US Supreme Court "Hobby Lobby" decision on contraception

[monty16]

That's my point Guyser. Canadians need not be concerned with this sort of cheap hate politics against women's right. But there's a clear and present danger that Harper is moving our country toward just that. Harper readily succumbs to US blackmail because he's not opposed to it in principle.

The US influence in Canada is so large and all pervasive that we need to be proactive and make light of it as it develops.

And maybe you should stay on topic too and stick rusty and gerome back in your craw where it belongs.

Really Guyser, it's a joke, don't you get it? If you're a Canadian you should and if you're an American then I understand why you are going off.

[guyser]

Harper readily succumbs to US blackmail because he's not opposed to it in principle.

Show us how.

Thanks.

The US influence in Canada is so large and all pervasive that we need to be proactive and make light of it as it develops.

Be proactive and make light of it?

What are you talking about?

Really Guyser, it's a joke, don't you get it?

Your reasoning ?

Why yes...yes it is.

[Mighty AC]

Hmmm, the day after the Hobby Lobby ruling a group of religious leaders have asked for a religious exemption from an executive order that will prohibit groups that receive federal funding from openly discriminating against LGBT people. Ridiculous! http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

[bush_cheney2004]

But it is very Canadian....defined by what is "not American". What is pervasive is the knee jerk reflexes to foreign court rulings like this, while ignoring the facts on the ground in Canada/Ontario (as pointed out by member Shady).

[kimmy]

If the impact of this decision was just limited to Hobby Lobby, I wouldn't be too concerned.

Hobby Lobby apparently pays its employees much better than most retail employers. Hobby Lobby apparently provides employee benefits far beyond what most retail employers provide. The list of drugs they're exempt from covering sounds pretty minor, and their employees will probably be better able to afford them than most other employees in the retail sector-- many of whom don't have benefits, period.

Personally I have no drug coverage at all, so the Hobby Lobby plan sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

What does concern me is the potential for a slippery slope. These guys get an exemption to the law based on a sincerely held religious belief. What about the next guy, and the guy after that? There's lots of people with sincerely held religious beliefs.

Here's what Hobby Lobby's law firm says about that:

7) What if corporate owners wanted to deprive their employees of transfusions or any health care at all based on their religious beliefs? Isn’t this a bad precedent to set?
Absolutely not. This case is about a compassionate family and their businesses living out their deeply held religious convictions in a way that does not threaten the health and well-being of their employees. The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held they are protected under federal law. Under that law, courts are required to strike sensible balances between religious freedom and other interests. There’s never been a case claiming that kind of exemption, and if there were, courts would probably strike the balance differently than they did here.

These family business owners who also live out those deeply held religious convictions in their care and concern for their employees, offering pay, work schedules and benefits, including a robust health care plan, that are far more generous than those generally found in the retail industry.

http://www.becketfund.org/faqhobbylobby/

They're optimistic that judges will balance religious liberty against "other interests" and presumably not grant any exemptions that are too crazy.

It appears the floodgates are now open, so it looks like we will soon find out if their optimism is warranted.

-k

[Bryan]

What does concern me is the potential for a slippery slope. These guys get an exemption to the law based on a sincerely held religious belief. What about the next guy, and the guy after that? There's lots of people with sincerely held religious beliefs.

It should be their right to conduct their business as they see fit. Just as some people openly want to cry foul over a company like Chik-Fil-A, a lot of people are specifically seeking them out because they want to know who the christian businesses are. Let business owners wear their convictions on their sleeves, and let the market decide if they will. If one company wants to be a christian retailer, let them. If another wants to be a muslim print shop, good. As long as the business is upfront when they hire people; "these are our company beliefs, do you share them?" there shouldn't be any problem.

[GostHacked]

Hey rusty....look up, waaay up , dont mind Jerome, but the heading at the top says US Politics.

Thanks for putting those imaged in my brain. Loved the show when I was a kid. Good memories.

[Black Dog]

It should be their right to conduct their business as they see fit. Just as some people openly want to cry foul over a company like Chik-Fil-A, a lot of people are specifically seeking them out because they want to know who the christian businesses are. Let business owners wear their convictions on their sleeves, and let the market decide if they will. If one company wants to be a christian retailer, let them. If another wants to be a muslim print shop, good. As long as the business is upfront when they hire people; "these are our company beliefs, do you share them?" there shouldn't be any problem.

So if a business were to use religion as a reason to exclude serving black people or Jews, you'd be fine with that?

[Mighty AC]

So if a business were to use religion as a reason to exclude serving black people or Jews, you'd be fine with that?

Religious groups are already asking for exemptions that will allow them to exclude homosexuals.

It should be their right to conduct their business as they see fit.

Why should an employer be able to force employees to, at least partially, live under their belief system? Religious owners and employees could already choose to live by the "every sperm is sacred" approach, yet that's not enough. They have decided to limit the choice of those that do not share their beliefs. This isn't defending freedom of religion, that right was not violated. Instead, it is allowing religious ideas to used as justification to limit the choice of everyone.

[bush_cheney2004]

Employers legally "force" employees to do/not do many things, regardless of religious beliefs. Don't like it ? Quit and find another job. Many places of business are closed for religious holidays or sabbath, limiting "choices". Too bad....

[monty16]

If religion is accepted as legitimate, as it is in the US then no justice system is going to be able to make sense of it. You can't take superstitious beliefs and apply them to influence the law.

And so, the conclusion should be, birth control kills babies as does masturbation.

With religious believers it has to be all or nothing, there's no half way point where sensible solutions can be observed. Or, the world is only about 6000 years old or it's billions of years old. Make your choice Americans because your society is waiting and depending on it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Americans already made their choices a long time ago regardless of what other nationals may think. Today is the 4th of July - Independence Day in the United States. Now that's what I call making a choice....

[Shady]

That's not what bitsy asked you. She asked you to point out what's nonsensical about it and why.

Looks like the Washington Post also agrees with me. They gave her two Pinocchios for her idiotic statement. She deserved at least three Pinocchios in my opinion.

Clinton, who was speaking extemporaneously, should have been more careful in making sweeping statements about the contraceptive coverage at Hobby Lobby. It’s unclear how knowledgeable she was about the details of the decision; host Walter Issacson was a bit sweeping in his description as well

.

In the specific case, the company on religious grounds objected to four of 20 possible options, leaving other possible types of contraceptives available to female employees — though not necessarily the most effective or necessary at the moment. It remains to be seen whether the lower courts will interpret the ruling as allowing some companies to institute a broader ban on coverage, so Clinton was leaping to an assumption about the impact on employees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/03/hillary-clintons-claim-that-hobby-lobby-wanted-to-stop-covering-all-contraception-procedures/

Her notion that contraception is expensive is absurd. Putting aside the fact that she has no idea what the acutal price of birth control is, it's completely false, or at the least subjective. I would not consider eight dollars a month an expensive health care expense. She's also completely wrong about Hobby Lobby not covering any contraception. They have, for many years, even before this particular mandate. In other words, she has no flipping idea what she's talking about. As is the case with most people in this forum, and on television. They don't understand the details of the case or the decision, but they like to pretend to for purely partisan political reasons. It's the politics of fear.

[scribblet]

Saw that too...

Hillary Clinton got it wrong but maybe deliberately because she knows how to play the game. She broadly defined Hobby Lobby as being against all contraception when she must know that it isn't, but she knows how to manipulate and sing the right tune. Misrepresenting the decision will play well on the campaign trail and might be a valid point if not for the fact that no one is denying women the right to birth control.

She is after all a politician and knows how to frame the argument to get the votes. She will play this bigtime if and when she runs for President.

No doubt this will spun to a different tune by some people -

[WestCoastRunner]

This isn't about Hillary Clinton. It's about the judges and the presidents who appoint them. It's pretty simple.

[monty16]

WestCoastRunner, What are you thinking? This is all about Hilary Clinton and has nothing to do with judges and presidents. The only thing simple here is your thinking. Try to understand what people are talking about.

[jacee]

WestCoastRunner, What are you thinking? This is all about Hilary Clinton and has nothing to do with judges and presidents.

You're all good there.

The only thing simple here is your thinking. Try to understand what people are talking about.

But this is a personal attack, a violation of forum rules.

Just helping you grasp the rules.

Can't respond though because you didn't 'quote' the context.

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[monty16]

jacee, at the time of my posting this would have been within the rules of this forum. You'll need to check the time and date of the posts against the current rules if you are going to make charges against others.

Thanks for the help in grasping the rules as they become the rules. Any help on keeping up to date with the moving target is appreciated.