Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Supreme Court Decision on Hobby Lobby birth control position

Supreme Court Decision on Hobby Lobby birth control position

+9
dumpcare
no stress
TEOTWAWKI
Floridatexan
gatorfan
Sal
Wordslinger
Joanimaroni
othershoe1030
13 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 4]

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Today we will hear the SC decision on the birth control requirement in the ACA. Just off hand I'm wondering if the decision might reach further than expected and make a statement re the personhood of corporations. It seems to me that the whole "corporations are persons" position has really gone way off the rails.

Here we have a corporation claiming that it has religious beliefs. How is this possible? A corporation is a legal construct not a person in the non-legal sense of the term "person". When a corporation can be put in prison or be buried in a grave or have children then they will be a person. How do you think the court will rule? Why?  

Guest


Guest

Same reasons you state about the "corporation," I feel HL will have to abide by the law and the SCOTUS will/should rule by the law.

On a side note, the ACA is the worst tax law ever written into existence - encompassing health and issues that should not be overseen by the IRS. Boggles my mind, still, to see how this crappy piece of legislation was passed.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Do you think the government should force insurance companies to pay for abortions?

Should insurance companies be forced to pay for elective cosmetic surgery?

Do you think insurance companies should be forced to pay for elective birth control choices?

Should the insurance companies pay for condoms?

Should insurance companies pay for diaphragms?

Birth control pills......Cost about $15–$50 each month

Guest


Guest

Personally, no.

But the law is the law.

The legislative process and judges have done this.

Obama was not concerned about healthcare. His concern was the tax base and government intrusion into business.

It will be interesting to see how they handle this. I will be shocked if this turns in HL's favor.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

There is every likelihood the SCOTUS -- in defense of its position that corporations have the same rights as people -- will indeed support Hobby Lobby's position.


And frankly, I hope and pray that's exactly what will happen! Next we will see lawsuits brought before SCOTUS from corporations who are into voodoo, Santa Maria, Witchery, Devil Worship, and our country will continue it's irrevocable slide into national suicide, brought to us, one and all, by strident Christians.

Reality!!

Sal

Sal

This was a pathetic ruling.

It carves out an exception just for birth control, but makes clear that it doesn't apply to other religious beliefs.

As badly crafted a ruling as I've seen in a long, long time.

The corporatist majority started with a decision and then dreamed up reasons to support it.

Just a pathetic ruling by a really pathetic majority.

People need to start getting really pissed off by this sort of bullshit.

We should expect much, much better from the highest court in the land.

Guest


Guest

othershoe1030 wrote:Today we will hear the SC decision on the birth control requirement in the ACA. Just off hand I'm wondering if the decision might reach further than expected and make a statement re the personhood of corporations. It seems to me that the whole "corporations are persons" position has really gone way off the rails.

Here we have a corporation claiming that it has religious beliefs. How is this possible? A corporation is a legal construct not a person in the non-legal sense of the term "person". When a corporation can be put in prison or be buried in a grave or have children then they will be a person. How do you think the court will rule? Why?  

Corporations now have freedom of speech according to the SCOTUS in regards to campaign donations. I hope they rule for Hobby Lobby and the other company just to see some rollback on the foolishness of the Obamacare law.

Men, nuns, elderly do not need to be paying for birth control coverage etc. All sort of exceptions have been made for Muslims under the ACA. Why not other religions? It could be construed as an attack to not think or give religious considerations to other religions and give Muslims their considerations. Give to one religion, then give in to the others. Without doing so should be considered discrimination and if it is discriminatory, then it is unconstitutional.

gatorfan



I don't think it's that big a deal. The subjects were closely held (family) owned entities, not General Motors publically held type corporations and there really aren't all that many of these types of corporations. Why should the government be able to dictate to a "family" what they can or can't do regarding a benefit? It would be like Obama calling Wordslinger and telling him he has to attend church if he wants to continue with his health plan.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I have made my last purchase from Hobby Lobby. I won't ever enter the store again.

Sal

Sal

Corporations are people, my friend ....

.... women? ....

.... not so much.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

From what I'm hearing it was a narrowly worded decision only applying to closely held family businesses and included specific references to other procedures people might object to on religious grounds such as blood transfusions, etc. It really sounds rather sloppy as decisions go. As far as women getting their birth control coverage I think they still will but it will be paid for by the insurance companies or the government instead of by the employers that brought the suit. Is this correct?

As for saying the general public shouldn't have to pay for this coverage because they are old or male and will never need it is a ridiculous argument. Women will never need vasectomies or prostate cancer treatments either but we pay into the insurance pool anyway. I don't think individual procedures should come under that sort of scrutiny. Lists of covered items goes along with each policy, does it not? It's been a long time since I've read the fine print on an insurance policy.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Sal wrote:Corporations are people, my friend ....

.... women? ....

.... not so much.

Nice signature line Sal.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Sal wrote:This was a pathetic ruling.

It carves out an exception just for birth control, but makes clear that it doesn't apply to other religious beliefs.

As badly crafted a ruling as I've seen in a long, long time.

The corporatist majority started with a decision and then dreamed up reasons to support it.

Just a pathetic ruling by a really pathetic majority.

People need to start getting really pissed off by this sort of bullshit.

We should expect much, much better from the highest court in the land.

The law is the law...shewrites

Guest


Guest

Liberals were dancing in the streets when the ACA passed and when part of it is struck down as unconstitutional, they get butt hurt.
 
 
LOL and FT, Hobby Lobby, like Chick Fil A will still be in business. I bet they now see MORE business. The loss of your business is of no effect.



Last edited by PACEDOG#1 on 6/30/2014, 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

gatorfan wrote:I don't think it's that big a deal. The subjects were closely held (family) owned entities, not General Motors publically held type corporations and there really aren't all that many of these types of corporations. Why should the government be able to dictate to a "family" what they can or can't do regarding a benefit? It would be like Obama calling Wordslinger and telling him he has to attend church if he wants to continue with his health plan.


Don't laugh Gatorfan -- I fear that will be the case if we allow the far right Christian beasties to continue seeking to rule from the White House!

Sal

Sal

This ruling is a mess.

Closely-held corporations are now allowed to have religious beliefs, meaning that people can form corporations for the express purpose of defying the law.

Guest


Guest

This ruling has huge implications as it was reported that 90% of all businesses are "closely held" by definition as is Hobby Lobby.

http://www.caintv.com/how-big-is-todays-hobby-lobby

Yep.

Guest


Guest

"Closely held " were the key words Justice Alito referred to in the decision.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


"...Justice Ginsburg, writing for the four dissenting Justices, refers to the decision thusly:

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.” And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government, i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab....

[T]he Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For-profit corporations do not fit that bill. Moreover, history is not on the Court’s side. Recognition of the discrete characters of “ecclesiastical and lay” corporations dates back to Blackstone, see 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 458 (1765), and was reiterated by this Court centuries before the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code. See Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43, 49 (1815) (describing religious corporations); Trustees of Dartmouth College, 4 Wheat., at 645 (discussing “eleemosynary” corporations, including those “created for the promotion of religion”). To reiterate, “for-profit corporations are different from religious non-profits in that they use labor to make a profit, rather than to perpetuate [the] religious value[s] [shared by a community of believers].”...""

http://www.dailykos.com/?detail=action

Sal

Sal

Supreme Court Decision on Hobby Lobby birth control position Screen18

no stress

no stress

Good job SCOTUS!!! Excellent ruling.

dumpcare



I really could have cared less what the ruling was, I can see why a business owner would not want to pay for some mandated benefits, but for hobby lobby to use religious beliefs to take this to the supreme court when they purchase a good deal of their products from China. A country that forces late term abortions.

Guest


Guest

Nice red herring argument ppaca. The fact is that what China does doesnt have a freaking thing to do with
hobby lobby. Are you going to condemn Walmart next?

Guest


Guest

Besides liberals like u are for abortions.

dumpcare



Like I said I could have cared less, I find it ironic they are willing to purchase their products from a country that allows you to have one kid and the others are aborted. I would see an argument as a business owner paying for these extra mandated benefits even bc and I don't think they should have to. I think you missed my point, but I would expect that coming from you. You think everyone is liberal who doesn't think like you, good god I hope you're not turning out clones up their at the high school.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 4]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Supreme Court Decision on Hobby Lobby birth control position

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum