Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Justice Ruth Ginsberg said the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was based on a misreading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and would likely open the door to a host of unintended consequences. "Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court's expansive notion of corporate personhood -- combined with its other errors in construing RFRA -- invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith," she wrote. Ginsberg concluded that the contraception mandate did not impose a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties -- and therefore did not violate the RFRA. "Suppose an employer's sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?" Ginsberg asked.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

PunchyPossum

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

She said religious organizations exist to foster the interests of people who believe in the same faith principles, but that's not the case among for-profit corporations -- and she said that distinction had been clear for centuries prior to the establishment of the Internal Revenue Service.

"Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community," Ginsberg pointed out. "Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations."

Although previous rulings required employers to accommodate employees' religious exercise, Ginsberg noted, those accommodations could not come at the expense of other workers.

"The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court's attention," she said. "One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What a stupid nasty can of worms the supreme court has opened up with this ruling.
but the religious segregationist will take heart.
and so will those who's faith do not allow their members to see doctors, and those who forbid blood transfusions

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-07-01 02:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

So, now, if your boss is a devout Jehovah's Witness, no blood transfusions for you. Not gonna cover 'em.

#2 | Posted by morris at 2014-07-01 03:51 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

something along those lines you can now bet will make it into court

#3 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2014-07-01 07:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wait till a muslim owned business forces it's female employees to wear burkas.

#4 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-01 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Folks shouldn't blame the corporate five on the SC so much, they were simply following orders from their bosses in the GOP.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 08:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"What a stupid nasty can of worms the supreme court has opened up with this ruling."

Really? What woman is denied access to birth control due to this ruling - NONE! All they are denied is access paid by these employers. Women have paid for their birth control pills since they came out in the 60s and at Walmart pharmacies they are about nine dollars a month.

#6 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-07-01 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your missing the point MSGT the ruling opens up all sorts of potential cases.

"Suppose an employer's sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?"
-Ginsberg

The issue to me is can a corporation have a religion and this case says yes.

#7 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-01 09:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I agree with Ginsberg on this. This ruling gives business owners the opportunity to strip anything out of their health plan for any reason.

It doesn't really have to be a religious based objection....they just have to claim it is.

"...regulations they deem offensive to their faith"

that's pretty broad and it can mean anything the business owner wants it to be.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Women have paid for their birth control pills since they came out in the 60s and at Walmart pharmacies they are about nine dollars a month.

Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga didn't challenge birth control pills as part of their lawsuit or insurance.

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2014-07-01 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

#9 NW, Yav. This was a narrow challenge. They provide funding for 16 different types of birth control. What they objected to was morning after pills, which they view as abortion.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-01 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This was a narrow challenge."

Its not what they were asking for but the basis on which they justified their case that creates the potentional for unintended repercussions.

The idea that for-profit corporations can ignore the law based on "sincerely held reglious beliefs" of shareholders can have many applications.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I think what hurt the administrations argument is all of the other exceptions Obama has made. Whether it be unions or other entities. It's hard to argue that some deserve exemptions for their political support or business hardships and then claim you can't for others.

#12 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-01 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Face it. The 'honored elders' of our tribe are really just a bunch of @#$clowns for Wall St.

#13 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-01 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Its not what they were asking for but the basis on which they justified their case that creates the potentional for unintended repercussions."

I have my suspicions about how unintended those repercussions actually are.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

The idea that for-profit corporations can ignore the law based on "sincerely held reglious beliefs" of shareholders can have many applications.

#11 | Posted by Sully

You have NOT been paying attention. Does not apply to public held corps, only private held ones.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-01 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#15 Some liberals are genuinely confused. Others are engaging in willful misinformation. Arguing with the latter just gives them a platform from which to spray their BS.

#16 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-01 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

What they objected to was morning after pills, which they view as abortion.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG

Yet Hobby Lobby buys a significant amount of their merchandise from a country that has advocated mandated abortion. Their hypocrisy makes it obvious that this was nothing but an attempt to undermine the ACA.

#17 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hope Hobby Lobby enjoys the fact that they probably alienated at least half of their potential customer base.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

You have NOT been paying attention. Does not apply to public held corps, only private held ones.
#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-01 11:20 AM

I'm not sure I see your point. If you are referring to "closely held" corporations, 90% of American businesses are closely held, including such behemoths as Mars (70,000 employees) and Cargill (140,000 employees).

As Ginsburg noted "'closely held' is not synonymous with 'small.' "

#19 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-01 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#17

cry us a river. Businesses get to be hypocrites all the time. Let's move on to something that matters.

If you read Ginsberg's comments....it's as if Ginsberg really really really wanted to pull Obama aside when she first read ACA and would have wanted to tell him, "please don't mandate this prescription coverage. It's going to get challenged and reversed (by my rightwing cohorts on the court) and then we'll have a SC ruling that allows many many businesses to start stripping coverage based on religious objections and that impact will hurt the positive impact of ACA more than if you just leave that language out of the law. IOW, don't overreach on this one....."

I'm putting words in Ginsberg's mouth.....but you can just imagine that she would have wanted to advise Obama in this manner, if it were possible.

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

You have NOT been paying attention. Does not apply to public held corps, only private held ones.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-01 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#15 Some liberals are genuinely confused. Others are engaging in willful misinformation. Arguing with the latter just gives them a platform from which to spray their BS.

#16 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-01 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

What the hell are you two babbling about?

Hobby Lobby IS a "for-profit corporation" just as I described it.

Talk about your self-retorting retorts. You rubes need to get your heads out from where the sun don't shine...

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-01 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#19

correct. Those companies are both for profit and privately held.

As the Koch's seem to give a lot of folks here the fits, I'll remind them that Koch industries is privately held as well.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

the ruling was based on a law passed with great fanfare by our disbarred, impeached, alleged rapist ex president from arkansas....take it up with him....

#23 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-01 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Yet Hobby Lobby buys a significant amount of their merchandise from a country that has advocated mandated abortion."

That doesn't matter, God does not mind abortions for Chinese people, He only cares if you abort red blooded American babies.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

the ruling was based on a law passed with great fanfare by [Clinton]....take it up with him....
#23 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-01 11:54 AM

Oddly enough, the bill of rights had not been expanded to non-humans back then. The blame for this ruling rests soley on those five GOP hacks on the Supreme Court that decided that corporations are people. Those same hacks have now disingenuously decided that corporations are separate entities from their human shareholders, but that corporations can have religious beliefs and that those beliefs can be the same as those held by the shareholders.

#25 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-01 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"God does not mind abortions for Chinese people,"

what's crazy is that I guess I could claim my religion believes exactly that.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll remind them that Koch industries is privately held as well.

#22 | Posted by eberly

Do you suppose it increases the chances that Charles and David will gain a new found interest in religion?

#27 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-01 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

The blame for this ruling rests soley on those five GOP hacks on the Supreme Court that decided that corporations are people.

That determination was made over a century ago and is so thoroughly ingrained into our culture/society (not for the better IMO) that Stare Decisis mandates adherence to it via responsible jurisprudence.

You sound just like Danni. She LOVES to blame corporate personhood on the 5 constitutionalists on the court when the determination of corporate personhood was made over a century ago.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#27

no, but that's only because I know a few executives at Koch that have told me that David and Charles aren't religious zealots.

Also, many executives at Koch own stock so it's not likely they would qualify as "closely held". I was just having fun.....

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

That determination was made over a century ago [...] the determination of corporate personhood was made over a century ago.
#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:23 PM |

Someone should really have told the four dissenting justices ... maybe their brains and commonsense got in the way.

#30 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-01 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone should really have told the four dissenting justices ... maybe their brains and commonsense got in the way.

#30 | POSTED BY CENSORED

Actually, that would be liberal judicial activism that got in the way.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't get me wrong - I hate the notion of corporate personhood.

But, if we are going to truly be a nation of laws, the process must be adhered to.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't get me wrong - I hate the notion of corporate personhood.

But, if we are going to truly be a nation of laws, the process must be adhered to.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:36 PM | Reply

The Supreme Court has overturned itself before that's not unheard of.

#33 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Supreme Court has overturned itself before that's not unheard of.

#33 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

I know. Starre Decisis isn't a term that means rigid adherence to precedent. It means adherence to precedent when said precedent is thoroughly ingrained into our culture.

One of the harshest critics of Miranda was Rehnquist. But, when he had an opportunity to overturn it he deferred to Starre Decisis. It was too thoroughly ingrained into our society and it would have been a reckless judicial act to overturn it.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know. Starre Decisis isn't a term that means rigid adherence to precedent. It means adherence to precedent when said precedent is thoroughly ingrained into our culture.

One of the harshest critics of Miranda was Rehnquist. But, when he had an opportunity to overturn it he deferred to Starre Decisis. It was too thoroughly ingrained into our society and it would have been a reckless judicial act to overturn it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:45 PM | Reply

I give You Plessy v Ferguson. Segregation was thoroughly ingrained into our culture then came Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Kansas that changed that precedent.

#35 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-01 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Larry,

You raise a good point.

I would counter that with Brown it was proven that separate was NOT equal and thus the 14th Amendment trumped precedent.

Nevertheless, your point is well taken.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-01 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know a few executives at Koch that have told me that David and Charles aren't religious zealots.
#29 | Posted by eberly

That's hardly convincing. Is there some sort of requirement that corporation's religious beliefs align with the closely-held owners? It seems extremely unlikely the Court would view a sudden outbreak of religion with sufficient skepticism to prevent a corporation from having an epiphany.

What the court has done is legitimize the corporate fatwa.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

What they objected to was morning after pills, which they view as abortion.

#10 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2014-07-01 10:18 AM | FLAG:

Which prior to 2012 they chose to cover in the their insurance. Where were their "Christian" values then?

This was only to poke Obama in the eye.

#38 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-01 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37

that's what I'm concerned about too.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-01 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

This was only to poke Obama in the eye.

#38 | Posted by 726

Sadly...It is going to get worse before it gets better.

If we allow the GOTP to win the house and senate we will deserve what we get.

People need to wake up and vote these Neanderthals out.

If the people don't stand up to them we will all just be pulled back into the crab bucket with them.

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I dont understand how they can argue legitimately that IUDs are equal to abortions. Are they going to start taking a swab of every female every month when she gets her cycle to know whether or not there was a viable embryo that somehow did not attach to the uterus? That is equal to what an IUD does, the embryo never attaches and never is more than a sperm and an egg that have collided. Never a fetus, never a baby. It is nothing more than a possibility.

#41 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I dont understand how they can argue legitimately that IUDs are equal to abortions.

Did they? I missed that. I thought this was over the morning after pill and only that.

#42 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I dont understand how they can argue legitimately that IUDs are equal to abortions.

Because an IUD can keep a fertilized egg from implanting.
In their minds this is like throwing a baby in a dumpster.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The company objected to paying for emergency contraception including Plan B, Ella -- both commonly known as the morning after pill -- plus two types of IUDs. Hobby Lobby said they believe these types of birth control amount to abortion. The company did not object to covering other types of contraception, including birth control pills."

"The IUD has a failure rate of less than one pregnancy per 100 women in a year, better than both the pill (9 pregnancies per 100 women per year) and condoms (18 pregnancies per 100 women per year), according to the CDC."

The above is taken from this times article

I saw in another article that the court didnt disagree with their thought that the IUDs amount to an abortion because it blocks a fertilized egg from finding anchorage in the uterus. I just cant remember where that was. I do not agree with that sentiment.

#45 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | Posted by snoofy

I know what they are saying, I just dont understand that it can be used as a legitimate argument. I am sure that fertilized eggs fail to attach on a regular basis in relationships all over the globe. Especially when couples are trying for a new baby. They only know it is happening to that one person with the IUD because that is what it is designed to do.

#46 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | Posted by snoofy
I know what they are saying, I just dont understand that it can be used as a legitimate argument.

If it's a religious belief, the courts view it as legitimate. Those are the rules.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well I for one think it is a bogus claim, and their religious excuse is opening the door for far worse.

#48 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2014-07-01 02:19 PM

Thanks. I must have missed that.

#49 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-01 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not like the Supreme Court is full of scientifically literate people. They routinely get facts wrong on scientific and technical issues. And are forced to come up with Byzantine logic to reconcile centuries-old laws with modern technology.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just to be clear, the primary mode of pregnancy prevention with an IUD is by killing the sperm so even fertilization is prevented, not by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting (though the IUD can also do that).

#51 | Posted by YAV at 2014-07-01 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

The blame for this ruling rests soley[sic] on those five GOP hacks on the Supreme Court that decided that corporations are people.

Who knew those "five GOP hacks on the Supreme Court" could influence Congress to enact the Dictionary Act in 1871.

Also, the Court has never, to my knowledge, "decided" that corporations are people and it did not in Hobby Lobby.

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-01 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought the slippery slope argument as the epitome of lazy? Also, the person least likely to have ever needed birth control isn't exactly whom I'd look to for an opinion on birth control.
#ruthisugly

#53 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-07-01 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I dont understand how they can argue legitimately that IUDs are equal to abortions. " - IdahoGirl

The egg has been fertilized........ thats their stance.... anytype of contraception that kills a fertilized eggs.

Hobby Lobby supports and will fund the following....

1 Male condoms
2 Female condoms
3 Diaphragms with spermicide
4 Sponges with spermicide
5 Cervical caps with spermicide
6 Spermicide alone
7 Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin ("Combined Pill)
8 Birth-control pills with progestin alone ("The Mini Pill)
9 Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
10 Contraceptive patches
11 Contraceptive rings
12 Progestin injections
13 Implantable rods
14 Vasectomies
15 Female sterilization surgeries
16 Female sterilization implants

#54 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-01 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#54 | Posted by AndreaMackris

As per #51 | Posted by YAV and this site the sperm is most often killed before an egg could ever be fertilized, negating that claim.

#55 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

As per #51 | Posted by YAV and this site the sperm is most often killed before an egg could ever be fertilized, negating that claim."

Key phrase, "most often".

I think the important this is to realize that the concept of when a life is created is more philosophical then anything. That being the case, religious tenants are matters that are personal to those subscribing to the religion. While i may disagree with what they consider abortion it is clear that under the life begins at conception dogma there is plenty of reason to object to the few methods they do.
Furthermore, it should not be the governments ability to say what and what is not a legitimate religious ideal, i would think that would be the most obvious violation of the first amendment possible.
Point is that no one but the religious get to decide what they want to believe, right or wrong it their rights should not be taken lightly. To remove those rights just so women have 20 rather then 16 choices is egregious. It also is disparaging to women as it states that they are so helpless as to when they want to choose something that is not on the menu that others must loose their rights so they can have a special class made for them. If i were a woman i would be insulted by that idea just like i would be insulted if someone said it was an attack on men to provide Viagra but not Cialis.

#56 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Salamandagator the problem goes far beyond the birth control, that is just taking center stage right now. This sets us up for so much more down the road.

However, it is already hard to gain access to some methods of BC, and if a corporation can inforce their religious veiws on their employees what happens when my local pharmacist no longer wants to provide BC due to his faith? Where do we draw the line? "A significant number of pharmacists say they would refuse to dispense oral contraceptives or other medications to patients for moral reasons if they were permitted to do so."

I pay a portion of my premiums. They take over a hundred dollars off the top of my paycheck every two weeks. Does none of that pay for my BC? Why shouldnt I be able to use my health insurance, that I am paying for (through my employer) to get an IUD? Because it may offend my employer? Are you kidding me, they shouldnt even know that I have it. IUDs are more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies than pills and condoms, but I should have to pay $1000 for that procedure on top of my premiums so that my employer is not morally offended.

#57 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That being the case, religious tenants are matters that are personal to those subscribing to the religion.

Beliefs they are now allowed to impose on their employees, even if the law says otherwise.
And the word you want is "tenets."

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

corporation can inforce their religious veiws on their employees "

But that is not at all what is happening. If they were to say that none of there employees were allowed to use it then i would be with you. But they did not say that or anything close, they only did not want to support it by paying for it.

The IUD costs less then 100 dollars a year if it is used to its full life. So for less then 100 bucks a year are you willing to say that owners of a business cannot act under their own religion and morality? If choosing a different varity then what is offered is that important then why in the world is it somehow unfair to ask you to pay for it?

And in reality we are talking birth control for birth control sake not for any of it's other uses. That is recreation, so for recreation purposes religions rights would have dismissed so people do not have to provide their own "equipment". To me it is no different then me asking for insurance to cover my greens fees and then complaining if they only cover 80 percent of the courses in my area. Frankly i don't think anyone should have to supply health care for anyone if they do not want to but it is even worse when they are forced to do so against the owners religious beliefs.

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And the word you want is "tenets.""

No, i was talking about the odd couple who rents and lives in the church basement and watches price is right reruns at full volume until 4am.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Beliefs they are now allowed to impose on their employees,"

Refusing to pay for something cannot be considered imposing beliefs. But as i said if they were to say no one that works here can use that product then there would be something to complain about. But this does not amount to anything that comes close to imposing beliefs.

#61 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure they are. I have three kids and my boss already takes over a hundred off the top of every paycheck for my Medical plan. There is no way I have a grand just laying around waiting for an IUD appointment. I am paying for my insurance. If HL did not want to comply with the BC portion of the law they could have paid the fine and allowed their employees to use the exchange for their insurance needs. I am very happy with my job (not HL), and my insurance, but I worry that this will open a can of worms that my daughters will be dealing with later.

#62 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

PP says they range from 500 to a thousand dollars and last for 12 years. No do the math and that comes out to less then 10 bucks a month. Yes there is up front costs but if this was a serious issue then i am sure that there would be plenty of companies willing to finance as part as a supplement. It could be quite lucrative after all. But ask yourself, is your financial status reason to deny someone religious beliefs? Ask yourself if your choice of one of the options that is not offered, even though there are plenty that accomplish the same thing that are, is reason to force someone to pay for what they believe is wrong?
How is it less egregious to impose your belief that you should be entitled to all the choices available then to force someone to go against their belief?
It is not a big deal to ask a woman to chose something off the menu or pay for it herself. It is a major deal to force someone to violate their beliefs because women need to be in a separate class that is super dependent. It is sexist and it is a violation of the fundamental concepts this country was founded on.

#63 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Refusing to pay for something cannot be considered imposing beliefs.
#61 | Posted by salamandagator

Sure it can. Employees at Hobby Lobby don't get certain coverages. Why? Because of Hobby Lobby's beliefs.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

But ask yourself, is your financial status reason to deny someone religious beliefs?

This is about a corporation's religious beliefs. There is no "someone."

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is not a big deal to ask a woman to chose something off the menu or pay for it herself.

They why is Hobby Lobby fighting for the right to do that?
So much of what you are saying is essentially irrelevant.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#66 | Posted by snoofy

Exactly. I decided it was a waste of my time to feed the troll. Especially calling women a separate class that is super dependent... Nothing to see here.

#67 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"They why is Hobby Lobby fighting for the right to do that?"

What are you talking about?
Hobby lobby is not fighting against a tiny bit of cost, they are fighting to retain their rights to not be forced to act against religious conviction. That is a huge deal. It does not matter if you are religious or not we should all be standing with those who would fight for religious freedom not those fighting against it.

#68 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Especially calling women a separate class that is super dependent."

Those are the feeling of those pushing the sexist angle not mine. Do you think a woman should have a special class where she must have everything she wishes fore even though there are already alternatives provided simply because she is a woman?

#69 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Employees at Hobby Lobby don't get certain coverages."

Is a coke machine in the lobby denying people Pepsi?
No, that would be asinine to assume so and this is not much different at all. No one said they cannot use them just that it will not be supplied. To call it a denial is intentionally deceiving.

#70 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe that IUDs are more effective and efficient. They cannot be forgotten like a pill or patch, and they dont interupt the moment like a condom, sponge, spermicide, etc. Plus in my marriage I shouldnt have to worry about that. They last for years unlike shots (months). I feel that making them harder to get increases the risk that our population will continue to have unwanted pregnancies and abortions. I dont think that women are super dependent. I believe that we are hard working, busy Moms, Wives, employees, and such that we often do not have time for ourselves. I do not think it is too much to ask that the insurance I am already paying for would include a dependable contraceptive. One that me and my Dr agree would be in my best interest. It is not my employers busines what I do with my body. If they have a problem helping me buy insurance that will meet my needs they are free to not offer a plan that I am required to take or face a penalty in the exchanges. All they have to do is drop employer sponsored coverage, pay their small fine, and allow me to purchase a plan that covers what I need.

#71 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Do you think a woman should have a special class where she must have everything she wishes fore even though there are already alternatives provided simply because she is a woman?

#69 | Posted by salamandagator

Not as long as you can get your Viagra paid for old man.

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

To call it a denial is intentionally deceiving.
#70 | Posted by salamandagator

If I choose to not extend to you the right to freedom of religion, I am simultaneously choosing to deny your freedom of religion.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Employees at Hobby Lobby don't get certain coverages."
Is a coke machine in the lobby denying people Pepsi?

If there were a Coke machine in the lobby, and Hobby Lobby issues a new policy saying women can't use the Coke machine, women are certainly being denied something.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If I choose to not extend to you the right to freedom of religion, I am simultaneously choosing to deny your freedom of religion."

No, that is a logical fallacy.

#75 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Not as long as you can get your Viagra paid for old man."

But if Viagra was paid for but Cialis was not would that be controlling a males health?
No, obviously not and that is exactly what we are dealing with.

#76 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

In that case, can you even come up with an example of a company denying a worker a right?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"All they have to do is drop employer sponsored coverage, pay their small fine, and allow me to purchase a plan that covers what I need."

So you would be fine with them dropping all coverage and putting the full cost on the woman as that would not be denying anything but to say there is additional cost if you want something that is not on the plan is?

There are plenty of contraceptives that are very reliable. If you chose the IUD that is your choice but in what world should the individual who makes the choice have no responsibility for it? There have always been different plans that covered different things including different kind of contraceptives no one ever claimed that was sexist before. But now if someone wants to exercise religious freedom the only thing that is brought out against them is "poor, poor women, they need not only their needs met but their choices as well or they are the victims" That is the problem i have with this.
If people wanted to say they are stupid for their beliefs about what is an aborting drug, fine. But to pretend like they are denying it to any woman and that the poor women need protection from a few bucks a month are they are loosing control of their own bodies is disrespectful to women.

#78 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

But if Viagra was paid for but Cialis was not would that be controlling a males health?

If the law required both to be paid for and the company fought to only pay for one, how would you describe it?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"company denying a worker a right?"

Well first, i do not believe that health care is a workers right, i think that is the individuals responsibility unless the employer chooses to offer it as a perk.

But it is easy to define losing a right a an employee. In fact i have already done so in this thread.
If the employer said that they could not use that product then there would be an issue. No one said that at all.
If an employer forced workers to subscribe to their belief. Again no one attempted to from hobby lobby.
If an employer told your doctor what they could not do, there would be a problem. But the distinction is that hobby lobby did not tell the doctors what they could do. They only said that we will only pay for these 16 types which are perfectly acceptable alternatives and if you want something different it comes from your pocket.

#80 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do have responsibility to it. I am paying my Health Insurance Premiums from every single paycheck I recieve. This corporation went to court to ensure that my premiums will not cover something they already do, just because it offends their morals. That is my problem. They are taking something away that I feel I am paying for.

#81 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If the law required both to be paid for and the company fought to only pay for one, how would you describe it?"

If the law required all alternatives to be paid for i would call it a dumb law.
What if the difference was name brand vs generic? That could still be construed as controlling medical decisions to those who are easily manipulated.

#82 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

But now if someone wants to exercise religious freedom the only thing that is brought out against them is "poor, poor women, they need not only their needs met but their choices as well or they are the victims"

Have you not noticed that the way they've decided to exercise their "religious freedom" only affects women who work at Hobby Lobby and are therefore probably fairly poor?

Strangely they didn't use their religious freedom to require all males be circumcised.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, give me a generic IUD if it works as well at a lower cost. My Medical insurance already has me choosing the generic when it is offered. That is a lame comparison.

#84 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What if the difference was name brand vs generic?"

What generic IUD did you think Hobby Lobby will want to cover?
Name brand vs. generic is a substitution a pharmacist makes with the consent of the patient.
Notice how the patient is part of the decision.
Notice how the patient is no longer part of that decision at Hobby Lobby.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That is my problem. They are taking something away that I feel I am paying for."

Well think about it. They are getting you a better deal then you could ever get on your own and the additional cost for a choice would amount to a fraction of the difference between a private plan and company provided health care. If you want full control and every option under the sun then you should choose your health plan yourself. That is the way it always was before. You want a different doctor then your company plan requires, you dump it and buy your own. You want name brand over generic, you find your own plan that covers it. You want a doctor for prenatal care rather then a midwife, you get a plan that has that. But magically all the sudden on one issue that becomes unacceptable. I do not see how the disconnect has form in so many minds. Hobby lobby provided health care for their employees long before ACA required them to, because it was a choice. They stopped covering those types before ACA was a thing and nobody cared. But all the sudden after the government forced them to do what they already were doing then it is suddenly an attack on women. Suddenly no one is responsible for their own choices. Suddenly what was the norm is abhorrent to many. It just does not make any sense.

#86 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

" My Medical insurance already has me choosing the generic when it is offered."

So they are forcing you to use an alternative. Those BASTARDS how dare they control a woman's body.

#87 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the law required all alternatives to be paid for i would call it a dumb law.

There's plenty of dumb laws. If you have to comply with them, why shouldn't a religious company?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Strangely they didn't use their religious freedom to require all males be circumcised."

Oh come now. You are being intentional obtuse. Pretending like there is any comparison to not paying for someones choice and forcing someone to physically alter their body to fulfill the owners beliefs is absurd. If you think your opinion is valid then please do not lower yourself to crap like this.

#89 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But if Viagra was paid for but Cialis was not would that be controlling a males health?"

If the law required both to be paid for and the company fought to only pay for one, how would you describe it?

#79 | Posted by snoofy

Exactly...and if one was much more effective and expensive than the other....perhaps.

Why is it that Religions such as Christianity object to a womans control of her own sexuality but believe mens sexuality is a health issue not to be questioned or infringed?

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Name brand vs. generic is a substitution a pharmacist makes with the consent of the patient.
Notice how the patient is part of the decision."

It is the choice of the insurance company which one they will pay for. But it is the choice of the patient if they want something more then the generic their insurance offers and they would have to pay more for that.

#91 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why is it that Religions such as Christianity object to a womans control of her own sexuality but believe mens sexuality is a health issue not to be questioned or infringed?"

No one is saying that. It is a red herring. But in all honesty if a company did not want to supply Viagra or the like i would not feel at all they they should be forced to religious reasons or not.

#92 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's plenty of dumb laws. If you have to comply with them, why shouldn't a religious company?"

If the law violates the law as the court found then you do not have to.
Would you comply with a law that removed your freedom of speech or would you fight it?

#93 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually with the options I had available to my family I would have done better in the exchanges. Not by much, but a little, and the plan also seemed slightly better. However I would have been penalized for not taking my employer sponsored plan so that made it a bad deal.

I am not going to come back to this thread again. You are making this a specific BC issue. For me that is only part of the problem. It really opens the floor to so much more, but you are so focused on the woman issue that you cant see it will affect you later.

Go ahead and side with them. There will be a time when they come for you, and there may be nobody left to have your back.

#94 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2014-07-01 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

While I am in favor of religion being defended I fear this ruling will have negative repercussions.

#95 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-01 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Pretending like there is any comparison to not paying for someones choice and forcing someone to physically alter their body to fulfill the owners beliefs is absurd.

Whether or not the religious beliefs are absurd doesn't matter.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It is the choice of the insurance company which one they will pay for. But it is the choice of the patient if they want something more then the generic their insurance offers and they would have to pay more for that.
#91 | Posted by salamandagator

Meanwhile, workers on Hobby Lobby insurance don't get that choice.

If I were an insurance company I would convert to whatever religion it is that opposes transfusions and save a bundle on all the diabetics on dialysis. Would that be acceptable?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Meanwhile, workers on Hobby Lobby insurance don't get that choice."

They absolutely do. No one is stopping them from getting it on their own dime or getting supplementary insurance. If they were i would be with you on this but they are not and never have been.


"If I were an insurance company I would convert to whatever religion it is that opposes transfusions and save a bundle on all the diabetics on dialysis. Would that be acceptable?"

Well first the analogy is not reasonable since the percentage of women who require the type is question is pretty much zero. Second there is virtually no chance that not having an IUD will kill you.

#98 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Whether or not the religious beliefs are absurd doesn't matter."

Are you making the claim that it is a woman's religious belief that she should have one of the types in question and therefore the company should have to pay for her religious belief?

First, if that is what you are saying it is ridiculous. Second there is only a protection for government intrusion on religious belief.

#99 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would you comply with a law that removed your freedom of speech or would you fight it?

#93 | Posted by salamandagator

I would. But, then I got high.

#100 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

No one is saying that. It is a red herring. But in all honesty if a company did not want to supply Viagra or the like i would not feel at all they they should be forced to religious reasons or not.

#92 | Posted by salamandagator

Red Herring my [...]. You have no objection to a religion that you do not even believe in selectively obeying US LAW limiting the rights of women because their particular myth objects even when the science proves them to be absolutely wrong?

You sure you are not high, too?

#101 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

How many of you would be defending Hobby Lobby if the owners happened to be Muslims with sincere religious objections to something similar but perhaps not exactly the same just for sake of argument?
What chance is there that the SC would have voted to protect their religious beliefs in the same way they have for Hobby Lobby?
You know, as well as I do, that the SC would not have found in favor of Hobby Lobby if the owners were Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, perhaps not even Jews. Therefore, I believe that the five Catholics on the SC decided based on their own religious beliefs and are thus really deciding cases on a basis of a defacto state religion of their choosing.

#102 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, I would be if the same opinion. No one's rights were at stake but the employer. This ruling means no rights were infringed upon. Unless you are of the opinion that Someone having to provide for their own choice is an infringement of rights, but you know better then that.

#103 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

101

The religion does not matter. If you only support rights for those who believe exactly what you do you are the problem. And again no rights were infringed on. There was still free birth control and no one was prevented from getting anything if they chose to.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The religion does not matter. If you only support rights for those who believe exactly what you do you are the problem. And again no rights were infringed on. There was still free birth control and no one was prevented from getting anything if they chose to.

#104 | Posted by salamandagator

I believe that we are all equal under the law. The Religulous do not get to pick and choose which laws they will follow while the rest of us have no options.

And yes some one is being prevented from having access to the same health care options as others affecting their health and well being.

The poor.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, "the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage." Indeed, IUDs -- which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending -- can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women's access to no-cost birth control, many women didn't use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.

We already have clear evidence about how removing cost barriers to the IUD can change women's lives. A large 2012 study focusing on low-income women in St. Louis found that when they were given the choice between the full range of birth control methods without being charged a co-pay -- the same choice that Obamacare's contraceptive mandate offers -- more of them opted for IUDs. And after that, fewer of them experienced unintended pregnancies and fewer of them got abortions.

On the other hand, without access to affordable long-lasting birth control, poor women are much more likely to struggle to avoid becoming pregnant. The unintended pregnancy rate for women living below the poverty level is more than five times as high as the rate for the women in the highest income level. When low-income women are faced with unplanned pregnancies, they often end up slipping even further into poverty. Thanks to the increasing number of restrictions on abortion -- after all, conservatives like Hobby Lobby don't want insurance plans to cover it -- impoverished women often can't afford to end a pregnancy. And there isn't exactly a social safety structure in place to make it easier for them to afford a child, either.

thinkprogress.org

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-01 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

105

So the first ammendment means nothing to you?

#106 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-01 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Second there is only a protection for government intrusion on religious belief.
#99 | Posted by salamandagator

No, there's more than that. Employers can be compelled to make reasonable accommodations for an employee's religious beliefs. www.eeoc.gov

What I am worried this ruling has done is take us to the point where accommodations no longer have to be "reasonable." Any religious objection can become a test case. "Sincere belief" replaces "reasonable."

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the first ammendment means nothing to you?

I feel like corporations should have to give something in exchange for what they take. Claiming that they have a religion is one of those things. How can a legal fiction have a religion, it's a nonsensical premise.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-01 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Unless you are of the opinion that Someone having to provide for their own choice is an infringement of rights, but you know better then that."

Except that the insurance companies offered to provide those birth control methods free of charge, it would not have cost Hobby Lobby anything. If anything, healthcare costs for Hobby Lobby will increase because of greater exposure to providing care for pregnant women and the subsequent delivery of babies. This was about throwing a wrench into Obamacare, it was political not theological.

#109 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-01 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wait, is this the old "snowball" argument that Democrats don't like to see? Is this different in some way? Someone please enlighten me.

#110 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-07-01 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why did Hobby Lobby go all the way to the Supeme Court over this when their 401k invests in companies that make IUDs and morning-after pills?

#111 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-01 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Why did Hobby Lobby go all the way to the Supeme Court over this when their 401k invests in companies that make IUDs and morning-after pills?
#111 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-01 10:57 PM

My understanding is that they, along with the rest of the tea[partiers], were concerned that the sheriff is near.

#112 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-02 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You have NOT been paying attention. Does not apply to public held corps, only private held ones.

#15 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Or in other words, 80% of companies in this country.

#113 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-07-02 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Excellent reference to Blazing Saddles, CENSORED!

#114 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-07-02 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

I suppose the answer to J. Ginsburg is quite simple: apply the framework established by RFRA; if a less burdensome approach to advancing each of these can be crafted and is feasible, then such laws would have to go. At the same time, I am having trouble, for example, constructing a way to advance the interest covered by equal pay laws without stating to Employers, "You must pay equally for equal quality of work."

#115 | Posted by xuinkrbin at 2014-07-02 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Except that the insurance companies offered to provide those birth control methods free of charge, it would not have cost Hobby Lobby anything"

It was not about cost or saving money, it will not save them anything. It was about providing something they see as tantamount to abortion. If it costs them extra then fine that is their choice.

"This was about throwing a wrench into Obamacare, it was political not theological."

That is not true. Well it is true for one side, the administration fighting it is purely political. After all unless it is complete submission to each and every whim then it must be dealt with right?

The sad thing is that this is so evident that the fight became a manufactured and false concept that it is limiting rights of women. But again in this age when in doubt throw out reason and try for a n emotional response, unfortunately there are far to many people that works with in this country.

#116 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Or in other words, 80% of companies in this country."

Note the closely held portion in the ruling. It is narrow. But it should not be, it should be sweeping.

#117 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Or in other words, 80% of companies in this country."
Note the closely held portion in the ruling. It is narrow. But it should not be, it should be sweeping.

#117 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2014-07-02 11:38 AM

You're right. Actually 90% of business in America is a "closely held firm."

Closely held firms are those in which a small group of shareholders control the operating and managerial policies of the firm. Over 90 percent of all businesses in the United States are closely held.

www.inc.com

#118 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

The hi-5 are consistently delusional. For example they pretend racial discrimination is a thing of the past while it stares them in the face. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Religious delusions delivering legislation from the bench.

#119 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-02 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

How can they make rulings when they are so out of touch with reality.

For example, Scalia doesn't know HBO is a pay service.

www.businessinsider.com

Someone needs to educate these fossils on the modern age IMHO.

#120 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

#118

Of that 90 percent about 97 percent are not mandated to cover health care anyways. So that would put it at below 3 percent of all business that this ruling could affect.

#121 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

How can they make rulings when they are so out of touch with reality.
#120 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 11:52 AM

Because reality has no bearing on their rulings. Those five jokes of justices are results-driven, picking and choosing facts and legal arguments to rationalize reaching their pre-selected, desired outcome. Their opinions are intended only to create the veneer of legitimacy while they work towards accomplishing their goal of expanding the power of the wealthy and powerful and reducing the common man to serfdom.

#122 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-02 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

So a corporation should be allowed to go against local laws and ban open carry, but not be allowed to decide what medical coverage they're going to provide? Do some of you change positions daily?

#123 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-07-02 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So a corporation should be allowed to go against local laws and ban open carry"

I don't think you understand how open carry works.

In what locality do property owners not have the right to decide whether or not to allow others to bring weapons onto their property?

#124 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

In what locality do property owners not have the right to decide whether or not to allow others to bring weapons onto their property?

POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-07-02 01:22 PM |

Concealed carry states as, if done correctly, you should never know they are packing.

#125 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary Clinton on Hobby Lobby: 'I Find It Deeply Disturbing'

The former secretary of state sees those who would deny women birth control or reject compromise as akin to the theocratic zealots she encountered on her travels overseas.

This wasn't the wishy-washy Hillary her detractors portray, a consummate, triangulating politician trying to play both sides of the issue. It was a true-believing liberal standard-bearer, drawing on her work in the cabinet to illuminate what's happening in America today.

"Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls [in State Department efforts] is that they're often the canaries in the mine," Clinton explained. "It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are unstable, anti-democratic, and prone to extremism. Women's bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people -- men -- to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but prop up rulers."

Now, she said, something similar was happening in the United States, where religion was worming its way into government. "Many more companies will claim religious beliefs. Some will be some sincere, others maybe not. We're going to see this one insurable service cut out for many women," she said. "This is a really bad, slippery slope."

www.theatlantic.com

Hillary pointing out that these rwing activist Catholics are basically "Talibaptists".

#126 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is Target French?

www.snopes.com

#127 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, wrong thread.

#128 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#124 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-07-02 01:22 PM

I have no problem with target not wanting guns on their premises, but I thought there was little they could do about it if someone legally did anyway. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time.

#129 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hobby Lobby Funded Disgraced Fundamentalist Christian Leader Accused of Harassing Dozens of Women

The crafts store chain and its owners gave millions in backing to controversial evangelical Bill Gothard and his Institute in Basic Life Principles.

www.motherjones.com

Talibaptists.

#130 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's rich coming from a guy that supports Bill Clinton who sexually harrassed several women that worked for him over the years.

#131 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-02 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#131

Rwing myths die hard.

www.washingtonpost.com

#132 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

'I have no problem with target not wanting guns on their premises, but I thought there was little they could do about it if someone legally did anyway. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time.

#129 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:'

Business owner has the right to decide that he doesn't want anyone bringing guns into his store.

'Concealed carry states as, if done correctly, you should never know they are packing.

#125 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:'

True but it still wouldn't be legal.

#133 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-02 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rwing myths die hard.
www.washingtonpost.com"

Funny even your article cite 3 cases of alleged harassment. the whole crux of it was to say that the rest were either unnamed and therefore cannot be counted or consensual so sexual predator does not fit. But still has three listed that do fit. So as far a myth goes all you can say is "well it was not quite as many if you count it my way"

#134 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"True but it still wouldn't be legal."

That is correct, if you are unwelcome it is trespassing.

#135 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

-alleged

I can post the definition if you need it.

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#132

that's one of the worst POS deflections I've ever seen.

#137 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-02 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

They may want to rename the store after this. Perhaps nonTarget.

#138 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-07-02 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They may want to rename the store after this. Perhaps nonTarget."

Well if this were actually a ban rather then just the bare minimum to appease the hoplophobes without actually doing anything then the name would be even more apt.

#139 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the supremes legalize the Church of Cannabis and the League for Spiritual Discovery (LSD), I'll take their expansion of religious rights seriously. Until then, they are hypocrites.

#140 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-02 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

OH MY GAWD !!!

you mean to tell me that religious freedom might BREAK OUT..

oh goodness...I'm getting the hibby gibbies just thinking of it..

#141 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-02 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

you mean to tell me that religious freedom might BREAK OUT..

Just remember to thank Bill Clinton for signing that law. :)

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

AS WELL as obama changing obamacare without the authority....change 17 I believe it was...

#143 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-07-02 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Afkabeeflet getting the herpes aside, well I just wanted to make sure Aflabeeflet didn't spread his herpes.

#144 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2014-07-02 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

and so will those who's faith do not allow their members to see doctors, and those who forbid blood transfusions

And to others who make such claims.

Legalization of gay marriage.

Critics: it will lead to legalization of polygamy,

Critics of critics : slippery slope fallacy.

Legalization of physician assisted suicide

Critics: it will lead to more general euthanasia.

Critics of critics: slippery slope fallacy

Legalization of marijuana

Critics: it will lead to legalization of harder drugs and will be a gateway drug.

Critics of critics: Slippery slope fallacy

SC ruling on not requiring employers to provide medical coverage for abortifacients for religious reasons.

Critics : it will lead to all kinds of objections for health coverage based upon religious reasons.

Critics of critics: ?

#145 | Posted by Grendel at 2014-07-02 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

The good thing about this ruling is that it will be a bad thing for Republicans trying to get elected POTUS in 2016.

#146 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-02 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Hey Grendel,

Any objection to contraception coverage can be raised against any other health care coverage. It does not matter whether the procedures in question constitute abortion in a scientific sense, so long as the employer claims to believe that it is abortion. Thus, an employer can claim that their religion regards pretty much anything (tonsilectomies, ear examinations, antibiotics) as the moral equivalent of abortion, and that is the end of the discussion.

Obeying the capricious whims of imaginary, invisible, sky-fairies is no way to formulate a functioning, rational society.

#147 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-02 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Supreme Court has already sent out orders to lower courts that all birth control falls under their latest ruling. There is no need for any specific belief about what it does or how it acts.

#148 | Posted by YAV at 2014-07-02 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yav - cite?

#149 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-03 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Supreme Court has already sent out orders to lower courts that all birth control falls under their latest ruling. There is no need for any specific belief about what it does or how it acts.

#148 | Posted by YAV at 2014-07-02 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Yav - cite?

#149 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-03 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.scotusblog.com

#150 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-03 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't read it that way, Larry. If a company challenged its duty to provide insurance covering all forms of birth control, including those at issue in the Hobby Lobby case, and the court rejected the challenge, then the court would need to reconsider its ruling. (My guess is that these courts will likely issue revised rulings holding that the company need not provide insurance covering the forms of birth control at issue in Hobby Lobby, but that the rejection of the challenge to the other forms would stand.)

Do you disagree?

#151 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-03 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't read it that way, Larry. If a company challenged its duty to provide insurance covering all forms of birth control, including those at issue in the Hobby Lobby case, and the court rejected the challenge, then the court would need to reconsider its ruling. (My guess is that these courts will likely issue revised rulings holding that the company need not provide insurance covering the forms of birth control at issue in Hobby Lobby, but that the rejection of the challenge to the other forms would stand.)

Do you disagree?

#151 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-03 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems to me the Supreme Court with a wink and a nod wants these lower courts to rethink their rejections so the Supreme Court can expand the Hobby Lobby's decision. I could be wrong however.

#152 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-03 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort