Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

[ChainLightning]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

As part of a so-called civilized society, I'd expect universal health care to be a given. I'd also expect that one's medical choices and all health-related decisions would be between patient and medical professional. Not employers, insurance companies or governments.

Loopholes in the laws, that allow an otherwise illegal ban to exist legally is not the last vestige of religious freedom. It is a falsehood, to assume that religion needs a corporate face in order to function within the confines of legal protection. This is not about religious freedom, government interference, or even employee issues. Simply put, it is control. It's the simple fact that women are still considered subordinates and are not granted equal rights.



How's that for stirring the pot?

[DanieMarie]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

I don't think insurance is a right, I think access to health care that won't bankrupt you is a right. Lack of access to health care (and then public payment for emergency care for people that can't afford regular health care) is a huge economic and social burden. No one should have to decide between rent and a visit to the doctor for an infection. Unfortunately, we handle that with employer-benefit insurance in this country.

That's much better wording and is what I meant

[thalassa]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Some people -do- consider insurance to be a right, though. I'll leave myself and other people outside of the US out of this, because things are different in our parts of the world, but from the outside, it seems to be that there is a big shift in opinion where more and more people are considering health care to be a right and that as it is a right, insurance should cover all people. I imagine that must be a big shift to deal with, especially since there are still a lot of people who have the opposite view of things, but I don't think that "insurance is not a right" is an entirely accurate statement. Rights are whatever a society decides them to be and people are deciding that it IS a right.

I don't think insurance is a right, I think access to health care that won't bankrupt you is a right. Lack of access to health care (and then public payment for emergency care for people that can't afford regular health care) is a huge economic and social burden. No one should have to decide between rent and a visit to the doctor for an infection. Unfortunately, we handle that with employer-benefit insurance in this country.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Some people -do- consider insurance to be a right, though. I'll leave myself and other people outside of the US out of this, because things are different in our parts of the world, but from the outside, it seems to be that there is a big shift in opinion where more and more people are considering health care to be a right and that as it is a right, insurance should cover all people. I imagine that must be a big shift to deal with, especially since there are still a lot of people who have the opposite view of things, but I don't think that "insurance is not a right" is an entirely accurate statement. Rights are whatever a society decides them to be and people are deciding that it IS a right.

[Roknrol]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

You sound very apathetic Rok.

I am.

I had a long rant typed up but realized that it was a bit over the top.

Let Hobby Lobby be employed by people that don't care about their practices. I would not push for "Pagan Rights" for the Pagan janitor that cleans the Vatican either. To conflate this issue to the top of the "important" list is absolutely ludicrous.

Your Government tracks where you go, who you talk to, what you do, every dollar you make, every dollar you spend, and they have built a rats-nest of a system that all but guarantees that you'll break the law.

But this? THIS is what people are upset about? This is what gets people fired up to do something? When the obvious answer is, "If you don't want kids, don't fuck."

Yes. I'm apathetic.

Edited to add: People that think that this has anything to do with the "Separation of Church and State" need to do a bit more research.

Of course, people that think the Government should provide insurance for the People should also do some research.

The GOVERNMENT is not playing favorites here. Hobby Lobby is. Place the blame where it belongs and keep the Feds out of my vagina entirely.

- - - Updated - - -

And for the record, to any who suggest that those with issue should simply "get another job," I think that's a lazy, old fashioned view of the reality of America right now. Jobs aren't just hanging out on job-trees with their jobbies. They're hiding higher up ladders and deeper down holes.

Really? Lazy? But people should be able to fuck without consequence and that burden should be on the US Government? I don't think so.

Honestly, Insurance is not a RIGHT, it is a PERK. Every job I've had had different levels of coverage, leaving me to pay more or less depending on who my Insurance company is. The company that I work for chooses those plans...why is it unreasonable to expect someone to find another job if they don't like their current one?

LAZY is staying at a job that you hate with shitty benefits and expecting the rest of the world to "fix" your boss for you. Can't find another job? Find a Union and lobby for them. That's how corporations change. It's awful convenient that by having the Feds "fix" Hobby Lobby the employees don't have to do a goddmaned thing, not even clean up their resume`. Who's lazy?

[Bjorn]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

...Allowing for-profit companies to skirt around the legal requirements for anything on religious grounds is the huge issue. Being able to pick and choose which laws you want to follow as you claim religious freedom means you are now forcing those you employ to also follow the same religious tenements that you do. Corporation status gives special protections that allow shareholders to avoid the full liability for the debts and responsibilities of the business. The corporation is only allowed this protection if they clearly separate the interests and assets of the company and its shareholders. If the company can assert its beliefs over its employees based on its shareholder's religious belief then there is no more distinction.

This is really where the rubber meet the road for me. Business are businesses and they need to follow the law. When it comes to offering health insurance, you don't get to decide how it's used once it gets to the employee any more so that they get to tell you not to buy crack with your paycheck. That is YOUR money, those are YOUR benefits, and no company gets to tell you how to use them. If they offer insurance then they have to offer it comprehensively. No one gets to stand in a column to the side under the protective umbrella of religious freedom. Because here's the kicker -- it's not fucking freedom when it's imposing on the rights of another person/group of people.

And for the record, to any who suggest that those with issue should simply "get another job," I think that's a lazy, old fashioned view of the reality of America right now. Jobs aren't just hanging out on job-trees with their jobbies. They're hiding higher up ladders and deeper down holes.

[Medusa]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

You sound very apathetic Rok.

[Roknrol]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

The moment one person's rights are trampled, everyone's rights revert to mere privilege, which can be taken away at whim.

So women are being targeted by Hobby Lobby, Eden Foods, etc. With the force of law behind it. You can't see the problem here?

Leaving aside that the issue isn't even about contraception. It's about control...And not just control of women (although that is the prime mover), but control in general by keeping poor people poor by removing contraception options, thus increasing the average family size at the low end of the income scale.

Of course I see the problem here. What I don't see is why this is a bigger deal than the other thousands of unfair practices that limit one or many groups from things that they should not be restricted from.

Yes, it sucks. But I can also see plenty of other places for improvement...I see shit like this as a distraction. Yes, women should be treated equally - so fix the root of the problem, not the symptom. Those roots are far more evident elsewhere than in fighting Obamacare.

Do I think it's fair? No. But since when is anything fair?

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Yes, it is about control. I am old enough to remember that it wasn't until I was in 7th grade (age 12) that girls were allowed to wear pants to public school. (There ARE religions that forbid women to wear pants.) So, I've seen a lot of rights be acquired and ....I'm glad I was born when I was, and have no kids.

[Luce]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

We're so far along the slippery slope I fail to see how this can be fixed.

Judging by the snark you think it's obvious - so explain.

The moment one person's rights are trampled, everyone's rights revert to mere privilege, which can be taken away at whim.

So women are being targeted by Hobby Lobby, Eden Foods, etc. With the force of law behind it. You can't see the problem here?

Leaving aside that the issue isn't even about contraception. It's about control...And not just control of women (although that is the prime mover), but control in general by keeping poor people poor by removing contraception options, thus increasing the average family size at the low end of the income scale.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Only if one really wants to see it that way or cares to make the case that one of them changed their mind since the act was placed directly in front of them. 5 united justices could have easily and directly destroyed that act not that long ago. Instead one of them embarked on hilarious leaps of logic to save it.

If I were the kind of guy who saw conspiracy theories as anything other than a comedy form, I could come up with a quasi-plausible workaround for that...

But I'm not, so I won't.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

...which makes it look (circumstantial evidence) as if 5/9 Supreme Court justices are acting with the Republican Party in yet another attempt to destroy The Affordable Health Care Act, using back-door politics.

Only if one really wants to see it that way or cares to make the case that one of them changed their mind since the act was placed directly in front of them. 5 united justices could have easily and directly destroyed that act not that long ago. Instead one of them embarked on hilarious leaps of logic to save it.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

The thing is...the court ruled against prior rulings to side with corporations over people. Time and time again the court has actually ruled against an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs, on issues similar to those I mentioned. If you read the dissent by Justice Ginsburg, she airs a short laundry list of some such cases. Had this been a group of JW's or Christian Scientists suing for the right to refuse blood transfusion or vaccination coverage for their employees, it wouldn't have passed. But Catholics (and evangelicals) refusing birth control they view as abortion? Sure, that's mainstream enough...when those justices are all (or mostly all) Catholic.

...which makes it look (circumstantial evidence) as if 5/9 Supreme Court justices are acting with the Republican Party in yet another attempt to destroy The Affordable Health Care Act, using back-door politics.

[thalassa]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

The thing is...the court ruled against prior rulings to side with corporations over people. Time and time again the court has actually ruled against an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs, on issues similar (eta: though not necessarily related to medical decisions) to those I mentioned. If you read the dissent by Justice Ginsburg, she airs a short laundry list of some such cases. Had this been a group of JW's or Christian Scientists suing for the right to refuse blood transfusion or vaccination coverage for their employees, it wouldn't have passed. But Catholics (and evangelicals) refusing birth control they view as abortion? Sure, that's mainstream enough...when those justices are all (or mostly all) Catholic.

[Corvus]

Re: Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

The precedent being set here has some interesting and unfortunate implications