HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hobby Lobby case: Justice...

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:31 AM

 

Hobby Lobby case: Justices skeptical of White House position

Source: Politico Pro

The Supreme Court expressed skepticism today of the legality of the Obama administration's refusal to accommodate for-profit companies' religious objections to the Obamacare contraceptive requirement.

A majority of the justices seemed particularly doubtful of the administration's claim that for-profit companies have no religious rights under federal law.

The Obama administration says the provision advances a “compelling” government interest in promoting preventive health care and that it does so in the least intrusive way, without unconstitutionally impinging on religious freedom.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-104999.html?hp=l3



It is real simple premise.

If your entity is a Non-Profit, you can "express" your political views;
but you CAN'T impose them on your staff and the public.

A corporation (such as the U.S. Government) - can NOT impose their political beliefs on others.

For profit businesses can't hope to treat the public at large as et al consumers;
but put doctrines contrary to law (and common sense) to enslave workers to owners beliefs.

Ted Nugent would start a gun company tomorrow and compel everyone to own a gun!

83 replies, 8917 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 83 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hobby Lobby case: Justices skeptical of White House position (Original post)
laserhaas Mar 2014 OP
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2014 #1
laserhaas Mar 2014 #2
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2014 #4
yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #13
markpkessinger Mar 2014 #66
Post removed Mar 2014 #7
LanternWaste Mar 2014 #10
Name removed Mar 2014 #16
alp227 Mar 2014 #22
cosmicone Mar 2014 #46
alp227 Mar 2014 #56
laserhaas Mar 2014 #61
HERVEPA Mar 2014 #12
alp227 Mar 2014 #23
lark Mar 2014 #37
freshwest Mar 2014 #68
laserhaas Mar 2014 #70
calimary Mar 2014 #27
laserhaas Mar 2014 #30
calimary Mar 2014 #58
laserhaas Mar 2014 #62
freshwest Mar 2014 #75
laserhaas Mar 2014 #76
freshwest Mar 2014 #71
sheshe2 Mar 2014 #72
passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #74
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2014 #83
malthaussen Mar 2014 #3
laserhaas Mar 2014 #32
Kablooie Mar 2014 #80
malthaussen Mar 2014 #81
hedgehog Mar 2014 #5
cosmicone Mar 2014 #48
HockeyMom Mar 2014 #79
JackHughes Mar 2014 #6
calimary Mar 2014 #28
RedSpartan Mar 2014 #8
laserhaas Mar 2014 #33
blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #78
egold2604 Mar 2014 #9
homegirl Mar 2014 #11
calimary Mar 2014 #34
laserhaas Mar 2014 #38
calimary Mar 2014 #59
laserhaas Mar 2014 #63
cosmicone Mar 2014 #49
yeoman6987 Mar 2014 #14
dem in texas Mar 2014 #20
laserhaas Mar 2014 #40
calimary Mar 2014 #31
laserhaas Mar 2014 #41
laserhaas Mar 2014 #35
rocktivity Mar 2014 #15
laserhaas Mar 2014 #36
EC Mar 2014 #17
laserhaas Mar 2014 #42
Kelvin Mace Mar 2014 #18
Burf-_- Mar 2014 #19
bigdarryl Mar 2014 #21
alp227 Mar 2014 #24
Burf-_- Mar 2014 #25
laserhaas Mar 2014 #44
Burf-_- Mar 2014 #45
calimary Mar 2014 #57
alp227 Mar 2014 #26
Burf-_- Mar 2014 #29
Dopers_Greed Mar 2014 #39
Burf-_- Mar 2014 #47
Samantha Mar 2014 #43
Augiedog Mar 2014 #50
laserhaas Mar 2014 #52
Grins Mar 2014 #51
laserhaas Mar 2014 #53
BlueStreak Mar 2014 #54
laserhaas Mar 2014 #55
moondust Mar 2014 #60
laserhaas Mar 2014 #64
muntrv Mar 2014 #65
maddogesq Mar 2014 #82
Politicub Mar 2014 #67
laserhaas Mar 2014 #69
elleng Mar 2014 #73
blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #77

Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:34 AM

1. Ugh. Sounds like we're possibly headed towards a 5-4 split

in which corporations get 'religious freedom'.

Not a promising start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:36 AM

2. It's absurd. Can you picture preachers buying businesses with church monies in a Citizen's U effort

 

to force policy (political/religious desires) upon U.S. all!

They're going nuts on the bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:41 AM

4. That particular bunch of ideologues didn't have far to go.

Scalia has been nuts for years, Thomas is his willing doppelganger, and Roberts completely misled the Senate to get his job. Impartial umpire my rear end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:58 AM

13. He is better than I thought he would be

 

He saved ACA, had he voted the other way, we would not have ACA at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 08:31 PM

66. That was one ruling . . .

. . . and it was based more on his worry about the court appearing too obviously partisan than about any legal principle. Show me any other ruling by Roberts that hasn't been toxic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #2)


Response to Post removed (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:52 AM

10. I'd rather not pay for the military operations in the mid-east. If you want it, you're certainly wel

 

I'd rather not pay for the military operations in the mid-east (major tenet of my religion is pacifism). If you want it, you're certainly welcome to pay for it yourself...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #10)


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:21 PM

22. Well that was quick. That user got PPR'ed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313253&sub=trans

By the time I clicked on the username I saw: "Posting privileged revoked!" WOO HOO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:56 PM

46. I always miss such stuff

 

I don't have a problem with PPR but at least show the name and the post so I can reply back for the jerk to read!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #46)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:41 PM

56. I think DU wants to deny trolls the notoriety they've had here in the past. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:22 PM

61. As one who suffers troll attacks much more than most. I am glad there's policing (by jury).

 

Though I think the Jury should include venerates who are professionals at being "considerate" of all sides.

I didn't get to see what was said;
but I'm glad that (if it was truly reprehensible)
that it was dealt with in short order.

Open discourse always

Ad Hominem attacks

NEVER....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:56 AM

12. Take a hike, son, take a hike.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to laserhaas (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:35 PM

37. Going?

Crap, they've been completely batshit crazy since they selected Bush to be president and over-rode the votes of the citizens of
FL. They are the worst Supreme Court ever! Citizen United was another completely wrong ruling they foisted on us to improve the lot of the 1% and fuck the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 08:58 PM

68. Yes, I can. It's incremental theocracy, until there's no way to resist in every day life. Ryan

and his pals intend to elminate the 14th with Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law to negative yeas of hard fought civil rights victory that much of case law is built upon.

The 4th and other amendments to protect personal rights were inadequate, so we had to go to war and pass the 14th, 15th and 16th to end the bondage of slavery. But some groups, and the GOP in particular, have no intention of following the spirit of those who freed so many and gave the right to vote to women.

This lawsuit is part of the same theocratic movement that went on steroids after the Tea Party took over in a crucial mid-term in 2010. We are at another one this year.

They aren't going to give up, and neither should we. We are making the future every day, by either making our voices heard while we are still have one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #68)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:24 PM

70. Divergent movie - speaks of this very thing.

 

Life by art of lifeless arts of decepticons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:26 PM

27. Sounds like it might be worse than that.

Who the hell is arguing the case on our side? Bozo the Clown?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:28 PM

30. good point 'calimary' --

 

I'd K&R that question....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #30)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:41 PM

58. That's what just burns me up. WHO is taking the government's case here?

I remember when President Obama picked Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice. One of his reasons - as Solicitor General, it had been her job to argue on the White House's behalf before the Supreme Court. He said she was a terrific consensus-builder. Well, I'm wondering what he was smoking that day. Kagan represented the government in the Citizens United case. What kind of consensus did she build in that one? Evidently NOT so terrific. She lost the freakin' case! I haven't been an Elena Kagan fan ever since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:25 PM

62. I'm with you on all of that. Elizabeth Warren would have made a much better choice.

 

Our Government adjudicators should be for justice of, by and for the people.

Never FOR the government and/or special interests.

Our Prez was duped into allowing the need for woman, alter race and such;
to let a wolves in sheep's clothing - inside the courtroom doors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to freshwest (Reply #75)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 01:58 AM

76. Standing (partially) corrected. Still desire Warren (get it) for Justice US Sup Ct

 

She is a Senator in Mass (Bain's home turf)

A Bankruptcy attorney.

She KNOWS the crimes going on in our eToys case.

And can't do nothing about it - without losing the next election.

As a Justice - she could merit out justice - Always

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:22 PM

71. About Kagan and administration, please consider my info.

When you say:

58. That's what just burns me up. WHO is taking the government's case here?

I remember when President Obama picked Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice. One of his reasons - as Solicitor General, it had been her job to argue on the White House's behalf before the Supreme Court. He said she was a terrific consensus-builder. Well, I'm wondering what he was smoking that day. Kagan represented the government in the Citizens United case. What kind of consensus did she build in that one? Evidently NOT so terrific. She lost the freakin' case! I haven't been an Elena Kagan fan ever since.


There are nine justices on the SCOTUS, Kagan is only one. She did not lose the Citizens United case as she is not even listed, despite her confirmation date, as part of the court when it was argued. I contend, this cannot be her failure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

She was appointed to take the place of Justice Stevens, who is on the list who decided CU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

If you have proof to dispute what I have found, please let me know and I will edit.

On DU today I found these OPs that show her work for women in the Hobby Lobby case, and I think you will enjoy these if you read them:

Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His Face - TPMDC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024724945

Women Justices Rock the Hobby Lobby Argument


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024726315

Re: the Obama administraion's defense of the ACA on this issue, and this is not from a purely liberal source, but you can see the Hobby position, which is dishonest, and our defense against their lawsuit:

Analysis: Hobby Lobby case -- Matters of principle or “alleged religious beliefs”?

Ryan Kiesel of the American Civil Liberties Union, Oklahoma chapter, told CapitolBeatOK the U.S. government will succeed in its defense of the ACA provisions, including the “HHS” (Health and Human Services) mandate requiring the coverage.

He said, “For decades courts have held that religious liberty does not grant secular employers a license to discriminate against their employees or customers. Whether that discrimination is based on race or gender, courts have routinely held that claims of religious liberty by the owners or managers of a company are no justification.”

In mandating coverage of “preventative medicine with no co-pay,” Kiesel believes, Congress was “taking steps to address the inequity felt by women in the workplace. If Hobby Lobby were a church, this would be a different story altogether. However, as a private, for-profit company they do not have the right to impose their beliefs upon their employees...”

The Justice Department brief, authorized by Attorney General Eric Holder, emphasizes that the company formerly allowed “preventive services” within employee health insurance plans, dismissing the “alleged religious beliefs” of the company’s owners...


http://capitolbeatok.com/reports/analysis-hobby-lobby-case-matters-of-principle-or-alleged-religious-beliefs

Please note, that the parts I have emboldened in the article are of importance to me when scanning my Journal, for my own vision problems, and not the equivalent of yelling at anyone like putting things all capital letters.

TIA if you have a comment, must especially anything to show I am in error and that Obama, Holder or Kagan have been remiss in this effort to protect the rights of women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #71)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:34 PM

72. +1 million!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 12:01 AM

74. One more reason to get Dem's out to vote in 2014 and 2016.

If we give the white house back to the republicans in 2016, they could put more conservative judges on the surpreme court. We are already in trouble with the conservative activist judges we have now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #74)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 11:34 AM

83. Yeah, I hear that argument every election cycle.

Along with all of the standard arguments against Republicans.

It would be nice to hear Dems actually make arguments *for* themselves, once in a while.

To tell us what they want to do for us. Like Barack Obama did in 2008 to get a massive surge of voters behind him.

Of course, if they tell us those things then don't carry through, that turns off voters, so they have to actually do (or at least try to do) what they said as well.

For instance, if Clinton is going to be the 2016 candidate, it would help voter turn out if she came out and simply announced that any Justice she nominates for the Supreme Court will put humans first instead of corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:39 AM

3. Since "Corporations are People,"

It follows they have the same rights as people. We need to overturn this idea that corporate entities are people. Frankly, I don't think I ever met a corporation with a conscience.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:31 PM

32. Corporations are (by nature) fictitious pseudo entities and can't have a conscience by nature

 

they are civil machines utilized for specific goals.

Some give out .00001 to charities;
but few (such as that tennis shoe company)
give out - for the sake of giving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 10:27 AM

80. I think I'll incorporate myself now!

My religion says paying taxes is wrong and I am owed free beer from any grocery store I visit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #80)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 10:32 AM

81. Allow me to be your first communicant!

"For all you care, this beer could be my blood, this pretzel my body!"



-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:44 AM

5. And if the owner objects to blood transfusions, vaccinations, use of anethesia during labor etc?

Although the official Vatican ruling is that it is OK until there is an alternative vaccine, some object to the polio and rubella vaccines because of the use of fetuses in the development.

http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:58 PM

48. Exactly!

 

What if the owner believes in circumcisions and wants all male employees to have one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 07:01 AM

79. oh, could go farther than that

No Aids treatment because you must be gay and a sinner. No breast cancer treatment because you must have had an abortion (junk science but..) and a sinner. Imagine the possibilities of refusing medical treatment based on religion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:44 AM

6. Legal contortions

Stand by for legal and mental contortions as the Federalist Society Five find new ways to ignore and overrule 200 years of precedent and common sense in order to force a hyper-partisan outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackHughes (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:27 PM

28. Welcome to DU, JackHughes!

Glad you're here. This just makes me feel sick. As I write this, I just wanna scream and then cry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:48 AM

8. HuffPo article makes it sound more like an equal back-and-forth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedSpartan (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:32 PM

33. Why would Politico give a "biased" report

 

Weird!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:50 AM

9. This will overturn a century of corporate law

If the Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, they the owners of the corporation's religious beliefs are the same as the corporations, then the inverse is true, the corporations's dealings with the public reflect on the owners. There will no longer be a corporate buffer between the public and the owners/ share holders/officers. Owners/share holders/officers will now be personally responsible for anything the corporations does.

The law of unintentional consequences will bite corporations in the ass. CEOs, as an office holder will have to answer for any crimes that a corporation does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egold2604 (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:56 AM

11. Anxious

I am anxiously waiting for the first case. Love the law of unintended consequences. Thank you.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to homegirl (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:32 PM

34. Welcome to DU, homegirl!

Great to have you join us! Unfortunately, I fear you'd be waiting til you're covered in cobwebs. As I noted in another post here - when is the last time any of us remembers a corporate CEO was held accountable for some malfeasance his/her corporation committed? Every bankster we're aware of is still walking free, enjoying the high life, and forced to face exactly ZERO consequences for tanking the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:38 PM

38. Hey, don't jump my cart "calimary'. I'm suing Romney, Bain etc for Racketeering, We go to court Apr

 

the 14th.

I can tell you that (currently) - my opponents are in a pickle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #38)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:45 PM

59. Well, I am holding out high hopes for you, laserhaas!

I think we ALL are! We know you have a winning hand. It's just the panel you'll be addressing, whose members tend to have their vision clouded by dancing dollars and their ears filled with wax (or maybe little teeny rolled up pieces of dancing dollars.

I hope you win. I would LOVE to see a perp walk or two. jamie dimon and lloyd blankfein are among the top two who come to mind. Besides myth wrongney and friends, of course!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:28 PM

63. Juxtaposing of their names - is letting them off WAY too easy.

 

I'm going to put an update upon GD, in a day or two.

I can tell you this - I've got them VERY worried.

They are running around clucking that the heaven's are falling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:00 PM

49. She has been a member since July 2003 .. just saying .. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egold2604 (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:02 PM

14. One thing we have not heard from are

 

the people who work for Holly Lobby. Are they ok with this? Would they rather buy insurance on their own? Not a peep from them which I find strange. If the people who work there don't want to buy birth control that is one thing, but we have not heard from the workers. Perhaps the Democrats can get out their to one of the stores and talk to the Associates and find out what they want. Have it taped and put on the national news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:14 PM

20. Hobby Lobby Pays their employees well.

I read in the paper that they paid a lot more than the other craft stores like JoAnn's and Micheal's. Also, the prospective employees are probably overtly screened to make sure they share the Hobby Lobby views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem in texas (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:41 PM

40. That's because JoAnn's and Michael's are Bain Capital associated items

 

Corporations are people

and people aren''t worth diddly to Romney & Bain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egold2604 (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:29 PM

31. Welcome to DU, egold2604!

Good to have you with us! Sounds interesting, but seriously - WHEN has a CEO ever had to answer for any crimes that a corporation commits? Hell, most of the time there isn't even any trial! Just a pissant "settlement" of some sort that slaps 'em on the tip of one of their fingernails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:43 PM

41. I've had some success. Larry Reynolds, Frank Vennes, Marc Dreier and Tom Petters are all doing time

 

for their corporate crimes.

But Romney, Bain, Goldman Sachs and Paul Traub are still getting away 'Scot Free'.

(Thus far)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to egold2604 (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:34 PM

35. WOW - a great result of "be careful what you ask for". But - would it serve more ill in the end?

 

Neat insight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:03 PM

15. Consider the source.

And exactly how does Politico know this? Are they getting leaks from the justices themselves, like with the original ACA ruling? Is the court doing their debating in public, and if so, how about some exact quotes?


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:34 PM

36. Concur.

 

There should be quotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:08 PM

17. This is just so wrong.

An employer shouldn't have any say in their employees lifestyle, healthcare, or religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:44 PM

42. Concur

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:09 PM

18. Ger ready for another

 

Citizens United type decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:09 PM

19. I've said all along...

 

that this will come down to Kennedy as the swing vote.. Scalia an d Thomas are no brainers for the fundy vote. Kennedy Himself had expressed concerns that voting for this would be too much of a 'RIGHT' lean. So... I'll tell you now not all hope is lost. He has already had that moment of clarity. GO JUSTICE KENNEDY !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Burf-_- (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:16 PM

21. Why would anyone post what Politico said there RIGHTWING as it gets

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:24 PM

24. here's a better source then, Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:24 PM

25. what do you mean ?

 

Doubt my optimism that a right wing judge could make a center to left decision ? Or .... It can happen, it has happened in monumental decisions like this one before.... we should hope Kennedy is as sane as he has pre-suposed in this case. It's not impossible !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Burf-_- (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:46 PM

44. Hope your right 'Burf' (neat moniker)

 

We'll know soon enough

(I guess)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:53 PM

45. I try ...

 

"Burf-_-" is firstly a skeptic and cynic, thus the "-_-" part. But rare cases like this... i do tout the case of optimism, and this is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Burf-_- (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:37 PM

57. Welcome to DU, Burf-_-!

Glad you're here! I must say I hope you're correct but I've seldom lost money betting on THIS Supreme Court leaning too far to the wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:24 PM

26. Heard on NPR there were protesters outside SCOTUS chanting "My faith, my business!"

You know how to scare off those right wing Christians? Bus in a bunch of Muslims to chant along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:27 PM

29. Except....

 

matters of faith...and business, are two entirely different and exclusive things. So they are just chanting bullshit out their collective asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:39 PM

39. So essentially...

The SC siding with Hobby Lobby on this could lead to businesses declaring themselves as "faith healers" to be exempted from having to provide any health coverage at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dopers_Greed (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:57 PM

47. not only that

 

but the fact the "Christians" are forgetting is this could pave the way for OTHER RELIGIONS to Object to ANYTHING, they don't approve of... Let's suppose say... Muslims, or possibly Raylians.... or Scientologists... but why worry right ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 12:44 PM

43. The Federal Government is not a corporation

And it is NOT imposing its political beliefs on others. It is protecting consumers from having their employers imposing their political beliefs on its employees choices.

Where does the right to assert one's political beliefs on others end. It ends at the very line, the intersection, if you will, where the imposition of the employer's right impugn the religious rights of those impacted.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:03 PM

50. Crap

Just what we need, turn America into a corporate theocracy, Thomas Hobbes would be delirious with happiness. I can see it now, we will be required to pray to the Exxon/Mobil god of oily redemption. If corporate entities can cover themselves in the veil of some religious belief they all become tax exempt and can force employees to adhere to the corporate theological line, or else. Ultimately, because we all know what organized religion pursues is the demise of competing religions, warfare between these new godopolies. You think the Vatican was bad, wait til you see what Kocks have in mind for you to pray to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Augiedog (Reply #50)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:07 PM

52. LOL - "pray to the Lords of Exxon/Mobil oily redemption" Priceless

 

I am thy Lord Koch -

Though shalt have no other 1%'rs before me.

In the beginning was the word, the word was with g0d Koch
and the word (Ga'zillionaire" 0 was g0d....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:04 PM

51. Since I'm fundamentalist Christian....

Since I'm a Quaker, I get an exemption from compulsory military service and the payment of taxes.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian and have a religious belief in faith healing, I can not be prosecuted when I choose to prayer instead of doctors when my children die from preventable and curable illnesses.
Since I'm a member of a Native American Church with religious beliefs I can take illegal drugs where others would be arrested and prosecuted.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian and have a religious belief in animal sacrifice, animal cruelty laws do not apply to me.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief, child labor laws and child neglect laws do not apply to me.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief, compulsory vaccination laws do not apply to me.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief that demons or other evil spiritual entities posses me, I cannot be fired from my job nor denied exorcism at public hospitals.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief that brown skin is a punishment from God, I do not have to serve, hire, or pay fairly, those with dark skin.
Since I'm fundamentalist Muslim women with religious beliefs, the state cannot compel me to uncover my face for a photo to be on my driver's license.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief I'm allowed to sell my daughter into slavery.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief I can kill any employee who refuses to work on the Sabbath.
Since I'm fundamentalist Christian with a religious belief I can burn my mother for wearing garments made from two different threads.

Slippery slopes, Mr. Scalia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grins (Reply #51)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:13 PM

53. Can we start a Koch'Sucks Fundamentalism?

 

Since Koch brothers are slime - I can snix one without fear of prosecution.

It is all right (in our Moroni styled fundamentalism way) to enslave a Koch brother;
and have him ride a Dick'less Cheney mule into submission

of telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth - to ALL people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:15 PM

54. Did they make the most obvious arguments?

 

If Hobby Lobby were able to say they had an objection to IUDs and therefore refused to allow that covered by their health insurance policy, what would prevent them from mandating that their health insurance would only reimburse faith healers and not doctors?

Or if you think that is a reduction to absurdity, how about they reimburse for cancer treatments, but not for AIDS complications?

Or they reimburse for medical expenses from car crashes, but only if the employee was not speeding at the time -- because if they were speeding, God was probably trying to punish them for breaking the law.

Once you allow the boss to impose his own personal beliefs on this, where do you stop? How can you draw a line anywhere other than saying the employer cannot pick and choose at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #54)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 01:40 PM

55. Concur 'BlueStreak'. Quite frankly, they are getting squirrely with common

 

sense

and seek to Bull U.S. with a winkle of a whim of an idea.

Or are we all just Nuts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:03 PM

60. Cracking open the door to workplace discrimination.

No telling where it would lead.

As an added bonus, if the HL corporation can get itself sanctioned as a for-profit religious organization maybe there will be some tax breaks ahead as well!!!

(I'm not sure but I think I saw Monsanto in church last Sunday wearing a toupee. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #60)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:30 PM

64. WOW - Priceless "I'm not sure but I think I saw Monsanto in church last Sunday wearing a toupee"

 

You should do a follow up thread - best on that title (premise).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 07:41 PM

65. What part of "Hobby Lobby is not a church" do they not understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muntrv (Reply #65)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 10:46 AM

82. Here's the church, here's the steeple...

Open the doors, and here's all the multi-national, for profit, law skirting corporations.

Oh wait, that didn't rhyme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 08:40 PM

67. The end game

This text is from the "religious liberty" bill that almost passed the Georgia legislature this term. I'm sure there are other bills like it in statehouses across the country.

The bill defines as person as follows:


'Person' means an individual, corporation, partnership, firm, business trust, joint-stock company, association, syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, and any other unincorporated association or group.


From: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/140141.pdf

Even in the wake of Citizen United, I was surprised at how brazen the right has become in its quest to give companies the same status as people.

I don't have a lot of hope about this case. I hope sanity prevails, but there is a larger conservative game afoot. And this is a conservative court. You do the math.

The fact that gay people exist offends the tender religious sensibilities of some. Hobby Lobby has the potential to become a freakish Pandora's Box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #67)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:21 PM

69. I'm trying to get Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs indicted for Racketeering. If I kill their corps

 

do I get "sentenced"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:55 PM

73. Argument discussed on PBS NewsHour:

Argument focused on Religious Freedom Restoration Act, are corps persons, was govt requirement of coverage a substantial burden, does govt have compelling interest, and has govt chosen least restrictive means.

Kennedy's position unclear, made points/questions for each side.

Roberts suggested 'compromise.'

Listen to audio Friday, read transcript now. Might be on C-SPAN radio this weekend, and/or on TV and on line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 02:27 AM

77. This is how you begin replacing Civil law with far rightwing "Biblical law."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread