Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

Posted Jun 30, '14 at 9:40pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,985 posts

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?

 

Posted Jun 30, '14 at 10:36pm

Jacen96

Jacen96

2,239 posts

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

 

Posted Jun 30, '14 at 11:31pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,985 posts

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.

 

Posted Jun 30, '14 at 11:39pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

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!


last edited Jun 30 2014 11:40 pm by Kasic
 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 1:09am

BRAAINZz

BRAAINZz

601 posts

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.

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 2:12am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,985 posts

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."

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 4:37am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,046 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 7:33am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,121 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 8:21am

thepyro222

thepyro222

1,986 posts

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

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 8:52am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,046 posts

Knight

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.

 
Reply to Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

You must be logged in to post a reply!