Uncategorized

SCOTUS Rules For Hobby Lobby

SELECT COMPANIES CAN “OPT OUT” OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE The U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of the overreach of Barack Obama’s administration this week – ruling that certain closely held corporations can cite religious objections in choosing to “opt out” of requirements that they provide free contraception coverage…

SELECT COMPANIES CAN “OPT OUT” OF PROVIDING CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of the overreach of Barack Obama’s administration this week – ruling that certain closely held corporations can cite religious objections in choosing to “opt out” of requirements that they provide free contraception coverage for their employees.

And other laws …

The 5-4 ruling was not, however, intended as a blanket license for companies to use religion to ignore federal insurance mandates … unfortunately.

“Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court, including chief justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Antonin Scalia.

Instead, companies can “opt out” only if they are run by a handful of individuals and there is no effective difference between the corporation and those individuals.

The court’s liberal judges – including those supported by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham – rebuked the majority opinion, saying it permitting these companies to ignore any non-tax law that “they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Religious leaders hailed the ruling, though.

“This is a much-needed victory for faith freedoms, because this administration continues its assault on the values of the faith community,” said Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association. “We are witnessing increasing attempts by the government to coerce the faith community to adopt the government’s viewpoint in matters of conscience.”

Hard to argue with that point …

The decision is the first time justices have ever applied religious protection to a corporation – in this case Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts retail chain.  A Pennsylvania-based furniture manufacturer, Conestoga Wood Specialties, also participated in the suit.

Since it was rammed through the U.S. Congress by hook and crook in 2010, Obamacare has been the subject of several high-profile decisions.

In a controversial 5-4 ruling two summers ago, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s controversial individual mandate – which compels Americans to purchase health insurance or face fines.  Fortunately the court ruled that states could not be compelled to participate in Obamacare’s exchanges – and most of them didn’t.

Related posts

Uncategorized

SC3: Stewart Jones To Endorse Mark Burns

Dylan Nolan
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons
Uncategorized

Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks

162 comments

a face in the crowd June 30, 2014 at 11:55 am

But companies are required to pay for boner pills, yes?

Reply
Smirks June 30, 2014 at 12:29 pm

The sad thing is that hormonal birth control can actually be prescribed to patients to treat some disorders. We’re also neglecting to mention that married couples sometimes use birth control to simply postpone having a child, or perhaps to avoid having one as it would endanger the life of the mother.

I get that a majority of women use birth control for its primary purpose of making it harder to get pregnant, but decisions like this don’t hurt just those people, it hurts people with legitimate medical needs.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 12:30 pm

There is nothing sad about this. No one makes anyone work at Hobby Lobby – if you don’t like the policy, go to work at Michaels.

Reply
a face in the crowd June 30, 2014 at 12:36 pm

Your point is very weak. People cannot simply walk into an establishment and begin work. And what if there is no Michaels within 100 miles? Reminds me of Clemson football fans arguing that recruits can just attend another university if they do not want to listen to the coach’s idiotic religious ramblings.

Reply
AbC June 30, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Seriously, just shut up… we no longer have slavery. If you want to start an atheistic, butt-f@ck loving, Wiccan, dope smoke celebratory Arts/Crafts store to compete against Hobby Lobby, than just do it and STFU. Meanwhille, quit your whining.

a face in the crowd June 30, 2014 at 12:56 pm

Don’t tell me to shut up, puke. I will state my opinion when I feel like it, and don’t forget it.

AbC June 30, 2014 at 1:02 pm

Again, STFU you Leftist pussy

a face in the crowd June 30, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Anytime, any place, maggot inbred.

AbC June 30, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Bwahahaha.. Geez what a Dick.

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 1:22 pm

You want a dick? I’ll share mine with you if you’ll share yours with me.

Ms. Lindsey June 30, 2014 at 1:09 pm

Any time for what? Gay Sex?

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 1:12 pm

I love gay sex. I love to suck dicks. Name the time and the place big boy.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 1:22 pm

Wow, “STFU,” such a strong argument.

AbC June 30, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Actually, my argument was for him to STFU while he goes about starting his own business to compete against Hobby Lobby… but seriously, thanks for not reading my full comment.

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:53 am

It’s a plank in the Republican party platform.

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm

No, my point is exactly spot on – if you disagree with the organization’s credo be it religious or secular, don’t work there. Hobby Lobby, a privately owned company has an established and long running religiously based opposition to certain things. Their stores are closed on Sundays in observance of the Ten Commandments. Their adherence to their beliefs hurts no one. They are not denying service, they are not causing harm.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 1:50 pm

Hobby Lobby, a privately owned company has an established and long running religiously based opposition to certain things.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Their stores are closed on Sundays in observance of the Ten Commandments.

Deciding to limit operating hours does not impact their employees’ health care decisions. Deciding not to cover birth control does.

If a company said it believes in faith healing and wanted to opt out of covering chemotherapy and radiation treatment, I’d tell them to fuck off too.

Their adherence to their beliefs hurts no one.

Their adherence to their beliefs is hypocritical (see above link) and flawed (see above post). Denying birth control coverage does not merely affect people who may use it out of want, it affects people who have legitimate medical reasons to take it.

The mandate doesn’t force Hobby Lobby to buy their birth control, it merely mandates that health insurance must also cover birth control. It is not Hobby Lobby’s place to say what an employee can use their coverage for.

Their adherence to their beliefs hurts no one.

Says them, who are already “following their own beliefs?” You, who I imagine doesn’t work for Hobby Lobby and wouldn’t be affected by their health insurance coverage decisions?

What do their employees think?

They are not denying service, they are not causing harm.

If someone loses coverage to buy birth control, and therefore becomes unable to afford it, how are they not denying service? If they make zero exceptions, even when it is medically necessary (albeit rare), how is it not causing harm?

Their adherence to religious doctrine has a direct consequence. We jail parents who let their children die due to shitty religious beliefs for this very reason.

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 2:02 pm

The Forbes article is about their retirement fund – a mutual fund managed by someone other than a Hobby Lobby employee. Really – do you know what every corporation in your mutual fund does? I don’t and I read the prospectus (what is the plural of prospectus) they send out annually.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/02/hobby-lobbys-critics-have-no-idea-how-investments-work/

This is really simple – Hobby Lobby should be allowed to provide whatever health insurance they want since they are providing it. They’re not preventing their employees from doing anything and their employees do not have to work there.

well.... June 30, 2014 at 12:54 pm

Colonel – yes and no. Because I could say – if you dont want a debit/credit card with a bank that has an arbitration clause, just use another bank. Guess what tho, they all use them now. And I see a lot more companies ‘finding God’ if it saves them a few pennies. And I dont blame them, despite the BS noted here, this is carte blance to write out expensive parts of plans a company doesnt like. If I was a business owner and the court: handed me this ‘gimme’ loophole, I’d take it.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 12:59 pm

The decision is very narrow and applies to privately held companies only. Basically it says a business owner owns his business.

In the closet Marxist June 30, 2014 at 1:12 pm

“Basically it says a business owner owns his business.”

But that goes against the principle of ownership of the means of production….you bad boy.

SCBlueWoman July 1, 2014 at 9:13 am

90% of American Companies are Closely held entities. That’s according to the IRS data available. That isn’t so narrow. Just wait until an Islamic based company does the same thing. Yes, let’s see what happens then.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm

Health care decisions should be between the doctor and/or pharmacist, and the patient. Health insurance should reasonably cover these things, otherwise it is inferior to other systems around the world that do manage to provide it.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 1:27 pm

I would agree if YOU paid for YOUR insurance. if your employer pays, he should have a say.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 1:53 pm

The employer’s contributions to your health insurance is part of your compensation package.

Do you want to give your employer decision-making rights over your 401K and Social Security too? You know, since they’re helping you pay for that too.

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 2:19 pm

They already have decision making rights over your 401k via matches and selection of the management company – Social Security deductions are a scheme concocted by the gubamint to make sure they get the money.

Odd June 30, 2014 at 2:23 pm

It’s odd he wouldn’t realize that 401K’s are dictated by employers…it’s almost like he’s unemployed.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 3:05 pm

I have the option of deciding how my funds are invested.

Odd June 30, 2014 at 3:16 pm

You have to pick from a group of funds chosen by your employer….

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 8:37 pm

But no option in the plan or the match. This is no different.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 2:35 pm

They already have decision making rights over your 401k via matches and selection of the management company

Employer matches to employee contributions is a form of compensation. If someone’s employer decided to nix those matches, that person would likely see it as essentially a pay cut. And it would be. It would be that much less money that the employer is paying towards them, thus lowering the overall compensation afforded to the employee.

The management company is decided upon by the employer but the employee often has the ability to manage their funds themselves to a certain degree. The employer can’t deny an employee from directly investing in a particular company, not even with the part they contributed. 100% of those funds belong to the employee, even after leaving the company.

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 2:50 pm

Just like Hobby Lobby won’t deny an employee the right to purchase birth control with their own money – they just chose to not participate in the process.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 3:04 pm

they just chose to not participate in the process.

Compensation is compensation. Employers don’t participate in anything the employees buy at the pharmacy, whether health insurance covers it or not. That’s up to the doctor and the patient.

Why can’t Hobby Lobby ask the insurance company how much the birth control coverage costs specifically, and then refuse to pay one dime towards that part of the coverage? No harm, no foul, right?

Since Hobby Lobby won’t follow the mandate, should its insurance therefore be considered non-ACA compliant? And if so, should the employees therefore be allowed to shop on the exchange and receive subsidies due to not being offered a compliant option by their employer, if they so choose?

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Why should Hobby Lobby have to do anything that goes against their core beliefs and that does not infringe on anyone’s rights – the SCOTUS just rightly said they don’t have to.

Basically Hobby Lobby did exactly what you ask, they told their carrier that they would not pay for abortifacents so the carrier does not offer them. The cost for a “morning after pill”

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:53 am

Why should Hobby Lobby have to do anything that goes against their core beliefs

——
like refrain from smoking pot on the job?

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:52 am

They’ll give you birth control money, but they won’t list it beside the money they give you.

Sort of like “a moment of silent prayer” for the head slicers.

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:51 am

How about if you pay some, and the employer pays some?

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:50 am

No one really feels sad, it’s just something hateful Christians say to make them sound disappointed in the choices their brethren make, as if they are simply awaiting the onerous smiting that is on its way… as angels peering over the edge of heaven into the torments below.

Reply
Bible Thumper June 30, 2014 at 7:04 pm

May be not for single men.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:48 am

Gay marriage of convenience?

Reply
Jim July 1, 2014 at 8:00 pm

Actually Hobby Lobby pays for Viagra and Vasectomies under their plan.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:48 am

Will they pay for rhythm method calendars and testing kits?

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:47 am

Hey! I’m looking forward to a long and amorous retirement!

Reply
faithless in SC June 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm

Let’s all thank the imaginary man in the sky for this wonderful, “blessed” decision. Now we can continue to wallow in ignorance as hundreds of thousands of women are denied birth control options because of some bronze age, silly and evil book (bible). This means more unwanted children, more overpopulation, more abortions, all because of superstition and the ridiculous belief that “faith” is a virtue. I choose science any day of the week over faith. Here’s a note to all you Christians out there, absolutely, positively, and without a doubt: There is no god. You are wasting your life, poisoning your children’s minds, and irrevocably harming society by your foolish beliefs in a non-existent deity.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 12:07 pm

Can you say bitch slapped? The administration got it twice today, once in the Hobby Lobby decision and again in the Harris et al decision.

Reply
faithless in SC June 30, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Colonel, you can congratulate yourself that the black president you hate got “bitch slapped”, but the decision is a horrible one for women and the poor of this country, and will lead to more abortions. All because the bible says, supposedly, that contraception is a bad thing. We’re letting bronze age goat herders dictate public health policy in 2014.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 1:10 pm

If you don’t like the fact that Hobby Lobby gets to decide what they will pay for in their employee benefits plan don’t go to work for Hobby Lobby. This has less to do with “bronze age goat herders” and more to do with freedom.

Reply
Unlimited Power June 30, 2014 at 1:14 pm

There is a fundamental disconnect between the concept of choice and positivist rights on both the Left and Right…but the Left is far more guilty of being totalitarian about it…

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:46 am

If you don’t like bad meat, get your own cows….

DEFUND THE FDA!

euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:46 am

bitch slapped
———
I wondered where DT was getting his metaphors.

Reply
nitrat June 30, 2014 at 12:32 pm

We need to thank the Opus Dei Catholics on the court.
I hope they beat themselves senseless in a scourging frenzy someday.
What am I saying? They’re already senseless,

Reply
EJB June 30, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Your soul has a wound that cannot be healed by lashing out at those who believe differently than you. Hopefully you’ll find peace with time enough to enjoy it.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:45 am

No offense, but that sounds like something someone in a Prius would say.

Reply
EJB July 2, 2014 at 1:43 pm

owwwwww, that was harsh. I couldn’t squeeze into a Prius let alone drive one. He/She/It has obviously been hurt in a particularly awful manner to respond as He/She/It did. My response wasn’t intended as a particularly religious comment but that there are things going on in that mind that need to be dealt with.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 2:14 pm

That was evil of me. I apologize.

I have no such convictions about atheists who are angry at those who believe in God, or more specifically, Christ.

I know it seems to a rational person to be superstition akin to thunder being the sound of the gods rearranging furniture in heaven.

I have been in the presence of evil, self-righteous motherfuckers who thought they were the apple of God’s eye… they might be right, but I’m entitled, and well within my God-given rights to find them intolerable.

I’ve also been in the presence of atheists who I thought were the apple of God’s eye…. I might be right, because I’m entitled.. etc.

I’m always on the alert that merely being angry at foolishness that affects us all may be the mark of a saner mind than mine, and try to find the wisdom, rather than the scar, that created that perspective.

Sometimes anger towards self-righteous myth-believers is born not of trauma, but simple logical analysis and the courage to rely on it. I know there are plenty of “believers” among us saints that are headed unbeknownst to perdition, though they look down their noses at our freedoms, and our rock-solid faith that within us, angels glide on wings of light betwixt the highways and byways of spirit, and that we reside in mansions – permeated with the peace and comfort of His power… and that our lives have purpose and meaning, through our miraculous redemption from the most foul, to bumbling fools seeking the approval of Christ, lest we become prideful and boast… the cheerful acceptance of the pain of the cross – is our hope made real.

Many press in to enter, some stand in the way and forbid entry, and will not go in themselves – few are those who travel it… and so I understand the anger. I admire it.

Be hot.. Be cold. But don’t be apathetic! A bump on the head from a misplaced step is better than a lifetime of immobility. The more passion one has, the more likely that he will follow the tiny rivulets downward into streams, and finally to the sea, where there are cities and hot chicks!

Bible Thumper June 30, 2014 at 7:01 pm

Dear faithless,
Scientifically it would make sence to determine if a person is wanted at a later stage of development. Why not just kill burdensome unwanted children after they are born. If their is over population, why not kill old, ill and mentally handicapped. Many of them are unwanted. Let’s let that be the test, for if someone should be allowed to survive. ARE YOU WANTED? IF NOT. YOU DIE. There is no way you can scientifically challenge this logical position. Of course, it is easy to challenge if you believe in that “Man in the Sky”.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 10:44 am

Scientifically it would make sence

——-
My respect for your ability to understand is not diminished, but you are advertising a different competency level than you possess. May I suggest you use Google Chrome? It will flag your typos with red underlines, and suggest spellings from a window that opens with a right click of the mouse.

Reply
Bible Thumper July 2, 2014 at 11:22 am

Scientifically it would make sence. I am trying Chrome for the first time, but it is on an Android phone. I don’t “sence” any differece. No red squiggly line. Both give suggested words, but to see “sense”, you must open a drop down window.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 1:40 pm

That makes sence – I now remember why my forehead is so flat [slap] – I forgot you use a cell phone… the google folks probably didn’t have the room for a highlighting, autocorrect spell checker, or didn’t want to risk it. There are plug ins for chrome, I’ll bet there’s an app for that.

Bible Thumper July 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm
TontoBubbaGoldstein June 30, 2014 at 8:32 pm

TBG is an agnostic.

You are an idiotic jerk.

Reply
euwe max July 1, 2014 at 3:15 am

ooooh… harsh trade!

Reply
No choice for you! June 30, 2014 at 12:05 pm

This is gonna piss the Jesus haters off.

Reply
Smirks June 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Oh, yay! More employer control over your access to health care!

Reply
Jackie Chiles July 1, 2014 at 9:27 am

This ruling likely will help to disconnect healthcare from employment.

Reply
aikencounty June 30, 2014 at 12:14 pm

But they will pay for the ensuing pregnancy?
Kinda’ like biting your nose off to spite your face.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:16 pm

The serial breeders and their minions are too ignorant to realize that. I have marveled for years how insurance plans pay for fertility treatments but NOT birth control.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Most private insurance covers birth control and has for years. It isn’t out of some benevolent heart either, birth is obviously much more expensive than birth control.

Reply
tomstickler June 30, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Most private insurance also covered elective abortions until some state legislatures outlawed the practice at the urging of those with “a sincere religious belief” that abortion was murder.

Reply
Smirks June 30, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Compassion for the unborn ends when they snip the umbilical cord.

Reply
Cletus Feotus June 30, 2014 at 2:05 pm

I know its nitpicking, but at that point they no longer qualify as members of “the unborn”. And the folks who object to killing “the unborn” also object to killing “the newborn”.

Reply
The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 2:06 pm

No, don’t tell him that, it blows his rant all apart…

Reply
Smirks June 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm

I know its nitpicking, but at that point they no longer qualify as members of “the unborn”.

lol… Fair enough.

And the folks who object to killing “the unborn” also object to killing “the newborn”.

I didn’t say pro-lifers feel the right to life ends after birth, I said their compassion ends. And it does tend to end. The zeal pro-lifers have with making sure women give birth in unwanted pregnancies often evaporates when it comes to assisting with raising the child, whether through food, education, health care, better foster care, etc.

Compassion is easy when it’s free.

Reply
Sandi Morals June 30, 2014 at 3:28 pm

“Compassion is easy when it is free”!!!!!
DEAR SIR DUMBASS,
You ought to know sitting behind that computer 24/7 posting the same fucking ‘copy and paste’ comments day after day. You have yet to have an original thought on FITS!
American hating socialists like yourself support politicians and policies that enslave millions to generational poverty and chained to the perpetual system.
Free? Hardly. While you freeloading , Christ hating bastards seek the decline of the moral and foundations of this country the rest of us are paying for those that saturate the Medicaid and food stamp rolls.

Jackie Chiles June 30, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Yeah, pro lifers totally don’t offer pregnancy centers or other help for single mothers.

The Colonel June 30, 2014 at 6:00 pm

Don’t tell him about Daybreak Ministries or he’ll have a conclusion.

Jackie Chiles July 1, 2014 at 9:23 am

(guy who never heard of medicaid)

Reply
GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 12:14 pm

FITS actually did OK with this:

But this touches on the ideologues on he court. http://scdigest.blogspot.com/

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:18 pm

OK, does this mean if I have religious objections to having to purchase Obamacare or having to pay a tax or penalty for not having Obamacare, that I can wiggle out of doing either? Pleas say it’s so!

Reply
Who would Jesus Sue June 30, 2014 at 12:24 pm

CIC – you could already get out of Obamacare mandate based on a religious waiver

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:26 pm

Really? Do tell! Do I have to convert to Islam or can my own religious beliefs (Freedom) suffice? I’m being serious, not a smartass.

Reply
Who Would Jesus Sue June 30, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Not likely, unless you’re already part of a group like Christian Scientist, then you can’t qualify, and the aim of the religion can’t be just anti- Obamacare – you’d have to have medicine or insurance as something your group was opposed to.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:39 pm

Oh… crud…

Thanks for clarifying, anyway though.

Opt out June 30, 2014 at 1:19 pm

He’s right…I’ve actually used said waiver:

http://mychristiancare.org/Medi-Share/

It’s quite a bit less then the scam that is Obamacare.

junior justice June 30, 2014 at 12:29 pm

What if I claim a religious objection to seeing GrandTango’s posts on Fitsnews?

Reply
Smirks June 30, 2014 at 12:30 pm

Well, that’s pretty much all of us.

Reply
Who Would Jesus Sue June 30, 2014 at 12:18 pm

This is kind of disturbing in that it takes the legal fiction of corporate personhood into a much broader and more logically inconsistent position. And it raises more question than it answers. First, before you start work for a company, where can you check out the corporations exhaustive list of its religious doctrinal positions??? Who decides them, the companies President? The board? A majority of the employees? The shareholders? Also, can the company convert or change its mind on a whim – as a person could. So whenever say they get to the threshold number of employees to have to provide mandaotry coverage, they have an epiphany and become Christian Scientist???

This is insane, and I am a Christian who believes firmly in the protection of religious prerogatives – which is exactly why you shouldnt be able to foist them onto your employee by this absurd corporate personhood chimera.

Reply
Yup June 30, 2014 at 1:21 pm

Corporations are people too, this is a win for the people.

Reply
Uh huh June 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm

“which is exactly why you shouldnt be able to foist them onto your employee by this absurd corporate personhood chimera.”

Well that’s the whole point of the ruling…just like the US government can’t force a belief system upon people and corporations(for now at least), those same corporations can’t force it upon their employees.

The employees have a decision available to them.

For example, if their employer decides that they are going to start worshipping the flying spaghetti monster and will no longer allow its insurance to cover spaghetti dinners for his employees, then the employee can quit.

It’s simply freedom of association.

Reply
Un uh June 30, 2014 at 8:37 pm

Uh huh, I tend to disagree that the employee and the employer have the same level of barganing power. It’s okay if you do, but I think that disagreement makes a large distinction in our points of view on this.

Reply
Uh huh June 30, 2014 at 9:20 pm

“I tend to disagree that the employee and the employer have the same level of barganing power. ”

That depends on the worth of the employee…a highly skilled employee that makes his boss a lot of money has tremendous bargaining power…the employee that is low skilled and/or doesn’t make his boss money has virtually none.

The issue is one of property rights and freedom of association.

If the employer doesn’t see the value in an employee to the point of meeting his demands, no one should be able to force the employer to do otherwise.

If the employee doesn’t like it, he can leave and get employment someplace else, but he can’t demand anything because he doesn’t own the business.

Reply
CL June 30, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Do you think that the government could shut down The New York Times Company’s printing presses? How about prohibit the NCAAP (a non-profit corporation) from holding meetings? Or force a family corporation running a kosher deli to sell pork? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then I hate to tell you that you believe corporations are persons. There is nothing chimerical about that.

Reply
Nope June 30, 2014 at 2:12 pm

CL – thanks for the attempted legal lesson on corps, but do your questions make LLC, sole propietorhips or other business entities people also? What the government can or can’t do to an entity does not a person make. Why can’t they vote? Hold political office? Die? (a real death not a dissolution) Get disability status. You can answer no to the above and still not believe a corporation is a person. Sorry Charlie.

Reply
Socrates June 30, 2014 at 2:22 pm

Do you think the purpose over this debate on corporate “personhood” stems from the amount of control government wants over said corporation?

Reply
CL June 30, 2014 at 3:12 pm

“CL – thanks for the attempted legal lesson on corps, but do your questions make LLC, sole propietorhips or other business entities people also?”

The answer is yes to each. Indeed, a sole proprietorship refers to an unincorporated business that is legally indistinguishable from the individual running it, so it quite obviously is a person in that it has no separate status from the owner.

“What the government can or can’t do to an entity does not a person make.”

That is an interesting philosophical observation that has no bearing on whether a corporation has legal rights. It is clear by your evasion of my hypos that your answer to that question is yes.

“You can answer no to the above and still not believe a corporation is a person. ”

Yet you fail to articulate a basis for why that would be true.Once you concede that some corporations have legal rights, there is no logical justification, other than your own biases, for denying those rights to Hobby Lobby.

“Why can’t they vote? Or hold office….Get disability status.”

Because they do not meet the eligibility requirements under the respective laws. This is a policy choice, not an immutable law of nature.

“Die? (a real death not a dissolution)”

More philosophizing that has nothing to do with the question of whether they have legal rights.

Reply
Good Grief Man June 30, 2014 at 8:35 pm

CL – I think you are conflating the rights and liberties. But you are the ultimate iconoclast, and self preceived know it all, so…

CL June 30, 2014 at 8:53 pm

I think you are treating two synonyms as being substantively distinct. There is a distinction between civil rights and civil liberties, but it has absolutely nothing yo do with the hypotheticals I proposed. Either the NYT and Hobby Lobby, both for profit corporations, are legal persons entitled to protection under the law or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.

Jack July 1, 2014 at 3:02 pm

Corporations are not people and have no rights. Their rights are derivative solely from the rights of their individual shareholders, members and/or employees.
And money is not speech.

CL July 1, 2014 at 9:14 pm

This is a disjointed mess. You on one hand recognize that a corporation has rights that are derived from its owners. Yet you also contradictorily claim they have no rights and bizarrely include employees as bestowing rights, which is just nonsense. Again, you have not articulated any reason why Hobby Lobby is not entitled to the same legal rights as a kosher deli or the NYT. And the illogical non sequitur at the end really puts a nice bow on this steaming pile of DailyKos talking points. I am sure politicians just love your notion that they can restrict the rights of citizens to spend on politics without limiting speech.

dems love abortion June 30, 2014 at 3:38 pm

A great ruling for the Femi-Nazi’s that run the Democrat Party!
Will mean more partial-birth abortion and infanticide money for Barack and Michelle’s favorite charity-Planned Parenthood.
Barack Gosnell may have lost the decision by SCOTUS however this is a fundraising bonanza for the Abortion Party and killing the unborn.

Reply
Fuck This Place June 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm

America sucks…its people love war, an invisable man they call God, and really love staying stupid.

Reply
EJB June 30, 2014 at 12:38 pm

You are a dumb ass.

Reply
GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 12:38 pm

You voted for Obama, Dumb@$$…That’s about as F*#king Stupid as they come…

Reply
Spelling Bee-Bzzzzzz! June 30, 2014 at 1:17 pm

When calling people stupid, it helps to spell “invisible” properly.

Reply
Jackie Chiles June 30, 2014 at 4:29 pm

(he lisped)

Reply
nitrat June 30, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Once again, Libertarians prove their Libertarian beliefs stop at an individual woman’s uterus.

Reply
GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 12:36 pm

I FULLY Support a woman’s RIGHT to choose to PAY for her own birth control. you Dumb@$$ handout beggar. Give a F*#king job, you dead-beat.

Are laying around Trying to hump Ho’s all day, and you don’t want to pay for your “mistakes, as you, and Obama, call children…???

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:42 pm

I would much rather pay for her birth control, than for her “mistakes” and the crimes they will commit and costs they will inflict on society while incarcerated, between claiming victims while on brief but frequent stints in the free world.

Reply
GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 12:53 pm

Pay for birth control if you want.. Just keep your Dirty F*#king Paws out of My pockets, because I don’t believe in you being able to Force me to pay for Sucking the fetus out of a live woman, because you are too F#*ing Lazy, or too F*#king stupid or too F*#king irresponsible to pull out or use a condom.
You have sung that Ignorant argument idea for 35 years, and it’s just worse now. Go find something new. You latest Bull-$#!* excuse to tax the H#!! out o f us, just does not fly.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:55 pm

You make so much sense. So much better to force a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want, so it can grow up without love and guidance, and become a menace to society. Great thinking you have there.

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 12:58 pm

So if you pay for everything, and force me to, against my will…it makes it all better…

You’ve played that tune for decades, and all we have now, after doing it your way, is more unwanted children..

How bout go to the F*#king idiots, who Suck your D*#k and tell them how STUPID it is, to impregnate women when are such a F*#king irresponsible loser, you cannot afford it, financially. Or Emotionally…

You are for all kinds of freedom..as long as your Stupid @$4 cam FORCE others to pay for your Ignorance and immorality. Life don’t work like that Dumb@$$…seems like you would have figured that out by now…

CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 1:00 pm

I see you are on a dick sucking binge this week. Last week it was butt fucking. Geeze, can’t make up your mind. At least I know why you don’t see a need for birth control, now.

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 1:14 pm

I’m not the least bit confused. I like them both. I can suck a dick and take it up the ass at the same time. I once sucked 2 mens off while a third entered me from behind. Talk about fun.

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 1:37 pm

You always try to change the subject, when you get the S#!* slapped out of you with logic, over the stupid placebos you dope-heads conjure up over at the coffee house.

easterndumbfuckastan June 30, 2014 at 1:02 pm

It’s cheaper to pay for the birth control than the added insurance. I agree the company should be able to decided how it wants to structure it’s business plan, but from a financial stand point self-insured companies and insurance companies should be paying women to take birth control and have abortions.

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 3:13 pm

Just keep your Dirty F*#king Paws out of My pockets.

Don’t worry, T. We already know your pockets are empty.

Yvette June 30, 2014 at 6:04 pm

I think you are confused….”Force me to pay for Sucking the fetus out of a live woman,” This is abortion. Birth control PREVENTS pregnancy. Plan B is given to rape victims to PREVENT pregnancy.

Yvette June 30, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Oh and guess what… TAX dollars foot that bill for the plan B and other prophylaxis administered to sexual assault victims!

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Yeah…let’s base 100% of everyday law on the 1/10 of 1 percent that is actually applied to REAL sexual assault victims.

You are so predictable in your ignorance. Do you think I’m 10 years old, and never I’ve seen the ruse you liberals try to sell to the stupid?

Tazmaniac July 1, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Ok, but do they FORCE the rape victim to take them, or are they free to choose?

Yvette July 1, 2014 at 5:23 pm

Of course they don’t force them. Each survivor makes that decision with the ER doctor (health care provider). Each woman’s situation and risk of pregnancy and exposer to STI’s is not the same, but these preventative drugs are always offered.

GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 8:30 pm

Silly Yvette. Abortion IS Birth Control, the only kind, to most liberals. Third Tri-mester (if not infanticide) is a must (see Obama.)

Using a condom, or taking a pill is too much to ask. And it would be discriminatory to rwquet the liberal class to be responsible. You see it’s only a tissue mass you’re destroying. Only us knuckle-draggers care about protecting that globular mass that is a mere minor hinderence, to women like you,

Yvette June 30, 2014 at 9:21 pm

You’re not fooling anyone.. You actually believe that PLAN B is an “Abortion” pill!!! Which explains your use of “Force me to pay for Sucking the fetus out” How ignorant of you…. Abortions are performed on PREGNANT women…Plan B is a CONTRACEPTIVE…i.e. BIRTH CONTROL that prevents pregnancy, which is what this discussion is about…NOT forcing you or anyone else to pay “…..for Sucking the fetus out…silly GT.

Sandi Morals June 30, 2014 at 9:39 pm

Give muslim Obama a break. The muslim terrorists he supports and has installed into power in the middle east , murdered the 3 kidnapped children from Israel.Obama despises Israel.
muslim Obama had a good day and is smiling just like his political soulmate and terrorist Bill Ayers did in an interview tonight when talking about killing Americans. He ain’t worried bout Hobby Lobby.
A vote for Tom Ervin or Vincent Sheheen is a vote for Obama ,Bill Ayers and Hitler/Mao/Alinski tactics , in my opinion only.
FOLLOW THE MONEY , folks. :-)

TontoBubbaGoldstein June 30, 2014 at 8:38 pm

I would much rather pay for her birth control, than for her “mistakes” and the crimes they will commit and costs they will inflict on society while incarcerated, between claiming victims while on brief but frequent stints in the free world.

TBG agrees, but it still sucks that we are, basically admitting to being, victims of extortion.

Reply
euwe max June 30, 2014 at 10:14 pm

TBG agrees, but it still sucks that we are, basically admitting to being, victims of extortion.

——
everyone suffers for the guy that throws the spitwad.

Tazmaniac July 1, 2014 at 4:00 pm

CiC, don’t you feel this is more than likely less about birth control, and more about picking and choosing which businesses to force to turn their back on their religious beliefs. I see this more in line with forcing a person with a chain of middle eastern restaurants to provide their employees Bibles and bbq pork sandwiches. That will never happen but bashing Christians seems to the be the exception, even encouraged. Regardless, I just don’t believe in Government forcing businesses to comply on things that aren’t a direct matter of public safety. BTW, I think you know from all those arguments with that fool Rob that I consider myself to be Agnostic which means I piss off both sides.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 1, 2014 at 4:07 pm

As usual, you do have a point there, Taz! LMAO at pissing off both sides!
:-D

Tazmaniac July 1, 2014 at 4:28 pm

This crap makes me as crazy as when they started enforcing smoking bans in bars and restaurants. The accurate description for this is tyranny, but in these days of “you didn’t build that”, what can we expect?

CorruptionInColumbia July 1, 2014 at 5:02 pm

I know. I don’t smoke but I had no problems with smokers in restaurants and bars that I frequented. Most of my friends, to include ex-girlfriends, are smokers, so I’m used to it. I recall as a kid there were two places you could visit that ALWAYS smelled of cigar smoke, hardware stores and police stations. They just aren’t the same without that aroma greeting you as you walk in the door.

easterndumbfuckastan July 1, 2014 at 8:25 pm

Fire stations used to smell of Pine Sol, smoke, and diesel exhaust but alas no more. They changed cleaners, diesel exhaust has to be piped outside and gear has to be washed or kept off the floor because it might be toxic. It’s not the same somehow.

Tazmaniac July 2, 2014 at 8:19 am

I’ve always said if a smoking ban was desired by so many, why wouldn’t a smart businessman open a smoke free restaurant or hardware store? Keith Larson on WBT asked an Asshat of a diner owner this and he said that wouldn’t be successful unless all diners were like he wanted them to be because then people wouldn’t have a choice. This has always been about the Anal few enforcing their will on the majority. Oh, and I don’t smoke.

nitrat July 2, 2014 at 7:49 am

Maybe if the American Christian Taliban weren’t so willing to ram there interpretation of Christianity down everyone’s throats, even other Christians, they might not feel so put upon.
I don’t see a single way that one Christian is prevented from practicing their religion in their personal lives. It’s only when they want to subject – SUBJECT – to their Christianity in the public sphere, that they get a little blowback.
As Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world” and “render unto Caesar”….the most ignored words of the Lord in the 21st century USA.

Tazmaniac July 2, 2014 at 8:10 am

So the answer to your perceived Christian tyranny requires Central Government tyranny? I choose neither, I have posted many times that I don’t want a Taliban Gov. nor Socialist/Communist Gov. and can’t help but wonder why the reasonable middle can’t wrestle our Government back from the far left and right. I want to form the Logic and Personal Responsibility Party, which means once again I get bashed from both sides. On the issue at hand, employees aren’t forced to work at Hobby Lobby or Chick Filet, you aren’t forced to eat there, so why should a Christian be forced to provide Plan B pills?

Smirks June 30, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Get a F*#king job, you dead-beat.

Most people that don’t have jobs are on Medicaid, dumbass.

Reply
Jan July 1, 2014 at 8:10 pm

Actually they are not. You can only get Medicaid if you are disabled or have a disabled or minor child. If you are just poor and out of work, your only option is the exchanges. If you can’t afford the exchanges in SC, you are SOL. We did not do Medicaid expansion.

Reply
hmm? July 2, 2014 at 8:13 am

Jan, SCHIP is essentially Medicaid, and poorer persons can get Medicaid based on income level or lack thereof, are you confusing it with Medicare?

CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 12:51 pm

I think this is more of a Republican thing than a Libertarian one. As one who leans mostly Libertarian in philosophy, I have mixed feelings on this. Personally, I would like to see the Obamacare thing go away or seriously be altered with regard to choice of whether or not one wishes to participate. I get, to a certain extent, the idea that business should have some choice in its dealings, one one hand. On the other hand, If every other employer is forced to provide this coverage, I have issues with this one being able to opt out so easily. The world is seriously overpopulated. I don’t get the so-called “conservative” doctrine which would deny women abortions and also deny them the means to keep the abortions from becoming necessary. And don’t hit me with that shit about keeping an aspirin between their knees, either. I ran across too many women who bought into that shiite in my younger days as it was, even if it was only one or two. Even as a government (read tax paid) paid benefit, I would much rather pay for birth control and abortions than deal with the offspring of people who didn’t want the children to begin with. Children denied the love, support, and guidance, that ANY child deserves will likely become a burden and a menace to society. Birth control is much cheaper.

Reply
AbC June 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm

Increasingly, the world is only “overpopulated” with the dumbasses… Perhaps you’re one of these!

Reply
easterndumbfuckastan June 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm

They aren’t “not covering” all birth control, it’s the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella and intrauterine devices. I understand what you are saying and I agree, but they are a private business ran by one family and government meddling in there business should be limited. Religious reason or any other reason, the reason shouldn’t matter.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia June 30, 2014 at 1:01 pm

That’s good to know, that they are not opting out of ALL birth control. Thank you for the filler!

Reply
Tazmaniac July 1, 2014 at 3:41 pm

Out of 20 mandated, they want to opt out of the four listed above. That fact adds color and clarity to the mindless shrill screaming like a D level high school drama troupe.

easterndumbfuckastan June 30, 2014 at 1:00 pm

To add to my below comments. From a business standpoint it’s stupid for the companies to make these decisions. Birth control is cheaper than adding more family members to insurance policies, providing FMLA time even if it’s unpaid, and other additional family benefits.

Reply
Bible Thumper June 30, 2014 at 1:35 pm

Maybe they are thinking about right and wrong, not dollars and cents.

Reply
easterndumbfuckastan June 30, 2014 at 7:10 pm

That maybe, but when you worked as a bean counter for 15 years all you see are beans, I was the head bean counter for a long time.

Bible Thumper June 30, 2014 at 1:40 pm

—-” I don’t get the so-called “conservative” doctrine which would deny women abortions and also deny them the means to keep the abortions from becoming necessary.”——

All of the methods of birth control that they are no longer required to provide are forms of abortion because they act after conception.

Reply
easterndumbfuckastan June 30, 2014 at 12:53 pm

Corporations are owned by people who have view. If the majority of the owners share the same views they can choose to implement their views through their corporation, if you as an employee don’t like the policies or benefits provided you are free to leave and seek employment elsewhere. That’s how free markets work.

Reply
Not really June 30, 2014 at 1:16 pm

Your ignorance on the spectrum of what a libertarian, or Libertarian is, is forgivable. The Libertarian Party actually reaffirms a women’s “right” to choose….while libertarians probably disagree with each other close to the generation population in terms of percentage….

Reply
Jackie Chiles June 30, 2014 at 4:29 pm

(he typed, tears in his eyes)

Reply
idcydm June 30, 2014 at 1:05 pm

I thought the liberals wanted the Government out of the bedroom or is it just personal responsibility they object too?

Reply
SamAdams2010 June 30, 2014 at 6:05 pm

This decision is the watershed. From now on it will be surveillance of the population to protect the powers from the scaffold.

Reply
Turd Ferguson June 30, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Don’t they hand that shit out at the health dept anyway?

Reply
GrandTango June 30, 2014 at 1:19 pm

Just condoms. I’ve been HIV+ for so long that I haven’t used condoms in years. I can’t catch anything worse that what I already have.

Reply
For Profit Vestibule June 30, 2014 at 9:50 pm

Can’t say I really get it. I thought the whole thing was constitutional as a “tax,” and you can’t opt out of paying taxes to that help fund what many consider murder (e.g., drone strikes that often blow up innocent people). Also, Hobby Lobby is no more “paying” for plan B through it’s health care plan than it is “paying” for whatever vices its employees may purchase with their cash compensation. But if it makes my fellow believers happy, then “yay,” I guess, but let’s not let the political winds distract us from what’s really important.

Reply
Take what you can get July 1, 2014 at 8:17 am

You are trying to apply some consistent form of morality to an institution(gov’t) that is neither consistent or moral.

Reply
nitrat July 2, 2014 at 7:41 am

Don’t be like Obama and say “Congress” when you mean “Republicans in Congress”.
This is about a renegade, precedent ignoring supreme court that knows it has a limited amount of time/life spans to advance its agenda.
What it fails to understand is that it has set a precedent for ignoring precedent and when the court regains sanity, every single outlaw act it has committed will be overturned by following THAT precedent.

Reply
CL July 2, 2014 at 8:46 am

The posters spouting the “corporations aren’t people” silliness are only demonstrating their own ignorance of the issues in this case. Indeed, if you really believe that corporations are not persons under the law, you need to talk to the Administration, since the HHS has not adopted anything close to that line of argument. And they also are not trying to argue that religious beliefs cannot be held by a corporation, as they have specifically admitted that some corporations – those that do not operate on a for-profit basis – can have religious beliefs that are protected by the RFRA. This is not surprising, since the government lawyers would be laughed out of court if they tried to argue that non-profit corporations, which would cover just about every church in the country, were not subject to the RFRA.

What Obama wanted to do was to carve out an exception to RFRA coverage that would exclude for-profit corporations, a limitation that finds no support in the text of the RFRA or in the case law interpreting the RFRA. All the SCOTUS did was to refuse to create such a distinction, and then it applied the RFRA test in a very straightforward manner to reach a conclusion that was much more limited than it could have been given the strictness of the legal standard. Once you find RFRA coverage, there was almost no chance the mandate could stand up under a strict scrutiny analysis.

As liberal legal scholar Lawrence Tribe has noted, it is just not a very radical holding if you actually take the time to understand the issues before the CourtAll of the hyperbole about taking away contraception* turning back the clock (all the way back to those dark days of 2012, before anyone even thought to claim that employers could be dragooned to pay for their employees’ birth control) is either rank dishonesty or pathetic ignorance of what the court actually did.

* By the way, Hobby Lobby provides its employees 16 of the 20 contraceptives on the HHS list, and only refused to provide those it believed involved killing a human being by preventing implantation of an embryo rather than just preventing fertilization from occurring. Funny how that fact never makes it into any of the coverage of the case. Maybe because it might disrupt this War on Women nonsense. You may disagree with where the owners of Hobby Lobby draw the moral line on what their conscience will allow, but it is an entirely consistent moral analysis. The whole point of the RFRA is that the government does not get to judge the merits of our religious convictions.

Reply
Jackie Chiles July 2, 2014 at 9:38 am

Devastating.

Reply
nitrat July 2, 2014 at 12:30 pm

Hobby Lobby only refused to cover contraceptives they believed were abortion inducing. Problem is medical science doesn’t agree with them about how they work. I’m not going to stop and look them up now, but some simply prevent ovulation, which is what birth control pills do.
Of course, I assume you do know that SCOTUS put out a clarification yesterday that their ruling applies to ALL contraceptives. I guess they did that so that they could comply with the Catholic Church position of the 5 in the majority.
If it is a moral matter, it is up to the individual to decide and not their employer to impose.

Reply
CL July 2, 2014 at 1:43 pm

“Problem is medical science doesn’t agree with them about how they work.”

The IUDs Hobby Lobby objects to certainly affect cervical linings and can prevent implantation. So it is you that is simply wrong on the science there. http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/iud

The science is admittedly less clear on Ella and Plan B, but the FDA has not taken the implantation warning off of their packaging. Given that, HL’s stance is certainly reasonable. HL has shown they will cover drugs that only prevent fertilization.

“If it is a moral matter, it is up to the individual to decide and not their employer to impose.”

The individual has every right to use whatever drug they want. The moral question is whether their employer can be forced to pay for something that violates their religious beliefs. No one ever thought so until 2012.

Reply
euwe max July 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm

Let’s start passing laws to put the entire corporation in jail for pollution, and other crimes that we can’t pin on the directors, because they claim they didn’t know.

Reply

Leave a Comment