Hobby Lobby decision - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2014, 06:13 PM   #31
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
The real truth about the family that owns Hobby Lobby business that claim they should not have to go against their core religious beliefs and pay for a practice and choice that is against their religious beliefs is that they are really motivated by politics and not religion.


Hobby Lobby 401(k) invests in birth control makers
Did they follow-up on that story with any press release?

I'd find that interesting to read.

Though, I will say, I never knew what I was investing in with my 401K...but I would think the head of a company would.
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:17 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,885
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Old white men are really shitty.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:32 PM   #33
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Corporations are people. Women are not. Those 5 judges are right.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:35 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Old white men are really shitty.

they'd be less shitty if they could get pregnant.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 06:54 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Conservatives believe everybody should use the same birth control they use.




..... their personalities.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 07:45 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,908
Local Time: 12:59 PM
You know what really bugs the shit out of me? This girl on Facebook who actually took a picture of the package she received today from Hobby Lobby saying it's the perfect way to celebrate Hobby Lobby's victory of Religious Freedom.

I seriously want to punch her in the uterus.

Sent from my 831C using U2 Interference mobile app
__________________
mikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 07:47 PM   #37
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Wow.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:07 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,908
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Wow.
Right? It's not the first time she's posted complete bs like that too.

Sent from my 831C using U2 Interference mobile app
__________________
mikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:09 PM   #39
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 10:59 AM
I was talking about you.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:23 PM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 24,908
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
I was talking about you.
Oh. I'm just a violent person. I'm sure you can gather that by my Facebook profile.

Sent from my 831C using U2 Interference mobile app
__________________
mikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:40 PM   #41
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Soooooo if I work for Hobby Lobby, they get to inflict their religious beliefs on me. Gosh, thanks for that religious freedom, America.

Which also happen to be incorrect beliefs. I'm pretty sure none of those people know what an IUD is.

Spent the drive home listening to an actually interesting discussion on local talk radio. The company that owns the radio station (among others) is part of Deseret Industries (or Deseret something), aka a Mormon-based company. They do not cover birth control pills.

The woman employee speaking said she respects their beliefs, and she's fortunate that she's on a type of pill that she can afford to pay the entire price of, but she does not like that monthly reminder that they are forcing their religious beliefs on her, every time she pays a copay for antibiotics or antidepressants, etc, but pays full price for one very specific kind of medication.

Also, it sounds like Hobby Lobby was only arguing against having to cover 4 specific kinds of birth control they consider a kind of abortefacent, which is ridiculous on its own. But other companies involved in the various suits and the decision today were arguing that they didn't want to cover any form of BC.

So it's a more general outrage than specifically against Hobby Lobby, but the IUD thing has me outraged at their stupidity more than anything else at this point.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:47 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Hobby Lobby decision

My thoughts:

i) Corporations are not people. However, I fail to understand why a group of people organizing themselves as a corporation would collectively lose first amendment protection in doing so. And all that this decision applies to is corporations held closely enough to enable their owners' religious beliefs to be easily ascertained.

One may argue that businesses of any form, including sole proprietorships, should be required to provide contraceptive coverage, to their full time employees. Perhaps that is true, but then the line here should be either "people's free religious rights can be curtailed at the point when they try to make money from business ownership" or "requiring a person to pay for medical treatment against which he or she has religious objections is not a violation of religious freedom".

ii) On the surface, the scope of this decision seems to be narrow to nearly the point of uselessness. It covers only closely-held companies, and only salaried employees thereof, and only four types of contraception (somewhat absurdly, as some have pointed out), and Kennedy's concurrence opened the door for insurers to still be required to cover the contraception without the companies paying (on the government's dime, I think, but I'm not sure).

However, I don't understand how the majority is claiming to not be setting precedent for other religious objections. It seems like either this is a precedent, opening up the door for all that Ginsberg brought up, or it's a first amendment violation insofar as it protects some absurd beliefs by evangelical Christians and not much else.

iii) My libertarian instincts, which I can't decide if I like or not, think that all companies should be free to set whatever terms of labor they see fit (and, likewise, employees should be able to seek out whatever employers they see fit). However, it's difficult to apply those to such a rabidly un-libertarian industry as healthcare.

iv) I wonder if the Democratic Party paid Kennedy off to vote as he did, because this is absolute fundraising gold for them.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:54 PM   #43
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
My thoughts:

i) Corporations are not people.
But not according to the law, is that what I'm meant to take from the reading of the '93 law?
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:00 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
But not according to the law, is that what I'm meant to take from the reading of the '93 law?

I meant for that sentence to be read in conjunction with the ones following it as something like "corporations are not people in the literal sense, but the level of personhood ascribed to them by the SCOTUS is not absurd". Sorry for the lack of clarity; I went through a few drafts of that paragraph.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:06 PM   #45
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Nono, it's fine, I enjoyed reading your post, was just clarifying.
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com