Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[Jim in CT]

This case is now at the Supreme Court. Hobby Lobby is a business owned by a Christian family. The family objects to the parts of Obamacare that require them to provide free contraception, especially certain kinds of contraception that can work after conception - a violation of the family's religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby isn't forbidding their employees from purchasing contraception or abortion on their own dime - the family doesn't want to be forced by law to provide that which violates their religious beliefs.

To the liberals here, what is your argument? The Constitution explicitly says that family has the right to practice their religion. Nowhere does the Constitution say that anyone has the right to free contraception. Case closed, right?

What's the debate? I get that liberal ideology supports free contraception everywhere, but how does the Constitution not end the debate?

[scottw]

doesn't the fact that the case is at the Supreme Court answer your question as to what some think of various "rights", the Constitution and other things ?

The Constitution is outdated and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to be told what to do by a bearded guy in the clouds and therefore can't make informed decisions on anything...we all have the right to have sex with whoever and whatever we want whenever and wherever we want(didn't make this up, I heard it in an AIDS testing commercial on the radio recently) and free contraception, abortificents and sex reassignment surgery is essential in maintaining that right...not complicated...no debate...this is progress

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

doesn't the fact that the case is at the Supreme Court answer your question as to what some think of various "rights", the Constitution and other things ?

The Constitution is outdated and religion is for people who can't think for themselves and need to be told what to do by a bearded guy in the clouds and therefore can't make informed decisions on anything...we all have the right to have sex with whoever and whatever we want whenever and wherever we want(didn't make this up, I heard it in an AIDS testing commercial on the radio recently) and free contraception, abortificents and sex reassignment surgery is essential in maintaining that right...not complicated...no debate...this is progress

I don't disagree, I just want to hear one of them say it. I want one of them to say, "well, I agree that the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, however, I feel the Constitution doesn't apply because _____________________".

[Nebe]

Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

I haven't been following this closely, as things have been a bit hectic lately, but I heard this article cited this morning.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ourt-obamacare

take the source for what it is, but IF Hobby Lobby covered some forms of contraception before the ACA, doesn't it seem mildly hypocritical now to be against it purely on religious beliefs?

[Nebe]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else"

You could not be more wrong. It is Obamacare, and the liberals who support the contraception mandate, who are forcing their views on the Christian business, not the other way around.

The Christian business owners are NOT telling their employees what to do. They are not telling their employees that they cannot purchase contraception on their own. It is the liberals here, who want to force the Christian business owners to abandon what they believe and purchase that which violates their beliefs.

Pretty simple, no? I'm not sure how you can fail to see that, if you can put yourself in the shoes of the Christian business owner for a second. All he wants to do is operate his business, and do it in a way that doesn't force him to abandon his religion.

"practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else"

Wrong again. The Christian business owner is in no way putting his values on anyone else. He is asking to be left alone. He isn't trying to convert his employees to Christianity, he isn't trying to teach his employees that contraception is immoral. It is the pro-contraception crowd that is forcing their beliefs upon the Christian business owner.

"The law is the law" Not if it's unconstitutional, it's not. Nebe, at one point in our nation's history, slavery was the law of the land. There are bad laws which deserve to be thrown out. In this country, we are not forbidden from challenging laws. Not yet anyway...

"If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well. "

What? Every business is required to follow the practices of every other business? So if I open an art studio and pay my cashier $100,00 a year, that means you are required to do the same?

If Hobby Lobby employees are envious of the perks at Ac Moore or Michaels, then lucky for them, they are free to pursue employment there. No one is forcing these people to work at Hobby Lobby.

Constitution, shmonstitution...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I haven't been following this closely, as things have been a bit hectic lately, but I heard this article cited this morning.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ourt-obamacare

take the source for what it is, but IF Hobby Lobby covered some forms of contraception before the ACA, doesn't it seem mildly hypocritical now to be against it purely on religious beliefs?

From what I heard, Hobby Lobby is specifically objecting to being forced to provide the kinds of contraception that can take effect after conception. That can be considered to be an abortificant, pardon my spelling. I don't think they are objecting to condoms...they are objecting specifically to things that could potentially be used after conception.

Furthermore, I don't know that the timing matters. Maybe they just converted to Christianity. I don't know that there is a statute of limitations on claiming tht your constitutional rights are currently being violated.

They aren't objecting to all kinds of contraception. But Obama, naturaly (since Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion president we will ever have) had to take it to unimaginable levels.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not exactly, if you bothered to, you know, get the facts from the other side.

Nebe, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyone, even those you happen to disagree with. It's that simple. Whatever these people want, they can get. They cannot force their employer to provide it for them. Christians cannot be forced to pay for what is tantamount to an abortion.

Just because you happen to like the concept of free contraception, doesn't mean you can throw out the constitution to achieve it.

[Nebe]

you are not wrong Jim.

and when slavery was legal, the slave owners were not wrong either

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

you are not wrong Jim.

and when slavery was legal, the slave owners were not wrong either

You're implying that there is no such thing as an immoral law. In my opinion, you would be wrong about that.

Slave owners were not breaking the laws at the time. Most people would not agree with you, that they "were not wrong".

[Jim in CT]

Rockhound's article says that, in accordance with their beliefs, Hobby Lobby pays far higher than minimum wage. Good for them...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If an employee at Hobby Lobby is not being provided certain types of birth control, AC Moore or Michaels Crafts employees should not as well.

Seems pretty simple? No?

[Jim in CT]

When Bush was president, I recall hearing a fair amount of liberal uproar about the concern of trading "freedom for security". Lots of liberals were concerned about that, and it was an important discussion to have. But those same folks are now rallying around the idea of trading freedom for consequence-free fornication. We've sure come a long way under this administration, what a great cultural leap forward.

How long, O Lord?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If an employee at Hobby Lobby is not being provided certain types of birth control, AC Moore or Michaels Crafts employees should not as well.

Seems pretty simple? No?

So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh? No one is MAKING the hobby lobby family use the contraception, just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare.

So it is either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees or the ACA doing it to the owners..


it is not a simple argument either way....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh? No one is MAKING the hobby lobby family use the contraception, just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare.

So it is either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees or the ACA doing it to the owners..


it is not a simple argument either way....

"So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh?"

How do you think it works? Do employees get to determine their own wages and benefits, and I missed that announcement? Bosses make the rules.

"just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare. "

Who pays for most of the healthcare costs? The owners of the company. Come on, I think you know this...

"either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees"

Absolutely wrong. The business owners are not forcing their personal beliefs onto their employees. The employees, in this case, are free to do whatever they want, they are free to buy whatever they want, they are free to fornicate however they want. The owners simply want to be left out of it. If the employees want to sleep around, why does the employer have to pay for the safety gear? If I ride motorcycles in my free time, does my employer have to give me a free helmet?

"it is not a simple argument either way"

If you pretend we don't have a Constitution, I suppose it's a complicated argument. If you concede that we have a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights therein, it gets very simple, very quickly. How do you get around that?

Rockhound, please tell me, how is the business owner trying to force his beliefs onto his employees? The business owner doesn't want to personally pay the bill for that which violates his religion, but the employees are free to do as they wish with their own money. The only thing forced upon the employee, is the respobsibility for paying for certain kinds of contraception.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

From what I heard, Hobby Lobby is specifically objecting to being forced to provide the kinds of contraception that can take effect after conception. That can be considered to be an abortificant, pardon my spelling. I don't think they are objecting to condoms...they are objecting specifically to things that could potentially be used after conception.

I believe that you are correct but I think the medical view is that it is not abortificant (haven't heard that word before) but rather that it somehow prevents the egg and sperm from bonding (for lack of a better term). Perhaps there is a period of time when the sperm and egg can "bond" after intercourse (like the 24 hour window within which you can take the pill)????

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So the rights of the 13,000 employees must be mandated by the bosses, huh?

Yes and no. Depends on which and what kind of "rights." Workplace rights (distinguished from government regulations) are mutually agreed on contractual rights. If Hobby Lobby and its employees have not contractually agreed on free contraceptives, then no such "right" exists. Constitutional rights do not include guarantees of employer provided free contraceptives, so there are no such rights. Government prescribed rights are imposed. In this case, the Federal Government has imposed neither a right, nor a law, but a regulation that certain employers must provide insurance that covers an array of contraceptives. So, in this case, no "right" per se has been granted or created, but rather a limitation and prescription on what certain employers must provide under penalty of fines. And since there is no constitutional enumeration which gives the Federal Government the power to force private business to provide any type of health insurance, nor any right, actually, to create regulatory agencies that have the plenary power, de facto or other wise, to create any regulations, and since there are not only the vast residuum of rights held in the Constitution by the people if those rights are not granted to the Federal Government, and, even beyond that, their is in the Constitution a specific right to the practice of freedom of religion that shall not be abridged by government, so because of all that their is an apparent dispute between actual constitutional rights and a prescribed government regulation, so the matter has been taken to the Supreme Court. How that will end is not certain. How it should, at least on an original constitutional basis, should not be in much dispute. But original constitutional basis has been, as Spence might say, "normalized" to be whatever five Judges prefer. So, if five Justices say the regulation is OK, case closed.

That we have gone so far toward destroying those rights we possessed which were once beyond the reach of government is troubling enough. But to continue to do so on such a trifling matter of who must pay for contraception is a reflection on how far We the People have accepted that politicians, who are not only supposed to be our servants but are no more capable nor more intelligent than We, are allowed to run our lives even in such trivial matters.

Apparently, We cannot see the danger of giving them the power to do so because we are either blinded by ideology, or somehow have become so very stupid. So stupid to believe that it ends here, or so hopeful that more "rights" will be given to us which are more substantial than the "right" to free contraceptives. The natural progression in a progressive ideology would be the right to more important free stuff--food (well, food stamps ARE multiplying), housing, clothing, transportation, recreation, and health care, for everybody, not just the poor. If that's what we're hoping for, we are not only stupid, but a hopeless, greedy, and incompetent herd of human sheep.

No one is MAKING the hobby lobby family use the contraception, just to allow their employees to obtain it under their healthcare.

But it is not THEIR health insurance. It is insurance that the government has mandated that Hobby Lobby must provide or pay a penalty. The employees only are covered under that insurance provided through Hobby Lobby. If they were to leave Hobby Lobby, they would no longer have THAT insurance. It is not THEIR'S. If they want their own insurance, one which they owned and would have no matter where or whether they worked, they would have to contract and pay for it on their own.

So it is either the business applying their morals/beliefs to 13,000 employees or the ACA doing it to the owners..


it is not a simple argument either way....

That was the point of my response to Nebe. It was the reverse parallel to his "Seems pretty simple? No?" constsruction. He just had a one-sided simplicity. I merely provided the flip side. Either way, the construction is stupid. And this whole debate on whether something that is so available and not expensive has to be included in all insurance policies (or any for that matter) is ridiculous. What the hell have we come to?

[FishermanTim]

I don't know how it could be explained any simpler.

It's not the employer who is wrong, but the government, for forcing the employer to pay for something they shouldn't.
If an employee wants a "morning after pill", let them pay for it themselves!

Heck,. maybe they won't be covered by the health plan under Obama-scare?

Naw, we all know that anything that promotes sexual deviance and promiscuity (particularly with children) will be covered and promoted by Obamacare. How else will they perpetuate the voter base?

I do like the motorcycle helmet comparison. That's pure gold!

[spence]

I don't like the idea that a for profit corporation has religious beliefs which trump federal law. So if my corporation is run by Scientologists will they deny me my mental health medication?

But really, best line I read in a comment to an article on the topic. I'll paraphrase...

But this company has no problem selling cheap Chinese crap made by women nearly enslaved and given forced abortions...what hypocrites.

Great point anonymous.

-spence

[Nebe]

Spence, corporations are people! You don't remember?

Didn't we go to college with Corperation? man what a party animal..






And that is the reason why hobby lobby should not be exempt from this.. hobby lobby practices no religion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't like the idea that a for profit corporation has religious beliefs which trump federal law. So if my corporation is run by Scientologists will they deny me my mental health medication?

But really, best line I read in a comment to an article on the topic. I'll paraphrase...

But this company has no problem selling cheap Chinese crap made by women nearly enslaved and given forced abortions...what hypocrites.

Great point anonymous.

-spence

"I don't like the idea that a for profit corporation has religious beliefs which trump federal law"

You don't have to like it. That's the thing about the constitution, it applies even when you don't like it.

I don't like it whan an artist makes a painting of Jesus covered in feces, but his right to do that is guaranteed by the freedom of speech. Same for flag-burners.

I don't like it when the Westboro Baptist Church stages rallies at military funerals. But their right to do that is guaranteed by the freedom of assembly.

I don't like anything that Rachael Maddow says. But her right to say stupid and hateful things is guaranteed by the freedom of the press.

I don't like it when people send itiotic requests to congressmen. But their right to do that is guaranteed by the right to petition for redress of grievances.

You may not like a Christian business choosing not to pay for their employees to fornicate. LIKE IT OR NOT, their right to do that is guaranteed by the freedom of religion.

Fortunately for us, your personal preferences are not a litmus test for when the constitution applies and when it doesn't. The constutution doesn't only apply when it serves your Bolshevik agenda.

Here's more good news. Not one of the Hobby Lobby employees is forced to work there. They can work elsewhere.

"what hypocrites"...

Let's see the proof that the specific warehouse from which Hobby Lobby buys their stuff, has brutal labor practices. Until you show that proof, your smear is nothing more than ideologically-driven speculation. No one is interested. Figures that your favorite quote of all of this, is a baseless smear. What a shocker.

Finally, mental disease is a legitimate illness recognized by the AMA. Recreational sex is a purely voluntary activity that some people choose to engage in. If one wants safety devices associated with their chosen hobbies, why the f*ck can't they pay for it themselves. I like to SCUBA dive, so can I ask my employer for a free dive computer? Try telling me the difference...

[spence]

You have a very vivid obsession with sex with it comes to issues of contraception and homosexuality.

As for proof, I've never been in an HL store and don't even know if there's one in the area. That being said, I'd be willing to wager they sell Chinese products...this isn't rocket science.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You have a very vivid obsession with sex with it comes to issues of contraception and homosexuality.

As for proof, I've never been in an HL store and don't even know if there's one in the area. That being said, I'd be willing to wager they sell Chinese products...this isn't rocket science.

-spence

"You have a very vivid obsession with sex with it comes to issues of contraception and homosexuality."

More stupid, baseless insults.

I get concerned when your hero decides he can ignore the parts of the constitution he doesn't happen to like. In this case, it has to do with recreational sex. That's not my obsession, that's the specific wrecking ball Obama is taking to the constitution in this case.

I'm obsessed with homosexuality? Hardly.

"I'd be willing to wager they sell Chinese products...this isn't rocket science."

Having trouble with comprehension today? I didn't say they didn't sell Chinese products. What I said was, (1) that doesn't mean the factory they use is exploitative, and (2) it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The constitution applies to all Americans, even those who sell goods made in China.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I didn't say they didn't sell Chinese products. What I said was, (1) that doesn't mean the factory they use is exploitative, and (2) it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The constitution applies to all Americans, even those who sell goods made in China.

The number one line in their charter - even before value for customers!

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.

Do you think the country of China in ANY WAY reinforces biblical principals?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you think the country of China in ANY WAY reinforces biblical principals?

-spence

No I don't. But HL isn't limiting itself to associating with Christians. They have 13,000 employees, many of whom are not Christian.

Again, maybe you can focus on the only thing that matters here...the constitution. Instead of telling us what jerks the people at HL are, please tell me why they don't deserve the same constitutional protections that you enjoy? Try to limit your answer to that topic...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Spence, corporations are people! You don't remember?

Corporations are an association of people who work together as people and hire people to produce goods and services for people. It is the people of the corporation who are responsible for the corporations policies. There is no such thing as a corporation not comprised of people. It is people who will suffer the penalties imposed on corporations, and people who will enjoy the profits or bear the losses incurred by their corporation.

Didn't we go to college with Corperation? man what a party animal..

You may have gone to college with some of the people who make up various corporations. If they were Hobby Lobby people, they might not have been party animals.

And that is the reason why hobby lobby should not be exempt from this.. hobby lobby practices no religion.

The PEOPLE who own and run the company do practice a religion. It is their decision to set policy for the company. And those policies reflect on those people, and is a product of who those people are. There is no such thing as a corporate policy which is instituted by non-persons.

BTW, have you ever gone to college or party with a government, or a mom-and-pop store, or a glass-blowing business?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The number one line in their charter - even before value for customers!



Do you think the country of China in ANY WAY reinforces biblical principals?

-spence

As Jim in CT says, Hobby Lobby is not limiting itself to associating only with Christians--neither as employees or customers, nor even with only Christian manufacturers. That would be nearly impossible since all the materials that comprise the products they sell come from diverse and unknown sources. Nor could they actually sell those products without using currencies which are produced by secular agencies which do not reinforce, or operate on, Christian principles.

The owners of Hobby Lobby can only hold themselves responsible for "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles."

Even Christ himself, in his teaching, had to use resources which were produced by non-Christians. He did not prohibit others from doing the same, but required only that they personally led their life according to his teaching.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Even Christ himself, in his teaching, had to use resources which were produced by non-Christians. He did not prohibit others from doing the same, but required only that they personally led their life according to his teaching.

By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law? The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions. Then...According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory…

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic, what substantial burden is there on Hobby Lobby to comply with Federal law?

The original burden is in the passing of a law. The supreme law is supposed to be the Constitution. If we accept that the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power in all cases to tell individuals and private businesses what they must do, and in detail how they must do it under a penalty for noncompliance, whether that be a tax or imprisonment or death, then we accept that the Federal Government is supreme. That it has an unlimited power to destroy. And if we accept that, then there is no need for a constitution which purports to limit the power of government and holds the individual as sovereign. The progressive system of government has long ago begun the process of transforming our government into this kind of all-powerful leviathan. And if we accept that, we accept total subjugation to it, and are totally at its mercy. These current laws and regulations that are being passed in the name of providing for our welfare are the final touches to the process. That a majority of us are stupid enough to accept its "gifts" forces the rest of us, against our will and conscience, to comply with tyranny. And we are so apparently powerless that there is, as you put it, "no substantial burden" for the government to comply with its own law. It makes law and changes it at will. Why is there any substantial burden on us individuals to comply with such tyranny except by force, by threat of destruction.

The company is using resources (i.e. employees) which may not share the same religious convictions. Then...According to Jesus Christ, as long as the owners of the Hobby Lobby lead their life according to his teaching everything should be all hunky dory…

-spence

The owners of Hobby Lobby are providing a means for people who wish to participate with them in their enterprise and be compensated for their work, which helps the employees to have the things they wish to have. They are not forced to share in the enterprise, nor forced to worship or live as the owners do. How should it be that the employees should be able to force the owners to bend to their will? Is there some sort of suicide pact which must be signed in order to hire employees? If the compensation is not enough, the would be employee need not take the job. If the employer wishes to provide health insurance, must that insurance have clauses which violate the principles by which they personally live? If employees wish to have an assisted suicide, must the employers be compelled to provide the means to do so if it is against their conscience?

Those things employers create including what they provide in compensation are done in respect to who they are and what they believe? Those things are a reflection and a result of who they are. The resources they use are mostly out of their ability to control and not a result or reflection of who they personally are. They don't create or control the lives of the employees. They don't create the coin of the realm. They don't create the products which they sell. If the products they choose to sell are useful and beneficial, that is a reflection on who they are. If those products are harmful and against the principles by which they live, that is also a reflection of who they are.

Jesus Christ, I assume, would approve of them living their life and operating their business in a way which reflects his teachings. If they sold, or provided, in a way which is counter to his teaching, he would probably disapprove.