Hobby Lobby decision - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2014, 12:21 AM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
The facts: Look it up if you think the following is a lie.



Hobby Lobby only asked the court to allow them to not cover four specific types of birth control (out of the 20 FDA-approved types) that may prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting.





Before the ruling, Hobby Lobby was already covering 16 different birth control methods, which account for the types used by 93% of American women. They will continue to provide coverage for those 16 and will not (and cannot) prevent any employee from purchasing the other four types themselves.



Why should my employer be making health care decisions for me based upon their religious "beliefs"? Where does it end? Can I refuse to bake a cake for someone or sets them in my restaurant because I have some vile religious belief from somewhere?

Why do you think the 3 female judges voted against Hobby Lobby?

And why is it that contraception is such an issue for some? Is it because they hate when other people have sex for pleasure?


Sent from
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:32 AM   #62
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,714
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Well thank goodness someone has decided that my employer should have a voice in my medical care. Who else knows better about what's good for me besides myself and my doctor? My employer!

So if my doctor thinks one of those 4 kinds of BC is what's in my best interest, and I can't afford to pay for it out of my own pocket, well I guess .... my employer clearly knows best when it comes to medical decisions, so I'm sure it will all work out okay.

Thanks, Hobby Lobby!
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:52 AM   #63
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Why do we just keep going on in circles in this thread, seriously? I've asked questions, several times, trying to strike a civil debate and have an actual dialogue over a topic and it regularly seems to get overlooked, in favor of the same bullet point topics again and again and again. Just once I would love to see people talk in a thread, on both sides of the matter.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 01:34 AM   #64
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,801
Local Time: 02:22 PM
The argument Ashley is lowkey trying to make here is that, based on the wording of the Supreme Court's decision, it's impossible for a loophole to be exploited that would benefit corporations that claim to possess fringe religious beliefs.

So let's talk about that. Yes? No? I hope it's the case, but I'm just not sure. It's really too early to tell without making a rash assumption. I give this a month or two before the first lawsuit rolls in from a company with a newly-affixed crucifix. We'll see where it goes from there.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 09:06 AM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 04:22 PM
I really don't understand how the majority tried to claim that this applies to only some religious beliefs but not others. Could someone more knowledgable than I (*cough*anitram*cough*) explain? Did the majority just say that without explanation? If so, it'll be interesting to see that be scrutinized in future cases.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:02 PM   #66
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,714
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Iron Horse is not incorrect, as much as it pains me to say it (although as usual, his manner of posting makes me want to respond with sarcasm). His points about HL itself are correct. The Supreme Court's decision upholds the law that was in place. That doesn't mean that HL or the court/law are correct or okay. I think it's a shitty law, and I think it's shitty what HL are doing. I don't know what else to say about it other than heap scorn upon HL and the law itself.

To me, it boils down to an employer inserting themselves into medical decisions, which is completely not okay. And like I said earlier in the thread, this is not like a self-insured employer not covering a procedure or drug that is not covered in general. It's not like these four birth control methods are not recognized as being "legit" (for lack of a better word) or cost effective and aren't covered by major medical plans.

And I think the "what if" questions surrounding religious exemptions are entirely valid.

I don't have anything to add but scorn and frustration at this point. No, it's not productive, but sometimes you get pissed off and need to snipe about it somewhere. (Hey, internet! What's up?)

I can introduce you to my lawyer brother on Facebook - he can give you all the discussion you aren't seeing here. But I don't like getting into it with him, so I vent and snipe here instead of on Facebook.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:31 PM   #67
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I really don't understand how the majority tried to claim that this applies to only some religious beliefs but not others. Could someone more knowledgable than I (*cough*anitram*cough*) explain? Did the majority just say that without explanation? If so, it'll be interesting to see that be scrutinized in future cases.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
The wording of the decision seemed to suggest that this only covered Hobby Lobby and Co and it specifically states that this is not in accordance with any other drugs/treatments/etc. EXCEPT for these four forms of birth control. They went out of their way to specificially state that this does not allow an employer to not cover blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Iron Horse is not incorrect, as much as it pains me to say it (although as usual, his manner of posting makes me want to respond with sarcasm). His points about HL itself are correct. The Supreme Court's decision upholds the law that was in place. That doesn't mean that HL or the court/law are correct or okay. I think it's a shitty law, and I think it's shitty what HL are doing. I don't know what else to say about it other than heap scorn upon HL and the law itself.
And this is basically my point in the posts I'm making. It's not necessarily that I agree with the decision, or that I agree with Hobby Lobby (I'm still debating that within myself, but that's my battle). It's that, after reading the Supreme Court's ruling, I found myself realizing that, as far as I can tell, they acted in accordance with both the 1993 law and the practices that were already in place for non-profit corporations.


Quote:
To me, it boils down to an employer inserting themselves into medical decisions, which is completely not okay. And like I said earlier in the thread, this is not like a self-insured employer not covering a procedure or drug that is not covered in general. It's not like these four birth control methods are not recognized as being "legit" (for lack of a better word) or cost effective and aren't covered by major medical plans.
I thought that at first, as well. But, when I look at the big picture, of this particular situation, it doesn't seem to me that Hobby Lobby is saying, no you can't have that, they're saying, "you can have it, the government can pay for it, like it's already doing for non-profits and then I don't have to have my hand in something that I feel morally abject towards." Let's face it, abortion is a very large, multi-faceted topic and while I realize that we're never all going to agree on it, I do think that a bit more understanding towards both parties on the topic would go along way to over-all peace in general. I just get more and more frustrated that people seem more keen to shout in each others faces than to just stop for a minute and listen. This seems like the only win-win agreement available. And that's only IF the government is covering these four forms of birth control, mind you. Otherwise, I'm completely on board with everyone else, here: Someone has to provide it, because the Health Care Act made it a sanctioned medication that all women are meant to have, with health care coverage.

Quote:
And I think the "what if" questions surrounding religious exemptions are entirely valid.
I agree that they're valid. What I don't like is that I feel like the media, my friends, others on the Internet are using the "What if" question as a scare tactic to make people see their point of view, instead of having a conversation about why this happened, what it means, and where should we go from here. I don't like what happened the day this happened. I don't like the way I was meant to feel that my employer could now tell me that I wasn't allowed my birth control pills. I don't like the way I was being told that this covered any corporation who might decide one day to, as Travis said, "put a cross up in the window" and decide they're not going to cover birth control pills any longer. I don't like the way a heap of scorn was thrown on men, by myself as well, and their ED medications as though they were just a playtoy (which, again, I did, in this thread, as you know, since you were the one who corrected me).

BUT, I realize that initial reactions to situations that are completely off-base with your belief system can cause a reaction of rage/anger/beyond disbelief. I felt that way, myself. Part of it was because of the posts on Facebook, news stories, etc that were thrown in my face all of that day, telling me how to feel, telling me to be angry, etc.

And so...

Quote:
I don't have anything to add but scorn and frustration at this point. No, it's not productive, but sometimes you get pissed off and need to snipe about it somewhere. (Hey, internet! What's up?)
I completely understand this reaction. The reason why it ticks me off in here specifically is that there are SO many times when people complain about the lack of conversation in these threads and I sit at my computer and laugh because the reason there's no conversation is obvious. Most people in here agree with one another, so there's not much of a voice to counter that and actually cause discourse. I've been trying to be more of a voice, because I think conversation is a powerful tool that can help people understand one another better, and understand these situations better. What they mean today, what they mean down the road.

I'm more than willing to listen, I'm more than willing to discuss. Hell, I only started asking questions because I was curious and while it didn't change my opinion about the topic as a whole, it did lead me to the opinion that, regardless of how I feel about it, the Supreme Court did make the "right" decision.

Quote:
I can introduce you to my lawyer brother on Facebook - he can give you all the discussion you aren't seeing here. But I don't like getting into it with him, so I vent and snipe here instead of on Facebook.
that's ok. No need to cause a family blow-out over it. I've basically said everything I need to say in this giant block of, probably non-sensical babble above. I hope I made myself clear and that others understand, but let me summarize:


1) I think the Supreme Court made the right decision, as the law from 93 and the Healthcare Reform Act works with non-profits, IF the government is going to provide the women with the four forms of birth control coverage, should they need it.

2) While the wording of the decision specifically lays out why this "isn't" a slippery slope, I agree that there's likely going to be a moment where someone tries this same thing with vaccinations/transfusions. At that point, I have faith that the courts will do the right thing and if I'm wrong, that'll be on my head for trusting in a government that I know good and well I shouldn't.

3) I love you all, GAF-style and I'm glad I have a place to have discussions like this that don't involve the (mostly) brick wall that is my incredibly conservative family. Even if we fight sometimes
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:35 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 05:22 PM
here's an interesting side effect of the Hobby Lobby decision:

Quote:
Six national gay rights groups withdrew support Tuesday for what had been hailed as historic legislation to prohibit workplace discrimination, citing concerns over an exemption for employers who object to homosexuality on religious grounds.

Led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the groups said they could no longer support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, known as ENDA, which passed the Senate last fall.

The move, which has split gay rights groups, reflects the impact of last week's Supreme Court decision granting employers a religious exemption from providing workers with insurance coverage that includes contraceptives. Also at issue is the scope of an executive order that President Obama has promised that would ban discrimination against gays by companies doing business with the federal government.

The religious exemption in the proposed anti-discrimination law was added last year in a successful effort to attract some Republican support in the Senate, which passed the bill, 64 to 32. But some activist groups had been uncomfortable with the breadth of the exemption, and the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision heightened concern over how it could be interpreted.

"ENDA's discriminatory provision, unprecedented in federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, could provide religiously affiliated organizations — including hospitals, nursing homes and universities — a blank check to engage in workplace discrimination against LGBT people," the ACLU and four other national gay rights legal groups said in a statement announcing their position. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force announced separately that it was withdrawing its support.

The Human Rights Campaign, which calls itself the nation's largest gay rights advocacy group, issued a terse statement: "HRC supports ENDA because it will provide essential workplace protections to millions of LGBT people."

An activist who agrees with the HRC elaborated on that position. "Millions of LGBT people are counting on us for these workplace protections," said the activist, who would not be quoted by name in discussing the division among allied groups. "It sends a very bad message that we are no longer fighting for their workplace protections."

In terms of immediate impact, the moves have less to do with the anti-discrimination bill than with efforts to influence Obama's executive order.

Because House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) opposes ENDA, the measure is stalled with little chance of even getting a vote in the House. The precise terms of the executive order, meanwhile, are in dispute.

Obama announced last month he would sign an order prohibiting government contractors from discriminating against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals. As White House lawyers draft the order, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and a group of Christian leaders have pressed for a religious exemption that would parallel the provision in ENDA.

Conservatives "have pointed to the exemption in ENDA and said that language should be in the executive order," said Ian Thompson of the ACLU's Washington office. "What we are really saying today is that the potential harm that [ENDA] poses to LGBT people means this legislation should not go forward."

The White House has strongly backed the anti-discrimination law with the religious exemption, but gay rights leaders familiar with the deliberations do not expect Obama to include the exemption in the executive order.

Gay rights groups halt support for ENDA workplace discrimination bill*-*Los Angeles Times


would that this decision were limited to 4 kinds of birth control. this is carte blanche for any company persons wishing to save money discriminate express their religious freedom by firing gay people, denying coverage of contraception, denying coverage of HIV meds or PrEP, etc. because, as conservative commentator Erick Erickson put it:

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:49 PM   #69
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,714
Local Time: 02:22 PM
^^ Those are the kinds of things that send me into the kneejerk snark/rage. Although I think the more appropriate reaction would be to ignore it, because clearly those kind of statements are likely specifically designed to get attention.

I respect your opinion/questions, Ashley. I too am curious to see if the government is going to step in and pay for those HL exclusions, or what.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:51 PM   #70
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 02:22 PM
That tweet is horrible on all levels. People can be so fucking ignorant and stupid.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:52 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
The wording of the decision seemed to suggest that this only covered Hobby Lobby and Co
Not sure what you mean by this exactly.

I think another big problem with discussing this is that most people who are passionately discussing this and by most I'd say 99.99% have not actually read the decision but have read newspaper articles, blogs, watched people on TV yelling about it etc. I have refrained from commenting in detail because I haven't actually had time to go through the whole thing myself so I'd be remiss by basically just parroting what I'd read elsewhere and what is probably tinged with some form of bias.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:56 PM   #72
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Not sure what you mean by this exactly.

I think another big problem with discussing this is that most people who are passionately discussing this and by most I'd say 99.99% have not actually read the decision but have read newspaper articles, blogs, watched people on TV yelling about it etc. I have refrained from commenting in detail because I haven't actually had time to go through the whole thing myself so I'd be remiss by basically just parroting what I'd read elsewhere and what is probably tinged with some form of bias.
From what I read in the decision, they kept specifically stating Hobby Lobby and the other two companies. They upheld the 93 law and stated that for-profits should be treated the same as non-profits and that was basically it. So, that's what I don't understand. They didn't seem to set guidelines on when a company is strongly-enough religiously convicted to not provide the forms of birth control, but did state that Hobby Lobby has very clearly demonstrated, over the course of its existence, it's legitimate concerns/religious convictions, or something akin to that. So, that's what I don't understand. I know how the Supreme Court works, but I don't know how a decision could only effect a small group of people, even though that seems to be the case here.
__________________
bono_212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 12:58 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post


I thought that at first, as well. But, when I look at the big picture, of this particular situation, it doesn't seem to me that Hobby Lobby is saying, no you can't have that, they're saying, "you can have it, the government can pay for it, like it's already doing for non-profits and then I don't have to have my hand in something that I feel morally abject towards." Let's face it, abortion is a very large, multi-faceted topic and while I realize that we're never all going to agree on it, I do think that a bit more understanding towards both parties on the topic would go along way to over-all peace in general. I just get more and more frustrated that people seem more keen to shout in each others faces than to just stop for a minute and listen. This seems like the only win-win agreement available. And that's only IF the government is covering these four forms of birth control, mind you. Otherwise, I'm completely on board with everyone else, here: Someone has to provide it, because the Health Care Act made it a sanctioned medication that all women are meant to have, with health care coverage.
Like I said I haven't read the opinion in detail but I don't think that this is true? As far as I understand it, the non-profits have an exemption whereby they have to complete a form outlining their objection to their insurance provider, who is in turn obligated to cover the cost of those contraceptives. In fact there is all sorts of litigation happening in lower courts right now, led by the non-profits who are insisting that even completing that form violates their religious rights. It's not the government who is paying.

I find it kind of disturbing that people think it should be the government covering the difference. That's not some kind of faceless entity; that's you and I and our tax dollars. Why should we be on the hook?
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 01:00 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
From what I read in the decision, they kept specifically stating Hobby Lobby and the other two companies.
No, they are explicit that it applies to closely-held for-profit companies with religious objections to paying for contraceptive coverage (of the enumerated 4 types of contraception).
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 01:13 PM   #75
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
No, they are explicit that it applies to closely-held for-profit companies with religious objections to paying for contraceptive coverage (of the enumerated 4 types of contraception).
See, that would likely just be my misunderstanding.

And I apologize, in response to your other post above this one, obviously this includes Non-Profits, I overlooked that because it was already a given.
__________________

__________________
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 05:22 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