Sign in to follow this  
pam

Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Recommended Posts

Guest

JustAGuy - how limited to you think this "limited" ruling is. It's supposed to only apply to the 4 forms of birth control mentioned, but I don't see why that wouldn't expand to other medical treatments that are religiously objectionable (blood transfusions for instance).

 

See people... this is why we should not have a government mandate what a Private Enterprise must buy.  It is not the responsibility of Private Enterprise to provide Healthcare-anything to anybody nor is it their responsibility to provide jobs for everybody.  Private Enterprise provides work that must be filled by a person.  If there's no work, there's no person needed.  If there are 5 jobless people and a Private Enterprise only has work for 2 people, he is not responsible to provide a job for the other 3.  Benefits (including health insurance coverage) are provided to their employees as a competitive edge.  When there are 5 jobless people and work only for 2, there is no need for competitive edge and therefore, they should not have to provide benefits to attract workers - that should remain free from government interference.  If the government wants to give opportunity for the 3 remaining jobless folks, the government puts up incentives for more Private Enterprise to open up on their soil... then the competition becomes healthy and benefits come into play.

 

As such, health insurance laws must take into consideration that healthcare does not come from one's employer instead of starting this spaghetti garbage of a government trying to manage the payroll and benefits package of a Private Enterprise.

 

So, the ruling for Hobby Lobby is a hollow victory.  The victory is when we succeed in removing the hand of government from a Private Enterprise's employee benefits package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JustAGuy - how limited to you think this "limited" ruling is. It's supposed to only apply to the 4 forms of birth control mentioned, but I don't see why that wouldn't expand to other medical treatments that are religiously objectionable (blood transfusions for instance).

 

OK, here's the best analogy I can think of:

 

Let's say that my family has a general rule that the kids can't eat in front of the television.  However, we have a process for figuring out which kids get an exception to the general rule based on age, how careful they are about eating, and how conscientious they have historically been about cleaning up after themselves generally.  We have also had a second rule that our kids' friends do not eat in front of the television--ever--regardless of their age, eating ability, history of cleaning up after themselves, and so on.

 

But then, one day, Chief Justice Mom says "you know what?  Henceforward, instead of having the blanket rule that visitors can't eat in front of the television, I'm going to make the same exception available to visitors that we do to our own kids--in other words, I might let a visitor eat in front of the television depending on his age, how careful of an eater he is, and whether he's usually good about cleaning up after himself."  Mom's ruling does not say that all visitors can eat in front of the television--it just says Mom will evaluate each of them on a case-by-basis according to already-established criteria.  Mom's subsequent decision to let a teenaged daughter's friend eat in front of the television, does not mean that a six-year-old son's friends can do likewise.

 

That's what happened with Hobby Lobby.  The Supreme Court took a set of already-existing criteria that applied to individuals (under RFRA), and extended them to a new class of "people" (closely held corporations).  The Court then ruled that under the RFRA analysis, Hobby Lobby (and only Hobby Lobby) qualified for an exception from the general rule. 

 

Other closely-held corporate attempts to--say--refuse to pay for all contraception, or blood transfusions, or STD treatments, or fertility treatments . . . ad infinitum, will be evaluated by courts on a case-by-case basis under the RFRA criteria.  Those criteria basically say (I'm going off memory here, but I think I'm essentially right) that a regulation must serve a compelling government interest (in other words, it's not just a law because we think it's a good idea; it's a law because it's absolutely necessary to prevent some truly terrible thing from happening) and must be the least invasive possible way of fulfilling that interest.

 

Incidentally, RFRA was not passed by wild-eyed Evangelical fundamentalist wackos.  It was passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and signed by a Democratic president; in the wake of a Supreme Court case which held that the First Amendment did not give Native American peyote smokers who couldn't pass a drug test, the right to collect welfare benefits just because the smoking was a "religious" practice.  RFRA was, quite frankly, passed to annoy conservative Christians; not to protect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the notion that the religious practices of an owner can be extended into the corporation.  This same disagreement is at the heart of why I object to the Citizens United decision.  My understanding is that the corporation, as a concept, exists to shield the owner from liability should the corporation fail.  So it bothers me that we are extending all of the attributes and beliefs of the owner onto the corporation that is supposed to be the barrier.

 

In some sense, this is why I think corporations like the cake company shouldn't be able to refuse service to same sex couples, unless they are sole proprietors.  If you are going to take the protection offered by the corporation, you give up other elements of control.

 

But in the end, I guess it doesn't really matter.  If the concern is that the owners of these corporations would be committing sinful negligence by paying for these forms of contraception, and the Supreme Court rules that the government should pay for it with tax revenues to grant the exemption, then I guess these owners are still going to burn in hell.  Yay!  everyone wins! </sarcasm>

in general ya... but thanks to recent laws that have been introduced, and others removed, corporations and individuals can now (or get really close to) both be considered a singular entity without much difference between the two.

I htink this is just gona be the start of all the can of worms thats gona have to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue in reality is that the government has gotten in to the business of mandating that a private entity must provide health care to its employees. This whole notion is an absolutely ridiculous bundle of nonsense, irrationality, and madness.

Businesses use to offer health care because it attracted the best and the brightest. Now the American psyche has been diluted so that we believe an individual MUST provide healthcare to another individual.

Private business is but an extension of the individual. The goal of this current Administration is to bring all entities under government control and rule. The philosophy is one of where the government provides the answers to ALL of the ills of mankind. Government must be large and have its tentacles in every aspect of people’s lives, at all levels. Only those who are in government are exempted from their own rules. This is done supposedly, for the "good" of the people.

We have a largely ignorant population who worry about the Kardashians and know the lyrics to the latest rap and pop-songs but don't know what it means to be a Republic. They don't know what it means to be The People. There is a large portion of the country that depends on the government coffers for their livelihood. There is a certain segment of society (irrespective of race) that purposefully and quite consciously remains under the poverty level so that they can receive free food, free housing, free phones, free healthcare, etc. The Liberal Left depend on this segment. They depend on the secularization of the country because it provides the rationality that government, not God, is the answer to life's difficulties. They depend on the ignorant remaining ignorant. They depend on outright lies and the principles of sophistry to win the day.

The reason why the Hobby Lobby win is a limited win and barely a win to liberty and for the Republic is because the law which is the catalyst for this legal decision is still alive. The ACA is a travesty and it is criminal. It is the fruit of liars, robbers, thieves, and murderers. What worries me is that it seems only a relatively few in the country recognize what is happening and that a large majority of the People haven't yet awoken to a sense of their awful situation:

Ether 8

18 And it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God;

19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

20 And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people, and they are had among the Lamanites.

21 And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.

22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles (WE ARE THE GENTILES), it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved. (Emphasis and comment added)

-Finrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why the Hobby Lobby win is a limited win and barely a win to liberty and for the Republic is because the law which is the catalyst for this legal decision is still alive. The ACA is a travesty and it is criminal. It is the fruit of liars, robbers, thieves, and murderers. What worries me is that it seems only a relatively few in the country recognize what is happening and that a large majority of the People haven't yet awoken to a sense of their awful situation

 

The ACA is the fruit of the same legislative process that creates all of our laws. It was passed by a majority vote in Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court when the constitutionality of it was challenged. People can hate it all they want, but to call it "criminal" is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been MIA/occasionally lurking for a while. Then the format changed and I couldn't log in. After some internal debate as to whether or not I wanted to fully come back, I finally brought the issue up with Pam and she helped me get back into my account.

Added bonus, I can access the forums on my phone now! That was another hurdle that kept me away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...After some internal debate as to whether or not I wanted to fully come back, I finally brought the issue up with Pam and she helped me get back into my account.

Added bonus, I can access the forums on my phone now! That was another hurdle that kept me away.

 

You could be considered one of those in-active members of lds.net and something tugged at your "soul" and with Pam's help she was able to bring you back into the fold.

 

I couldn't help myself, I just had to say that. :)

 

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been MIA/occasionally lurking for a while. Then the format changed and I couldn't log in. After some internal debate as to whether or not I wanted to fully come back, I finally brought the issue up with Pam and she helped me get back into my account.

Added bonus, I can access the forums on my phone now! That was another hurdle that kept me away.

Welcome back long time no see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be considered one of those in-active members of lds.net and something tugged at your "soul" and with Pam's help she was able to bring you back into the fold.

 

I couldn't help myself, I just had to say that. :)

 

M.

Now Maureen.....that's funny.....had to say it with no laugh button

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACA is the fruit of the same legislative process that creates all of our laws. It was passed by a majority vote in Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court when the constitutionality of it was challenged. People can hate it all they want, but to call it "criminal" is incorrect.

Um...not exactly as I remember it.. As I recall ACA was passed without a single Republican vote....hardly fruitful from a "We the people" standpoint. As for the SCOTUS challenge...it was upheld as a  tax.....and not as the Congress having the power to regulate interstate commerce., which I believe is what was being argued. JAG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Godless' point was to refute the assertion that ACA is "criminal".  Technically speaking, he's right.

 

But, yeah.  The elephant in the room, to me, is that the Administration--to put it baldly--lied in order to get the thing passed.  And I do think that those who say "It's the law of the land!  You must obey it as-written!" kind of lose credibility when they ignore the numerous waivers, exemptions, and delayed implementations that the White House has promulgated with regard to ACA--most of which, as far as I know, the text of ACA itself doesn't authorize the White House to grant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Godless' point was to refute the assertion that ACA is "criminal".  Technically speaking, he's right.

 

Technically...maybe. Is a law that is put into law through criminal methods criminal even though it's legal? :hmmm:

 

Also, my read of it, I don't think the use of the word "criminal" was meant technically. It was literally figurative...  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this