Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court Case.

[shades]

yea whatever jr, keep spouting your "version" of reality.

mr. google has multiple degrees therefor he is right, we get it.

downzy, on 02 Jul 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

" Unless the GOP moderates its positions on reproductive rights, immigration, and the welfare state (ie. not trying to kill it), they will not win a Presidential election. " ????

let me translate that for everybody,

As a country we need to kill more babies, let people flood across the border undocumented, and continue to promote welfare or were doomed as a party?

brilliant plan, but if it's ok with you I'll stick witht he principles that made this country the greatest on earth before liberals starting dismantling it.

The SJC will "turn dramatically more liberal over the next 8 years"?

kind of presumptuous of you, and based on Hillary winning, so good luck with grandma "what difference does it make at this point that 4 Americans are dead".

otherwise a batch of baboons have the same polling numbers as Cuomo, Martin O'mailey, and who? oh yea Kristen Hiilbrand

now go "google" some more shit and respond to my post, ya goof

Edited July 2, 2014 by shades

[downzy]

downzy, on 02 Jul 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

" Unless the GOP moderates its positions on reproductive rights, immigration, and the welfare state (ie. not trying to kill it), they will not win a Presidential election. " ????

let me translate that for everybody,

As a country we need to kill more babies, let people flood across the border undocumented, and continue to promote welfare or were doomed as a party?

brilliant plan, but if it's ok with you I'll stick witht he principles that made this country the greatest on earth before liberals starting dismantling it.

That's exactly what I said. No wonder you understand politics so well.

BTW, wasn't it liberals who ushered in the welfare state in the 1930s and imposed a progressive tax system during America's greatest boom in economic growth? And correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't it been the return on neo-conservative economics of the past 30-35 years that have seen a massive expansion of inequality while the middle class gets crated out? Since 1961, 42 million jobs have been created under a Democratic president, while only 24 million were created under a Republican president. But sure you're right, that it's the liberals that have ruined everything. Based on what evidence, who knows? You never seem to provide any but still expect others to take you seriously. Just like how your predictions of the 2012 election undermine your assertions about the 2016 election. How consistently wrong do you have to be before you start questioning your own positions?

Edited July 2, 2014 by downzy

[foghat43]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

Companies are not people. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be protecting them.

Not sure how replying to my quote with Georgy's quote is relevant...it doesn't change the fact that a liberal/collectivist feigning concern over individual rights is hypocritical, logically inconsistent and comical. And the Supreme Court...really?...yeah, like they are the great champions and defenders of individual rights...LOL...way to bolster your case, downzy!

[downzy]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

Companies are not people. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be protecting them.

Not sure how replying to my quote with Georgy's quote is relevant...it doesn't change the fact that a liberal/collectivist feigning concern over individual rights is hypocritical, logically inconsistent and comical. And the Supreme Court...really?...yeah, like they are the great champions and defenders of individual rights...LOL...way to bolster your case, downzy!

Thought it was obvious. Guess not. The recent Supreme Court decision gives precedent to religious rights of a corporation versus the freedoms of individual people. Religious rights of corporations should not be given precedent over the rights of individual people, since, you know, corporations aren't people.

[foghat43]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

Companies are not people. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be protecting them.

Not sure how replying to my quote with Georgy's quote is relevant...it doesn't change the fact that a liberal/collectivist feigning concern over individual rights is hypocritical, logically inconsistent and comical. And the Supreme Court...really?...yeah, like they are the great champions and defenders of individual rights...LOL...way to bolster your case, downzy!

Thought it was obvious. Guess not. The recent Supreme Court decision gives precedent to religious rights of a corporation versus the freedoms of individual people. Religious rights of corporations should not be given precedent over the rights of individual people, since, you know, corporations aren't people.

No, I get it...in this case it was not OK to interfere with individual rights and the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly (because this was a case of those greedy, evil Christian capitalists versus the working class), but when individual rights get trampled to further some collectivist agenda that you agree with, then that's OK...got it. Again, my point wasn't so much about the specifics of this particular case, but more about you (a liberal/collectivist) feigning concern over individual rights. I'm sorry that you can't see the irony, inconsistency and hypocrisy of that.

[downzy]

To those glad that Hobby Lobby won the argument, be weary if one day you arrive to work and your company has suddenly found God (or Muhammed, or Yahweh, or Buddha, or Vishnu). Because apparently your company's religious rights now trump your own individual rights.

Hmmm....no offense downzy, but it's hard to take your concern for individual rights seriously...collectivists/liberals like yourself don't seem to have a problem with trumping individual rights when it suits your agenda. What about my individual right to NOT purchase health insurance if I don't want to? Or my individual right to keep the fruit of my labor rather than being forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare? Or what about the rights of the people who were told "if you like your doctor/policy you can keep them"? Or the individual rights of a business owner to decide what benefits his plan will/will not pay for? Your credibility regarding the defense of individual rights is laughable.

Companies are not people. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be protecting them.

Not sure how replying to my quote with Georgy's quote is relevant...it doesn't change the fact that a liberal/collectivist feigning concern over individual rights is hypocritical, logically inconsistent and comical. And the Supreme Court...really?...yeah, like they are the great champions and defenders of individual rights...LOL...way to bolster your case, downzy!

Thought it was obvious. Guess not. The recent Supreme Court decision gives precedent to religious rights of a corporation versus the freedoms of individual people. Religious rights of corporations should not be given precedent over the rights of individual people, since, you know, corporations aren't people.

No, I get it...in this case it was not OK to interfere with individual rights and the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly (because this was a case of those greedy, evil Christian capitalists versus the working class), but when individual rights get trampled to further some collectivist agenda that you agree with, then that's OK...got it. Again, my point wasn't so much about the specifics of this particular case, but more about you (a liberal/collectivist) feigning concern over individual rights. I'm sorry that you can't see the irony, inconsistency and hypocrisy of that.

And this is why your use of labels is asinine. To suggest that one subscribes to a "collectivist" approach in one field requires the same approach in all others is absurd. Your labelling system is too binary, as if it's an either or proposition when it is not.

The responsibility of the courts is to weigh the rights and liberties of one group against another. I take no issue when individual rights are forfeited for the sake of the community at large when it makes sense (here's an example: you're right to drive a car 200 km/s an hour on a public road doesn't trump the right of personal safety for others).

But this decision doesn't even weigh the rights of one group of people versus another group of individuals. It gives precedent to the religious rights of for-profit corporations over the individual rights of the employee to practice the healthcare that is of their own choosing. This notion the corporations have religious rights, and that these rights then trump the liberties of an individual in the realm of healthcare is absurd. If those individuals who run and own the corporation wish to follow their own religious tenets, fine by me. But I object to the argument that suggest such religious principles should be projected onto the entire workforce.

Moreover, it sets up a dangerous principle where any and all corporations can now claim religious liberties to extricate themselves from the laws of the land. It's a dangerous precedent that I hope remains limited as promised by Justice Kennedy. In any event, as the article I posted yesterday, these decisions only transfer the responsibility onto the government, who will now pick up the slack.

Edited July 2, 2014 by downzy

[***Flawless]

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

[luciusfunk]

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

[Dan H.]

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

5-4 ruling eh...

[foghat43]

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

LOL...'cause "corporations" aren't made up of actual people...and the family that owns Hobby Lobby aren't...y'know? Human beings.

[Thin White Duke]

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

You mean people who studied and know better than the majority the legal system and laws behind it, that excelled in their studies and their career and therefore ended up being eligible for such a important position, that have lived relatively long lives which allows them to be more experienced and have gone through plenty of cases before?

Yeah... probably they know nothing about the world. The remark about being white is as necessary as the one about being old. Everybody knows old white people are all evil and with no feelings. I say let 20 years old make these decisions. Black or Latin ones, of course.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[foghat43]

Moreover, it sets up a dangerous principle where any and all corporations can now claim religious liberties to extricate themselves from the laws of the land. It's a dangerous precedent that I hope remains limited as promised by Justice Kennedy. In any event, as the article I posted yesterday, these decisions only transfer the responsibility onto the government, who will now pick up the slack.

A "dangerous principle" indeed...

"The fear that liberty might break out in the world must give collectivists many a sleepless night!"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-dependency-bubble/

[Bards]

I giggle a little any time someone uses the term collectivist and expects to be taken seriously.

[downzy]

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

LOL...'cause "corporations" aren't made up of actual people...and the family that owns Hobby Lobby aren't...y'know? Human beings.

And they can follow whatever religious tenets they want. Forcing their employees to follow the same religion is bullshit.

The law states that in order for something to be considered healthcare insurance, it's required to contain certain components. The objection to such components based on religious grounds is one thing (especially for religious institutions), but for-profit corporations getting a religious waiver is beyond understandable.

I think it's great that a bunch of old white men get to make such important decisions, they are really in touch with the world.

I also really like how corporations are valued as 'people' above actual... y'know? Human beings.

You mean people who studied and know better than the majority the legal system and laws behind it, that excelled in their studies and their career and therefore ended up being eligible for such a important position, that have lived relatively long lives which allows them to be more experienced and have gone through plenty of cases before?

Yeah... probably they know nothing about the world. The remark about being white is as necessary as the one about being old. Everybody knows old white people are all evil and with no feelings. I say let 20 years old make these decisions. Black or Latin ones, of course.

Except they're prone to making mistakes, and not just mistakes in logic and discourse but actual, factual mistakes:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-error-supreme-court-dissent-epa

The judges who decided the Dread Scott case were also distinguished law-man with decades of experience in matters of law. Simply being a Supreme Court justice does not render one beyond the limits of viable criticism.

[Thin White Duke]

And younger men wouldn't make mistakes too? I never said they shouldn't be criticised either.

[foghat43]

I giggle a little any time someone uses the term collectivist and expects to be taken seriously.

Why? It's a valid term when discussing political ideologies. Using this term one can cover a broad range of ideologies all of which favor the collective over the individual. And it isn't quite as harsh as using terms like "fascist" or "socialist". If you don't know what "collectivism" is...google it.

downzy - what "label" would you prefer that I use when referring to your ideology...if "collectivist" amuses/bothers you, or makes you giggle...well, I'm OK with "fascist" or "socialist"...

[foghat43]

And they can follow whatever religious tenets they want. Forcing their employees to follow the same religion is bullshit.

The law states that in order for something to be considered healthcare insurance, it's required to contain certain components. The objection to such components based on religious grounds is one thing (especially for religious institutions), but for-profit corporations getting a religious waiver is beyond understandable.

Forcing their employees to follow the same religion? Not hardly. In fact, no one is forcing them to work at Hobby Lobby. They are there by consent and free to leave if they feel the "corporation" is no longer offering them a competitive/fair benefits package. And there's always Obamacare...

And like you said...these folks will most likely still get their "free" (i.e. paid for out of the public purse) contraceptives. So it's not like they won't get what they are "entitled" to one way or the other. So it's a win-win. A win for religious freedom, and everyone still gets "free" contraceptives!!

Beyond understandable? Funny, I have no problem understanding it.

[arnold layne]

God Bless America.

Where your tax dollars are wasted on National Security and sending poor people to Afghanistan to get their limbs charred and mangled, and helping your neighbor live a healthier, longer lifestyle is too much trouble because fuck them.

[foghat43]

Yep...God bless America...where it causes a national uproar when a few folks might actually have to pay for their own contraceptives temporarily until they start getting the "free" ones from the government...

[downzy]

I giggle a little any time someone uses the term collectivist and expects to be taken seriously.

Why? It's a valid term when discussing political ideologies. Using this term one can cover a broad range of ideologies all of which favor the collective over the individual. And it isn't quite as harsh as using terms like "fascist" or "socialist". If you don't know what "collectivism" is...google it.

downzy - what "label" would you prefer that I use when referring to your ideology...if "collectivist" amuses/bothers you, or makes you giggle...well, I'm OK with "fascist" or "socialist"...

First, collectivist not a valid term because it's so absolute. It leaves no room for degrees while brandishes one to a perspective in all policy areas. One can favour a more centralized, social policy approach in one area while holding a more libertarian perspective in others. It's a continuum, not a binary consideration.

I prefer you not to use labels directed towards people. Calling someone a "collectivist" or "socialist" because they subscribed to universal healthcare simply characterizes that individual. What if that same person is a proponent of few gun regulations, prefers a privatized social security system, and advocates for an unregulated banking system? Or what about the woman who hates paying taxes but believes the government has a role to play in regulating reproductive rights? Moreover, the labels don't measure intensity. Someone might prefer a universal form of healthcare but is fine with the marketplace health system the U.S. now has. Is that person a collectivist because of a tepid preference?

Using such labels is just a lazy way of discoursing when describing a person. They're often used because the person employing them understands most labels have negative connotations and associations.

Some Americans are so consumed with "freedom" that they don't seem to mind choking on it.

Edited July 3, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

And they can follow whatever religious tenets they want. Forcing their employees to follow the same religion is bullshit.

The law states that in order for something to be considered healthcare insurance, it's required to contain certain components. The objection to such components based on religious grounds is one thing (especially for religious institutions), but for-profit corporations getting a religious waiver is beyond understandable.

Forcing their employees to follow the same religion? Not hardly. In fact, no one is forcing them to work at Hobby Lobby. They are there by consent and free to leave if they feel the "corporation" is no longer offering them a competitive/fair benefits package. And there's always Obamacare...

And like you said...these folks will most likely still get their "free" (i.e. paid for out of the public purse) contraceptives. So it's not like they won't get what they are "entitled" to one way or the other. So it's a win-win. A win for religious freedom, and everyone still gets "free" contraceptives!!

Beyond understandable? Funny, I have no problem understanding it.

Except a corporation is the creation of the state. If the owners of Hobby Lobby want all the benefits that come from incorporation as bestowed by the state, it also bears responsibilities of such a designation. They're more than welcome to drop their incorporation status and thereby lose the many benefits accrued from such a legal structure. They can then hire people however they feel, under whatever conditions they want. But corporations can't attend mass, can't be held truly responsible for their sins, and generally don't pray so long as it's for the almighty dollar. This new connotation that corporation now have religious rights is utterly ridiculous considering the modern corporation is a relatively recent invention.

Thomas Jefferson: “I hope we shall crush in [its] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country”

[foghat43]

@ downzy - The term "collectivist" (at least in the manner that I use it) characterizes a person's political ideology, and by default it also characterizes that person to some extent (assuming that the person in question is passionate enough about their ideology that it becomes a part of their identity/personality). I have no problem being labeled as a libertarian (little "l", not Libertarian party), or an anarcho-capitalist, etc. Also, "collectivist" is a broad enough category to allow for some variation on your "continuum". And I have already stated that I choose this term in order to stay away from other terms that have more negative connotations, e.g. "fascist". Now...feel free to correct me if I have mis-characterized you as a collectivist, but I just call them as I see them and from what I can tell from your posts on this forum you pretty much go by the standard progressive/liberal/collectivist talking points (at least on the topics we have discussed). Granted that what I can know about you from simply reading your posts is somewhat limited...but again feel free to correct me if I have "labeled" you incorrectly. And if not, then why worry about the label...if that's the ideology that you believe and defend (in most, maybe not all cases)...then wear the "collectivist" badge proudly.

[Georgy Zhukov]

From George Takei

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/02/george-takei-what-if-hobby-lobby-was-run-by-muslims-imposing-sharia-law-on-workers/

Former Star Trek actor George Takei blasted Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court allowing the craft store Hobby Lobby to opt out of the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

In a post on the website for his new play, Allegiance, the openly gay Takei called Monday’s decision “a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.”

“The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” he continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

My favorite bit was about what if Muslim owned companies try to impose Shaaria Law on their employees? Or if Jewish companies refuse to cover medications with products derived from pigs? Also, Hobby Lobby has products made in China, pretty much goes against any Christian values. Maybe they should find someplace else to get their shit from?

[downzy]

From George Takei

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/02/george-takei-what-if-hobby-lobby-was-run-by-muslims-imposing-sharia-law-on-workers/

Former Star Trek actor George Takei blasted Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court allowing the craft store Hobby Lobby to opt out of the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

In a post on the website for his new play, Allegiance, the openly gay Takei called Monday’s decision “a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.”

“The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” he continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

My favorite bit was about what if Muslim owned companies try to impose Shaaria Law on their employees? Or if Jewish companies refuse to cover medications with products derived from pigs?

Exactly. Because it's a "Christian company" (whatever that now means), it's fine. Watch a Muslim owned company try to wedge its religion between its employees and their healthcare insurance and the decision would have been dramatically different.

[Georgy Zhukov]

A couple years back, Hobby Lobby got in trouble because they didn't carry Jewish holiday products because it "goes against" their values as a Christian company. Apparently they have tried to sell Jewish holiday items in test locations.

Can't imagine my company imposing that crap onto its employees. We have a ton of employees who are not Christian. But I guess I will be okay because the corporation HQ is in the North East and not backwards bumblefuck South.