Another Obama Smackdown from SCOTUS

Pilgrim · Jun 30, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby in their lawsuit to prevent the Obama regime from forcing them to provide contraception to employees. Apparently this decision doesn't affect Obama's attack on the Catholic Church and the Little Sisters of the Poor, but it's a good start and a good ruling against a much publicized part of ObamaCare.

In a victory for religious freedom, the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (formerly named Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby). The case was the strongest legal challenge to Obamacare since 2012.
While still a legal victory for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., the decision is limited to closely-held for-profit corporations, not non-profits such as Little Sisters of the Poor.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby - Christine Rousselle

asjssl · Jun 30, 2014

.........

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

LDB · Jun 30, 2014

Ah yes, the liberal misinterpretation. Nobody's right's were restricted. Everyone still has the option to obtain and use contraception just as they have for decades. On the other hand, the right to religious observation and expression was upheld in that employers are not going to be forced to go against their religious beliefs. Liberals are just mad because they're going to have to pay for something they want rather than stamping their feet and holding their breath and getting it for (in no actual way) free.

Turtle · Jun 30, 2014

Yeah, it was a big, fat hairy smackdown, from the same SCOTUS that ruled Obamacare is a tax under the Interstate Commerce clause.

asjssl · Jun 30, 2014

we will see

davekc · Jun 30, 2014

LDB said:
Ah yes, the liberal misinterpretation. Nobody's right's were restricted. Everyone still has the option to obtain and use contraception just as they have for decades. On the other hand, the right to religious observation and expression was upheld in that employers are not going to be forced to go against their religious beliefs. Liberals are just mad because they're going to have to pay for something they want rather than stamping their feet and holding their breath and getting it for (in no actual way) free.

No. What this means is they will stamp their feet and say "somebody, anybody" needs to pay for this. The SCOTUS is "waging a war on women". So, instead of say Hobby Lobby paying, they will introduce a bill that taxpayers provide it for free.

Turtle · Jun 30, 2014

davekc said:
No. What this means is they will stamp their feet and say "somebody, anybody" needs to pay for this. The SCOTUS is "waging a war on women". So, instead of say Hobby Lobby paying, they will introduce a bill that taxpayers provide it for free.

Taxpayers providing it for free is exactly what the SCOTUS recommended in their decision.

aquitted · Jun 30, 2014

What is a SCOTUS?

Daffyduck528 · Jun 30, 2014

aquitted said:
What is a SCOTUS?

Supreme Court of the United States

Daffyduck528 · Jun 30, 2014

asjssl said:
.........

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

I have mixed conservative and liberal ideas and opinions, but hobby lobby is saying they will provide contraceptives for their employees, just not the ones to take after the fact that kills off whatever happened. I think that's pretty fair.

davekc · Jun 30, 2014

Daffyduck528 said:
I have mixed conservative and liberal ideas and opinions, but hobby lobby is saying they will provide contraceptives for their employees, just not the ones to take after the fact that kills off whatever happened. I think that's pretty fair.

Opponents aren't concerned with "fair". They want someone else paying for it. It really is that simple. This ruling doesn't prevent them from any form contraception they chose. The ruling says Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it.

asjssl · Jun 30, 2014

Hmmmm..Hobby Lobby invests in abortion pill manufacturers

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5070279

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

asjssl · Jun 30, 2014

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

cheri1122 · Jun 30, 2014

davekc said:
Opponents aren't concerned with "fair". They want someone else paying for it. It really is that simple. This ruling doesn't prevent them from any form contraception they chose. The ruling says Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for it.

If employers pay 100% of the cost, then I'd say you have a point, but they don't. Employees pay for their health coverage, along with the employer.
As Asjssl cited, Hobby Lobby has no problem investing in 'abortifacients', which is pretty hypocritical.
Opponents aren't objecting to who pays for what, they're objecting to an employer's religious beliefs being imposed upon their healthcare decisions.
Finally, although the SC says this is a narrow ruling, not meant to apply to any other religious beliefs, [like Scientologists who would object to paying for drugs for depression], they're only fooling themselves if they believe that. The precedent will be used to assert other religious beliefs in support of other cases, and it will only get crazier.

asjssl · Jun 30, 2014

Where will It end?

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

asjssl · Jun 30, 2014

...

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

muttly · Jun 30, 2014

Isn't it the employees that have the option to invest in these companies? Does HL, the corporation, invest in these companies?

muttly · Jun 30, 2014

asjssl said:
...

Sent from my SM-G900V using EO Forums mobile app

Suppose the ruling went the other way and HL lost, but refused to comply because of their religious beliefs about abortion. To what END and MEANS would you approve of the government to force HL to comply?

Turtle · Jun 30, 2014

Aa much as I love pointing out hypocrisy, especially religious hypocrisy, there isn't anything remotely hypocritical about Hobby Lobby investing in mutual funds where they have no control over what individual stocks are included in the fund. If Hobby Lobby were investing in individual stocks, then the goobers and goobettes could scream hypocrisy.

cheri1122 · Jun 30, 2014

If their religious beliefs are that important, they'd find a way to invest without violating them. That they don't suggests the importance of their beliefs is dependent upon the situation.