Supreme Court rules on abortion vs. religion

[Juan]

In the Hobby Lobby case, the US Supreme Court decided that Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed during the Clinton Administration) and that closely held corporations cannot be required to pay for abortion and some types of contraception if the owners of the corporation have religious objections.
Let the hating begin.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hobby Lobby will forthwith cease all trade with China where forced abortion is common place.

Oh hang on.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Oddly enough, the corporation in question (Holly Hobby) is business partners with a country (China) in which abortion is mandated and enforced. That's nor air freshener you smell in the halls of the Supreme Court, it's Eau de Hypocrisy, the same hypocrisy that had them disallow buffer zones at abortion clinics as a first amendment issue when they themselves have buffers at the courthouse. I guess now that corporations are persons, they are entitled to religious beliefs and employees are entitled  to have those religious beliefs forced on them whether they share them or not.

ETA: Sorry, YP, we must have posted simultaneously, and I so wanted to be the very first hater, lol.

[Juan]

Corporations have always been considered "persons" under the law.  That's why they exist - to act as a legal entity in place of the individual shareholders.

[NowhereInTime]

Corporations have always been considered "persons" under the law.  That's why they exist - to act as a legal entity in place of the individual shareholders.

Yet they have none of the responsibilities of a "person" for obeying the law. They're not people.

[Quick Karl]

In the Hobby Lobby case, the US Supreme Court decided that Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed during the Clinton Administration) and that closely held corporations cannot be required to pay for abortion and some types of contraception if the owners of the corporation have religious objections.
Let the hating begin.

ALLLLLLLL RIIIIIIIIIGHT now!  

I am happy that at least the Supreme Court still has some brains left in it!

[VtaGeezer]

Funny how the Supremes have pre-decided that opposing blood transfusions or vaccines on religious grounds isn't really a worthy religious belief...like believing a single fertilized cell is a person.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

In the Hobby Lobby case, the US Supreme Court decided that Obamacare violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed during the Clinton Administration) and that closely held corporations cannot be required to pay for abortion and some types of contraception if the owners of the corporation have religious objections.
Let the hating begin.

Think what Jehovah's Witnesses could do--they don't allow blood transfusions so basically they could refuse to pay for emergency services and a large portion of surgeries.

[Quick Karl]

Funny how the Supremes have pre-decided that opposing blood transfusions or vaccines on religious grounds isn't really a worthy religious belief...like believing a single fertilized cell is a person.

Don't you find it puzzling that the people that cry that religious believers are trying to force their beliefs on them, are, in fact, themselves, guilty of trying to force their beliefs on religious people?

Does actual deductive reasoning and intellectual integrity ever cross your mind?

[UnscreenedCaller]

Funny how the Supremes have pre-decided that opposing blood transfusions or vaccines on religious grounds isn't really a worthy religious belief...like believing a single fertilized cell is a person.

Funny how they found in favor of a company protesting the more expensive and effective IUD device as an abortificant when the same company invests in the morning after pill which is, according to the anti choice movement, an abortificant. It's not about religious beliefs, it's about keeping costs down at the expense of their women employees, but they rode this through like pros on the coattails of the new religious liberty movement. I'd like to know if they allow prescriptions for Viagra or Cialis and if they do, is it limited to legally married men only?

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Don't you find it puzzling that the people that cry that religious believers are trying to force their beliefs on them, are, in fact, themselves, guilty of trying to force their beliefs on religious people?

Does actual deductive reasoning and intellectual integrity ever cross your mind?

I would be interested in you showing the logic in what you just posted and how that fits into deductive reasoning and intellectual integrity.

I tried to figure out what you were trying to say, but I realized I was just guessing what you were thinking. So if you could explain, I will read.

[Quick Karl]

Funny how they found in favor of a company protesting the more expensive and effective IUD device as an abortificant when the same company invests in the morning after pill which is, according to the anti choice movement, an abortificant. It's not about religious beliefs, it's about keeping costs down at the expense of their women employees, but they rode this through like pros on the coattails of the new religious liberty movement. I'd like to know if they allow prescriptions for Viagra or Cialis and if they do, is it limited to legally married men only?

The fact is, The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby, and you can write about it forever, but it isn't going to change the ruling. A business owner should have the right to run his/her company the way he/she wants to, and the marketplace should be the only adjudicator. If a business owner does not want to pay for abortions, shoppers have the means of disagreeing with the policy by not shopping there.

The reason the left is so offended by the decision is because they expected the court to do their work for them, and, they know they cannot harm Hobby Lobby's profit by means of a boycott.

This was a win for constitutional liberty.

[Yorkshire pud]

The fact is, The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby, and you can write about it forever, but it isn't going to change the ruling. A business owner should have the right to run his/her company the way he/she wants to, and the marketplace should be the only adjudicator.

Really? So all justice should be administered on the basis of who has the most customers?

If a business owner does not want to pay for abortions, shoppers have the means of disagreeing with the policy by not shopping there.

HL aren't that particular though when it comes to abortions. They trade with China, that has forced abortions. Their morality only goes so far..

The reason the left reasonable are so offended by the decision is because they expected the court to do their work for them, not side with corporate lobbying and, they know they cannot harm Hobby Lobby's profit by means of a boycott.

This was a win for constitutional liberty.

The Constitution makes provision for religious (but only when it suits) beliefs to overturn a secular state? Interesting. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Really? So all justice should be administered on the basis of who has the most customers?


HL aren't that particular though when it comes to abortions. They trade with China, that has forced abortions. Their morality only goes so far..

The Constitution makes provision for religious (but only when it suits) beliefs to overturn a secular state? Interesting.

On this side of the Atlantic, we are supposed to be free.  The Federal government was formed to do the bidding of the people what they and the various States couldn't do for themselves - a common defense, to speak with one voice on diplomacy, to regulate international trade and trade among the various States, to manage and oversee a common currency, to operate other offices best done on a national level such as issuing patents and copyrights.  Most of the governing and other laws as needed were to be at the State level.

To reinforce the fact that citizens had rights, and that governing was to be done at the State level and not the Federal level, the first 10 Amendments were added shortly after the Constitution itself was adopted.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a trial by jury, the right to due process, etc, etc, etc.  And the right to be free to practice one's religion.


The wording is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".  It is the very first sentence of the First Amendment.  The order of the Amendments is important, and the Founders put this one First.

'No law' meant the Federal Government could not pass a law establishing a national religion, OR a law repressing a religion established by a State.  At the time many of the States were founded as religious colonies and still had official State religions.  The Federal Government was to be completely hands off.  They were also not to interfere with any individual's right to exercise their own personal religion.


The Court has correctly ruled that a corporation is a legal entity comprised of a group of like minded people, and that their Constitutional rights don't disappear when they join together to form an organization, whether it be a corporation, a union, or any other group.

So when a Court rules a bakery must bake a gay wedding cake against the will of the owner(s) on religious grounds, that is an incorrect decision.  If the Court had ruled Hobby Lobby had to provide health insurance that included abortions and contraception that went against the religious practices of the owners, it would have been an incorrect decision - in this case the Court ruled properly.

The 2 examples above have nothing to do with gay marriage or reproduction.  Zero.  They only have to do with a person's freedom to not be forced to do something they are against on religious grounds.  Gay marriage and women's issues do not trump that - but that's how Big Media portrays it.

We have lost so much of our Constitution, so many of our rights have been whittled away.  We need to decide if we want this to continue, or do we want to stop and reverse course.  Do we want individual Liberty, or do we want to continue on the path to Tyranny.



Having resolved that issue and secured their First Amendment rights, Hobby Lobby is free to determine whether or not to do business in China or anywhere else.  I think there is a distinction between selling product to the Chinese people and selling product directly to the Chinese government.  The Chinese people are repressed and it's their government that is repressing them. 

To sell product to repressed people subject to forced abortions, etc, is not hypocrisy on the part of Hobby Lobby.  That Big Media is putting that line out smearing HL in order to score political points is dishonest and disgusting.  It's also standard operating procedure for them. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Indeed: But Hobby Lobby buy products from China though, not sell. So they're adding to the economy of China (and by-passing US sourced products, meaning US jobs, US firms). The same Chinese economy that is state controlled. The same state that uses forced abortion as social engineering. The same state that HL does business with..Now the cynical might think this is far less about religious morals and more about money.

[RealCool Daddio]

America today:

[attachimg=1]

[UnscreenedCaller]

The fact is, The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby, and you can write about it forever, but it isn't going to change the ruling. A business owner should have the right to run his/her company the way he/she wants to, and the marketplace should be the only adjudicator. If a business owner does not want to pay for abortions, shoppers have the means of disagreeing with the policy by not shopping there.

Well, you're right about voting with your feet, Karl. It'll be interesting to see if, in the coming weeks, this affects the bottomline at Hobby Lobby: their profits. Since it's a business that mostly women use for craft supplies, we'll see if enough angry women make their voices heard in the marketplace,  which is fair.

But I don't see this as a win for constitutional liberty unless you count it as a win for the personhood of corporations which now are allowed religious beliefs. I call it a loss for women in that a woman's healthcare can be picked over by her employer and she ends up spending more for less care. I also don't get the logic, since pregnancy and childbirth are far more expensive than an IUD, which is what this is all about.  But this speaks of a win for corporations and a loss for  half the population of this country whom the Supreme Court are meant to serve, the  placing of a legal construct above that of a citizen's rights. The only reason why the profoundly disturbing implications of this decision have not sunk in yet is because it's affecting women.  I sure hope women wake up and begin impacting the coming elections.

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, you're right about voting with your feet, Karl. It'll be interesting to see if, in the coming weeks, this affects the bottomline at Hobby Lobby: their profits. Since it's a business that mostly women use for craft supplies, we'll see if enough angry women make their voices heard in the marketplace,  which is fair.

But I don't see this as a win for constitutional liberty unless you count it as a win for the personhood of corporations which now are allowed religious beliefs. I call it a loss for women in that a woman's healthcare can be picked over by her employer and she ends up spending more for less care. I also don't get the logic, since pregnancy and childbirth are far more expensive than an IUD, which is what this is all about.  But this speaks of a win for corporations and a loss for  half the population of this country whom the Supreme Court are meant to serve, the  placing of a legal construct above that of a citizen's rights. The only reason why the profoundly disturbing implications of this decision have not sunk in yet is because it's affecting women.  I sure hope women wake up and begin impacting the coming elections.

Unscreened Caller for the Whitehouse;

A Bellgabee! Will you have a huge party on the lawn UC, or a private shmoose in the oval office with a select few from here? Will you let Jaz come?

[Little Hater]

It appears that 'corporation' has become the latest epithet of the Left, and I'm sure we can expect the same ignorance that prevents those folks from understanding the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons also limiting their grasping the important difference between closely-held corporations like Hobby lobby and giant publicly-traded companies like Google, which wields political power only dreamed of by smaller firms.

As an aside, are there two more despicable humans extant than Meghan McCain and Sandra Fluke ?

[NowhereInTime]

It appears that 'corporation' has become the latest epithet of the Left, and I'm sure we can expect the same ignorance that prevents those folks from understanding the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons also limiting their grasping the important difference between closely-held corporations like Hobby lobby and giant publicly-traded companies like Google, which wields political power only dreamed of by smaller firms.

As an aside, are there two more despicable humans extant than Meghan McCain and Sandra Fluke ?

Yes. Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney.

And Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.

And Kim Jung Un and Xi Jingping.

And Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Oh, this could go on for hours...

[NowhereInTime]

ALLLLLLLL RIIIIIIIIIGHT now!  

I am happy that at least the Supreme Court still has some brains left in it!

More than can be said for you.

[Yorkshire pud]

It appears that 'corporation' has become the latest epithet of the Left, and I'm sure we can expect the same ignorance that prevents those folks from understanding the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons also limiting their grasping the important difference between closely-held corporations like Hobby lobby and giant publicly-traded companies like Google, which wields political power only dreamed of by smaller firms.

As an aside, are there two more despicable humans extant than Meghan McCain and Sandra Fluke ?

Those ignorant 'lefties' in pictures.

[PB the Deplorable]

Well, you're right about voting with your feet, Karl. It'll be interesting to see if, in the coming weeks, this affects the bottomline at Hobby Lobby: their profits. Since it's a business that mostly women use for craft supplies, we'll see if enough angry women make their voices heard in the marketplace,  which is fair.

But I don't see this as a win for constitutional liberty unless you count it as a win for the personhood of corporations which now are allowed religious beliefs. I call it a loss for women in that a woman's healthcare can be picked over by her employer and she ends up spending more for less care. I also don't get the logic, since pregnancy and childbirth are far more expensive than an IUD, which is what this is all about.  But this speaks of a win for corporations and a loss for  half the population of this country whom the Supreme Court are meant to serve, the  placing of a legal construct above that of a citizen's rights. The only reason why the profoundly disturbing implications of this decision have not sunk in yet is because it's affecting women.  I sure hope women wake up and begin impacting the coming elections.

Yes, it's a win for Constitutional rights vs people wanting something paid for by someone else.  Are birth control devices really that expensive?  Is anyone being forced to work for Hobby Lobby?

Everyone - everyone - has been subject to various limits on what their health benefits are, whether it's an employer choosing certain policies, or benefits to policies they themselves bought, whether they received benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, or wherever. 

Employers choosing policies that don't offer everything to everyone is not new.  I've had policies that didn't cover chiro and covered only an small portion of my optometrist checkups and contact lenses - that coverage would have been nice, but so what?

Because this time it's abortion and birth control and it's a high profile court case, the Dem's and Big Media are going to play it up as part of some ongoing 'war on women'.  It's not and there isn't. 


One of the many problems with ObamaCare is the whole thing is Unconstitutional.  When pieces of it are found to be so, anyone losing that 'benefit' is going to be upset about it.

[someguy]

If you guys hate abortion and contraceptives so much, and love children so much, why do you want to send all the mexican refugee children back to mexico?

[someguy]

It's funny how the US went through a massive recession with huge unemployment and you fucking idiots think people have a choice where they work. Then if they quit and can't find a job you bitch about people being parasites on welfare and food stamps.

[someguy]

They don't want you to use your medical insurance which is yours that you earned from your labour on things they don't like. What if your employer said you couldn't drink alcohol on your days off because it was against their religion?

[someguy]

I bet you'd be flipping the fuck out if a muslim company made all their women employees wear burqas because it was their religious belief.

[wr250]

They don't want you to use your medical insurance which is yours that you earned from your labour on things they don't like. What if your employer said you couldn't drink alcohol on your days off because it was against their religion?

#1 its not "your" insurance. its govt mandated insurance that the employer must pay for. dont like that insurance? then get your own policy and decline the employers. your choice. the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act mandates you have insurance, or else they will sic the IRS on you.
and yes i said unconstitutional. as the US supreme court ruled that the ACA is actually a tax, and all revenue bills must originate in the house of representatives (article 1 section 7 clause 1) , and since the ACA  originated in the senate, it is therefore unconstitutional.   

as far as alcohol goes, i suppose they could say that as it raises insurance costs, as does smoking, history of cancer, participation in sports, and so on. why should the employer pay extra for your booze/smoking habit or sports ?

[PB the Deplorable]

... What if your employer said you couldn't drink alcohol on your days off because it was against their religion?

I once worked on a project for a garbage company.  Most of the drivers were of Italian descent whose families had been in the San Francisco trash hauling business for generations.  They had big extended family dinners every Sunday.

And they weren't too happy that the company prohibited them from drinking the day before they were operating those big trucks and other equipment - which meant no wine with those Sunday get-togethers.

It's called real life.  Which is where the term 'get real' comes from.

[Yorkshire pud]

I once worked on a project for a garbage company.  Most of the drivers were of Italian descent whose families had been in the San Francisco trash hauling business for generations.  They had big extended family dinners every Sunday.

And they weren't too happy that the company prohibited them from drinking the day before they were operating those big trucks and other equipment - which meant no wine with those Sunday get-togethers.

It's called real life.  Which is where the term 'get real' comes from.

Having been to Italy, they have a wonderful attitude to life. Life is what you live, not what is dictated to you. Three hour lunch? 'Yeah, soa what? Come in, pull up a chair and eat with us.'
The blokes tend to be chauvinistic and sexist to a degree that made me quite uncomfortable, but they love kids, and families all go out together.