Supreme Court Says Some Employers Can’t Be Forced To Cover Contraception
The ruling by SCOTUS applies to only a small group of employers.
The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans…
On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, [Chief Justice John] Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
arc99 June 30th, 2014 at 11:00 am
I think I will start a business shortly.
My religious beliefs dictate that I will provide health insurance at no cost to employees, but not if they are registered Republicans.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:27 am
How old are you? I thought you all regarded the Repubs as the party of hate, yet you all seem pretty darn capable of hate yourselves… Oops that’s that double standard again isn’t it? The SCOTUS is wise when they rule your way but otherwise…..
JKess June 30th, 2014 at 11:48 am
Oh you mean like how your side loves judges when they rule in favor of conservatives…but when they dont its ‘judicial activism’
Nice double standard there.
And why shouldn’t some liberal get to screw over a conservatives health care? its religious freedom… isn’t it? I mean, as a catholic, I find you conservatives morally depraved and your actions are a violation of my religious beliefs. why should I not get to do to you what you seek to do to others?
Congratulations Ross..the supreme court, by ruling in the favor of right wing tealibanism, just gave us democrats the absolute perfect campaign ad and fundraiser.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 11:50 am
Nice double standard on both parties’ parts. Today is just your turn to be on the RAAAAGE side of it.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:56 am
It is not my fault that you liberals regard govt as mother and as father.
JKess June 30th, 2014 at 11:57 am
So arc shouldn’t get to do to you what you seek to do to others? and he’s the one with the double standard?
Check the mirror, little boy, you are
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Too much emotion… Of course if I called names, Mea_Mark would get his feathers ruffled, right mea_mark?
Bunya June 30th, 2014 at 1:30 pm
“… yet you all seem pretty darn capable of hate yourselves…”
He doesn’t hate republican, but his religion dictates that registered republicans are not to received no cost health insurance coverage. Plain and simple.
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 1:42 pm
you nailed it Ross SCOTUS does spread the hate and they make it legal !
I have paycheck stubs to prove it too not to mention skills that will convince the dumbest republican that im being ripped off. CONGRATS on another nail in the middle class coffin
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 7:09 pm
The difference is arc99 made a snarky comment out of frustration, he did not try to get it passed as law like your Republican friends.
arc99 June 30th, 2014 at 7:37 pm
aside from the snark going completely over his head, isn’t it amazing how right wingers become outraged at the mere suggestion that they be treated exactly the same way they want to treat other people.
for the record Ross Cassell, my original post was in fact, snark, a jest, pure satire. I am 62 years old and I emphatically do not want employers making health insurance decisions based on religious or spiritual beliefs.
however, if you do advocate such a system and apparently you do, given your comments in this forum, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to get your knickers in a twist about my previous post.
you wanted benefits administered based on employer spiritual and moral views. fine. you’ve got it. just remember that if conservative Christians get to do that, then we all get the same right.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 11:00 am
Anomaly 100 June 30th, 2014 at 11:01 am
Eric Trommater June 30th, 2014 at 11:01 am
I’m just here to read the comments.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 11:06 am
I can’y comment – too furious.
ComGen June 30th, 2014 at 11:37 am
I’m just screaming “fu**” 🙂
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:53 am
Why so much emotion?
Eric Trommater June 30th, 2014 at 11:45 am
I wouldn’t be too furious. As much as this case was billed as a “blockbuster” it was really just a self financed test case and, as has been their history with self financed test cases SCOTUS, came out with a limited ruling that only applied to the facts of the particular case and has little use as precendent. I think you will see this case sited about as often as Bush v. Gore.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 11:13 am
Safer that way, trust me.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 11:16 am
Horrible fucking ruling!
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:25 am
My prescription drug coverage exempts Viagra/Cialis, why is this different in the name of rights?
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 11:29 am
I don’t know, buddy. If you can’t figure that out, then you’ve got severe learning impairment. But go figure it out and don’t fucking troll me.
Not in the mood today.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:41 am
You would be if the ruling went your way, so take your lumps.. Its pretty sad you all have this need to use the force of government to get your way, I am glad the last several SCOTUS rulings have provided a perspective for you all to consider.
StevePage June 30th, 2014 at 5:00 pm
Their perspective is the only perspective.
JKess June 30th, 2014 at 11:44 am
And yet, ross, nearly all insurance plans cover those products
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:46 am
and you know this because?
StevePage June 30th, 2014 at 4:59 pm
what you mean to say is that nearly all privately acquired insurance plans cover those products. You are free to spend your money as you please. You are not free to spend other’s money as you please.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Because it is not an essential part of your healthcare – it’s not about having sex.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Obamacare went too far.
StevePage June 30th, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 7:07 pm
Do you have an original thought or do you just follow Ross around?
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 7:20 pm
Carla, let me ask you something, is Hobby Lobby not covering all contraceptives or is it certain ones?? Oh wait your argument has been disingenuous, HL covered up to 16 methods, they objected to the morning and week after stuff.. Are you sure they don’t cover IUD’s??
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Why are you asking the question if you already know the answer? They don’t want to cover Plan B and the IUD but they are not doctors and have no clue what contraception would be best for a particular person, that;s between her and her doctor.
Their claim that these options are abortifacients, are medically, scientifically incorrect. SCOTUS decided it didn’t matter if the claim was incorrect – because it was what they believed to be true. So not only are they forcing their personal beliefs on to their employees through the corporation, they are dead wrong on the medicine.
Birth control, preventing pregnancies is about keeping women healthy. Like all medicines each one has a specific purpose, and can be tolerated or taken with other medications safely, others cannot.
Numerous pregnancies and/or pregnancies too close together can shorten a woman’s life. Medical fact – this is why the Duggars always wait 18 months between pregnancies.
Polycystic Ovary syndrome affects about 30% of women, early detection and proper hormonal treatment not only allows many of these woman to go on to bear children and/or be subjected to daily pain – it also reduces the risk of long-term complications, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease.Yes, hormonal treatment – birth control.
But sure, let my boss pick the type of birth control they’ll cover because they know better than my doctor. Or do you think that married couples should not be allowed to make their own decisions about family planning and individual health? Or perhaps you think these couples should simply abstain their entire life?
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 8:58 pm
There is nothing I can say to you that’s gonna change your mind, nothing you can say will change mine.. You liberals will never be happy until all those with the “wrong opinion” are destroyed.
StevePage July 1st, 2014 at 8:35 am
You might ask yourself the same question. You seem to be brainwashed by the media.
Did you even know that contraceptives are still provided and it’s only abortion pills that are affected?
Carla Akins July 1st, 2014 at 9:34 am
You may want to to do a little research. Abortion pills (RU486) are not covered and not in dispute. Ella, Plan B and the IUD are not abortion causing drugs. In fact, they work exactly like regular birth control pills regardless of what the Green’s may believe. They work to prevent ovulation, not implentation according to medical science.
Here is the amicus brief files by the American Association of OB & GYN’s.: http://prh.org/contraception/long-acting-reversible-contraception/
Not every women can take all kinds of birth control. Medical conditions like diabetes, heart disease and other medications determine which method and brand of birth control is best for each woman. This is for a Doctor and the woman to determine what is best for her health – it’s not as simple as just using another method.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 11:28 am
Supreme conservatives totally blow it and make highly partisan theocratic decision.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 11:29 am
Wish they’d blow one another and just get their repressed feelings of wanting man on man action over with.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 7:30 pm
They do… in airport restrooms
I wish they would come out of the closet .. I am
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Yes, they tap their feet to give off the signal, and the tune of the show “My Three Sons” playing on the sound system in the bathroom.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 9:28 pm
lol .. I have 2 words for u wide stance
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Ha ha ha ha ha! You’re okay. Nice to meet you. 🙂
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 9:39 pm
nice to digitally meet u as well
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:38 am
or maybe Obamacare went too far? Why is it that you all get so dismissive of ones religious freedoms? Btw, religious freedoms are enumerated in the constitution, abortion isn’t.
JKess June 30th, 2014 at 11:43 am
Because rose you conservatives didn’t have a fit or do anything about it for ten years. that mandate has actually existed since 2000 when the eeoc ruled that if an insurance plan covers male sexual health products, such as Viagra, which all of them do…then they also have to cover female sexual health products such as contraception. btw..your religious freedom doesn’t mean you have the right to dictate to others or decide anything about their lives
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:44 am
it goes both ways, except its one way for yall.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 2:17 pm
No, they could have chosen to not offer benefits and provide a stipend for the employees to purchase insurance of their choice – it would have cost them less to do so but instead chose to force their personal beliefs onto the employees.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 4:31 pm
I think it comes down to the fact that yall are a tad sore that you couldn’t force your beliefs upon Hobby Lobby..
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 11:48 am
And they do. Even Hobby Lobby covers contraceptives for females. They just don’t cover abortifacients.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 11:56 am
They’re not and you know it.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Hobby Lobby’s insurance covers most forms of contraceptives, just not the ones that act post-conception.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
That’s not how they work. Science has updated the information, SCOTUS even agreed – it didn’t matter that HL had their facts wrong, just that they believed them. It does not prevent an egg from implanting – they both work just like regular birth control. They prevent the egg from fertilizing. The single exception is the copper IUD, which is only prescribed in specific medical instances – in the last 20 years it has been prescribed 7600 times.
Here’s the science: http://prh.org/iPaper/hobby-lobby-amicus-curae-brief-responding-to-lawsuits-challenging-contraception-coverage/
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Which means that if Hobby Lobby chooses in the future to add that particular contraception to their covered options, they can do so with a clear conscience. They’re not barred from ever providing them — they’re simply excused from providing the entire spectrum.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Still – not up to them. A doctor and patient decide which works best for them.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 11:55 am
This is not about abortion, it’s about an employer using their own religious beliefs to determine what they think is right for their female employees.
First, Plan B & IUD’s do NOT cause abortions by any medical standard. The court rules it did not matter if Hobby Lobby’s understanding of the drug/science was correct, just that they believed that it did cause abortion.
Giving the corporation religious rights, gives them another bite of the apple. As an employee, all you have is your own individual right to practice whatever religion you choose or not to participate.
Most importantly, birth control is not about sex or a lifestyle. It is a vital part of every female’s healthcare. Allowing the employer to choose what’s covered means Betty Jo, that has always used an IUD based on her doctor’s advice may no longer be able to afford it ($1000) even though her doctor prescribed it for medical reasons. Betty may not be able to tolerate pills and now has to choose risking a strike while taking BC pills or find a way to come up with $1,000 even though she only makes $9.25 an hour. (what HL pays)
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Too much emotion!! Lets reverse the polarity here… Carla you own a corporation as such, you provide all kinds of coverage for your employees, including the coverage being referenced.. Now what if a group of employees or even an outside interest challenged this.. What would the reaction be of the collective liberal braintrust towards an incursion on your right to provide such benefit? This knife cuts both ways you knew this right? You win some. you lose some, of course to listen to jkess, this is all my fault.. But owning a corporation doesn’t really reduce ones rights, we all knew this, right? If I invite you into my house and I don’t smoke or allow any smoking in my house, you have to abide by it, else don’t enter my house.. Why would a guest have rights that trumps the owners/hosts?
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Guess what, you are unable to get pregnant so I think you may not fully appreciate the fact that it is a much bigger deal than a get together at your house.
Religion, a specific religion has trumped the civil rights of woman across this country – you should be horrified.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:34 pm
No, Carla, it hasn’t. It is not a “civil right” to have your employer provide you with a specific abortifacient contraceptive — in fact, it’s not even a civil right for your employer to offer health care at all.
The rights that were protected were the religious rights of Hobby Lobby — rights that were further codified into protection by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, written by Kennedy, introduced by Schumer, and signed by Clinton — three Democrats.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 2:15 pm
I agree with the first part of your statement – but it becomes a civil rights issue when your employer can force their beliefs onto an employee through the benefits they offer.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Or through the benefits they don’t offer, in this instance.
Let’s consider a different analogy: someone who needs food.
Now, there are (at least) three different ways I can choose to help that person.
1. I can give them money.
2. I can give them vouchers.
3. I can give them food.
Let’s say that, because I believe there are potentials for abuses, I choose to offer both vouchers and food to the person who needs food. Am I in any way doing wrong by not providing them money, if that is the offering they would prefer? After all, with money they can make their own food choices and not be limited to the ones provided by my vouchers or the food I have selected — bearing in mind the fact that I didn’t need to offer either.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Not the same. These are employees, not just a lost soul wandering the streets
eaglesfanintn June 30th, 2014 at 1:51 pm
But owning a corporation does protect people from liability. So, why would the owners of HL hide behind that corporate shield when it benefits them (they can’t personally be sued for something that happens at their workplace), but they can impose their personal religious beliefs.
Also, your house is not a place of business. But, you must be living on a farm with all the straw your posting.
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Number one abortion IS health care but the argument that you chose to ignore, is that the subject is contraception, which prevents numerous abortions. Anyone/any corporation opposed to abortion should be willing to support contraception.
StevePage June 30th, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Abortion doesn’t care much for the health of the fetus.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 11:44 am
So glad that SCOTUS came down on the side of corporations. I mean, a corporation’s religion is means so much more than an individual’s. Par for the course from this corporate-paid-for SCOTUS.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 11:52 am
Its a privately owned corporation meaning it doesn’t darken the doorsteps of **ANY** stock exchange. I imagine that if it was a publically traded company, such a case may never have made it to the SCOTUS.
neworleans878 June 30th, 2014 at 12:01 pm
If a privately held corporation imposes their beliefs on their employees in any manner, do they still qualify for protection behind the corporate veil?
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Back to the corporations are evil, profit is evil… Lets all revolt, we can all get issued rice paddies to farm, commune with nature, smoke pot and let govt take care of us… Sorry that’s been tried, it failed comrades.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Your babble makes no sense.
StevePage June 30th, 2014 at 4:53 pm
He makes perfect sense.
neworleans878 June 30th, 2014 at 12:31 pm
So you don’t have an intelligent answer to my question.
ps…only commune with nature on Fridays and Sundays but only under the full moon.. Smoke weed 3rd Tuesday of every month
Bill O’Reilly said I voted for Obama for free stuff…where’s my rice paddie? See if I vote for him again!
FYI…I’m a small business owner…incorporated…so I’m genuinely interested in the question I brought up.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:36 pm
AS a business owner, you don’t surrender as many rights as the liberal brain trust thinks you should.. Therefore with this ruling, you can still chose to provide this coverage, but you cant be forced to. This argument is about the govt forcing things under the guise of female rights”.. No rights are lost here, the female can vote with her feet.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 12:42 pm
And they should vote with their feet and leave Hobby Lobby and never go back. All women should vote with their pocket book and not shop at Hobby Lobby as well.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Perhaps but that not going to happen, there are far more pressing heath matters than contraception, diabeties, hypertension, obesity et al. Just remember, a vote the otherway and you all are praising this high court.
CB June 30th, 2014 at 4:23 pm
All Americans should leave Hobby Lobby.
You don’t get to break any law you want by saying your imaginary friend told you to.
That’s treasonous psychopathy.
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 1:19 pm
When jobs are as difficult to obtain, as they are in this economy, not all women have the choices of employment that they would like.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
It’s about people rights, and woman make up half the population. It’s healthcare, we are not discussing sex. Different methods of birth control are used to keep women healthier. It’s her doctors job to to offer options and between her and her doctor to determine which works best medically. Not her employer.
Bunya June 30th, 2014 at 1:18 pm
That’s exactly what the corporations want. Slave wages, horrible working conditions, no employee benefits, and all while collecting government subsidies.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 1:24 pm
I sure hope Hobby Lobby isn’t getting any government subsidies. If they are they should be canceled as there needs to be a separation of church and state. Hobby Lobby is now being granted status as a religious entity and should be disqualified from receiving any government subsidies.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Sure, why shouldn’t they be religiously persecuted by the government for not wanting to become willing participants in an activity that violates their faith? That’s perfectly American.
eaglesfanintn June 30th, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Instead of answering the question, you build another strawman.
StevePage June 30th, 2014 at 4:51 pm
He’s answered the question over and over and over.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 12:10 pm
I’d say no to that. It can’t be a one way street though I have no doubt it will be.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Why aren’t you looking at it from the standpoint of the govt imposing its non-belief onto Hobby Lobby? When did its owner David Green lose his rights?
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 1:31 pm
The owners of HL already had the right to use contraception or not. I have no idea why you think this right has been stripped from them.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 7:00 pm
David Green hasn’t lost his individual rights, he is free to practice his religion.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Are you saying private companies should have the right to pick and choose which laws to follow, as long as they cry ‘religion’? That would be anarchy.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Are you saying that the government can impose on private companies new laws that force them to violate their religious practices? That would be despotism.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Like Home Despotism?
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Well, you know what they say: Despotism begins at home.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 12:09 pm
How does dictating how a woman uses a benefit (you know, it’s kind of like a payment) affect the business at all? Can the business tell me I can’t buy milk with my paycheck if their religion is against milk?
And governments dictate laws all the time. Things like safe working laws, discrimination laws, etc. Are you saying private business should have zero laws to follow? Sorry, can’t get behind that. Business rarely does the right thing without being made to.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 12:13 pm
You can absolutely buy milk with your paycheck despite their religion. But the minute you ask them to pay for half the milk, it’s a different paradigm.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 12:15 pm
You do realize that benefits are considered compensation, just like cash is compensation, right? Whether it’s a Bennie or cash no company has a right to tell me how I can or cannot use it.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Yes, benefits are considered compensation. They don’t have a right to tell you how to use the dollars they give you — but they have an inordinate say in how many of those dollars they give you, just as they have a say in how much benefits they give you.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 6:58 pm
They do, but insurance is required to cover the cost of preventative healthcare. Part of preventative healthcare are contraceptives. Once you start parsing which contraceptives, the employer has positioned themselves between the doctor and the patient. The employer has no right and no idea why a particular method may be right for this particular employee. What they have done is now force the employee to accept a form of preventative care that is not medically best for them, or pay out of pocket (what most can’t afford) and it negatively impacts the employees health.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 7:07 pm
Hobby Lobby should just quit offering insurance benefits at all. Should have done that from day one. Come to think of it, I don’t think you’re required to take the insurance your employer offers if you would rather get different coverage.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 7:11 pm
You’re not required but it disqualifies you for subsidies and most of these employees make between $8-12 an hour.
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Again, I ask, what about the religious freedom of the employees??????
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:31 pm
That’s something they’re free to exercise.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 12:19 pm
When religion becomes a legal excuse to not follow the law that others have to follow, problems will surely arise.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 7:27 pm
agreed I think pandoras box has been opened heh
A flood of new cases will have to be decided now
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 1:14 pm
R. J., the corporation and their corporate elite can worship or believe in any religion that they wish. They cannot, however, force that religion of their employees, unless this “corporation” is a church. A church does not pay taxes, a corporation, private or public does pay taxes. As for HL not wishing to pay taxes that pay for contraception, that is just too bad about them. I certainly did not wish to pay my taxes, part of which went to support the Korean, Viet Nam, Afghan or Iraq Wars! However, I dutifully did pay my taxes.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:31 pm
“As for HL not wishing to pay taxes that pay for contraception, that is just too bad about them.”
Which isn’t what’s happening at all, but…
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 7:26 pm
are you saying the SCOTUS decision had ANYTHING to do with store owners religious liberties? That would be blind ignorance.
It was ALL ABOUT conservatives views on sexual morality
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Don’t be silly.
Saint_Augustine June 30th, 2014 at 1:43 pm
It darkens the roadway of my town with its cheap Chinese craft crap.
Linda1961 June 30th, 2014 at 11:45 am
So we are “Animal Farm” now? Where “some are more equal than others.”
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Sounds that way to me!
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Liberals seem to think they are more equal than all else.. Indeed.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Every time I look around it’s the white Kreeshtan conservatives that are whining about their freedoms being taken away and how their honky Jesus should allow them to discriminate against others that don’t abide by their lifestyle.
Liberals just want everyone to be treated equally. In fact, I’ve been a conservative most of my life, and am still a registered Republican, if you can believe that. It’s the recent lunacy and hypocrisy from the far right that has turned me off and pushed me away.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:42 pm
If equality is what you advocate, you would be acknowledging the rights of the HL owner.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 12:43 pm
By not respecting the needs of their employees?
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Remember he is not kidnapping the employees off the street and forcing them to work for him, they are coming to him and applying for work, their rights still don’t trump his. Your employer probably has a social networking policy that forbids you from saying anything negative?? Maybe there is a dress code you have to follow? Perhaps once a monh on bowling night you have to attend a staff meeting, all are part of conditions of employment.. Its not Hobby lobbies responsibility to be involved in its employees reproductive practices.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 1:17 pm
I don’t totally disagree with that at all. It’s their incorporation of the employers religious beliefs onto the employees I have a problem with.
Now, if Hobby Lobby was established as a church that sold art supplies, I get it. But, HL is a for profit company. I also recognize your point about it being a private company, but they still should be inclined to the federal laws already set forth.
What bothers me most is many women need birth control to regulate their hormones and aren’t just carelessly humping their lives away. Also, the fact birth control has generics, the cost to the company is negligible.
However, as you have said, the ruling is what it is, and me bitching isn’t going to change it. And, R.J. also made a good point about the market having the ultimate say, and people can speak with their wallets.
I’m just wondering if Hobby Lobby would have been successful with their case had they been Muslim instead of Christian.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 2:13 pm
The cost of an IUD is around $1000
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 1:32 pm
They are now involved in their employees reproductive health, that is the problem. It should be between the employee and doctor. Employer should be left out of any decision making on how money is spent between an employee and their doctor.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Good point. Quit providing health insurance at all and just give the money to the employees so they can spend it as they see fit.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Then they’ll fight to take deductions out to tithe the First Buenavista Church of Christ on Mt. Zion in the Ass.
And, of course, SCROTUS will rule in favor of them, saying that white Jesus freaks have the right to splash their dicks in the faces of their employees, because since the employees decided to work there, they don’t really have rights and should have gone to work at a gay bakery.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:51 pm
I… don’t see any of that happening. 🙂
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Does that mean we can still have make up sex later?
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 3:53 pm
I thought you were asking me, I always get left out.
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 4:46 pm
No, dear. We’re happy to have you.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 6:49 pm
thanks Billy, this is a bad day.
mea_mark June 30th, 2014 at 1:47 pm
I would be in favor of a voucher that could only be used for health insurance. That maybe one way around this mess. It could be that by executive action the companies like Hobby Lobby that object on religious reasons can offer vouchers to those want them.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 2:12 pm
This was an option, HL chose to insert their personal ideology into their employees benefits instead.
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Ross, what about the infringement upon the various religious views of the employees? Don’t they count? Not all of their employees are of the same religious persuasion, and should not have to ascribe to the religious views of their employer. The employer can assign them their hours, their pay, or what their job description may be, but the employer cannot make them join their church or denomination or believe as they believe.
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 1:08 pm
I think you are assuming that the employees are captive or kidnapped???
craig7120 June 30th, 2014 at 1:21 pm
“I think you are assuming that the employees are captive or kidnapped???”
That is exactly what I tell people who say they’re forced to pay union dues.
Justin Volke V June 30th, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Religious views of employees are not being infringed. Hobby lobby isn’t going to fire them for using the morning after pill. They just aren’t going to buy it for them.
It’s no different than me asking a Jewish deli to sell me a ham sandwich and if they refuse I take them to court because they are refusing to serve me based on my religious beliefs.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Not the same, as a customer asking for a ham sandwich you are not bound to to only get sandwiches at this deli. AN employee/employer relationship is different. It’s not a valid argument.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 8:11 pm
lol honky Jesus .. I swear thats a perfect name for a song or a band
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 6:57 pm
No liberals want special treatment for the poor and lazy and recalcitrant indigents so they can stay poor dumb and lazy in the ghetto. Heaven forbid we give them a good education. They might want to move into the house next door! So liberals suppress minorities with free stuff so they won’t try to leave.
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 7:59 pm
Justin Volke V, that is the stupidest comment I have seen today. If you say too much more snappy ass dumb stuff like that you will be banned. As far as I am concerned you should be immediately be banned but I will give you a chance to not be so crass and indignant.
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 9:20 pm
So much for free speech
mea_mark July 2nd, 2014 at 9:40 pm
This is a private web site, there is no unlimited free speech with out consequences. If you don’t like it you are free to leave at any time however to voice your opinion somewhere else.
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 3:39 pm
some have more money then others and that’s the way they want to keep it.
Im disappointed our elected chose not to show us their NASCAR outfits after this decision It must be optional ?
Justin Volke V June 30th, 2014 at 5:56 pm
Some have more money than others. That is true. But are you suggesting that the doctor operating on your heart should not make more than you? Or that the burger flipper should make just as much as you do?
fancypants June 30th, 2014 at 6:14 pm
After im done with heart surgery can write my own bill to that doctor for repairing his/her BMW ?
Oh never mind They have access to better lawyers then I do
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 6:55 pm
So you are just sorry you are not bright enough to be a cardiovascular surgeon and are envious of his hard earned wealth. So yo petition the government to steal it from him and give the money to you without earning it. Kma.
fancypants July 1st, 2014 at 4:02 am
Good point Justin ! We all know who sets the standard when it comes to wages now don’t we ? The question still remains, Is that burger flipper or working class ( like myself ) going to be able to pay down the national debt AND put money in the bank VS the surgeon, VP, corporations or doctor who are always demanding tax loopholes. Yes you know who all these people are. Trouble is…your math cant support the theory that the middle class will pay down the national debt because everyone above the middle class sure as hell wont be paying it down as long as the gop exists.
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 12:45 am
I was following along until you said tax loopholes are the fault of the GOP? How so?
The way to pay down the debt is to reduce the size of government so they spend less money than they tax us.
The math is that if you taxed the top 1% at 100% with no loopholes it would generate enough money to run this country for two and a half days. Then what? Government doesn’t produce wealth. It feeds of producers of wealth like a spreading virus. At some point the infection is so severe it kills the host. We are getting close to that point.
fancypants July 2nd, 2014 at 11:47 am
remind me again who has and still blocking health care for those who cant afford it again ( including those who crossed the borders while the *minute men were sitting in their lawn chairs ) Big government or not ? our gop seem to be sticking up for those who are sitting on their cash while denying / demanding proof.
Justin Volke V June 30th, 2014 at 5:54 pm
Only if you are in a union.
neworleans878 June 30th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Bad decision, will open up all kinds of new cases by corporations seeking to extend their power.
Will be funny, however, to watch R.W. heads explode when other religions use this decision to further their religious beliefs.
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Certainly some Jehovah Witness owners may decide that they will not pay for blood transfusions or immunizations. This was a dangerous ruling by the SCOTUS, as was the clinic barrier decision. Good gravy, there is a 500 feet barrier around polling places, as well there should be.
Justin Volke V June 30th, 2014 at 5:53 pm
100 ft barriers around polling places in my state. And polling places are only open for a few hours every two years. Besides you can mail in your vote if you so choose. That is a very poor analogy. Besides if you don’t like a particular candidate you can always vote for someone else next time. The baby that’s killed by abortion doesn’t get to come back if mom changes her mind.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 7:23 pm
and .. repeat
got any new material ? 🙂
labman57 June 30th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
To celebrate the victory, Hobby Lobby announced a half-off sale … on coat hangers.
Judgeforyourself37 June 30th, 2014 at 12:58 pm
OMG you are probably right. This is sad but true, because due to their unanimous decision on the barrier issue around clinics, I wonder how far back this country is going to go? I am old, nearly eighty, but I worry about my grand daughters’ ability to make health care decisions.
Justin Volke V June 30th, 2014 at 5:50 pm
I would worry more about your granddaughters decisions to sleep around with men she has not married. Pregnancy isn’t the only gift you can get from a promiscuous lifestyle. That goes for grandsons too. Std’s are the gifts that keep on giving as long as you are opening the packages before the wedding day.
Carla Akins June 30th, 2014 at 6:44 pm
So, only slutty young girls use birth control?
Bunya June 30th, 2014 at 6:52 pm
So, telling girls to “keep their legs closed” and “wait until marriage to have sex” will deter them? Hah! Yeah, good luck with that. Maybe it’s time for you to come back from fantasy land and take a biology class.
That’s like the Vatican telling priests to be celibate, and expecting them to remain that way. The pope knows priests are going to be having sex – he just doesn’t want to know about it.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Supreme Court decision basically says corporations are people .. AND they have more rights than you
very George Orwell
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 12:54 pm
Research Hobby Lobby, hey what is their ticker sympol on the “exchange”..
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Look for “HOLO” to be bandied about as if it’s real.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 7:20 pm
lol why would I want to research Hobby Lobby? I have no interest in going to any of their stores
Ross Cassell June 30th, 2014 at 9:10 pm
Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts store, just shop at Michaels.. Too bad many of you are thinking this through moreso with your hearts than your heads.. Too much emotion.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 9:36 pm
lol ok Ill use my logic.
The Supreme Court conservatives used a case before them to impose their conservative sexual morals on people. The decision does not have a strong legal basis. They let their emotions and ideology take over.
“lol why would I want to research Hobby Lobby? I have no interest in going to any of their stores”
Um I think I typed I wasnt going to be shopping at Hobby Lobby.. oh btw they not only are an arts and crafts store they have a huge selection of crosses to choose from
What Would Jesus Craft?
Justin Volke V July 1st, 2014 at 2:27 pm
I stopped shopping at micheals and support hobby lobby for the exact same reason.
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Can we now require these religious for-profits to post signs declaring which religion the corporation is? Specific denominations, please.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Sort of like hanging a flash in the window?
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Hee hee….You said flash and hanging…………
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 7:36 pm
Billy, you are so immature and crass. Don’t ever change!
Billy Jackson June 30th, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Don’t worry. There may have been hope for me over 20 years ago, but at this point in my life, I just am who I am…….
M A G June 30th, 2014 at 3:41 pm
What does ‘hanging a flash’ mean? I’m not familiar with this term.
R.J. Carter June 30th, 2014 at 3:56 pm
The yellow badge or yellow star that Jews were made to wear as a form of identification to others.
Hogandda June 30th, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Or about 90% of Corporations.
arc99 June 30th, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Up until the year 2000 Bob Jones University had a ban on interracial dating. Whether due to a change of heart, or the loss of federal assistance funds, we will never know, but the school dropped the policy.
But it is a reminder that there are people whose deeply held religious beliefs prohibit interracial dating and marriage.
With today’s decision, what is to prevent a closely held company from refusing to offer spousal insurance coverage to employees married to someone of a different race. And that is just the beginning. Based on this decision, I see no reason why a closely held corporation could not refuse to offer any coverage for injuries due to hunting accidents, illnesses due to alcohol or meat consumption, venereal disease, households where the woman is the breadwinner and dad stays at home, non kosher households etc.
I think that as always, this decision will be popular with conservatives until one of theirs is caught in the same conundrum and they will do a complete 180. Look at the issue of prayer at city council meetings. They are all for it, until the prayer comes from a different belief.
The only silver lining here is that the ruling does not apply to publicly traded companies. So that means if I or other regulars here start a business, based on our deeply held moral convictions, we can simply refuse to offer any coverage at all to anyone who thinks this decision was a good idea.
Justin Volke V June 30th, 2014 at 5:40 pm
What religion prevents interracial marriage? I think you are making this up.
But hobby lobby hires people of all race creed and color. It just isn’t going to pay to subsidize murder of the unborn. SCOTUS only allows hobby lobby to exclude 4 out of the 22 forms of birth control allowed under the PPACA. The only four that can cause abortions.
arc99 June 30th, 2014 at 5:56 pm
I do not make things up. I provided you a reference to the culprits and the year they changed their position. My point was that there are “Christians” opposed to interracial marriage.
My scenario does not involve discrimination against employees based on race. It involved employees of any race conducting their personal lives in manner their employer does not approve of, and today’s decision most definitely enables those employers to withhold benefits based on disapproval of someone’s personal life due to religious conviction.
the rest of your snide remarks about having sex with anyone, have been filed in the trash where they belong.
and before you accuse me of making things up, learn to use this new thing they call the internet.
updated 11/21/2008 4:07:46 PM ET
COLUMBIA, South Carolina — A fundamentalist Christian University has apologized for racist policies including a one-time ban on interracial dating that wasn’t lifted until nine years ago and its unwillingness to admit black students until 1971.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 7:16 pm
sometimes I wish you WOULD have made things up .. like the “Christian” universities ban on interracial marriage lol
Justin Volke V July 1st, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Oh it must be true because I saw it on the internet. Oops my bad.
Obewon June 30th, 2014 at 8:03 pm
The 4 religious pro-rape exclusions may prevent implantation and are not abortifacients. The contraceptives at issue before SCOTUS were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs that “may work after an egg has been fertilized.”
4+ natural miscarriages precede each live birth after fertilization. So using the Hobby Lobbyists logic ‘fertilization should be banned because 400% of all fertilized zygotes & blastocysts are aborted.’ Next-up: GOP advocates outlawing miscarriages & masturbation as abortifacients.
Chinese Democracy June 30th, 2014 at 9:40 pm
funny how u used Hobby Lobby and logic in the same sentence
Justin Volke V July 1st, 2014 at 2:26 pm
You confuse nature with artificial. It is already so difficult for a conceived child to be born less than a 25% chance of making it by your own words. Why on earth would we make it even more impossible for babies in the womb?
It’s easy for you to spout off about it but that’s because you are already born.
Explain the “pro-rape” comment. Rape is a sin to Christians and already illegal. So explain how rape should be punished by killing the innocent victim!
Obewon July 1st, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Do you support Hobby Lobby’s $73 M birth control investments? What about supporting CBO’s proven $1.5 T federal deficit reducing ACA & prenatal care?
-Under POTUS Obama U.S. Infant mortality dropped from 7/1000 to today’s record low U.S. average 6.17 deaths per 1,000 live births. The top spot Infant Mortality once again, goes to Universal HC countries of: Monaco with 1.81 deaths per 1,000 live births. Japan has 2.13 deaths per 1,000 live births. Canada has 4.71, Australia 4.43 and the U.K., 4.44 deaths per 1,000 live births. http://www.alan.com/2014/07/01/who-stole-my-country/ Not supporting anyone’s legal HC covered choice for Plan B is not only pro-rape, but pro-incest and agaInst the 1/3 of women sexually assaulted during their lifetimes primarily by friends & family.
Additionally i’m sure you’re unaware under the Obama Admins economic recovery and record GDP US abortions plumeted to record lows since POTUS Bill Clinton’s 2000. See the patterns?
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 12:53 am
Bogus comparison. Those countries do not count live births that die within 24 hrs as births I their denominators. They count them as stillborn.
Since the major components of the ACA haven’t even kicked yet and those millions only purchased their policies this year it cannot account for reduction in infant mortality nine months earlier
Obewon July 2nd, 2014 at 1:17 am
? 224-COUNTRY COMPARISON :: INFANT MORTALITY RATE Infant mortality rate compares the number of Deaths of infants under one year old in a Given year per 1,000 live births in the same year. This rate is used as an indicator Often of the level of health in a country. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 2:03 am
Yes but we call a 22 week old premature birth that lives for several hours in the NICU a live birth. In those other countries they don’t consider it a live birth that dies during the first year. They consider it a stillborn and those are not counted as infants so they cannot be counted as infant morality. Many of those same counties don’t even have immediate access to a NICU and infants who die on the way are not given a birth certificate and those infant deaths are thus never recorded.
We record them as live births and as infant mortality.
Obewon July 2nd, 2014 at 2:42 am
Where’s your linked proof? I listed WHO et al. I think you confused an errant “Entertainer” opinion vs reality of 224 countries data. Face it we’re last in IM among the top 40 developed OECD nations because we’re the only OECD without universal HC.
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 10:49 pm
Does this include babies in the ghetto being shot while sleeping in bed?
Obewon July 2nd, 2014 at 11:13 pm
Justin are you Drunk? “Where’s your linked proof? I listed WHO et al. I think you confused an errant “Entertainer” opinion vs…” — Obewon http://disq.us/8j3dh0 ”
US IM among black Americans was 12-14/1000, but is declining now thanks to your Messiah ObamaCare’s prenatal coverage.
And you never confessed your support for reducing prior 7/1000 US IM in 2008 to today’s 6/1000 via “ObamaCare’s prenatal coverage.” Or the fact that under the Obama Admin economic recovery ‘US abortions declined from GBW’s highs -to their lowest levels since Bill Clinton’s 2000.’ So do you support these?
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 10:50 pm
StevePage July 1st, 2014 at 8:36 am
“I think that as always, this decision will be popular with conservatives until one of theirs is caught in the same conundrum and they will do a complete 180.”
That’s true, there are those from both camps that don’t have the backbone to stand by their convictions though.
Mo Reno June 30th, 2014 at 9:31 pm
Hobby Lobby aren’t medical professionals. They are completely unqualified to get between a patient and their doctor’s choice of treatments.