Since corporations are people, doesn’t it concern the SCOTUS that with these contraception restrictions that one of them might get pregnant?
I also wonder if corporations that are closely held by a Jewish family could insist that all male employees be circumcized.
Occam
We may not have to wait long in order to see the overall effects of this decision. The floodgates are open so to speak and the court may hand down decisions on at least 49 other cases of corporations limiting women’s rights to contraception. Many, but not all of the plaintiffs have Catholic backgrounds and SCOTUS will have to deal with their religious claims (if the corporations can successfully prove that their claims are actually religiously based) as well. As to Hobby Lobby stating that their religious tenets were violated, what about their investment in companies who produce the very drugs that they’re protesting and the fact that they buy cheap goods from China in which abortion is allowed? Once again, religious hypocrisy and the justices backed it hook, line and sinker.
Cap’t Jack
We may not have to wait long in order to see the overall effects of this decision. The floodgates are open so to speak and the court may hand down decisions on at least 49 other cases of corporations limiting women's rights to contraception. Cap't JackGood. This seems to be just the next stepping stone towards direct, non-employer involved, universal healthcare. That's how I see it. The government can't show in this case that it has a compelling interest in over-riding religious entities objection to provide birth control to their insured members, employees etc...because the government can provide the birth control another way. A less burdensome way. That's all. I don't see these rulings as steps backwards-I see them as steps forward. Think positive. Religion is dying. And they are their own worst enemy. They are forcing the people to further socialize their own government.
Well, this should prove entertaining.]
Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions asking a U.S. court to block officials from preventing the inmates from taking part in communal prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawyers argue that – in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision – the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The motions were filed this week with the Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve said both men asked for the intervention after military officials at the prison “prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan.”
That's how I see it. The government can't show in this case that it has a compelling interest in over-riding religious entities objection to provide birth control to their insured members, employees etc...because the government can provide the birth control another way. A less burdensome way. .If the ACA had required employers to provide their employees with vouchers to purchase health insurance this could have all been avoided. Hobby Lobby wouldn't have had much of an argument to prevent their employees from using the voucher to purchase plans that covered contraceptives just as they can not restrict them from using their paycheck to do the same.
I wonder if we could make a case that OUR religious rights are being infringed upon if everyone is not provided with contraceptive services.
Another thing–my religion is against war and against my taxes being used to fund it. Can I reduce my tax bill accordingly? If companies can’t be forced to pay for contraceptive services in health insurance policies because their religion is against it, how can I be forced to pay for military expenditures? I am also religiously against the death penalty, yet I am forced to pay through my taxes for the expenses of carrying out the death penalty, including keeping people who have received the death penalty on death row for years–which is much more expensive than keeping them in the general population. Where are MY religious rights?
Careful Lois. That’s one of the ways we nonbelievers are easily dismissed as simply praying before a different alter than the theists. btw, that argument about taxes used for things against my religion has been tried many times and consistently failed. If contraception cost were paid by taxes, Hobby Lobby would have lost this fight before it would have ever reached the scotus.
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a "religious bent". There's tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn't rule in favor of one religion over another. That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.Obviously, you did not read the decision or the dissent. You have a lot to say about something you haven't read, wouldn't you say? Sure I did. It's 95 pages long. Was there something you wanted to dispute? RFRA are the first words in the syllabus. Just bring up the decision here, you can get it at the SCOTUS website. Copy and paste any parts that you feel don't mesh with what I'm saying. Or just wing it....What part of the Decision ruled in favor of one religion over another? Copy and paste the whole decision up here and point it out. Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,( vaccinations or blood transfusions). Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions on religious grounds, but their religious sensitivity is obviously not as important to the court as is the religious sensitivity of those against contraception. It starts at the bottom of page 5 and continues at the top of page 6 of SCOTUS majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs." This clearly illustrates that the court HAS held one religious belief higher than another. This is as far as I know, the first time the SCOTUS has taken a position on the value of any religious belief, and or given one higher value than another. I can't believe VYAZMA missed it.
Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,(vaccinations or blood transfusions). I can't believe VYAZMA missed it.I didn't miss that part Handy. I know you really want this Handydan. "Hell hath no fury...." But contraception or blood transfusions are not religions or religious beliefs. Sorry. Neither is abstaining from pork-like in my analogy I gave you to better understand this issue. Do you know how the courts and laws work? Hobby Lobby(and others) went to court because they felt their rights were being violated under the RFRA. The court ruled that their rights concerning contraception were being violated because the government can't create undue hardship on a religious entity by mandating that they follow through with a mandate that goes against the doctrines of a religion. So the issue here is the RFRA. The Scotus interpreted the law. The RFRA law has already been used by various religions for various issues. Perhaps a better way for you to understand this, and I already mentioned it briefly above, this SCOTUS ruling can apply to any religion. So any religion that wants exemption from this contraception mandate can get it. This includes christians, jews, muslims, hindus, and any other religion or religious sect that claims they are against contraception. Is this clear for you now?
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a "religious bent". There's tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn't rule in favor of one religion over another. That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.Obviously, you did not read the decision or the dissent. You have a lot to say about something you haven't read, wouldn't you say? Sure I did. It's 95 pages long. Was there something you wanted to dispute? RFRA are the first words in the syllabus. Just bring up the decision here, you can get it at the SCOTUS website. Copy and paste any parts that you feel don't mesh with what I'm saying. Or just wing it....What part of the Decision ruled in favor of one religion over another? Copy and paste the whole decision up here and point it out. Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,( vaccinations or blood transfusions). Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions on religious grounds, but their religious sensitivity is obviously not as important to the court as is the religious sensitivity of those against contraception. It starts at the bottom of page 5 and continues at the top of page 6 of SCOTUS majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs." This clearly illustrates that the court HAS held one religious belief higher than another. This is as far as I know, the first time the SCOTUS has taken a position on the value of any religious belief, and or given one higher value than another. I can't believe VYAZMA missed it. Maybe the Court agrees only with Catholic-inspired challenges to it, such as the Hobby Lobby case on contraception. Most of the justices are Catholic. Hobby Lobby didn't admit this or publicize it, but for the most part it's Catholics who rail against birth control. No other religion does this. Jehovah's Witnesses don't have so much power, nor are there any JWs on the Supreme Court. If there were there would probably be a strong JW lobby and they would succeed in not having to pay for blood transfusions in health insurance policies on religious grounds. It all has to do with where the power and influence lies and we know the Catholic Church is VERY powerful and influential in Washington DC, to the detriment of all Americans.
Careful Lois. That's one of the ways we nonbelievers are easily dismissed as simply praying before a different alter than the theists. btw, that argument about taxes used for things against my religion has been tried many times and consistently failed. If contraception cost were paid by taxes, Hobby Lobby would have lost this fight before it would have ever reached the scotus.However, that argument about taxes being used for something against some people's religion succeeded this time, didn't it? If it worked for them, why shouldn't it work for the rest of us? Of course you know that I used "religion" in it's loosest sense. Humanism has often been called a religion. Why shouldn't we make the crime fit the punishment? Lois
Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,(vaccinations or blood transfusions). I can't believe VYAZMA missed it.I didn't miss that part Handy. I know you really want this Handydan. "Hell hath no fury...." But contraception or blood transfusions are not religions or religious beliefs. Sorry. Neither is abstaining from pork-like in my analogy I gave you to better understand this issue. Do you know how the courts and laws work? Hobby Lobby(and others) went to court because they felt their rights were being violated under the RFRA. The court ruled that their rights concerning contraception were being violated because the government can't create undue hardship on a religious entity by mandating that they follow through with a mandate that goes against the doctrines of a religion. So the issue here is the RFRA. The Scotus interpreted the law. The RFRA law has already been used by various religions for various issues. Perhaps a better way for you to understand this, and I already mentioned it briefly above, this SCOTUS ruling can apply to any religion. So any religion that wants exemption from this contraception mandate can get it. This includes christians, jews, muslims, hindus, and any other religion or religious sect that claims they are against contraception. Is this clear for you now? Sadly for you and fortunately for the rest of us, we don't live in the world according VYAZMA, where you are the supreme bully and head scratcher. Glad your opinions only have relevance to you. ;-P
Sadly for you and fortunately for the rest of us, we don't live in the world according VYAZMA, where you are the supreme bully and head scratcher. Glad your opinions only have relevance to you. ;-PI'm sorry if you felt bullied. If you wish to think that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of one religion over others that's ok.
An example of the interesting perspective these Republican/Libertarian folks have on “people” and their American Freedoms —
only for the faithful…
the rest better fall in line or take the consequences 