that sense.

Just because you start a business, that doesn't mean you lose your religious rights. You can't go into a Kosher Deli and demand non-kosher food or go into a Muslem diner and demand pork.

Women have not lost any rights here... Except the right to demand someone else pay for their contraceptives. A right they never had until Obama became President.

 

[Mr. H.]

How refreshing. Voice being given to Americans. Whoda thunkit?

corporations are fictitious entities used by individuals to shield themselves from personal liability they exist to allow jurisdiction to be asserted over an entity or by an entity.

they are not humans. no one ever contemplated corporations having first amendment rights.

but the rabid right wouldn't be singing the same tune if islam was the majority religion.

i'm embarrassed by the decisions being issued by this court.

i do however think if you want to claim you have the right to impose your religion on your employees, then you shouldn't be able to shield yourself from liability for debt, or the torts and criminal actions of your corporation

good luck with that.

Oh shush.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are confusing cases..

Hobby Lobby offered 16 of the 20... They objected to the 4 because they can cause abortions.

These other companies apparently object to all 20. They are also family owned businesses and believe that they should not have to pay for a person to be use contraceptives. Since they are family owned businesses, but the H/L ruling, they have the religious right not to pay for them.

I see no problem with that.

Their employees can still get their contraceptives, they just aren't going to be able to force their employer to pay for them.

no 2 of the 4 do not, the other two i havent researched to see.

I do because now you are cherry picking laws. When you serve the public you are not a private business in that sense.

Just because you start a business, that doesn't mean you lose your religious rights. You can't go into a Kosher Deli and demand non-kosher food or go into a Muslem diner and demand pork.

Women have not lost any rights here... Except the right to demand someone else pay for their contraceptives. A right they never had until Obama became President.

Thats really not the samething.

 

[Ibentoken]

It was very smart to appoint three leftist women to the court. When they side together as women and against the constitution then the useful idiots can raise their high shrill and claim sexism. Brilliant.

 

[MACAULAY]

As a theoretical matter, as a Constitutional matter, it is perfectly absurd for a woman to expect an employer or the federal government to pay the 9 bucks a month that is costs for birth control.

That is a matter that ought to be between her and the men she hops in bed with. If she chooses to shack up with 9 different men a month, then she needs to get each one to leave a dollar on the table by the bed.

But, as a practical matter, these women who throw themselves on others to handle this matter for them (commonly known as Democrats or Loons) will not make fit mothers...and will likely only produce more Welfare Democrats....and so YES let the Taxpayers and Producers in this country shower these helpless needy people with free condoms and IUDs and Pills.

Put me down as a Liberal Loon on this matter.

And let us hope like hell that they use them...and maybe we ought to sew their legs together if they don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Corporations do not have religious rights.

People who closely hold a company and have a track record of spiritual engagmenent in their business (HL and ChicFilA) do have some very restricted rights.

The lower courts are going to tighten their decision iaw with HL.

In other words, the rulings are not going to make the far right very happy at all.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones


told you so.....

Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

No matter what Alito and other justices may claim, court decisions set precedent and offer opportunities for lower courts to expand the logic of the initial case. (See Bush v. Gore.) The immediate turnaround to broaden the scope of Hobby Lobby won't do anything to dispel fears that the case has opened the way for a broad swath of businesses to object to any government regulation they dislike based on the religious whims of corporate owners.

told you so. this is what you get for a cheap partisan win. You get chaos.

That's exactly right and the majority on the Supreme Court knew exactly what they were doing and people were forewarned about this right here.

Here's what George Takei says about this ensuing problem.

Here's Why George Takei Wants You to Boycott Hobby Lobby | Advocate.com

 

[Stephanie]

It was very smart to appoint three leftist women to the court. When they side together as women and against the constitution then the useful idiots can raise their high shrill and claim sexism. Brilliant.

well, that was the plan
we are so screwed our freedoms are history

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This ruling will be irrelevant. Insurance companies - even Hobby Lobby's - will still provide contraceptive coverage to women because it's cheaper than the alternatives, i.e. pregnancy.

A point I have made more than once, yet you are still whinging about it like a little girl.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones


told you so.....

Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

No matter what Alito and other justices may claim, court decisions set precedent and offer opportunities for lower courts to expand the logic of the initial case. (See Bush v. Gore.) The immediate turnaround to broaden the scope of Hobby Lobby won't do anything to dispel fears that the case has opened the way for a broad swath of businesses to object to any government regulation they dislike based on the religious whims of corporate owners.

told you so. this is what you get for a cheap partisan win. You get chaos.

So why when many of us pointed out the legitimate slippery slope aspect of this, the RWnuts around here pounded the table insisting that was bullshit?

Let's be clear. Most conservatives want birth control coverage out of the mandatory minimums of employer provided insurance. This has nothing to do with any trumped up arguments about abortion.

I don't recall you screaming and yelling about slippery slope when Sotomayor, who went on a rampage over this, granted the exact same injunction to Little Sisters of the Poor. Is that because you are an idiot with a short memory, or is it because you are a hack?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How refreshing. Voice being given to Americans. Whoda thunkit?

corporations are fictitious entities used by individuals to shield themselves from personal liability they exist to allow jurisdiction to be asserted over an entity or by an entity.

they are not humans. no one ever contemplated corporations having first amendment rights.

but the rabid right wouldn't be singing the same tune if islam was the majority religion.

i'm embarrassed by the decisions being issued by this court.

i do however think if you want to claim you have the right to impose your religion on your employees, then you shouldn't be able to shield yourself from liability for debt, or the torts and criminal actions of your corporation

good luck with that.

If no one ever contemplated corporations having 1st Amendment rights why are newspapers and other sources of news, including Mother Jones, assumed to have 1st Amendment rights when the publish something the government doesn't like?

Also, can you explain how anyone is forcing their religion on anybody? Are Hobby Lobby employees forced to attend mass?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones


told you so.....

told you so. this is what you get for a cheap partisan win. You get chaos.

Can you explain to me how they did that when the Court is not in session, oh idiot who thinks Mother Jones is a valid news source?

again google.. Cases are popping up now about this. It will only get worse.

Sotomayor granted another non profit the exact same injunction months ago, there is no expansion of anything. If you don't believe me, feel free to use Google to prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wider impact of Hobby Lobby ruling? : SCOTUSblog

do a google search ****, cases are popping up left and right now.

But this is the last post ill address to you in this thread.

None of which have been decided by the Supreme Court, which means they didn't widen anything, idiot of the internet.

Um..when you order lower courts to reopen cases, then naturally you wouldn't be taken those cases on yourself. I know, its a hard concept to grasp for you.

An injunction is not an order to reopen a case.

 

[Darkwind]

Supreme Court Broadens Hobby Lobby Ruling to All Forms of Birth Control | Mother Jones


told you so.....

Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

No matter what Alito and other justices may claim, court decisions set precedent and offer opportunities for lower courts to expand the logic of the initial case. (See Bush v. Gore.) The immediate turnaround to broaden the scope of Hobby Lobby won't do anything to dispel fears that the case has opened the way for a broad swath of businesses to object to any government regulation they dislike based on the religious whims of corporate owners.

told you so. this is what you get for a cheap partisan win. You get chaos.

You don't really comprehend what that means, do you?

What guarentee was issued that when these additional rehearings (They should have been included in the original ruling IMO) are done, that the outcome will be any different?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i dont care what they are. they already covered 16 of the 20. Im not worried, im patient...the chaos will happen.

You are confusing cases..

Hobby Lobby offered 16 of the 20... They objected to the 4 because they can cause abortions.

These other companies apparently object to all 20. They are also family owned businesses and believe that they should not have to pay for a person to be use contraceptives. Since they are family owned businesses, but the H/L ruling, they have the religious right not to pay for them.

I see no problem with that.

Their employees can still get their contraceptives, they just aren't going to be able to force their employer to pay for them.

no 2 of the 4 do not, the other two i havent researched to see.

I do because now you are cherry picking laws. When you serve the public you are not a private business in that sense.

Do you know the difference between closely held or privately owned and whatever the **** you think a private business is?

 

[Peach]

Nothing posted about respect for life at conception, just jokes about Obama.....

 

[Synthaholic]

This ruling will be irrelevant. Insurance companies - even Hobby Lobby's - will still provide contraceptive coverage to women because it's cheaper than the alternatives, i.e. pregnancy.

If so then why do you think the left is acting as spoiled brats?

They're not. They disagree with a comically flawed ruling. And you always know when a ruling is flawed and the majority knows it: they come out with a statement declaring that this ruling should not be used as a precedent.

WTF is with that? Why are they doing one-off laws? And when was the last time they cried no precedent? Bush v. Gore.

 

[Synthaholic]

How refreshing. Voice being given to Americans. Whoda thunkit?

Hobby Lobby covered abortifacients for their employees until it was mandated. Then they found religion.

It's true.