Hobby Lobby victorious in SCOTUS ruling

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

BenPoquette

Active Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,270
The Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, rules it will not have to pay for contraception as part of its health insurance package for employees.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311

Hope this thread will not get locked because I am really interested in the reaction around here...birth control pills are available for $9 a month at Target and elsewhere. This is a win for religious freedom and a common sense decision...despite the ruling coming down 5-4 along ideological lines.
 
Millions of harpies who've never been to Hobby Lobby have already announced their boycott on Twitter.
 
There is a powerful cult of ignorance in this country ... good to see its encroachment is being fought.
 
They still cover boner pills though right? I'm asking for a friend.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Can't wait till a company refuses to cover in vitro for a lesbian couple who want to have a baby. After all, the evilness of gay people is a sincerely held religious belief.
 
TheSportsPredictor said:
Definitely not a win for religious freedom, since HL just imposed its religion on its workers.
Definitely a win for religious freedom since the government was stopped from imposing its religion on a private company owned by private citizens.
 
LongTimeListener said:
Can't wait till a company refuses to cover in vitro for a lesbian couple who want to have a baby. After all, the evilness of gay people is a sincerely held religious belief.

The same objections raised by Hobby Lobby et al. would obtain there, as well, without touching on (ha!) the same-sex issue. The in vitro procedure, as I understand it, involves the fertilization of multiple eggs but the implantation of only one (typically); the rest are destroyed (either then or later).
 
BenPoquette said:
The Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, rules it will not have to pay for contraception as part of its health insurance package for employees.

Hobby Lobby did not object to birth control pills. It was specific forms of contraception -- e.g., the morning after pill, IUDs -- to which the plaintiffs objected.
 
Liberals making emotional arguments about contraceptives, and clutching their pears over "slippery slope" concerns.

Conservatives making legal arguments regarding religious liberty.
 
YankeeFan said:
Liberals making emotional arguments about contraceptives, and clutching their pears over "slippery slope" concerns.

Conservatives making legal arguments regarding religious liberty.

What legal arguments have you seen on this thread? Would that be the "millions of harpies" argument or the "cult of ignorance" argument?
 
YankeeFan said:
DanOregon said:
They still cover boner pills though right? I'm asking for a friend.

Could you explain how these are equivalent?

Both are treatments that recognize and allow for sex as recreational, or as for something other than its natural God-intended purpose.
 
BenPoquette said:
Hope this thread will not get locked because I am really interested in the reaction around here...

I am posting a thread about politics even though there is a no politics rule, because my side won and I am really interested in rubbing it in the nose of the side who lost.
 
Hobby Lobby's retirement plan invests in manufacturers of IUDs and morning-after pills. Religion is religion, but hey, bidness is bidness.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
 
Big Circus said:
YankeeFan said:
Liberals making emotional arguments about contraceptives, and clutching their pears over "slippery slope" concerns.

Conservatives making legal arguments regarding religious liberty.

What legal arguments have you seen on this thread? Would that be the "millions of harpies" argument or the "cult of ignorance" argument?

Sorry. SportsJournalists.com does not contain the totality of discussion on this subject.

Turn on a TV, read an article, take a look at twitter -- or read the decision and dissent.

The Conservative Justices follow the Constitution, so you get a 9-0 decision on something like the police searching a cell phone.

Only the extreme overreach of President Obama resulted in a 9-0 decision in the recess appointment decision.

In this case, the liberal justices acted like unelected legislators, voting for their constituents. Their worried about access to contraceptives, and the like. But, that wasn't what was in question. The legal question had to do with whether or not you lose your religious liberty when you incorporate.

The ruling simply says that in a closely held company, you do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top