ForumsWEPRBurwell v Hobby Lobby decision

57 6461
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

Today, the Supreme Court decided in favor (5/4) of Hobby Lobby's refusal to comply with the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. What are your thoughts on the decision?

  • 57 Replies
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

Question: What defines a "closely held" company?

I don't really know how to react to this, I mean, I support religious freedom, but I don't know how to apply it to this case.

On one hand you got the bosses who don't want to violate their moral beliefs by supporting contraception, and the employees who feel they have the right to such contraception provision.

~~~Darth Caedus

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

What defines a "closely held" company?


1.publicly business owned by few: a public corporation where five or fewer people together own more than half the shares

According to this, the decision affects over 90% of corporations.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

I fully agree. You can't mandate an employer to provide health services that contradicts their religion.

That's why you don't leave it to the employer to provide the healthcare in the first place. Everyone wins!

BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
789 posts
215

It makes sense why they would do it and on the end of their religious rights I support it. But despite it being their choice this kind of decision in favor of them being allowed to exempt themselves from a law can easily create a large grey zone of religious belief vs. law.

All I see coming from this is this case right here being used as an example of how companies can exempt them selves from (certain) laws in the future.

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

All I see coming from this is this case right here being used as an example of how companies can exempt them selves from (certain) laws in the future.

I'd go with "My religion prevents me from supporting worldly governments, therefore no taxes ever."
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,737 posts
20,765

If it has been decided that a female employee has a right to get contraceptive costs covered by insurance, then those costs have to be covered; if the employer refuses, the money simply has to come from somewhere else. The problem only arises when the employee does not get coverage.

But honestly, I am baffled that a corporation can claim to have religious beliefs. That's bureaucratic BS.

I'd go with "My religion prevents me from supporting worldly governments, therefore no taxes ever."

If they can do it, they will.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

Plain disgusting. Keep your own religion, but if you're foisting it upon thousands of others, such that it affects their tangible lives, get away! I am deeply worried and appalled that the ruling could have a profound effect on the issue of whether companies can be religiously exempt from laws that are set up to protect the interests of the many. Hopefully a look into the definition of a "Person" is undertaken soon.

Religious freedom means the right to practice what you believe to an extent that it does not tangibly affect others negatively, it does not mean you would be insulated, protected and cloistered away from public concern for the totality of your beliefs! Especially when you are held accountable for thousands of others.

thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,162 posts
910

According to USA Today The contraceptives they are refusing to provide through medical insurance (and thus bringing about the supreme court ruling) are three specific types of emergency contraceptives that prevent the fetus from being fertilized or otherwise kill the fetus after fertilization. Hobby Lobby does identify itself as a Christian company who identifies life as starting with conception.
I have always believed that private companies should be allowed to identify themselves under a particular religion, and conform to that religion's spiritual beliefs and practices (such as not being open on Sunday.) Will that lose them customers? probably, but it's their right as American citizens. To my knowledge, they're not stopping ALL birth control, just ones that are used after conception, so I don't see an issue with it. Don't like the ruling? don't shop at or work for that company

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,737 posts
20,765

It's more than that, pyro. The corporation has a responsibility towards their employees. If an employee would not be able to do some parts of the job, the consequences are likely relocation or lay-off. Why would an employer be treated differently? Your beliefs are yours, not those of all of your employees. If you don't like that, find another job.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

And if you insist upon only hiring employees that align to your beliefs then....discrimination with a capital D?

What a company really means when it identifies itself as a Christian corporation, is that its board identifies itself with a Christian image and beliefs. Not the lower hierarchies. Message after all, trickles down, and the direction comes from above.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

I don't see why this company should have to pay for some liberal woman's irresponsible sexual behavior. And if the company's beliefs are pro life, they shouldn't be forced to support abortion. I thought the motto was government (or who ever else) stay out of my bedroom. Hypocrisy.

Bty, I can't believe that pang hasn't weighed in on this yet. He will now that I have. xD

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,377 posts
24,445

It's a gross misconception to think that only ****ty women will ever need contraceptives. Married women who do not want children will also need them. Married women who already feel they have enough children will need them. Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to? What about women who were raped? (Spousal rape rates are shockingly high, and make up the majority of rape cases). Notably, the contraceptives contested are only emergency contraceptives but....so? Does it matter? No. Emergency contraceptives will apply even more pertinently against the last group of women.

Furthermore, companies win, if their so hard nosed and think like corporations. No children = no maternity leave/benefits = continued productivity at the workplace.

The government should stay out of my bedroom.....that was applicable only to individuals. What lots of groups are angry about is not only the insufferable clutch of evangelicals shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, but also the fact that corporations now have a precedent whereby "closely held" companies can be counted more or less as individuals.

Conservatives have cast the battle as one for their own petty religious freedom, but for the rest of the public, they see it as a showdown over personal health choices. Anyway, most women also support the contraceptive mandate (And they after all, should be the ones deciding), so who are the corporations or opposition to frame it as "hypocrisy"?

Daft. Btw, stop dragging pang into the argument. You claim to be the victim, but don't seem to play that role very well.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

I don't see why this company should have to pay for some liberal woman's irresponsible sexual behavior.

In addition to Nicho's points, unexpected birth control malfunction.

And if the company's beliefs are pro life, they shouldn't be forced to support abortion.

I kill millions of organisms as complex as a human embryo every day by accident. At that stage, it shouldn't be an issue.
thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,162 posts
910

what you're saying is full of hypocrisy. Let me be clear, I, myself, am not a Christian, but I do respect and honor other peoples' beliefs and I will defend them to the death.

first you said this:

It's a gross misconception to think that only ****ty women will ever need contraceptives.

Then you said this:
Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to?

That statement is a contradiction, as I am pretty sure that, by definition, is what a **** is.

What about women who were raped?

because all men are evil and will rape you, right? That's an over-generalization based on a prejudiced bias. Just because you have a vagina between your legs does not mean you're going to get raped, and just because I have a penis between my legs does not mean I can't get raped. What if I get raped, and that spawns a kid? Now I have to pay child support for a kid that I didn't want.

Notably, the contraceptives contested are only emergency contraceptives but....so? Does it matter? No. Emergency contraceptives will apply even more pertinently against the last group of women.

Actually yes, it does matter. The reasoning behind the ban on the emergency contraceptives is because it goes against their stance on abortion. They believe that life begins after conception, after the sperm fertilizes the egg. The emergency contraceptives seek out and kill the egg, therefore "aborting" the child. (again, not my personal stance, but I agree with their ruling.) Also, do you know how bad chemically and psychologically emergency contraceptives mess you up? if you don't, look it up sometime.

The government should stay out of my bedroom.....that was applicable only to individuals. What lots of groups are angry about is not only the insufferable clutch of evangelicals shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, but also the fact that corporations now have a precedent whereby "closely held" companies can be counted more or less as individuals.

By this logic, aren't you shoving your beliefs down the throat of others, telling them that they have to provide these emergency contraceptives, no matter what their spiritual beliefs?

Anyway, most women also support the contraceptive mandate (And they after all, should be the ones deciding)

the problem is... who's paying for it? the company is. If women want it so bad, why can't they pay for it themselves? Just because of the supreme court ruling, it doesn't mean you can't buy birth control from anyone EVER, it means that it will not be covered in medical insurance, which I don't think it should anyway. In fact, I see it when I walk into a CVS to buy condoms (also a very effective, and very cheap method of birth control), so you can buy the **** they're banning over the counter.
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,730

That statement is a contradiction,

No, because he gave examples of other groups to demonstrate his point.

as I am pretty sure that, by definition, is what a **** is.

You're saying the term can't apply to married people?

because all men are evil and will rape you, right? That's an over-generalization based on a prejudiced bias. Just because you have a vagina between your legs does not mean you're going to get raped.

Saying that it's *possible* doesn't mean it's *guaranteed* or even *likely*. Ignoring the issue itself doesn't help. Address the question.

and just because I have a penis between my legs does not mean I can't get raped.

No one said it did...

Also, do you know how bad chemically and psychologically emergency contraceptives mess you up?

Do you know there are people with other problems (unrelated to fertilization) that can be resolved by taking them?
Showing 1-15 of 57