Supreme Court to Hear Religious Freedom Concerns on Hobby Lobby Case

Dave Ellis said:

And that's irrelevant. The fact you make a decision for the business, does not mean the business is exempt from the relevant laws. Your first amendment protections also are not extended to the business.


Your first amendment protections don't even apply to yourself if your religion is in direct conflict with the law. For example, if your religion required you to smoke pot seven days a week, your first amendment protections will not exempt you from the law.

Hobby Lobby is legally required to provide the coverage in question. They don't have first amendment protection, however even if they did, it still wouldn't apply to them here.

Click to expand...

There's no exclusion for businesses in the First Amendment. What you propose is the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to protect Americans from.

Dave Ellis said:

Hobby Lobby is legally required to provide the coverage in question. They don't have first amendment protection, however even if they did, it still wouldn't apply to them here.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, this is merely your opinion. If there wasn't some sort of merit or question regarding the complaint, the USSC wouldn't be hearing it.

Sometimes (and I don't necessarily mean you specifically) I can just feel the fear in these posts that someone might actually have some religious freedom to not give in to every whim of the government. You talk about the law as though it was this big unwieldy thing that MUST BE FOLLOWED, and that's great for you right now because the law tilts your way. What will you say of the law if the USSC strikes that part of the ACA down and says that BC will not be covered? Will you be so quick to point out that "this is law and so you MUST do it"?

For you, I doubt it, because I see how you rail against law you disagree with.

The moral of the story is that it shouldn't be a legal matter in terms of health insurance. I say fight the companies that think it's okay to charge such murderous rates for health care, but apparently it's easier going after the little people through the law.

MachZer0 said:

There's no exclusion for businesses in the First Amendment. What you propose is the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to protect Americans from.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, the first amendment (and the entire bill of rights) apply to US citizens.

Businesses are not citizens, they are separate legal entities. There is no specifically stated exclusion because the bill of rights doesn't even come close to applying to them.

Dave Ellis said:

Nonsense, the first amendment (and the entire bill of rights) apply to US citizens.

Businesses are not citizens, they are separate legal entities. There is no specifically stated exclusion because the bill of rights doesn't even come close to applying to them.

Click to expand...

The First Amendment makes no mention of citizens

Deacon001 said:

Yes, I worked for one myself. Imagine a catholic Deacon working for a bunch of reformed Protestants, but it was my choice to work there and it was my choice to leave. Easy. As it is I thank God for my time there.

I know the left thinks we are all helpless victims but you are only a victim if you want to be.

BTW, Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays because of their religious beliefs, and I don't hear anybody complaining about that.

Click to expand...

Because doing so doesn't impose the employers religious preferences upon the employees. Denying employees full health care coverage due to the religious objections of the employer does.

-- A2SG, though I have no idea what the victim bit was supposed to be about....

MachZer0 said:

Exactly. the employer chooses not to use insurance that includes birth control in a benefit package. you got it. Welcome aboard

Click to expand...

It's not his insurance, though. It's the employee's.

-- A2SG, did you miss that part?

A2SG said:

It's not his insurance, though. It's the employee's.

-- A2SG, did you miss that part?

Click to expand...

It's a benefit he is offering. Did YOU miss that part?

MachZer0 said:

It's a benefit he is offering. Did YOU miss that part?

Click to expand...

Yup, a benefit with strings attached, strings that violate her rights to practice religion according to HER beliefs, not have her EMPLOYER's religion forced upon her.

-- A2SG, when was her boss appointed the watchdog of her religious convictions....

A2SG said:

The only fail here is your ridiculous conspiracy theory: no one is trying to "bust" the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you can answer the question as to why it's birth control that has to be provided free to the recipient rather than all the drugs that treat diseases and save lives

Apparently, according to you, employers are the only ones allowed to have religious rights. Granted, none of them are being violated here, since no one is forcing THEM to take, or provide, birth control medication of any sort. Their employees, on the other hand, are being denied the right to use their health insurance in a way consistent with their own religious convictions, not their employer's.

-- A2SG, never asked my boss about his religious views on my own health care decisions....sure hope Mach doesn't find out.....!

Click to expand...

Fail again. Your religious rights are not violated when someone else chooses not to give you something at their own expense

MachZer0 said:

Then perhaps you can answer the question as to why it's birth control that has to be provided free to the recipient rather than all the drugs that treat diseases and save lives

Click to expand...

Because birth control is considered preventative medicine, and preventative medicine is mandated to be free, or cheap, under the ACA.

And effective preventative care is the single most cost-effective form of health care there is.

Fail again. Your religious rights are not violated when someone else chooses not to give you something at their own expense

Click to expand...

But employers don't "give you" health insurance, you earn it. It's a benefit of your employment, just like your salary.

In this case, you feel the employer should be able to impose his religious views over you as regards how you are allowed to use your health insurance.

I, on the other hand, feel the employee has religious rights too, and among those the right to expect her employer to have NO SAY in the religious aspects -- or any other aspects -- of her health care decisions.

-- A2SG, next you might want the employer to determine how she can use her salary, based on his religious preferences....

MachZer0 said:

Fail. The first step has already been taken. Those of us who have religious beliefs fully understand when our rights have been violated

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't

A2SG said:

Yup, a benefit with strings attached, strings that violate her rights to practice religion according to HER beliefs, not have her EMPLOYER's religion forced upon her.

-- A2SG, when was her boss appointed the watchdog of her religious convictions....

Click to expand...

or did you miss that? I now find it hilarious that you're getting all worked up over four types of birth control. It's tyranny! Religious oppression!

PreachersWife2004 said:

I now find it hilarious that you're getting all worked up over four types of birth control. It's tyranny! Religious oppression!

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Case in point....

MachZer0 said:

Fail. The first step has already been taken. Those of us who have religious beliefs fully understand when our rights have been violated

Click to expand...

TLK Valentine said:

I couldn't agree more. Case in point....

Click to expand...

Oh sweetie, I was speaking of you, not Mach. Sorry you misunderstood that.

I am starting to hope that the USSC does actually say that no forms of birth control need to be covered. And then you guys will wish you had just let Hobby Lobby have their exemption for the four.

A2SG said:

Because birth control is considered preventative medicine, and preventative medicine is mandated to be free, or cheap, under the ACA.

And effective preventative care is the single most cost-effective form of health care there is.

Click to expand...

Cholesterol medicine is preventative care as well. So is high blood pressure medicine. Those medicines prevent serious disease and death whereas birth control prevents life but no disease. And there are no religious objections to using them as far as I know. So why aren't they provided with no cop-pay?

But employers don't "give you" health insurance, you earn it. It's a benefit of your employment, just like your salary.

In this case, you feel the employer should be able to impose his religious views over you as regards how you are allowed to use your health insurance.

I, on the other hand, feel the employee has religious rights too, and among those the right to expect her employer to have NO SAY in the religious aspects -- or any other aspects -- of her health care decisions.

-- A2SG, next you might want the employer to determine how she can use her salary, based on his religious preferences....

Click to expand...

And like any other benefit, the employer determines ( in a free society anyway) what the benefit package contains. In this case, the employer chooses not to offer health insurance that offers birth control. That was simple and it allows all parties to observe their religious beliefs

PreachersWife2004 said:

Oh sweetie, I was speaking of you, not Mach. Sorry you misunderstood that.

Click to expand...

You couldn't have been speaking of me, since I wasn't claiming religious discrimination of any kind -- kindly show me where I was, sweetie.

And while you weren't speaking of Mach, either, it's obvious that your words unintentionally apply to him at least as much as they apply to Dave (who I suspect you were speaking of), and far more than than to me.

I am starting to hope that the USSC does actually say that no forms of birth control need to be covered. And then you guys will wish you had just let Hobby Lobby have their exemption for the four.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would have no problem whatsoever if SCOTUS did rule that -- then the people at Hobby Lobby can drop its pretense of having religious objections to certain business practices.

...or am I, the non-Christian, the only one bothered by displays of bogus piety for profit?

Cholesterol medicine is preventative care as well. So is high blood pressure medicine. Those medicines prevent serious disease and death whereas birth control prevents life but no disease. And there are no religious objections to using them as far as I know. So why aren't they provided with no cop-pay?

Click to expand...

It might be worthwhile to get those included as well. We shouldn't go backwards on the other issue just because we haven't tackled this one appropriately yet though.

PreachersWife2004 said:

They actually don't want to cover certain types of birth control. The Washington Post writes that Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 forms of birth control but objects to four, specifically.

So...tell me again how they're not providing it? Even if you disagree with Hobby Lobby's definition of those four forms birth control how can you say they're not covering birth control in general?

Click to expand...

Indeed, another important distinction (They seem to get lost in these discussions don't they?). I believe the central issue here is that the four they do not want to provide are mandated by the ACA. The part of this that I am curious about is if the fact that their religious beliefs are erroneous become a factor in the trial. They believe these four are abortificants which can be shown to be incorrect. I don't know of anything other then evolution that has delved into these waters.

Ishraqiyun said:

It might be worthwhile to get those included as well. We shouldn't go backwards on the other issue just because we haven't tackled this one appropriately yet though.

Click to expand...

The reason they aren't included is that the birth control mandate is all about busting the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom

Belk said:

Indeed, another important distinction (They seem to get lost in these discussions don't they?). I believe the central issue here is that the four they do not want to provide are mandated by the ACA. The part of this that I am curious about is if the fact that their religious beliefs are erroneous become a factor in the trial. They believe these four are abortificants which can be shown to be incorrect. I don't know of anything other then evolution that has delved into these waters.

Click to expand...

I believe two of them ARE, however. I could be wrong, I'm not in a position to research that at the moment.

Let's even say they're wrong and none of the four are abortion pills (can't even spell that other word, not even gonna try without spell check!). Why shouldn't the AVA just say that you need to offer ONE type of birth control and be done with it? Birth control when prescribed as medically necessary, isn't really birth control, is it? There's a lot of meds out there that can cause miscarriages if taken while someone is pregnant but we're not really up in a hoopla over that. I took BC for medical reasons so I didn't consider it birth control at the time. It was more hormone control, I suppose. Now the reason I say this is because the central argument for birth control coverage is the expense is cheaper than the cost of a child, correct? Would you agree on that? If not, let's get to the heart of why people think BC needs to be covered versus other meds, and we can start from there.

But if you agree, then doesn't it make sense that Hobby Lobby IS covering birth control, and that the ACA should reflect that rather than forcing everyone to cover every single type of BC out there? Isn't 16 forms enough, really?