Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Ruling

[Twotonsteak]

They explicitly did pick a religion. Hobby Lobby's objection was religious in nature. SCOTUS supported their objection, but added on a rider saying "this shouldn't create a precedent for any other religion". Which is explicitly favoring the religion that Hobby Lobby based their objection on, over all other religions and their potential objections. It isn't equal treatment under the law.

If they were able to demonstrate an objective, rational reason for an objection, that would be fine, IMO. Religious motivations are not rational, inherently (and that's not a jab at religion, just a recognition that faith is inherently irrational; it would lose its value if it were rationally justifiable).

As others have pointed out..

The rider merely clarifies that they are NOT creating a blanket rule because different religions have different views. So it's really the exact opposite of what you are saying. Instead of imposing one religious view on everyone, they exempted other religions from the ruling while opening the door for those religions to litigate should they feel it necessary.

Again...they ruled on the case in front of them.

Honestly...there is a fix. Just have the Feds, via Obamacare, PAY for contraception. It (Obamacare) was passed half-arse, written half-arse, and the website wasn't even done that well. They haven't been varifying citizenship or income until now. So how hard could it be to do a half-arse job of covering contraception?

[NYC17]

So I should be able to support myself without getting a job then? Because in our society, you get a job, or you end up on welfare. Seems to me, a job is as much a necessity for life as shelter and clothing. Because you can't get shelter and clothing without one, unless you're on welfare, which in conservative terms is taking from "other people's things."

Sometimes you get a job and still end up on welfare.

[Captain N]

Sometimes you get a job and still end up on welfare.

Sometimes you are in control of the Company that gives out the jobs and you still end up on welfare. *CoughWalmartCough*

[Naxere]

Sure, we can agree to this outlandish thing. Or you can do the most basic thing and realize the context of the discussion. Be careful though. You my gain an understanding of discussions you wish to contribute to.

There is no context. The gender of the court had no basis on the ruling.

[Twotonsteak]

Those are all (except HG) jobs.

And good luck being a hunter-gatherer these days. I'll just strip naked and go live in the Catskills the rest of my life.

Having a job IS a right because it's damn difficult to live without one.

You have the RIGHT to look for work. You have the RIGHT to be treated equally when applying for work (unless Affirmative Action applies, and you aren't a minority). You do not have the RIGHT to simply be given work because you exist.

I mean...if having a job is a RIGHT...then the Dem's that have been running your city (Detroit) for decades should go to jail for denying a LOT of people of their rights.

[Cthulhu 2020]

As a matter of fact, I don't. I don't want the government blindly stumbling about in any of this. But the fact of the matter is the legal authority is there and the Supreme Court pretty much tipped its hand that it would not bar such action if challenged. So any putative women's rights issue or the mythical "access denial" of the employer not paying for it, could be addressed before end of business today. The administration would rather use it as a campaign issue apparently, something made possible by the willingness to be worked into a lather shown among the protestariat.

So you've spent a good 100 pages defending something you claim not to support. Good show. Vulgar Libertarianism at work.

[Captain N]

I mean...if having a job is a RIGHT...then the Dem's that have been running your city (Detroit) for decades should go to jail for denying a LOT of people of their rights.

Or those Republicans in all those leading the nation welfare states should be in jail right along side them. See I can play the blame the Party game too...

[NYC17]

There is no context. The gender of the court had no basis on the ruling.

This is a delusional position to hold. It requires ignorance, willful or otherwise.

[Twotonsteak]

Sometimes you are in control of the Company that gives out the jobs and you still end up on welfare. *CoughWalmartCough*

So much hate on Walmart. And yet they're constantly expanding. Constantly bringing in money. Donating money to charities. And those "awful" jobs are some of the most in demand.

Of course...to hate on Walmart you have to ignore that they're still a better operation, and job creator, and employer, than most other similar chains....like K-mart, JCPenny, most grocery chains, fast food, and just about any other "entry level" job.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So you have a right to other people's things?

Workers have (had?) a right to protection and fair compensation (at least until Raegenomics and the modern conservatives).

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah poor people just need to shut up and die.

I'm pretty sure if Wal-Mart didn't need wage slaves, we'd be seeing sterilization bills put forward by congress.

[Nostop it]

So I should be able to support myself without getting a job then? Because in our society, you get a job, or you end up on welfare. Seems to me, a job is as much a necessity for life as shelter and clothing. Because you can't get shelter and clothing without one, unless you're on welfare, which in conservative terms is taking from "other people's things."

So the answers yes then, you feel you have a right to other people's stuff? And yes you need a job but on that point why do you guys make it so hard for people to get one? A company is already paying $14 minimum wage and 16 contraceptives, why make it harder by forcing them to provide 4 more?

[Stormdash]

So you've spent a good 100 pages defending something you claim not to support. Good show. Vulgar Libertarianism at work.

Mindless reflexive contrarian babbling at work. Point is -- if what you want is for women not to have to pay for their own contraception, the administration could hand that to you right now, legally, if it wanted to. Whether Stormdash thinks it is good public policy or not is irrelevant; they can do it. If they choose not to, who is your beef with (especially since you obviously don't have a problem with mandates and waiver and the amount of discretionary authority HHS has)? It ain't with the Supreme Court, freedom of religion, or for-profit businesses.

[Captain N]

Mindless reflexive contrarian babbling at work. Point is -- if what you want is for women not to have to pay for their own contraception, the administration could hand that to you right now, legally, if it wanted to. Whether Stormdash thinks it is good public policy or not is irrelevant; they can do it. If they choose not to, who is your beef with (especially since you obviously don't have a problem with mandates and waiver and the amount of discretionary authority HHS has)? It ain't with the Supreme Court, freedom of religion, or for-profit businesses.

Continuing to change the rules in the middle of the game...How's that Roommate Agreement, Sheldon?

[Rukentuts]

Mindless reflexive contrarian babbling at work. Point is -- if what you want is for women not to have to pay for their own contraception, the administration could hand that to you right now, legally, if it wanted to. Whether Stormdash thinks it is good public policy or not is irrelevant; they can do it. If they choose not to, who is your beef with (especially since you obviously don't have a problem with mandates and waiver and the amount of discretionary authority HHS has)? It ain't with the Supreme Court, freedom of religion, or for-profit businesses.

The point is, we should overlook sexism because someone else can give a band-aid.

[Naxere]

This is a delusional position to hold. It requires ignorance, willful or otherwise.

It's ignorant on your part to assume they all decided "Hey, this doesn't affect me in the least, let's rule against the ladies" rather than interpret the law as they see it. Do you honestly believe that if they were conservative women, they would've ruled against Hobby Lobby? That's the basis of your argument?

[Rukentuts]

So the answers yes then, you feel you have a right to other people's stuff? And yes you need a job but on that point why do you guys make it so hard for people to get one? A company is already paying $14 minimum wage and 16 contraceptives, why make it harder by forcing them to provide 4 more?

They aren't providing them. The insurance company they pay is. The insurance company adding these 4 more isn't even statistically significant. This is anti-ACA and an argument not based in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -

It's ignorant on your part to assume they all decided "Hey, this doesn't affect me in the least, let's rule against the ladies" rather than interpret the law as they see it. Do you honestly believe that if they were conservative women, they would've ruled against Hobby Lobby? That's the basis of your argument?

Abuse victims make self-detrimental decisions all the time. Does it make it right?

[Stormdash]

The point is, we should overlook sexism because someone else can give a band-aid.

Overlook whatever half-understood and wrongly applied ideas you want or don't want. Fact remains, if the outcome that you desire is coverage be provided, that is 100% within the immediate and discretionary power of HHS, so obviously that even the Supreme Court pointed it out. Anyone says otherwise is ignorant or lying.

- - - Updated - - -

Continuing to change the rules in the middle of the game...How's that Roommate Agreement, Sheldon?

How is your understanding of contract and/or administrative law coming? Still none? Sorry to hear it.

[Orlong]

It's so weird then that it just happened to be 5 men, who would be unaffected by the ruling, who decided the case.

Fucking coincidence.

Its only because the 3 women in the SCOTUS are far left wing feminist extremists appointed by Democrat presidents (Ginsberg by Clinton, Mayor and Kagan by Obama). If there were 3 reasonable salt of the earth women on the court like Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, and Donna Carr, They wouldve sided with the majority as their decision would be based on the constitution instead of a political decision to "protect their own" regardless of what the constitution says. In fact Ginsberg in her dissent all but admitted that she thought the mandate was unconstitutional but didnt vote that way because voting unconstitutional would have an adverse affect on other laws. Their job has one purpose. Look at the facts in the case presented to them and decide constitutional or not. It isnt to decide whats best for a certain group of people or whether the decision will nullify other laws or require new laws regardless of what the constitution says

[Slaskra]

This is a delusional position to hold. It requires ignorance, willful or otherwise.

Claiming knowledge of another person's thinking processes based on your own biases and interpretation of outcomes is the epitome of ignorance.

[Tradewind]

I am astonished how a store that specializes in glitter glue and fuckin' play-doh is receiving so much attention in the first place.