Hobby Lobby Wins! Gets To Exclude "morning After" Pill From Employee Coverage

[Ahab]

As I look at the decision this morning, the faith-based exception is a narrow one, only for closely-held corporations [those with a very few owners], regardless how many employees those corporations may have.

Chick Fil A? Will get the same treatment.

US Steel? Won't get the same treatment.

Individuals are certainly entitled to the same First Amendment "free exercise" protection.

So . . . whither goeth SCOTUS on SSM/homosexuality anti-discrimination laws and regulations, in light of this ruling?

If someone in a same sex couple needs a morning after pill the SCOTUS can announce it as a miracle, or else announce that someone has cheated on their same sex partner.

[Scott Lloyd]

From this article on Politico:

 

True religious liberty “means I don’t get to tell anyone else what to do because of my religion,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

 

What Hogue fails to acknowledge here is that religious liberty is a two-way street. It also means she has no right, through government edict or otherwise, to restrict anyone from the free exercise of his/her religion, including the refusal to pay for services that conflict with that individual's conscience, as the case may be.

[thesometimesaint]

 

From this article on Politico:

 

What Hogue fails to acknowledge here is that religious liberty is a two-way street. It also means she has no right, through government edict or otherwise, to restrict anyone from the free exercise of his/her religion, including the refusal to pay for services that conflict with that individual's conscience, as the case may be.

 

 

You have an absolute right to pee in your water and drink it. The law can't stop you. What it can and does do is require you to pay taxes so others don't have to drink your pee.

[Ahab]

You have an absolute right to pee in your water and drink it. The law can't stop you. What it can and does do is require you to pay taxes so others don't have to drink your pee.

Ew.

Can't you professional scientists types come up with a better example?

[frank_jessop]

Well the rule of law now is that the government cannot force a small-business employer to pay for contraceptives. You seem to be very negative about this very recent ruling.

 

Are you disrespecting the rule of law?

Very disappointing to see you stoop so low.

Do you agree with EVERY ruling from the Court?

Do you support the Supreme Courts ruling regarding California's anti-ssm law?

Does the Church support the ruling against Proposition 8?

What the Court has done is established a basis for closely held entities to claim exemption under RFRA from just about any law. There is a test for the courts to use, but it should not be denied that this paves the way for many claims under RFRA.

Supreme Court rulings are not held in a vaccum.

[Scott Lloyd]

You have an absolute right to pee in your water and drink it. The law can't stop you. What it can and does do is require you to pay taxes so others don't have to drink your pee.

To extend the analogy and make it more applicable, if someone fouls his own private well, he has no defensible right to force others to pay to clean it up.

[frank_jessop]

Under the Supremacy Doctrine and under this ruling it is time for bakers and photographers to claim exemption from State nondiscrimination laws.

[Scott Lloyd]

Very disappointing to see you stoop so low.

 

Your histrionics here are as comical as they are bizarre.

 

Do you agree with EVERY ruling from the Court?

Do you support the Supreme Courts ruling regarding California's anti-ssm law?

Does the Church support the ruling against Proposition 8?

 

Of course not, on all three questions. I'm making the point that just because something has been enacted and upheld -- like Obamacare -- that doesn't make it good law.

 

What the Court has done is established a basis for closely held entities to claim exemption under RFRA from just about any law. There is a test for the courts to use, but it should not be denied that this paves the way for many claims under RFRA.

 

The slippery-slope argument is the knee-jerk reaction from opponents -- such as Ginsburg -- to this recent ruling, but it is debatable, as you'll see if you do an Internet search.

 

Supreme Court rulings are not held in a vaccum.

 

Never said they were.

 

Hence the need to clean up the fallout from Obamacare -- such as the consequential threat to religious liberty.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

To extend the analogy and make it more applicable, if someone fouls his own private well, he has no defensible right to force others to pay to clean it up.

 

Actually fouling your own private well may well get you into public trouble.

[thesometimesaint]

Your histrionics here are as comical as they are bizarre.

 

Of course not, on all three questions. I'm making the point that just because something has been enacted and upheld -- like Obamacare -- that doesn't make it good law.

 

The slippery-slope argument is the knee-jerk reaction from opponents -- such as Ginsburg -- to this recent ruling, but it is debatable, as you'll see if you do an Internet search.

 

Never said they were.

 

Hence the need to clean up the fallout from Obamacare -- such as the consequential threat to religious liberty.

 

So far the US House of Representatives has tried some 50+ times to repeal the ACA. In a bizarre way I admire their persistence, but not their goal.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually fouling your own private well may well get you into public trouble.

You just said a person has an "absolute right" to do that:

 

You have an absolute right to pee in your water and drink it. The law can't stop you.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

So far the US House of Representatives has tried some 50+ times to repeal the ACA. In a bizarre way I admire their persistence, but not their goal.

Final chapter has not been written. Political landscapes have a way of shifting.

 

And the passage of time might make it very clear why it is a bad idea. From the Politico article cited above:

“This will remind people why they don’t like the ACA to begin with,” said Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. “People do not believe that a president, no matter what party they’re from, should be overbearing or intrusive into their religious practices.”

Republican admaker Brad Todd put it bluntly: “Anytime Obamacare is in the news, it’s a good thing for Republicans.”

 

 

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

You just said a person has an "absolute right" to do that:

 

Pour a glass of water put pee in it all you want. You can even drink it. Give that resulting fluid to anyone other than yourself, and not so nice things can happen.  Aquifers,OTOH, are not usually restricted to just your property. Pee in those and it can lead to very public consequences.

Edited June 30, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[frank_jessop]

Your histrionics here are as comical as they are bizarre.

Please accept my apology for holding usual postings to be above the fray and well reasoned. I apologize for being disappointed by what I saw as an out of character cheap shot.

Of course not, on all three questions. I'm making the point that just because something has been enacted and upheld -- like Obamacare -- that doesn't make it good law.

Were you making that point with the cheap shot?

The slippery-slope argument is the knee-jerk reaction from opponents -- such as Ginsburg -- to this recent ruling, but it is debatable, as you'll see if you do an Internet search.

Not a knee jerk reaction, it is the natural course that Surpreme Court rulings provide. Edited June 30, 2014 by frank_jessop

[thesometimesaint]

Final chapter has not been written. Political landscapes have a way of shifting.

 

And the passage of time might make it very clear why it is a bad idea. From the Politico article cited above:

 

Always. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.

[Vance]

Liberty is not the right swing your fist where ever you want.

It is, as long as you do not interfere with anyone else's rights.

 

The law says otherwise. The law established minimums of coverage. That is no different than requiring those that drive on public roads to have liability insurance at a certain level.

Nah!

When you drive, you may injure someone else.

When you go with out health insurance, you don't put anyone at risk of injury.

[bcuzbcuz]

To extend the analogy and make it more applicable, if someone fouls his own private well, he has no defensible right to force others to pay to clean it up.

The pee analogy made sense to me. Your analogy.....not so much..

[Vance]

Yes there is. It is embodied in LDS Scripture about our "Inspired" Constitution.

 

The law didn't destroy the free market. Laissez Faire Capitalism did.

????????

So a government mandate is "Laissez Faire Capitalism"?????

That is the sole function of government to force everyone to purchase products they don't choose.

A tyrannical government YES! Not one that promotes liberty.

Actually there has been an unprecedented decline in rate of growth in premium,

That is a myth.

What we do have is a decrease in the number of uninsured going to the Emergency Room as their only health care provider.

Another myth.

 

Yours is a prescription for anarchy

And yours is a prescription for tyranny.

(See, two can play your game.)

[Vance]

You have an absolute right to pee in your water and drink it. The law can't stop you. What it can and does do is require you to pay taxes so others don't have to drink your pee.

Why would they want to drink my sewage?

I can't force them to drink my sewage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please accept my apology for holding usual postings to be above the fray and well reasoned.

Ahem........ You were saying?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is, as long as you do not interfere with anyone else's rights.

 

Nah!

When you drive, you may injure someone else.

When you go with out health insurance, you don't put anyone at risk of injury.

Pooned, there goes that argument.

 

 

Frank, I expect another PM telling me that I don't know what "pooned" means.

[bcuzbcuz]

Your histrionics here are as comical as they are bizarre.

 

Of course not, on all three questions. I'm making the point that just because something has been enacted and upheld -- like Obamacare -- that doesn't make it good law.

 

The slippery-slope argument is the knee-jerk reaction from opponents -- such as Ginsburg -- to this recent ruling, but it is debatable, as you'll see if you do an Internet search.

 

Never said they were.

 

Hence the need to clean up the fallout from Obamacare -- such as the consequential threat to religious liberty.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I thought the US was the richest nation in the world.

But you don't have universal coverage for medical needs, or medicines?? Where's the problem?

If someone gets sick in the US, it sounds like there a very confusing pile of stipulations whether or not that person can get the treatment they need, depending upon the religious beliefs of their employer, or the state they live in, etc, etc.

I lived 5 of my adult years in the US, and 43 of my adult years in two other countries that have universal medical coverage. So there are probably a miriad of situations in the US that I don't understand, but I just don't get the idea that we aren't our brother's keeper. Shouldn't we willingly contribute for equal medical treatment for all citizens?

I pay taxes (in the country I live in) and expect that when I get sick I get the best treatment possible and it doesn't cost anything. No cost for x-rays, no cost for doctor treatment or surgeries, no cost for hospital stays, no cost for anything (well, actually the government has recently introduced a €10, one-time, fee at registration).

Now, granted, hospital food isn't that great, but when I had a ruptured appendix and was close to death, food wasn't really on my mind. But I never had to worry about coverage, hidden fees, the insurance company trying to squirm out of paying for my treatment, or anything like that. The federal insurance even covered the ambulance fees.

Hospital, medical, doctor expenses for the births of my six children= 0.

For my foster child, in my family for 15 years, with severse medical problems, often requiring very involved surgeries twice a year, there were never any medical costs. Even her medicines were free.

My wife became ill with a kidney infection while we were visiting Norway. She received treatment at two different hospitals (plus ambulence between them), plus medicines, and our national coverage in our country covered the expenses.

While on vacation in Thailand I received an injury from being dragged across a coral reef by waves. Our national coverage covered the expenses. (The hospital in Thailand, by the way, was quick and efficient)

What I don't understand is that the richest country in the world doesn't offer anything like that to its citizens. Maybe it makes sense to you that live there but I just don't get it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

????????

So a government mandate is "Laissez Faire Capitalism"?????

A tyrannical government YES! Not one that promotes liberty.

That is a myth.

Another myth.

 

And yours is a prescription for tyranny.

(See, two can play your game.)

Rofl. I will add that this was done quite well too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please accept my apology for holding usual postings to be above the fray and well reasoned. I apologize for being disappointed by what I saw as an out of character cheap shot.

Like I said: bizarre and comical. And now you're doubling down on it with passive aggressive sarcasm. This grows zanier with each post.

Were you making that point with the cheap shot?

I was making the point that bad public policy is still bad public policy, even after it has been enacted and subsequently upheld under judicial review.

I got sometimesaint to acknowledge that by admitting -- which, to his credit, he did -- that the recent SCOTUS ruling is something he doesn't like even though it now has the rule of law, and he therefore must accept my point.

Now you're coming along and making weird and inscrutable accusations about "stooping so low" and "making a cheap shot". Where's the cheap shot? I don't see it.

Not a knee jerk reaction, it is the natural course that Surpreme Court rulings provide.

That remains to be seen in this instance.

And I have to comment on how remarkable it is that someone who, I'm guessing, would be apt to reject a "slippery slope" argument with regard to, say, the erosion of religious liberty, is now pushing such an argument as a given.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The pee analogy made sense to me. Your analogy.....not so much..

Then maybe you can explain to us in a way that makes sense what similarity there is between declining as a matter of conscience to pay for someone's abortion or contraception and urinating in someone's water supply. It's not self-evident; you'll have to clarify it if you can.

My analogy, on the other hand, applies in that they both have to do with forcing the public to pay for a remedy someone else's irresponsible and foolish behavior, whether it be having unprotected sex or fouling one's own water well. And in the former case, it's a matter of forcing someone to pay for a remedy that violates his own conscience.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd