mely
Junior Member
Posts: 89
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
|
Post by mely on Jun 30, 2014 20:47:33 GMT
I also have to wonder what the reaction would be if it was a Muslim company that was suing over something like this?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:12:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 20:49:24 GMT
Guess I won't be shopping at Hobby Lobby anymore.
It's a slippery slope people, and I'm surprised so many are glad about it.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jun 30, 2014 20:51:01 GMT
This is not a decision about Abortion or Birth Control.!! It is about allowing a corporation to force their religious beliefs on their employees! No one is forcing their religious beliefs on anyone. They are just electing not to pay for certain things. You can still get them if you want.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 20:53:48 GMT
This is not a decision about Abortion or Birth Control.!! It is about allowing a corporation to force their religious beliefs on their employees! Not really. It is whether a company, who is subsidizing a larger percentage of your health care (meaning you are paying oh-so-very-little), should be forced to pay for something that they are ethically or morally against. In no way is the judgement preventing you from receiving said service or prescription - it is just saying that someone else does not have to PAY for it. Key word is someone else - not you - someone else. If you want to pay for an out of pocket insurance to cover such services, you can, or you are free to pay out of pocket . I even suggest, that if you work at a small company, you approach your owner to see if he will raise your salary so you can purchase insurance on the exchanges - many may be open to that, as healthcare is such a high percentage of overhead for an employer, and it is not unheard of for them to be excited at the prospect!
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 30, 2014 20:54:13 GMT
this shows a complete lack of knowledge/understanding of what it means to be a Christian. A Christian answers to God over an earthly lawmaker.
If they are the ones in the business making the rules etc, they will have to account for those decisions if they go against God's rules. The beliefs of a Christian are not just 'personal' beliefs that can be put into a compartment, tucked away as an inconvenience.
Yet HL seems to have no problem profiting from the companies who make these drugs and provides them to the women who do use them, as per their retirement plan investments. Seems to me like they're picking and choosing. It's hypocrisy to refuse to pay for these drugs and yet invest in the companies that provide them at the same time. Hobby Lobby doesn't profit from their employees retirement accounts. This was beat to death months ago when the financial illiterate journalist first posted the very poor analogy. We could now segue into "socially responsible mutual funds" which will lead to discussions of the fiduciary duty of the plan administers. One thing is absolutely irrefutable - Hobby Lobby does not profit from their employees' retirement funds.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:12:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 21:17:24 GMT
Krazy, Borowitz is a satirist. I don't think I knew that. Thanks for pointing it out. Back on the fence for me for now anyway.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jun 30, 2014 21:20:47 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this.
As a Christian, my first reaction is this is great!
But if an employee of Hobby Lobby was raped, I think it should be her option to take the morning after pill and it should be covered by her health insurance policy.
I don't fit in either camp on the issue of abortion really.
|
|
mely
Junior Member
Posts: 89
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
|
Post by mely on Jun 30, 2014 21:25:29 GMT
Guess I won't be shopping at Hobby Lobby anymore. It's a slippery slope people, and I'm surprised so many are glad about it. The nearest hobby lobby is an hour away which limits my visits greatly. But even though I don't agree with this decision, I'm not going to boycott. Just like I still go to Chik Fil A on occasion. My much bigger concern isn't with Hobby Lobby bringing this suit to court, my issue is with the court continuing to side with corporations on issues like these. That is what scares the living heck out of me.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 21:29:44 GMT
Guess I won't be shopping at Hobby Lobby anymore. It's a slippery slope people, and I'm surprised so many are glad about it. The nearest hobby lobby is an hour away which limits my visits greatly. But even though I don't agree with this decision, I'm not going to boycott. Just like I still go to Chik Fil A on occasion. My much bigger concern isn't with Hobby Lobby bringing this suit to court, my issue is with the court continuing to side with corporations on issues like these. That is what scares the living heck out of me. They really weren't siding with corporations on this one - as they made it clear that large corporations will not benefit from this ruling. There was specific language in the judgement to indicate that this will affect mostly smaller businesses and family owned companies - not corporations. If and when Hobby Lobby decides to go public or sell themselves to the highest bidder, this ruling would no longer apply. In fact, this ruling will most likely affect mostly smaller businesses and/or non-profits.
|
|
Pinky Zebra
Full Member
I love Daryl Dixon. I want to lick his face and have his babies.
Posts: 169
Location: West Texas
Jun 26, 2014 5:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Pinky Zebra on Jun 30, 2014 21:30:53 GMT
This is not a decision about Abortion or Birth Control.!! It is about allowing a corporation to force their religious beliefs on their employees! I couldn't disagree with you more. You don't have to work there. You don't have to shop there. They aren't being dragged by the scruff of their neck to church. They aren't being baptized against their will. The economy is in the tank and you can't afford to change jobs? Ummmm, I'm sorry? I may be reaching the point where I need to walk away from this thread. In the interest of a fresh start and all that.
|
|
joycekb
Shy Member
Posts: 18
Jun 30, 2014 20:14:03 GMT
|
Post by joycekb on Jun 30, 2014 22:01:55 GMT
For all those ok with today's decision, when Hobby Lobby or any other "Religious Corporation" decides they don't want to insure their LGBT employees anymore, are y'all ok with this too?
|
|
|
Post by slkone on Jun 30, 2014 22:07:51 GMT
Guess I won't be shopping at Hobby Lobby anymore. It's a slippery slope people, and I'm surprised so many are glad about it. The nearest hobby lobby is an hour away which limits my visits greatly. But even though I don't agree with this decision, I'm not going to boycott. Just like I still go to Chik Fil A on occasion. You're safe with Chick Fil A (at least in my opinion). Their recent tax returns document that they no longer contribute to hate groups with corporate money. I boycotted them for over 2 years and once I found out they don't donate to hate groups, I agreed to my daughter's request we bring in their food for her birthday party.
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,587
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Jun 30, 2014 22:09:31 GMT
So, you know I'm a hippie liberal. But I'm not so upset about this specific decision. I respect the religious rights of Hobby Lobby's owners. What bothers me is what seems to be a general assault on women's rights over the past few years. Taken individually, they might seem like petty issues: companies not covering birth control, restricted access to women's healthcare (including, but certainly not limited to abortions), voter ID laws that disproportionately affect women, equal pay issues... It seems like we're going backwards, not forwards. I hate the way that women who actively seek birth-control are sometimes characterized as sluts... and I hate terms like "feminazis." And I really hate it when people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter say horrible things about women and other women defend or support them. That's what really makes me sad... I'm not happy with the decision but I ABSOLUTELY agree with the rest!
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jun 30, 2014 22:09:48 GMT
For all those ok with today's decision, when Hobby Lobby or any other "Religious Corporation" decides they don't want to insure their LGBT employees anymore, are y'all ok with this too? That wasn't what this ruling is about at all. The company isn't discriminating against specific types of employees. Today's SCOTUS ruling in no way gives HL permission to discriminate against individual employees based on any protected class status. You're worrying over something that isn't possible.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 22:13:04 GMT
For all those ok with today's decision, when Hobby Lobby or any other "Religious Corporation" decides they don't want to insure their LGBT employees anymore, are y'all ok with this too? That was not the issue of the case today, and you are throwing an argument up there that has absolutely nothing to do with the original case. The judgment was in regards to costs related to what is primarily an elective medical procedure and who should have to pay them. Would you like to add color, religion, ethnicity or sex to your argument as well? It will be equally flame worthy and still totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by fruitysuet on Jun 30, 2014 22:14:03 GMT
I would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by ingrid6 on Jun 30, 2014 22:14:36 GMT
For all those ok with today's decision, when Hobby Lobby or any other "Religious Corporation" decides they don't want to insure their LGBT employees anymore, are y'all ok with this too? That wasn't what this ruling is about at all. The company isn't discriminating against specific types of employees. Today's SCOTUS ruling in no way gives HL permission to discriminate against individual employees based on any protected class status. You're worrying over something that isn't possible. Once again, agreeing with noregrets.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:12:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 22:14:38 GMT
link
Ok I'm back. This is an editorial from a local San Francisco newspaper that sums this up for me. Especially this part:
"Regrettably the Roberts Court ignored the established boundary. Its conservative majority continues to endow American Corporations with rights that should be reserved for individuals."
I think this person has a point. This was a case about the religious rights of a corporation not of an individual. There is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 22:15:39 GMT
The biggest issue I have with this ruling is that it's been determined that a corporation can hold religious beliefs. I can't get past THAT part of the ruling, so I'm really unable to absorb the rest of it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:12:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 22:16:57 GMT
For all those ok with today's decision, when Hobby Lobby or any other "Religious Corporation" decides they don't want to insure their LGBT employees anymore, are y'all ok with this too? According to Justice Alito, this ruling applies only to the contraception mandate.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 22:21:36 GMT
The biggest issue I have with this ruling is that it's been determined that a corporation can hold religious beliefs. I can't get past THAT part of the ruling, so I'm really unable to absorb the rest of it. No, it was stating that a company who is paying for the lion's care of your health coverage, can be ETHICALLY or MORALLY opposed to paying for an elective medication. You still have a right to the medication. You just have to pay for it. If you are so opposed to having your company have a say in your healthcare, buy your own policy and pay for exactly what you want. No one but you will have a say in your care then.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jun 30, 2014 22:22:15 GMT
How? They won't provide those 4 types of contraceptives for ANY employee. They will provide a variety of other contraceptive options to ANY employee. Male, female, gay, straight, old, young, rich, poor, black, white, religious, nonreligious... They aren't picking and choosing WHO gets insured. They are picking and choosing which contraceptive options align with their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. And there are far more options that DO work within their beliefs than those that don't. They have a specific criteria that explains their religious objection to those few options. It's not just willy nilly picking and choosing.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jun 30, 2014 22:23:50 GMT
Today's SCOTUS decision reflects a deeply divided Court which is reflective of a deeply divided nation. The opinions on this message board also indicative of the same division.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 1:12:18 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 22:24:55 GMT
The company isn't discriminating against specific types of employees. Overtly? No. But by disparate impact? Absolutely. What prescription birth control methods are available to men?
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jun 30, 2014 22:26:39 GMT
<<No, it was stating that a company who is paying for the lion's care of your health coverage, can be ETHICALLY or MORALLY opposed to paying for an elective medication.
You still have a right to the medication. You just have to pay for it.
If you are so opposed to having your company have a say in your healthcare, buy your own policy and pay for exactly what you want. No one but you will have a say in your care then.>>
Um, nothing that you stated above has ANYTHING to do with what I posted. I mentioned absolutely nothing about coverage of birth control. I'm simply stating my discomfort at the notion that a corporation - of any size - can be considered equivalent to an individual.
(Edited to make the "quote" part clearer - still figuring out how to quote on this board!)
|
|
|
Post by fruitysuet on Jun 30, 2014 22:27:59 GMT
The company isn't discriminating against specific types of employees. Overtly? No. But by disparate impact? Absolutely. What prescription birth control methods are available to men? For that reason. This ruling only impacts women and not men. That is a huge area of discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Jun 30, 2014 22:30:13 GMT
I hope they have good maternity coverage. :/ Best answer of the whole thread Don't work there, don't plan to work there, no one in my family works there or plans to work there and I certainly won't shop there. Solves the problem for me.
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Jun 30, 2014 22:31:09 GMT
The argument that liberals want free birth control blows my mind. Do we say people want free blood pressure meds if they expect their insurance to cover that? I don't want free anything, I want my health insurance to cover my health care expenses. It's not about expecting others to pay for my life choices (as if the choice to have sex were scandalous and shameful!). It's about my health insurance providing the service I pay them for, just like if I get in a car accident, I expect my car insurance to cover repairs, even if I made the choice to speed. We don't deny smokers coverage for the COPD and lung cancer that are logical consequences of their choice to smoke, we don't tell them to "be responsible and plan ahead". But we feel perfectly fine telling that to women because somehow we still feel that we can judge women for choosing to engage in intimate relationships wih another consenting adult. And corporations are NOT people, they were specifically designed to limit personal liability. The argument to just work somewhere else is only going to work for a few more years, and then all corporations are going to come down with an attack of conscience and refuse to cover things they don't agree with. And that list is going to be LONG, because health insurance costs are out of control and corporations are not in place to give glory to God, they are in place to make money. This is one of the many reasons why we need to separate health insurance from employment. But until we do, we need to put the needs of the individual employee ahead of the not-a-person corporation. Does anyone honestly think the court would have ruled the same way if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims, and that conservatives would be cheering? We see it right on this thread, where people argue it won't aply to JW and blood transfusions or scientologists and psychiatric care. Why is Hobby Lobby's professed Christianity more deserving of protection than other religions?
For the record, I always paid out of pocket for my birth control-I chose to work at a Catholic hospital in my sinful, sex-for-fun-instead-of-procreation youth, and when I wanted an IUD later, it wasn't covered by my insurance and so my husband bought it as my Valentine's Day present (how romantic-carefree sex with my spouse!) After I had the IUD out, I was ready for another child, suffered a miscarriage and haven't conceived again despite not using birth control in about six years. I curerntly have no medical conditions that would benefit from birth control treatments. But I strongly believe that the claim of religious freedom should not be used to force a theocracy, or even the start of a theocracy. And i can't beleive that a corporation has any religion anyway. Does it have a Christmas list? It's own health insurance plan? Parents? A body?
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jun 30, 2014 22:32:06 GMT
Today's SCOTUS decision reflects a deeply divided Court which is reflective of a deeply divided nation. The opinions on this message board also indicative of the same division. It shouldn't be, because the Court was upholding a law passed during Bill Clinton's presidency, which was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which was enacted to restrict the government from interfering with someone’s religious freedoms when furthering its interests. It might be the law of untended consequences, but at some point, both parties believed in the cause....
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Jun 30, 2014 22:32:12 GMT
I must be confused.
Does it mean that they aren't "free"?
Or does it mean that instead of an $8 co-pay for BC like it may be that same co-pay for BP medication, that they must pay full price for BC pills? I have no problem if they have the same co-pay as the other medicaitons like antibiotics, BC medication, cholesterol medication. But if you have to pay $100 because insurance won't cover them, than that can be a problem for people. I have never used BC pills, so I have no idea how much they cost.
|
|