they are not forced to work there and hobby lobby isn't preventing them from buying a 20 dollar morning after pill out of pocket. don't be ridiculous.

[Edited on July 3, 2014 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ]

7/3/2014 7:58:15 PM

minimum wage should be illegal because no one is forcing them to work there.
child labor laws should be illegal because no one is forcing them to work there
workers shouldn't have OSHA protections because no one is forcing them to work there
etc...

this is a dumb argument made by people with simple minds

7/3/2014 8:09:35 PM

you are just wrong.

7/3/2014 8:40:47 PM

2 pages ago I mentioned piercing the corporate veil. A bunch of law professors have filed a briefing that put it more eloquently than I ever could:

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13-35413-356tsacCorporateandCriminalLawProfessors.pdf

Quote :

"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Hobby Lobby and Conestoga each asserts that the religious values of its present controlling shareholders should pass through to the corporation itself. This Court should reject any such “values pass-through” concept. To do otherwise would run contrary to established principles of corporate law. 1. The essence of a corporation is its “separateness” from its shareholders. It is a distinct legal entity, with its own rights and obligations, different from the rights and obligations of its shareholders. This Court has repeatedly recognized this separateness. 2. Shareholders rely on the corporation’s separate existence to shield them from personal liability. When they voluntarily choose to incorporate a business, shareholders cannot then decide to ignore, either directly or indirectly, the distinct legal existence of the corporation when it serves their personal interests. 3. The separateness between shareholders and the corporation that they own (or, in this case, own and control) is essential to promote investment, innovation, job generation, and the orderly conduct of business. This Court should not adopt a standard that chips away at, creates idiosyncratic exceptions to, or calls into question this legal separateness. 4. On the facts of these cases, there is no basis in law or in fact to disregard the separateness between shareholders and the corporations they control. Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga’s attempt to “reverse veil pierce”—that is, to imbue the corporation, either by shareholder fiat or a board resolution, with the religious identity of certain of its shareholders—should be rejected. The concept of “reverse veil piercing” is wholly inapplicable on these facts. 5. Adoption by this Court of a “values pass-through” theory here would be disruptive to business and generate costly litigation. It would encourage intrafamilial and intergenerational disputes. It would also encourage subterfuge by corporations seeking to obtain a competitive advantage. 6. Adoption by this Court of a “values pass- through” theory would also have potentially dramatic and unintended consequences with respect to laws other than PPACA, such as the Public Accommodations and Employment Discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rather than open up such a Pandora’s box, the Court should simply follow well-established principles of corporate law and hold that a corporation cannot, through the expedient of a shareholder vote or a board resolution, take on the religious identity of its shareholders. "

Add this decision to the others this court has decided that begin to pierce the the separation between corporations and their shareholders. The scariest slippery slope being that the veil can also be pierced in the opposite direction, putting shareholders or owners of corporations on the hook for financial or criminal situations that a corporation might find itself in. Should all of GM's shareholders be on the hook for murder after their cars kill people?

The briefing suggests that Hobby Lobby's owners should never had standing to sue under RFRA, since RFRA protects "persons" only.

7/3/2014 8:46:31 PM

They are preventing them by denying them the means to do it. One type of birth control they disagree with costs $500-1000. That is beyond most peoples means who work at Hobby Lobby. It does not infringe Hobby Lobby's economic freedom or religious freedom to provide this coverage.

7/3/2014 8:51:00 PM

if their religion doesn't believe in it then it most definitely does. oh... they can also get a different type of birth control that doesn't cause monthly abortions.

7/3/2014 10:59:30 PM

im having a hard time agreeing with SCOTUS on this one, but

Quote :

"It does not infringe Hobby Lobby's economic freedom"

am i mistaken that you're wanting to force a company to pay for something that is elective and not an inherent "right"? i feel like that's exactly what infringing on economic freedom would be

7/4/2014 1:16:49 AM

^^No it doesn't. The free practice of religion does not, or should not, involve preventing others from doing things that you disagree with. Otherwise we're Iran.

Quote :

"am i mistaken that you're wanting to force a company to pay for something that is elective and not an inherent "right"? i feel like that's exactly what infringing on economic freedom would be"

On the last page, it was demonstrated that there is little or no cost to Hobby Lobby to provide this coverage. Thus, no loss to their economic freedom. Yes, I tend to think that having ability to regulate your reproduction as you see fit is a human right, as is healthcare in general. You might consider that position.

[Edited on July 4, 2014 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

7/4/2014 1:31:33 AM

I haven't seen a Hobby Lobby in quite some time but if I had one near by I would not shop there bc it's against my religion.

7/4/2014 8:54:24 AM

How is healthcare a human right?

As soon as you start calling healthcare a right, then you have to think about the infrastructure to pay for that right. You need doctors to pay for that right.

Until our government pays for doctors to go to school at no cost to the doctor, and they pay to start the practice, and run the practice, can you call healthcare a human right. And shit, we can't even afford food stamps.

No one should be denied access to insurance, but to call it a right is a stretch. But this is the wrong thread for that.

Back on topic. I think all Democrats see in women is a vagina that likes to have sex. Because by and large, topics surrounding their vaginas seem to be the only things they get worked up over when it comes to women's rights. Sure, they mention equal pay for women, but only half-heartedly and hypocritically. But mention Sandra Fluke and her right to $5 birth control pills, and you've got the entire left lining up to whine about the fake "War on Women" that conservatives seem to have.

7/4/2014 9:46:43 AM

Quote :

"am i mistaken that you're wanting to force a company to pay for something that is elective and not an inherent "right"? i feel like that's exactly what infringing on economic freedom would be"

minimum wage laws infringe on economic freedom, labor laws infringe on economic freedom, taxes infringe on economic freedom, safety regulations infringe on economic freedom, etc... there is no such thing as economic freedom, the government is allowed to infringe on it. reading the context of how carzak used "economic freedom" its clear that he was talking about burden.

the issue is if requiring a company to provide health insurance infringes on anyones religious freedom and it does not.

Quote :

"How is healthcare a human right?"

its the law for employers to provide health insurance, that's what this is about.

------------------------------------------

some clergy are going to sue now to allow federal contractors to not hire LGBT individuals

7/4/2014 9:54:10 AM

Quote :

"On the last page, it was demonstrated that there is little or no cost to Hobby Lobby to provide this coverage. Thus, no loss to their economic freedom. Yes, I tend to think that having ability to regulate your reproduction as you see fit is a human right, as is healthcare in general. You might consider that position. "

actually, they're required to provide health coverage or face a penalty as i understand it which ordinarily would include birth control. that's a loss of economic freedom.

i agree you do have a right to regulate your reproduction. you don't have a right to require someone else to pay for that, because you have every right to not have sex. it's purely optional on your part. we're not talking about rape, or using birth control for other purposes here - this is in reference to regulating pregnancy while having consensual sex.

[Edited on July 4, 2014 at 10:03 AM. Reason : bah i gotta quit caring about the soapbox]

7/4/2014 9:58:45 AM

stop with this made up economic freedom thing

Quote :

"i agree you do have a right to regulate your reproduction. you don't have a right to require someone else to pay for that"

actually, its legally required for an employers health insurance to cover that, that's what this is all about

[Edited on July 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/4/2014 10:20:27 AM

So now the court has decided that signing the form to tell the insurance company that you are a religious organization is a substantial burden, so basically the majority opinion in Mondays decision about non cost sharing coverage was bullshit

7/4/2014 12:57:49 PM

Quote :

"I think all Democrats see in women is a vagina that likes to have sex. Because by and large, topics surrounding their vaginas seem to be the only things they get worked up over when it comes to women's rights. "

Are kidding me? The reason why you see democrats getting so worked up about vaginas is that Christian conservatives are so fucking focused on controlling them.



[Edited on July 4, 2014 at 3:15 PM. Reason : nvm....]

7/4/2014 3:03:32 PM

Vaginas wanting sex!

Seriously how deranged are you?

7/4/2014 5:27:40 PM

Quote :

"Sure, they mention equal pay for women, but only half-heartedly and hypocritically."

Because that's not a real issue.

7/6/2014 10:38:32 AM

7/6/2014 6:26:24 PM

Except one of those pictures was taken to irk people like you. The other one was taken right after she probably killed people like you. I guess it's a she, I can't tell for the covering.

7/6/2014 7:36:10 PM

Quote :

"They are preventing them by denying them the means to do it. One type of birth control they disagree with costs $500-1000. That is beyond most peoples means who work at Hobby Lobby. It does not infringe Hobby Lobby's economic freedom or religious freedom to provide this coverage."

How is Hobby Lobby "denying" anything? Are they going into exam rooms and saying "Dr, you cannot prescribe this medication!" Are they going around to various people and making sure they only get certain kinds of drugs? of course not. instead, they are saying "You can have this, but we won't pay for it." To suggest that "we won't pay for it" is in any way "denying" someone something is to suggest that companies all over the world "deny" their employees alcohol because they won't reimburse their employees for the purchase of a beer. It is dumbfounding how intellectually dishonest Democrats have to be to even begin to make a semblance of a point. of course, you'll follow up with "but employees can't afford it without insurance, so that's how Hobby Lobby is denying it to their employees," to which I'll suggest that such logic implies that McDonald's is denying all of employees Rolexes and Porsches by refusing to pay for them, too.

The simple, inescapable fact is that you have the government compelling one group of people to purchase something that is clearly against their religious beliefs for another group of people. For the life of me, I can't figure out how in the hell anyone can defend this, except to be willfully ignorant of what is taking place. You don't have a right to force someone else to purchase something for you, end of story, and you certainly don't have the right to compel another person to do something that is against his religious beliefs, whether you agree with that belief or not.

7/6/2014 10:30:54 PM

Well, it's good to know we're all OK with corporations having religious values. Glad that's settled.

7/6/2014 10:42:40 PM

I wasn't aware that people weren't a part of corporations. Thanks for settling that for me, too

7/6/2014 11:05:37 PM

You probably also missed the part where corporations are separate and distinct entities from said people.

7/6/2014 11:24:21 PM

And you clearly missed the part where that doesn't matter. Joining or forming a group of people does not magically remove rights from yourself.

7/6/2014 11:31:30 PM

...but forming a corporation does conveniently limit personal liability.

Doesn't matter in any case--we're talking about the corporation and not the people who formed the corporation.

7/7/2014 12:03:55 AM

Does this mean when someone slips and falls in Hobby Lobby they can directly sue the board?

7/7/2014 7:40:49 AM

Quote :

"Joining or forming a group of people does not magically remove rights from yourself. "

yeah, actually that's kinda the point of a corporation and the Supreme Court even upheld and clarified this in Cedric Kushner Promotions vs. Don King:

Quote :

"linguistically speaking, the employee and the corporation are different “persons,” even where the employee is the corporation’s sole owner. After all, incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs."

How Hobby Lobby Undermined The Very Idea of a Corporation
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problem

even if you like that this damages ACA in some tiny way, you should be terrified of the consequences of this decision

7/7/2014 7:47:45 AM

^^^ Doesn't matter. You don't lose your rights simply because you formed a corporation, and the SC upheld that fact.

7/7/2014 11:33:36 PM

No, the Supreme Court granted religious rights to closely-held corporations, which, again, are separate entities from the individuals who formed it.

7/7/2014 11:57:02 PM

^^ you're right, now it seems you get an extra couple of rights when starting a corporation. Right to more "free speech" aka $$$ from you as a person and the corporation you control. Freedom of religion for you and the right to give freedom of religion to people that work for your corporation as long as that religion is yours. Right to a golden parachute if your company gets big enough and collapses the economy.

7/8/2014 8:35:56 AM

I assume that most already know that the NC Constitution states that you have to believe in God to hold office, but maybe not

Article: NC, SC among states where atheists can't hold office
http://www.wbtv.com/story/25971406/article-nc-sc-among-states-where-atheists-cant-hold-office

7/9/2014 10:18:17 AM

Quote :

"In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children's upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995520

7/17/2014 2:40:24 PM

No shit. We're wired to implicitly believe our parents/village elders. Teaching children that some holy book is historically accurate is very close to child abuse.

7/17/2014 3:09:24 PM

That study demonstrates that religiosity creates a propensity to believe any myth. Not a huge shocker, but interesting to see a concrete study.

7/17/2014 3:45:38 PM

Quote :

" Teaching children that some holy book is historically accurate is very close to child abuse."

why yes, of course, every parent in all of human history in practically every culture anywhere, besides the enlightened leftists of the contemporary West, have been child abusers

and with claims like these, it's the conservative Christians worth worrying about?

[Edited on July 21, 2014 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2014 1:09:21 PM

wat

7/21/2014 1:11:43 PM

Quote :

"Sara Hellwege is a nurse in Tampa, FL who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired. Now, Hellwege is suing, with the backing of the Christian right organization Alliance Defending Freedom handling her case. Both ADF and Hellwege throw the word “abortion” around a lot, falsely conflating non-barrier methods of contraception with abortion. But the factual inaccuracy of Hellwege’s claims may not be an issue here, since the lawsuit argues that Hellwege is a victim of religious discrimination and deserves to be hired by a family planning clinic despite “her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG.” Of course, the Supreme Court in Burwell v Hobby Lobby said that case covers all forms of contraception objected to in the name of religion, with no need for pseudoscience garble conflating ovulation suppression with abortion necessary, suggesting that the liberal use of the word “abortion” in this case is more about the continued right wing campaign to demonize contraception than anything else."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/21/sara_hellwege_sues_tampa_family_health_centers_pro_life_nurse_says_her_religious.html

7/21/2014 3:04:33 PM

Good fucking luck, bitch.

It's a completely different case which relies on none of the same laws or precedents.

7/21/2014 7:10:25 PM

Quote :

"why yes, of course, every parent in all of human history in practically every culture anywhere, besides the enlightened leftists of the contemporary West, have been child abusers "

Very close to (as I said), though I don't know where the "enlightened leftists of the contemporary West" clause is coming from.

Slavery has been the backbone of our civilization for thousands of years, but we've rightly jettisoned it. I hope that we will do the same with irrationalism someday but I doubt that'll ever happen.

7/22/2014 8:47:01 AM

i wish "Christians" were a little more Christian in their treatment of refugees and immigrants

7/22/2014 9:01:14 AM

^^reminds me of the southpark episode about the United Atheists League

7/22/2014 10:47:14 AM

good for you.

Meanwhile our species is scarred with a rich history of genocide, slavery, and bigotry at the altar of superstition. I'd really like to see if the South Park dystopia would play out.

7/22/2014 11:54:50 AM

Really? I didn't know atheists still pulled the "religion is to blame for war" card since the twentieth century...you know... The least religious yet bloodiest century in human history.

7/22/2014 6:16:53 PM

lol wat?

7/22/2014 7:09:06 PM

are you trying to make a point or address a specific issue raised in this thread, or are you just going to throw out meaningless snipes (and no, I'm not asking you to start citing books).

7/22/2014 7:09:35 PM

Wat

7/22/2014 7:37:23 PM

this thread sucks more dicks than mary magdalene

7/23/2014 10:15:25 PM

Can I get a wat wat

7/23/2014 10:35:57 PM

Quote :

"Really? I didn't know atheists still pulled the "religion is to blame for war" card since the twentieth century...you know... The least religious yet bloodiest century in human history."

Summoning aaronburro to call you out on your strawmen.

7/23/2014 11:14:18 PM

You rang? Oh, and that news article above is some bullshit. Assuming that prescribing birth control is a main focus of that center, I hope they send that dumbass packing. Showing up to a job interview for a job you will refuse to perform is far beyond the realm of any religious protections you should enjoy. You are free to go get another job. If, however, it's not a major part or she can be put in other areas where she would never have to prescribe it, then fine, they should make that accommodation.

8/1/2014 7:35:21 PM