Hobby Lobby only wanted to not be forced to provide the ability to END a pregnancy AFTER conception. They still provide contraceptives to PREVENT conception. But, alas, this will go over the heads of the Libs with facts such as this…..
You’re wrong again about the “sixteen types of contraceptives” not affected by the ruling. The conservative majority made it very explicit that even though Hobby Lobby has no problem with the pill; any other closely held corporation can refuse to cover as much contraception as they want. They went on to say that of course this wouldn’t apply to religious exemptions for vaccinations, but gave no legal reason for why that could possibly stand up in court, since contraceptives and vaccines are both widely used and effective medicines.
First, the Supreme Court has already clarified that the ruling will apply to ANY form of contraception. Second, they were not providing methods of ending a pregnancy, they were providing INSURANCE, part of the employee’s compensation package, that could be used for that purpose or not, depending on the employee’s religious beliefs. Third, they are STILL providing that option in that the employee could buy it with the salary portion of the compensation package – how long until they go after that, dictating what the employee may and may not buy with the salary they are paid?
Hey, all the easy decisions are made long before getting to this level. People got upset over allowing flag burning as free speech, so don’t get pithy over this decision. If you take a case to SCOTUS, don’t be mad when they make a decision. There’s nowhere else to go so they HAVE to rule. After all, the executive and legislative branches had plenty of time to fix this or stop it from happening to begin with. But no, they wait for the Court to rule then whichever side got its ox gored whines like wimps. The SCOTUS hath ruled, selah, deal with it.
A corporation is now treated as an individual, and allowed to impose “his or her” scientifically inaccurate beliefs on an employee (whose compensation is his or her own, and not the property of the corporation that paid it out).
Whether the SCOTUS members truly believe that their ruling is narrow or not, at this moment there are legions of attorneys looking for ways to widen its effects to non-profit organizations and non-“closely-held” companies. This is certainly not the end of this subject, and I guarantee this will be back to the Supreme Court in many mutated forms within the next year or so.
To all you Libs that are complaining that religious rights are denying you rights , how is it that you don’t at the same time realize you think YOUR rights trump OUR rights! Talk about a double standard and hypicrisy! If you want your abortive pills then either start your OWN company or find a different job where they DO provide it!
@masterskrainHere’s a deal for you entitlement nuts: sleep wherever you want and live without morals. But don’t force others to pay out for your sexual conquers and the results that bear such actions! Keep YOUR sex out of OUR wallets!
@SharuniboyContraceptives are NOT a right! And never WAS until YOU entitlement nuts demanded SPECIAL rights. And you keep asking for more. You’re never satisfied!
Tell that to the people in New York whose city council starts every meeting with a Christian prayer. SCOTUS says they can continue to do this. So, when the local citizens go to their local secular city council to comment on secular city issues, they get to have a mini-church first.
Of course, you could just not care about what goes on in your city….
Hi martens, thanks for the link. Interesting, as your links always are. There’s a lot here, way too much for a short comment, or even a long comment. So I will try to keep it short. First, I don’t pay much attention when people say “science can’t explain X”. We’ve only been doing science for about 500 years, more or less. In that time we’ve learned just so much. Even in just the last 100 years we’ve completely changed our understanding of space and time and the cosmos. Give us another 500 years and who knows what science will have taught us? Even now, some scientists are getting to some pretty fundamental questions — I’ve been reading Brian Greene lately — The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos — there’s a third one, but I haven’t read it yet. The physics gets very deep, even in popularization. It’s possible (though not certain) that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” has a physical rather than a metaphysical answer. (But science is a lot more than this fundamental stuff — I have a friend who studies bees in South America, and he’s doing perfectly good science, even if he’s not grappling with the origin of the universe.)+So much for science, now on to religion. Whenever anyone starts talking about God (or god) I want to hear some kind of reasonable definition of the term. I don’t expect an exact definition at the beginning of the discussion, because obviously part of the point of such a discussion is to improve the definition, but some reasonable approximation. I rarely find that my interlocutor can supply me anything that makes sense or is internally consistent or relates to what people usually mean when they talk about God. And I think Ruse is no exception. Of course this is just a newspaper interview, and you can’t expect precision there, but still he doesn’t come close. So until I have some idea what claim he is really making, I don’t know how to evaluate what he’s saying.+But I have no interest in telling people who are religious that they shouldn’t be. I often find that I have a lot in common with certain religious people, even with some sorts of Christians, and I don’t see the point in starting arguments with them. If the topic comes up, I may (or may not) say what I think, but I don’t bring it up myself.
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
Baptism of the Constitution.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 10 years ago
Hobby Lobby only wanted to not be forced to provide the ability to END a pregnancy AFTER conception. They still provide contraceptives to PREVENT conception. But, alas, this will go over the heads of the Libs with facts such as this…..
frodo1008 almost 10 years ago
The Supreme Court has opened a very large Pandora’s Box, and like Pandora we will all suffer very greatly for it in the long run!!
ARodney almost 10 years ago
You’re wrong again about the “sixteen types of contraceptives” not affected by the ruling. The conservative majority made it very explicit that even though Hobby Lobby has no problem with the pill; any other closely held corporation can refuse to cover as much contraception as they want. They went on to say that of course this wouldn’t apply to religious exemptions for vaccinations, but gave no legal reason for why that could possibly stand up in court, since contraceptives and vaccines are both widely used and effective medicines.
neatslob Premium Member almost 10 years ago
First, the Supreme Court has already clarified that the ruling will apply to ANY form of contraception. Second, they were not providing methods of ending a pregnancy, they were providing INSURANCE, part of the employee’s compensation package, that could be used for that purpose or not, depending on the employee’s religious beliefs. Third, they are STILL providing that option in that the employee could buy it with the salary portion of the compensation package – how long until they go after that, dictating what the employee may and may not buy with the salary they are paid?
Thomas R. Williams almost 10 years ago
Hosers
hawgowar almost 10 years ago
Hey, all the easy decisions are made long before getting to this level. People got upset over allowing flag burning as free speech, so don’t get pithy over this decision. If you take a case to SCOTUS, don’t be mad when they make a decision. There’s nowhere else to go so they HAVE to rule. After all, the executive and legislative branches had plenty of time to fix this or stop it from happening to begin with. But no, they wait for the Court to rule then whichever side got its ox gored whines like wimps. The SCOTUS hath ruled, selah, deal with it.
ossiningaling almost 10 years ago
Where’s the fifth justice in this charade? Or is he “the hose?”
griffthegreat almost 10 years ago
And now the deluge
Kip W almost 10 years ago
A corporation is now treated as an individual, and allowed to impose “his or her” scientifically inaccurate beliefs on an employee (whose compensation is his or her own, and not the property of the corporation that paid it out).
I Play One On TV almost 10 years ago
“We have Freedom From Religion.”
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true.
I Play One On TV almost 10 years ago
Whether the SCOTUS members truly believe that their ruling is narrow or not, at this moment there are legions of attorneys looking for ways to widen its effects to non-profit organizations and non-“closely-held” companies. This is certainly not the end of this subject, and I guarantee this will be back to the Supreme Court in many mutated forms within the next year or so.
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 10 years ago
To all you Libs that are complaining that religious rights are denying you rights , how is it that you don’t at the same time realize you think YOUR rights trump OUR rights! Talk about a double standard and hypicrisy! If you want your abortive pills then either start your OWN company or find a different job where they DO provide it!
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 10 years ago
@masterskrainHere’s a deal for you entitlement nuts: sleep wherever you want and live without morals. But don’t force others to pay out for your sexual conquers and the results that bear such actions! Keep YOUR sex out of OUR wallets!
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 10 years ago
@sizeofapeaI have not ever told you how to live your life. Live it up! But pay for your OWN consequenses!
Don Winchester Premium Member almost 10 years ago
@SharuniboyContraceptives are NOT a right! And never WAS until YOU entitlement nuts demanded SPECIAL rights. And you keep asking for more. You’re never satisfied!
I Play One On TV almost 10 years ago
Tell that to the people in New York whose city council starts every meeting with a Christian prayer. SCOTUS says they can continue to do this. So, when the local citizens go to their local secular city council to comment on secular city issues, they get to have a mini-church first.
Of course, you could just not care about what goes on in your city….
archimedeslives almost 10 years ago
No you are incorrect he said it was a punishment.
archimedes
lonecat almost 10 years ago
Hi martens, thanks for the link. Interesting, as your links always are. There’s a lot here, way too much for a short comment, or even a long comment. So I will try to keep it short. First, I don’t pay much attention when people say “science can’t explain X”. We’ve only been doing science for about 500 years, more or less. In that time we’ve learned just so much. Even in just the last 100 years we’ve completely changed our understanding of space and time and the cosmos. Give us another 500 years and who knows what science will have taught us? Even now, some scientists are getting to some pretty fundamental questions — I’ve been reading Brian Greene lately — The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos — there’s a third one, but I haven’t read it yet. The physics gets very deep, even in popularization. It’s possible (though not certain) that the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” has a physical rather than a metaphysical answer. (But science is a lot more than this fundamental stuff — I have a friend who studies bees in South America, and he’s doing perfectly good science, even if he’s not grappling with the origin of the universe.)+So much for science, now on to religion. Whenever anyone starts talking about God (or god) I want to hear some kind of reasonable definition of the term. I don’t expect an exact definition at the beginning of the discussion, because obviously part of the point of such a discussion is to improve the definition, but some reasonable approximation. I rarely find that my interlocutor can supply me anything that makes sense or is internally consistent or relates to what people usually mean when they talk about God. And I think Ruse is no exception. Of course this is just a newspaper interview, and you can’t expect precision there, but still he doesn’t come close. So until I have some idea what claim he is really making, I don’t know how to evaluate what he’s saying.+But I have no interest in telling people who are religious that they shouldn’t be. I often find that I have a lot in common with certain religious people, even with some sorts of Christians, and I don’t see the point in starting arguments with them. If the topic comes up, I may (or may not) say what I think, but I don’t bring it up myself.