|
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 |
leighdvm
My golden boys!
Member since 3/06 4419 total posts
Name:
Michele
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by peanutbutter2
Posted by kahlua716
Posted by BaseballWidow
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Food for thought:
Hobby Lobby insurance provides 100% coverage (no co-pay) for Male condoms, Female condoms, Diaphragms with spermicide, Sponges with spermicide, Cervical caps with spermicide, Spermicide alone, Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill), Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill), Birth control pills (extended/continuous use), Contraceptive patches, Contraceptive rings, Progestin injections, Implantable rods, Vasectomies, Female sterilization surgeries and Female sterilization implants.
For what appears to be based on genuine religious beliefs, they don't want to pay for IUD or the morning after pill. .
Correct, I believe it was 4 specific things they did not want covered, because they may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. I am as pro choice as they come. My real issue here is that once again a corporation is being treated as a person (based on prior SCOTUS ruling) which is the bigger problem. I have no issue if an actual religious organization that employs people wants to limit what is covered due to religious beliefs. I do take issue religious zealots that chose to be business owners and employ people get this same protection. Honestly, I hope this feeds the fire to sever healthcare from our employment and allows for either universal coverage or a true free market where we can shop coverage we want and need. I also feel that the one thing SCOTUS got right (again based on their previous rulings about corporations and not that I agree with it) was the separation of church and state by not allowing a government mandate to force someone to go against their beliefs. Slippery slope as it may be, it has to work both ways.
I tend to agree with this. I am not outraged by this decision. If they said no BC AT ALL- that would be one thing.
ETA: I wasn't aware that insurance covered the morning after pill anyhow. Isn't it available OTC to anyone over 17?
I'm pretty sure anyone can walk into Planned Parenthood and get it...
Yeah, you could get it at any pharmacy without a script. At least, you can in north Carolina. It's about $50 and I wasn't aware it was covered, either.
|
Posted 7/1/14 3:44 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Here's why it's discrimination. Both sexes have teeth. Both sexes have sex. But when a woman gets pregnant and can't/won't have an abortion, it is primarily HER problem--healthwise, life-wise, often financially.
It's nature, but it's true--refusing to help prevent pregnancy affects the sexes differently.
I'd personally never use the morning after pill, but if it's legal, someone else shouldn't be denied it because of a "company's beliefs."
|
| Posted 7/1/14 4:54 PM |
| |
|
alli3131
Peanut is here!!!!!!
Member since 5/09 18388 total posts
Name:
Allison
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by seaside
Here's why it's discrimination. Both sexes have teeth. Both sexes have sex. But when a woman gets pregnant and can't/won't have an abortion, it is primarily HER problem--healthwise, life-wise, often financially.
It's nature, but it's true--refusing to help prevent pregnancy affects the sexes differently.
I'd personally never use the morning after pill, but if it's legal, someone else shouldn't be denied it because of a "company's beliefs."
But they aren't being denied. The morning after pill is not free for everyone. They aren't denying birth control there are plenty Of options under their plan - for both men and women.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 5:04 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by seaside
It's nature, but it's true--refusing to help prevent pregnancy affects the sexes differently.
But there are more than the 4 ways Hobby Lobby asked to be excluded from covering to prevent pregnancy.
And what about the fact that other methods are non-prescription and available over the counter, never were covered? Prior to the ACA, woman had to either pay out of pocket or cover the co-pay of their BCP or choose another method. No one is taking birth control away from anyone. It was never mandated before and most women I know have been able to successfully prevent pregnancies. Like I said earlier, the focus is on the wrong thing here, there are bigger issues at heart that SCOTUS has already ruled on and need to be addressed.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 5:08 PM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
For me, its not about the specific form of contraception, it is about the precedent it sets. It starts us down a very slippery slope and has opened and door that should not have been opened.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 5:09 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by 2BadSoSad
For me, its not about the specific form of contraception, it is about the precedent it sets. It starts us down a very slippery slope and has opened and door that should not have been opened.
Which is why health insurance and employment needs to be separated.
And again, whether we like it or not, the slippery slope has to go both ways and this is a win for religious freedom *IF* we are to go on as if corporations are people or about the people who run them.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 5:15 PM |
| |
|
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Here's the problem. The law (the ACA) mandated that certain things be covered, precisely because it recognized that bc is a health need unique to women. And the law dictated what needed to be covered.
Now the Court is saying that the law does not supercede this company's right to claim that it does not "believe" in any number of things--the company trumps, and can get out of legal requirements put in there to help women, things that were put in in recognition of the fact that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against women, and so is the act of withholding bc that is otherwise mandated by the law.
I ask again, now what if a company decides that it does not "believe" in mammograms, or even the intermingling of the races? What then?
People are saying that no one is entitled to bc--but they WERE under the law, until Hobby Lobby asked to withhold that entitlement and got the OK from our Court.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 5:33 PM |
| |
|
PearlJamChick
No one sings like you anymore.
Member since 7/10 9264 total posts
Name:
Petticoated Swashbuckler
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
^Exactly, seaside.
Suppose a Muslim-owned company would not allow gelatin-based coated antibiotics to be covered because the gelatin may have been derived from pigs...then what?
|
| Posted 7/1/14 5:38 PM |
| |
|
Xelindrya
Mommy's little YouTube Star!
Member since 8/05 14470 total posts
Name:
Veronica
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by PearlJamChick
^Exactly, seaside.
Suppose a Muslim-owned company would not allow gelatin-based coated antibiotics to be covered because the gelatin may have been derived from pigs...then what?
sidetrack but.
We were moving our office location and we had one in mind but they were of a certain ethnicity that said we were not allowed to receive money or checks at our location under any circumstances as it was against their beliefs (can't remember the ethnicity) so we found another place to lease.
So kinda already happens. Is that discrimination?
No one is banning bcp. Again they already cover it. If ACA is such a winner, buy that instead. No one is preventing that either. Frankly nothing has changed in their handling of their insurance since ACA. That's why this went to SCOTUS. Alternatively they could have said "Fine we don't like it, no insurance" and it would have been cheaper to pay the fine, right?
|
| Posted 7/1/14 6:05 PM |
| |
|
DiamondGirl
You are my I love you
Member since 7/09 18802 total posts
Name:
DiamondMama
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by 2BadSoSad
For me, its not about the specific form of contraception, it is about the precedent it sets. It starts us down a very slippery slope and has opened and door that should not have been opened.
exactly
|
| Posted 7/1/14 6:14 PM |
| |
|
JenandMikey
life is good =)
Member since 5/07 4216 total posts
Name:
We're so blessed!
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Xelindrya
Posted by PearlJamChick
^Exactly, seaside.
Suppose a Muslim-owned company would not allow gelatin-based coated antibiotics to be covered because the gelatin may have been derived from pigs...then what?
sidetrack but.
We were moving our office location and we had one in mind but they were of a certain ethnicity that said we were not allowed to receive money or checks at our location under any circumstances as it was against their beliefs (can't remember the ethnicity) so we found another place to lease.
So kinda already happens. Is that discrimination?
Also a sidetrack but goes along this argument as well
I went to bens deli one time with a friend and our kids ....our kids were very little at the time and weren't eating table food as of yet.....they were eating stage 3 foods and I believe it was one that had a mixture of dairy and meat.....I am not Jewish so I never even thought about it......we went through the whole meal and the owner came over and told us that we could never feed the babies food in the establishment again that there are plenty of kids meals there to feed them...I proceeded to argue saying that they are babies and are not on table food yet and that I wished she said this at the beginning of the meal bc we wouldn't have eaten there but I thanked her and said that now that I know this I will never eat there again....fact is like the quoted poster said it kinda does exist already in all different establishments .....good bad or indifferent
Message edited 7/1/2014 6:31:32 PM.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 6:28 PM |
| |
|
Bearcat
Love my little girls!!! <3
Member since 6/10 10818 total posts
Name:
E
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by seaside
Here's the problem. The law (the ACA) mandated that certain things be covered, precisely because it recognized that bc is a health need unique to women. And the law dictated what needed to be covered.
Now the Court is saying that the law does not supercede this company's right to claim that it does not "believe" in any number of things--the company trumps, and can get out of legal requirements put in there to help women, things that were put in in recognition of the fact that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against women, and so is the act of withholding bc that is otherwise mandated by the law.
I ask again, now what if a company decides that it does not "believe" in mammograms, or even the intermingling of the races? What then?
People are saying that no one is entitled to bc--but they WERE under the law, until Hobby Lobby asked to withhold that entitlement and got the OK from our Court.
You are in essence saying that a law should trump the constitution. The ruling was based on the constitution. If you want to argue that a law can be passed that infringes on constitutionally protected freedoms, that -imo- is scary. That's exactly what we should not want as precedent.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 7:06 PM |
| |
|
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Bearcat
Posted by seaside
Here's the problem. The law (the ACA) mandated that certain things be covered, precisely because it recognized that bc is a health need unique to women. And the law dictated what needed to be covered.
Now the Court is saying that the law does not supercede this company's right to claim that it does not "believe" in any number of things--the company trumps, and can get out of legal requirements put in there to help women, things that were put in in recognition of the fact that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against women, and so is the act of withholding bc that is otherwise mandated by the law.
I ask again, now what if a company decides that it does not "believe" in mammograms, or even the intermingling of the races? What then?
People are saying that no one is entitled to bc--but they WERE under the law, until Hobby Lobby asked to withhold that entitlement and got the OK from our Court.
You are in essence saying that a law should trump the constitution. The ruling was based on the constitution. If you want to argue that a law can be passed that infringes on constitutionally protected freedoms, that -imo- is scary. That's exactly what we should not want as precedent.
Nope. I, like the dissent, take issue with the majority's constitutional analysis (after having read the opinion). I was correcting people who said that no one is entitled to free bc. I was pointing out that the ACA did initially entitle people to what they're upset over losing. But I take issue with the majority's analysis--just didn't get into how and why on here.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 7:51 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by seaside
Here's the problem. The law (the ACA) mandated that certain things be covered, precisely because it recognized that bc is a health need unique to women. And the law dictated what needed to be covered.
Now the Court is saying that the law does not supercede this company's right to claim that it does not "believe" in any number of things--the company trumps, and can get out of legal requirements put in there to help women, things that were put in in recognition of the fact that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against women, and so is the act of withholding bc that is otherwise mandated by the law.
I ask again, now what if a company decides that it does not "believe" in mammograms, or even the intermingling of the races? What then?
People are saying that no one is entitled to bc--but they WERE under the law, until Hobby Lobby asked to withhold that entitlement and got the OK from our Court.
If it were truly about ending pregnancy discrimination why not make abortion the mandated covered or free service? Seems to me there are multiple ways to prevent pregnancy but only 1 way to actually end one and end the discrimination said pregnancy might result in. On the same note where was the mandate to cover fertility drugs and treatments? Is that not discriminatory to say you get to pro create but you over there don't?
And yes we WERE entitled to free bc until SCOTUS said certain companies could refuse to cover it. Just like people WERE entitled to own other people until that law was examined and rightfully changed. Laws change via a process and under the constitution equal measure is applied to the parties looking to ensure their rights. If this case Hobby Lobby fought and won. As was their right to fight.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 9:34 PM |
| |
|
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by BaseballWidow
Posted by seaside
Here's the problem. The law (the ACA) mandated that certain things be covered, precisely because it recognized that bc is a health need unique to women. And the law dictated what needed to be covered.
Now the Court is saying that the law does not supercede this company's right to claim that it does not "believe" in any number of things--the company trumps, and can get out of legal requirements put in there to help women, things that were put in in recognition of the fact that pregnancy discrimination is discrimination against women, and so is the act of withholding bc that is otherwise mandated by the law.
I ask again, now what if a company decides that it does not "believe" in mammograms, or even the intermingling of the races? What then?
People are saying that no one is entitled to bc--but they WERE under the law, until Hobby Lobby asked to withhold that entitlement and got the OK from our Court.
If it were truly about ending pregnancy discrimination why not make abortion the mandated covered or free service? Seems to me there are multiple ways to prevent pregnancy but only 1 way to actually end one and end the discrimination said pregnancy might result in. On the same note where was the mandate to cover fertility drugs and treatments? Is that not discriminatory to say you get to pro create but you over there don't?
And yes we WERE entitled to free bc until SCOTUS said certain companies could refuse to cover it. Just like people WERE entitled to own other people until that law was examined and rightfully changed. Laws change via a process and under the constitution equal measure is applied to the parties looking to ensure their rights. If this case Hobby Lobby fought and won. As was their right to fight.
But this is circular, because I have said I disagree with SCOTUS--and agree with RBG, like many others on here.
|
| Posted 7/1/14 10:08 PM |
| |
|
skinny
3 boys and a princess!
Member since 11/08 8178 total posts
Name:
Momma
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
If you work in a catholic school, BC isn't covered either.
Just curious if people feel differently about that.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 7:14 AM |
| |
|
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Response to the question above--
under the law, Catholic schools can discriminate in hiing--they are insulated from Title VII with respect to most hiring decisions. They can discriminate based upon religion (of course), but also sex, race, national origin, etc. The philosophy is that the state can't tell them who to hire for ministerial positions, and the definition of ministerial is broad--can extend to a math teacher.
Do I agree with their being able to discriminate based on religion? Yes---if you run a Catholic School and you want all Catholic teachers, clergy, etc., yes.
It's trickier with the other things, but OK--the government wants to go hands off. Hire who you want--no need to offer birth control, etc.
Now here's a question for everyone: under the current law, secular employers (not churches, religious schools), that provide ordinary people with ordinary jobs, (if they are big enough), are required to reasonably accommodate their employees' religions. Muslim prayer room with reasonable breaks, kosher food if it's needed and feasible, tolerance of religious headpieces/gear, etc.
Unless it causes an undue hardship, you have to provide it/deal with it. Now let's say Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide Muslims with prayer rooms or organize Jewish employees' schedules so that they can work around Shabbat. They say that such things would go against their beliefs.
Under the decision as written (for those who read it), are they exempt from Title VII's requirements?
If you say no, what's the difference?
If you say yes, then are you concerned about ordinary people of all races, religions, and both sexes being cut off from all kinds of jobs and opportunities that should be available to them in the national economy because of their protected class status?
|
| Posted 7/2/14 8:09 AM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Did anybody else see this article? Apparently Hobby Lobby actually has a large amount of investments in companies that manufacter the same IUDs, plan B pills, and medications used for abortions. So it seems it's okay for them o profit from them, just not provide them for their employees.
Forbes Article
|
| Posted 7/2/14 8:20 AM |
| |
|
Bearcat
Love my little girls!!! <3
Member since 6/10 10818 total posts
Name:
E
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by seaside
Response to the question above--
under the law, Catholic schools can discriminate in hiing--they are insulated from Title VII with respect to most hiring decisions. They can discriminate based upon religion (of course), but also sex, race, national origin, etc. The philosophy is that the state can't tell them who to hire for ministerial positions, and the definition of ministerial is broad--can extend to a math teacher.
Do I agree with their being able to discriminate based on religion? Yes---if you run a Catholic School and you want all Catholic teachers, clergy, etc., yes.
It's trickier with the other things, but OK--the government wants to go hands off. Hire who you want--no need to offer birth control, etc.
Now here's a question for everyone: under the current law, secular employers (not churches, religious schools), that provide ordinary people with ordinary jobs, (if they are big enough), are required to reasonably accommodate their employees' religions. Muslim prayer room with reasonable breaks, kosher food if it's needed and feasible, tolerance of religious headpieces/gear, etc.
Unless it causes an undue hardship, you have to provide it/deal with it. Now let's say Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide Muslims with prayer rooms or organize Jewish employees' schedules so that they can work around Shabbat. They say that such things would go against their beliefs.
Under the decision as written (for those who read it), are they exempt from Title VII's requirements?
If you say no, what's the difference?
If you say yes, then are you concerned about ordinary people of all races, religions, and both sexes being cut off from all kinds of jobs and opportunities that should be available to them in the national economy because of their protected class status?
You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not simply about protected class status. And even if you're a member of a protected class, that doesn't guarantee you a right to everything under the sun. You can't compare freedom of religion and birth control. One is a constitutionally protected right, one is not. And even under this ruling the latter is still available to the employees, it's just not covered by their plan. On top of that, Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation so would the rules be different for them as opposed to a massive public corporation? The answer seems to be yes.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 8:40 AM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by skinny
If you work in a catholic school, BC isn't covered either.
Just curious if people feel differently about that.
Catholic schools are not "for profit."
|
| Posted 7/2/14 8:41 AM |
| |
|
kimmaymb20
a year of surprise
Member since 7/09 1119 total posts
Name:
Kimberly
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by MrsT809
Did anybody else see this article? Apparently Hobby Lobby actually has a large amount of investments in companies that manufacter the same IUDs, plan B pills, and medications used for abortions. So it seems it's okay for them o profit from them, just not provide them for their employees.
Forbes Article
This is in their 401K program which you don't get to pick who is in your mutual fund. Those company's are picked from the 401k company. Employers and Employees have no say on where their money is invested since its in a group fund.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 8:49 AM |
| |
|
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by Bearcat
Posted by seaside
Response to the question above--
under the law, Catholic schools can discriminate in hiing--they are insulated from Title VII with respect to most hiring decisions. They can discriminate based upon religion (of course), but also sex, race, national origin, etc. The philosophy is that the state can't tell them who to hire for ministerial positions, and the definition of ministerial is broad--can extend to a math teacher.
Do I agree with their being able to discriminate based on religion? Yes---if you run a Catholic School and you want all Catholic teachers, clergy, etc., yes.
It's trickier with the other things, but OK--the government wants to go hands off. Hire who you want--no need to offer birth control, etc.
Now here's a question for everyone: under the current law, secular employers (not churches, religious schools), that provide ordinary people with ordinary jobs, (if they are big enough), are required to reasonably accommodate their employees' religions. Muslim prayer room with reasonable breaks, kosher food if it's needed and feasible, tolerance of religious headpieces/gear, etc.
Unless it causes an undue hardship, you have to provide it/deal with it. Now let's say Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide Muslims with prayer rooms or organize Jewish employees' schedules so that they can work around Shabbat. They say that such things would go against their beliefs.
Under the decision as written (for those who read it), are they exempt from Title VII's requirements?
If you say no, what's the difference?
If you say yes, then are you concerned about ordinary people of all races, religions, and both sexes being cut off from all kinds of jobs and opportunities that should be available to them in the national economy because of their protected class status?
You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not simply about protected class status. And even if you're a member of a protected class, that doesn't guarantee you a right to everything under the sun. You can't compare freedom of religion and birth control. One is a constitutionally protected right, one is not. And even under this ruling the latter is still available to the employees, it's just not covered by their plan. On top of that, Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation so would the rules be different for them as opposed to a massive public corporation? The answer seems to be yes.
I don't think it's apples and oranges; it's the next step. Where in the opinion does it say that HL's freedom of religion wouldn't extend to its beliefs dictating exemptions from Title VII? That's my point. And it's not about a right to everything under the sun; that would be absurd; it's about employers' religious rights precluding their extending privileges/benefits to others that were formerly mandated under the law. Title VII is a law that affords entitlements. So is the ACA. If HL can trump one, where in the opinion does it say it can't trump the other?
And you're right, this would only apply to closely held, not publicly traded corps,...BUT do people realize how many jobs that represents--how many employers in our national economy whose beliefs can allow them to make themselves unattractive or even unavailable to people based n things they can't control?
And yes, no one NEEDS the morning after pill the way people need reasonable accommodations (I'd never want it), but again, its a removal of a former entitlement that affects women as a whole. And it paves the way for more.
I don't see principled line drawing in the opinion. I would love for someone to show me it--and this is not a challenge. I am really reading it over and over trying to see where it ends. I am not being snarky--I genuinely want to see where and how this ends or gets cabined.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 8:50 AM |
| |
|
Bearcat
Love my little girls!!! <3
Member since 6/10 10818 total posts
Name:
E
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by seaside
Posted by Bearcat
Posted by seaside
Response to the question above--
under the law, Catholic schools can discriminate in hiing--they are insulated from Title VII with respect to most hiring decisions. They can discriminate based upon religion (of course), but also sex, race, national origin, etc. The philosophy is that the state can't tell them who to hire for ministerial positions, and the definition of ministerial is broad--can extend to a math teacher.
Do I agree with their being able to discriminate based on religion? Yes---if you run a Catholic School and you want all Catholic teachers, clergy, etc., yes.
It's trickier with the other things, but OK--the government wants to go hands off. Hire who you want--no need to offer birth control, etc.
Now here's a question for everyone: under the current law, secular employers (not churches, religious schools), that provide ordinary people with ordinary jobs, (if they are big enough), are required to reasonably accommodate their employees' religions. Muslim prayer room with reasonable breaks, kosher food if it's needed and feasible, tolerance of religious headpieces/gear, etc.
Unless it causes an undue hardship, you have to provide it/deal with it. Now let's say Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide Muslims with prayer rooms or organize Jewish employees' schedules so that they can work around Shabbat. They say that such things would go against their beliefs.
Under the decision as written (for those who read it), are they exempt from Title VII's requirements?
If you say no, what's the difference?
If you say yes, then are you concerned about ordinary people of all races, religions, and both sexes being cut off from all kinds of jobs and opportunities that should be available to them in the national economy because of their protected class status?
You're comparing apples and oranges. It's not simply about protected class status. And even if you're a member of a protected class, that doesn't guarantee you a right to everything under the sun. You can't compare freedom of religion and birth control. One is a constitutionally protected right, one is not. And even under this ruling the latter is still available to the employees, it's just not covered by their plan. On top of that, Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation so would the rules be different for them as opposed to a massive public corporation? The answer seems to be yes.
I don't think it's apples and oranges; it's the next step. Where in the opinion does it say that HL's freedom of religion wouldn't extend to its beliefs dictating exemptions from Title VII? That's my point. And it's not about a right to everything under the sun; that would be absurd; it's about employers' religious rights precluding their extending privileges/benefits to others that were formerly mandated under the law. Title VII is a law that affords entitlements. So is the ACA. If HL can trump one, where in the opinion does it say it can't trump the other?
And you're right, this would only apply to closely held, not publicly traded corps,...BUT do people realize how many jobs that represents--how many employers in our national economy whose beliefs can allow them to make themselves unattractive or even unavailable to people based n things they can't control?
And yes, no one NEEDS the morning after pill the way people need reasonable accommodations (I'd never want it), but again, its a removal of a former entitlement that affects women as a whole. And it paves the way for more.
I don't see principled line drawing in the opinion. I would love for someone to show me it--and this is not a challenge. I am really reading it over and over trying to see where it ends. I am not being snarky--I genuinely want to see where and how this ends or gets cabined.
I wish I had the time today to really discuss my legal perspective on the opinon (my comments in no way reflect my feelings as a woman on the decision) but I don't have that option. I will say that while you don't see where and how it ends, or any line drawing, I don't see anything that indicates this ruling will become widespread as many people (and the dissent) suggest.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 9:16 AM |
| |
|
ShhhTTCin11
3 under 3?!
Member since 5/11 2229 total posts
Name:
Coleen
|
Hobby Lobby ruling?
I don't honestly see an issue. It isn't the same as being denied life saving medical necessities based on religion. They aren't refusing to pay for biirth control (which is also against some, not sure if all, Christian faiths), they are drawing a line on what they want to pay for. They aren't refusing to hire an employee with an IUD or saying they will fire you if you take the morning after pill.... They are just saying that they won't pay the $50 for it. They also don't pay for your groceries, but that doesn't mean they are denying you the right to eat. In the rare occasion someone might find themselves in that situation, they have to fork out the $50.
Like I said - I'm not disgusted.
Edited for spelling
Message edited 7/2/2014 10:44:40 AM.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 10:12 AM |
| |
|
Paramount
Sweet!
Member since 7/12 4287 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Hobby Lobby ruling?
Posted by ShhhTTCin11
I don't honestly see an issue. It isn't the same as being denied life saving medical necessities based on religion. They aren't refusing to pay for biirth control (which is also against some, not sure if all, Christian faiths), they are drawing a line on what they want to pay for. They aren't refusing to hire an employee with an IUD or saying they will fire you if you take the morning after pill.... They are just saying that they won't pay the $50 for it. They also don't pay for your groceries, but that doesn't mean they are denying you the right to eat. In the rare occasion someone might find themselves in that situation, they have to fork out the $50.
Like I said - I'm not disgusted.
Edited for spelling
And there lies the problem, not seeing an issue (and I mean no disrespect).
The issue at stake here is not about what HL offers, does not offer, pays for, does not pay for.
The REAL issue is that THEIR religious beliefs will now dictate medical decisions.
(And yes, anyone can pay out of pocket. Its not denying them access, its about not paying for it)
The case is about a company owners religious beliefs dictating policy for their workers.
The REAL issue is about a company's religious beliefs being used to deny.......anything, OR force the workers to do.......something based SOLEY on the owners beliefs.
Its about having my work life dictated by YOUR morals and religious beliefs. Your (pick a company) are NOT mine.
Its not about HL anymore. Its about loosing rights, and what this decision will now open up.
Its about the decision, and what it means going forward for ALL of us.
Its SO not about HL.
And again, I mean no disrespect nor flame.
|
| Posted 7/2/14 11:31 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 |
Currently 634570 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
