The Hobby Lobby Decision

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

ILG,
I think it is interesting that the Catholic Bishops were the earliest to proclaim that early contraception pills were combined with the issue of abortion and because "contraception" was a lifestyle choice, insurance companies shouldn't be required to pay for it.

However, 10 years later, Viagra was rapidly approved and covered by insurance, opening the door to have contraception also covered by insurance.

To our 1st Amendment rights, the article I posted earlier quotes:



It also mentions the Becket Fund, who litigated the ACA lawsuit. It's interesting how the Fund has always focused on cases involving all religions, but now finds itself focusing on more political and religious right cases.

Kristina Arriaga, the firm’s executive director, has this to say, although referencing the current ACA results:

“We find there has been an aggressive push from the government to become the sole arbiter of morality, which is not good for the country. Regrettably, religious liberty work has augmented exponentially.”

So, there we are with these two lawsuits - our 1st Amendment rights are being abridged, producing a fight in the courts.

Again, in the article I posted, I agree with this point - "The war could be averted if the left were to do as Stern suggested the right should have done when it held the high ground: adopt a live and let live attitude, consonant with pluralist democracy. The left can’t and won’t do that, because Error Has No Rights."

In reading the things you and Ferd sent me, it seems that the conservative vs liberal standpoint somewhat boils down to personal responsibility vs you owe me. Conservatives generally feel that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and if we want contraception or abortions then we should have to pay for it. The libs feel that you owe me everything I want if I work for you. You are the big, bad corporation who has all the money and power and I am the little peon who works for peanuts and needs contraception so you owe it to me.

[ILG]

Okay so does anyone want to post some good counterpoints to these?

The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision
—Dana Liebelson on Mon. June 30, 2014 11:32 AM PDT

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Charlie Neuman/ZUMA
On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

Okay so does anyone want to post some good counterpoints to these?

I don't have a lot of time, but generally people choose their employment/employer by the benefits offered.

In my area, people love Hobby Lobby, because they pay above minimum wage, and are closed on Sundays. They also like the nature of what the company is built upon - religious values.

If you don't like the healthcare benefits, find another place to seek employment. That's all there is to it, Ginsburg.

All of her other "scare tactics" are simply to keep pressure on religious freedom.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't have a lot of time, but generally people choose their employment/employer by the benefits offered.

In my area, people love Hobby Lobby, because they pay above minimum wage, and are closed on Sundays. They also like the nature of what the company is built upon - religious values.

If you don't like the healthcare benefits, find another place to seek employment. That's all there is to it, Ginsburg.

All of her other "scare tactics" are simply to keep pressure on religious freedom.

Here are some of my thoughts:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

They may be being denied coverage, but they are not being denied contraception. Hobby Lobby is simply not being required to pay for it. (Which in my opinion, you get what you get when you sign up for a job. Take it or leave it.) In addition, Hobby Lobby is providing lots of contraceptive coverage, just not abortions and stuff that causes abortions in their opinion.

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

So this means that business owners have no rights? I think not. As a business owner, I would not want someone forcing me to pay for an abortion.

"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

Although that is true, why should an employer be required to give someone any insurance coverage period?

"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

So what? Condoms are a lot cheaper. Teach abstinence or frugality. If you have sex 12 times a month, I just looked online and you can get a box of 12 at dollar general for $6.00. Problem solved and you get to be "safe" to boot!

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

If they do, they should be upfront at hiring so people know. I don't see this as a "huge" issue.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

And so it could. But otherwise you are forcing business owners to pay for abortions or whatever. There are two sides to this story not one.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

Here are some of my thoughts:



They may be being denied coverage, but they are not being denied contraception. Hobby Lobby is simply not being required to pay for it. (Which in my opinion, you get what you get when you sign up for a job. Take it or leave it.) In addition, Hobby Lobby is providing lots of contraceptive coverage, just not abortions and stuff that causes abortions in their opinion.



So this means that business owners have no rights? I think not. As a business owner, I would not want someone forcing me to pay for an abortion.



Although that is true, why should an employer be required to give someone any insurance coverage period?



So what? Condoms are a lot cheaper. Teach abstinence or frugality. If you have sex 12 times a month, I just looked online and you can get a box of 12 at dollar general for $6.00. Problem solved and you get to be "safe" to boot!



If they do, they should be upfront at hiring so people know. I don't see this as a "huge" issue.



And so it could. But otherwise you are forcing business owners to pay for abortions or whatever. There are two sides to this story not one.

Perfect!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

In reading the things you and Ferd sent me, it seems that the conservative vs liberal standpoint somewhat boils down to personal responsibility vs you owe me. Conservatives generally feel that we are all personally responsible for ourselves and if we want contraception or abortions then we should have to pay for it. The libs feel that you owe me everything I want if I work for you. You are the big, bad corporation who has all the money and power and I am the little peon who works for peanuts and needs contraception so you owe it to me.

Right, and that is taught in our colleges by liberal professors. Well, it used to be in college. Now it is getting stronger in the public school system.

It gets into a Marxist theology. Marxist feminism claims that a woman's oppression by men and sexism is more a fundamental problem rooted in capitalism. They feel we must move away from capitalism into socialism.

Basically, it is what you said, personal responsibility that liberals don't want. They want a classless society.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right, and that is taught in our colleges by liberal professors. Well, it used to be in college. Now it is getting stronger in the public school system.

It gets into a Marxist theology. Marxist feminism claims that a woman's oppression by men and sexism is more a fundamental problem rooted in capitalism. They feel we must move away from capitalism into socialism.

Basically, it is what you said, personal responsibility that liberals don't want. They want a classless society.

I live in Wisconsin. You know this whole Scott Walker thing? The educators etc have thought nothing of getting pensions and double dipping ( retiring and collecting and going back to work at the same time) for years while guess who pays for it? Their neighbors who are self-employed...farmers and business owners. All the while patting themselves on the back for "demanding good pay". This pay is not coming from the big corps or anything. It comes off the backs of their brothers and sisters. So, when Scott walker came in and leveled the playing field, I never saw such a big fit in my life.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

I live in Wisconsin. You know this whole Scott Walker thing? The educators etc have thought nothing of getting pensions and double dipping ( retiring and collecting and going back to work at the same time) for years while guess who pays for it? Their neighbors who are self-employed...farmers and business owners. All the while patting themselves on the back for "demanding good pay". This pay is not coming from the big corps or anything. It comes off the backs of their brothers and sisters. So, when Scott walker came in and leveled the playing field, I never saw such a big fit in my life.

Yes, I watched a lot of the footage. I thought they might try to murder Walker. LOL! I laugh, but seriously, I didn't know what they were capable of.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, I watched a lot of the footage. I thought they might try to murder Walker. LOL! I laugh, but seriously, I didn't know what they were capable of.

I worked at the library then and we had protesters out front and angry callers.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

I worked at the library then and we had protesters out front and angry callers.

That was a scary protest, to say the least.