Big Supreme Court decision Monday

[Jim in CT]

Hobby Lobby vs Kathleen Sebelius, concerns Hobby Lobby's contention that it's unconstitutional for the feds to require them to offer free contraception to employees as part of their healthcare.

Now, I could be wrong, but my understanding is that if a woman needs birth control pills for medical reasons (which is fairly common), Hobby Lobby is willing to provide it. HL does not want to provide contraception that is not related to a medical condition, in other words, they don't want to provide the tools for their employees to engage in recreational sex.

If that's true, we'll see if religious freedom means anything in this country. If the Supreme Court says that HL must provide what is essentially safety equipment for a voluntary, recreational activity...then I want to know why my health insurance doesn't give me a free ski helmet. I choose to ski, why should I have to buy my helmet, if Sandra Fluke doesn't have to buy her birth control?

If my presumption is true (that contraception is provided when there's a medical issue) than this has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If that's true, we'll see if religious freedom means anything in this country. If the Supreme Court says that HL must provide what is essentially safety equipment for a voluntary, recreational activity...then I want to know why my health insurance doesn't give me a free ski helmet. I choose to ski, why should I have to buy my helmet, if Sandra Fluke doesn't have to buy her birth control?

To heck with a ski helmet I would love to have it cover my kayak and fishing gear. Recreational fishing is almost as fun as recreatinal sex.... LOL

[FishermanTim]

How soon before the SC decides on more important factors, like the chickens in a cage issue?
Seems like the authorities, as a whole, have literally "taken the summer #^&#^&#^&#^&, only they started back in January!!!
They will chide in on low level issues that shouldn't have been escalated to their level, and end up putting off key decisions until it's too late to do anything except apologize to the victims!

[Raven]

these guys tried to invent a square bodied headless chicken
that was fed intravenously and never ever walked ......
always about the profit... all other considerations are ignored

[Cool Beans]

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge 5-4 decision

Also

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Monday that public sector unions cannot collect fees from home health care workers who don't want to be part of a union.

[Jim in CT]

Yep. On one hand, a relief. On the other hand, scary to me that 4 Supreme Court justices think it's of for the feds to force you to be complicit in somehting which violates your religious beliefs.

The Court has not been kind to Obama for the last week.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yep. On one hand, a relief. On the other hand, scary to me that 4 Supreme Court justices think it's of for the feds to force you to be complicit in somehting which violates your religious beliefs.

The Court has not been kind to Obama for the last week.

Poor Obozo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[eelskimmer]

It is my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object
to paying for contraception for its employees--only for
those (next morning pills) that can cause abortion.
This is a different story than women reproduction rights.
But you won't hear it on the drive-by media.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by eelskimmer

It is my understanding that Hobby Lobby does not object
to paying for contraception for its employees--only for
those (next morning pills) that can cause abortion.
This is a different story than women reproduction rights.
But you won't hear it on the drive-by media.

You are correct. I believe that Obamacare mandates that employers provide 28 forms of contraception, and HL agreed to 24 o fthem. The 4 they objected to, all take effect afterthe egg has been fertilized.

You are also corrct about the media. An honest attempt at reporting this would be to say that HL was saved from being forced to pay for, what they consider to be, abortions. What most of the media will do, is hold this up as evidence of the phony, conservative, "war on women"...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Poor Obozo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are correct. I believe that Obamacare mandates that employers provide 28 forms of contraception, and HL agreed to 24 o fthem. The 4 they objected to, all take effect afterthe egg has been fertilized.

You are also corrct about the media. An honest attempt at reporting this would be to say that HL was saved from being forced to pay for, what they consider to be, abortions. What most of the media will do, is hold this up as evidence of the phony, conservative, "war on women"...

I read what Eelskimmer stated on lots of sites this morning. Here was one on the NY Times front page today.

"The health care law and related regulations require many employers to provide female workers with comprehensive insurance coverage for a variety of methods of contraception. The companies objected to some of the methods, saying they are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb. Providing insurance coverage for those forms of contraception would, the companies said, make them complicit in the practice.

The companies said they had no objection to other forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery"

Another from the Hartford Courant

"One of the two cases was brought by arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd, which is owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their children, who are evangelical Christians. The other case was brought by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn, Mennonites who own Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp in Pennsylvania.

None of the companies that have objected are publicly traded companies. Hobby Lobby has around 13,000 full-time employees while Conestoga Wood has 950.

The decision will affect similar cases brought by employers around the country. There are 49 cases in total, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Religious institutions are already exempt from the requirement.

The company owners involved in litigation around the country do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some, including Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd's Plan B morning-after pill, and ella, made by the Watson Pharma unit of Actavis PLC."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

I don't think it's his name he has a problem with . His comment is about the way he runs the Presidency . Just an educated guess on my part
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Frankly, I could care less what he thinks. At least someone finally responsed to one of his posts.

[Fishpart]

It’s increasingly ridiculous to use the word “liberal” to describe the modern American collectivist. There’s nothing liberal about them at all. They’re shooting for the ultimate subversion of liberty, by re-defining “liberty” as a form of compulsion. In other words, they’re saying you are being oppressed unless a wise and virtuous dictatorial authority can force other people to give you what the authoritarians have decided you “deserve.” You aren’t “free” as long as you must provide for yourself. Liberty becomes a term used to describe its exact opposite: a set of active obligations placed upon other people. It’s right up there with any perversion of language and thought described by George Orwell in “1984.” Actually, it is one of the perversions he laid at Big Brother’s feet: “Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.”

[Jim in CT]

On MSNBC.com, I saw the headline "Ruling A Rallying Cry For Women".

Yeah, yeah. Upholding the constitution is akin to waging war on women, I get it...They interviewed Reb Deb Wasserman Shultz. If Miss Schultz thinks that that the freedom of religion ends where feminist causes begin, she can try to amend the constitution to reflect such. Until then, freedom of religion applies even when that freedom is expressed in a way contrary to the views of contemporary feminism.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Takes a classy man to make fun of another person's name.

Why don't you do all of us a favor and drive your Prius off a cliff.
If you're happy with this clown is doing to this country, good luck to you !

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Why don't you do all of us a favor and drive your Prius off a cliff.
If you're happy with this clown is doing to this country, good luck to you !

Did the relative who didn't vote the way you wanted ever get the anal cancer you wished upon him? I think you called the President a POS in the same post.

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have. It must suck to be so miserable.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have.

Paul, this sentence strikes me as one of the most interesting ones I've read by you. Obviously, I know little to nothing about you except for the sentences you post on the forum. This one is loaded with, on the one hand, the powerful positive influence of God, or a God, in directing your life to a better end; and, on the other hand, the judgment that straying from, or denying, that God's influence results in the negativity of hate.

Now, I don't know if your God demands that you counter hate with love, and if in your judgment of, and commiseration with, Raider Ronnie's presumed hate, you do counter it with love. Your brief statement doesn't imply that . . . but it might be there, merely not expressed. Interesting as that might be, what is more interesting to me is how you translate this implied relationship with God into your political persuasions.

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I don't know, and am curious, if your relationship with your God is religious in form (organized into routine commandments and rituals), or religious in nature (a personal, spiritual, belief in a being or force beyond our ability to conceive).

In either case, is your belief subservient to the "will" of the State--does the State have the supreme power to bend your belief to its "will"? Or does your belief supersede that fictitious "will"? If it's the former, I'd suggest that your belief is an insignificant whim, and probably not worth inserting into a judgment of Raider Ronnie, or anybody else.

If it is the latter, is it important enough to you to protect it from the dictatorial power of the State to narrow your ability to live by that belief? And do you think that same protection should be given to others?

[PaulS]

I think you either read into things too much or give it too much thought.

I could have easily said "Thanks goodness....." Either way, I'm thankful I don't feel the need to wish cancer on someone for they way they vote.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Paul, this sentence strikes me as one of the most interesting ones I've read by you. Obviously, I know little to nothing about you except for the sentences you post on the forum. This one is loaded with, on the one hand, the powerful positive influence of God, or a God, in directing your life to a better end; and, on the other hand, the judgment that straying from, or denying, that God's influence results in the negativity of hate.

Now, I don't know if your God demands that you counter hate with love, and if in your judgment of, and commiseration with, Raider Ronnie's presumed hate, you do counter it with love. Your brief statement doesn't imply that . . . but it might be there, merely not expressed. Interesting as that might be, what is more interesting to me is how you translate this implied relationship with God into your political persuasions.

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I don't know, and am curious, if your relationship with your God is religious in form (organized into routine commandments and rituals), or religious in nature (a personal, spiritual, belief in a being or force beyond our ability to conceive).

In either case, is your belief subservient to the "will" of the State--does the State have the supreme power to bend your belief to its "will"? Or does your belief supersede that fictitious "will"? If it's the former, I'd suggest that your belief is an insignificant whim, and probably not worth inserting into a judgment of Raider Ronnie, or anybody else.

If it is the latter, is it important enough to you to protect it from the dictatorial power of the State to narrow your ability to live by that belief? And do you think that same protection should be given to others?

Very Well Said!

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think you either read into things too much or give it too much thought.

I could have easily said "Thanks goodness....." Either way, I'm thankful I don't feel the need to wish cancer on someone for they way they vote.

Dude, he's just punking you.

-spence

[Sea Dangles]

Spence knows how it feels

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

Dude, he's just punking you.

-spence

If he is not, he (Detbush) has too much time on his hands.

[Raider Ronnie]

1st off the relative is a complete looser that I'm embarrassed to be related to.
2 kids both school drop outs.
1 working in DD, the other working in a tire shop.
Both kids have kids out of wedlock, both living (leaching) in the parents house basements, being boyfriend or girlfriend.
Great futures they have and all too eager to be on the handout train.
2nd, Barack Husein Obama IS A PIECE OF #^&#^&#^&#^& !
3Rd, Your #^&#^&#^&#^&ing right I'm full of hate.
Hate what this country is doing to my kids future that I've busted my ass to make better for them than I had, as most every prior generation of my family had done since coming over from Italy.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Did the relative who didn't vote the way you wanted ever get the anal cancer you wished upon him? I think you called the President a POS in the same post.

Thank God I never was allowed to develop the hate you seem to have. It must suck to be so miserable.

[buckman]

I think some here totally misjudge the level of frustration and anger that a lot of us are feeling.
Fees went up again at the RMV today .... Services will decline
Pissed off
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If he is not, he (Detbush) has too much time on his hands.

Heh, heh . . . I like that--Detbush for Detbuch. Sort of like ARE I ROCKHEAD for RIROCKHOUND. It's stuff like that which makes posting fun--though, as you say, it is a marker of that "too much time on hands" syndrome.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think you either read into things too much or give it too much thought.

It didn't take much thought . . . perhaps a little more than the thought you gave to your remarks. Perhaps your reading more into my response than is necessary . . . it was pretty straightforward and uncomplicated.

I could have easily said "Thanks goodness....."

But you didn't. And you capitalized God . . . ah, I'm probably reading too much into your use of orthography and diction. But, then, perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to what you say and how you say it. Just a thought. Small potatoes. Not important. Especially if what you say is insignificant enough that giving it thought would spoil it.

Besides "Thank goodness" is a euphemism for "Thank God" or, more pointedly in this case, for "Thank god."

Either way, I'm thankful I don't feel the need to wish cancer on someone for they way they vote.

But why would you be thankful (to whom or what) that you don't feel the need to wish cancer on someone? To paraphrase Hillary, what difference does it make? And why are you so concerned if someone else does that you have to point it out and decide the person is miserable for doing so? And then be thankful that you were never "allowed" to do so? Maybe you should shake off the chains that constrain you and try it. Maybe those that say such things are relieving some unhealthy tensions. Unwind a bit. Loosen up and use that God-given, or naturally evolved, or personally concocted use of speech to express your dislike, or even hatred, of what others do . . . oh . . . I guess you do . . . in your own way. You're just nicer about it. Or seem to be.

[detbuch]

QUOTE=Fishpart;1046042]It’s increasingly ridiculous to use the word “liberal” to describe the modern American collectivist. There’s nothing liberal about them at all. They’re shooting for the ultimate subversion of liberty, by re-defining “liberty” as a form of compulsion. In other words, they’re saying you are being oppressed unless a wise and virtuous dictatorial authority can force other people to give you what the authoritarians have decided you “deserve.” You aren’t “free” as long as you must provide for yourself. Liberty becomes a term used to describe its exact opposite: a set of active obligations placed upon other people. It’s right up there with any perversion of language and thought described by George Orwell in “1984.” Actually, it is one of the perversions he laid at Big Brother’s feet: “Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.”[/QUOTE]

Well said. What you describe is uncomfortably obvious. But for many, if not most, it is also too uncomfortable to discuss. It is like some indomitable bogeyman that can only be avoided by looking the other way. Or by creating pleasant fictions on how the "virtuous" dictatorial authoritarians will make us a better world if only we would stop harassing them with notions of freedom or individual liberty or personal responsibility. And for God's sake (or god's sake or goodness sake) stop harping about a form of government which has been outraced by time.

We have somehow supposedly arrived at a time and place where liberty or freedom are beyond our individual grasp and beyond our consent to be governed by a servile State which is limited as set forth in a description of its powers written on ancient parchment. A time and place where, as Spence might say, a piece of paper is no different than a pizza.

A time and place where a plethora of uniquely evolved individuals are too much of a burden on "society." A time and place where the Wilsonian progressive notion of society functioning as a well ordered bee hive is the model to emulate. A time and place where the masses must be schooled and instructed to fit in their proper place in the hive. Eventually, those who don't fit into the prescribed compartments will have to be cared for, in whatever manner is affordable to society, and provided with, or forced to take freely provided contraception so as not to overburden the order and function of the collective responsibilities.

A time and place, however, which opposes its own concept of science and evolution. It purports to be a time and place that broke from the notion of some creative design to one that evolved to the present by accident through a Darwinian like evolution. And now the accident of science will be the tool by which we create the time and place of our choosing. Somehow, these progressive ideologies will be the intelligent designers of our time and place . . . of our being. In contradiction to the whole notion that intelligent design is some absurd creative beginning, progressive ideology has turned its own notions upside down and will somehow end the evolutionary process by designing a perpetual utopia.

It will, of course, fail through the very evolutionary process in which it claims to believe. The thing about evolution and the dialectic process, as long as there is being, it never ends.

And that founding piece of paper differs from a pizza in that it was intelligently designed to provide for the time and place where individuals can continuously evolve as a society.

[PaulS]

I think your comment took a lot more thought (as you certainly spent more time that I did on typing your response). I do thank God (capitalized ) that if someone does something as minor as vote differently than I do, I don't wish a miserable disease on them. I don't have the hatred you mention.

Am I getting into a typical detbuch poopoo now?

Thanks for the backhanded insults.

Is it a wonder people ignore the vast majority of your posts. (how is that for "shaking off the chains of constraint")

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.

I'm still dumfounded how Alito could play the corporations are people card without any reference to Citizens United.

There's a lot of irony as well.

So the for profit corporation now has deep Christian convictions that must not be infringed...but what would Jesus think about company owned by billionaires?

And perhaps the best part is the Right celebrating a case where the Court says the easy solution is for the Government to just pay for the contraception.

That's rich.

While this case may not open up the flood gates like some predict I do think it's opened up a can of worms the Court may regret.

-spence