Published: Monday, June 30 2014 1:15 p.m. MDT
This presents an easy workaround to the Employer Mandate. If everyone just
claims to be a Christian Scientist, you don't have to provide any coverage
This was great news!Liberals have long been disingenuous(at best) in
this and most discussions. No one is saying women can't get
birth control, as is the claim by the liberals. Their dishonesty makes the
political process as it is currently.We've just said if someone
wants to have sexual relations and wants to not get pregnant - you can pay for
your own birth control. Its not my responsibility to make sure you can do
these things on my money. Don't like it?Tough,
deal with it libs. The court has ruled!
If all you bleeding-heart supporters of Obamacare do not like this decision,
then simply get the Congress to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993. That Act is the keystone for this particular Supreme Court decision.
Even if Hobby Lobby doesn't provide its employees with insurance, it is
still "facilitating" them acquiring the forbidden healthcare procedures
by providing them with a paycheck with which to purchase it. It's bizzare
that they think funding this one way is immoral, yet funding it another way is
fine.Are corporations people, entitled to the rights and liberties
to which human beings are endowed? "I'll believe corprations are
people as soon as Texas executes one."
So -- This Supreme Court has ruled that:Corporations are
PeopleCorporations have Free SpeechCorporations can openly, and
unlimted bribe Politicians, and now, Corporations have Religous
Freedom.I see a person without body parts or passions, Who is
everywhere, but nowhere, an enitity that can not die, be sick, or be
destroyed, a person protected by "rights", yet can not be punished
for it's "wrongs".the "Beast" 666, from
Revelations comes quickly to my mind...
Chris B,Change the medication and change the religion, and the
decision is still the same. The SCOTUS has ruled that if your employer is
(religion x) and you need (medication y) that your employer can refuse to cover
it because of their religious beliefs.
Their own ruling notes that it's not meant to be interpreted as carte
blanche for everything (vaccines, blood transfusions, or even necessarily all
birth control) which begs the question... how are we supposed to know where the
line is for what constitutes free exercise of religion by a company?What might help with that is they noted the exemption religious organizations
use could just be used for a company. However, there's separate cases
challenging that as well (remember the Little Sisters of the Poor suing because
they claimed that having to go through the exemption process was a burden and
that it merely shifts the payment from the business to the gov't so it
doesn't stop birth control coverage).
"In our opinion: Supreme Court right to protect free exercise of
religion"______________________________The Supreme Court
would be right to Protect free exercise of religion. That's not what the
Supreme Court did as this DN staffer hiding behind a cloak of anonymity very
FatherOfFourWEST VALLEY CITY, UTChris B,Change the
medication and change the religion, and the decision is still the same. The
SCOTUS has ruled that if your employer is (religion x) and you need (medication
y) that your employer can refuse to cover it because of their religious
beliefs.3:02 p.m. June 30, 2014========= Great call.Logic trumphs ignorance and parroting media sound bites
everytime.It's no different than asking if the LDS Church
[which I am an active member], which forbids the use of alcohol in the
Word of Wisdom, can ban any medication containing even a trace of
CnH2n+1OH [alcohol].Most of us all realize alcohol is in all sorts
of things, as is the primary bindering chemical in most modern
medications, Most Mormons are already breaking the Word of Wisdom if you
follow the letter of the law.BTW -- by the same token, If a
religion worships the God given use of His herbs of the earth for the express
healing the sick and afflicted, This should also legalize the use of medical
So if company owner A believes in his heart of hearts that pregnancy is the
result of original sin, he can deny maternity coverage to his employees. . . .
And company owner B, the Jehovah's Witness, can deny coverage for any
procedure that involves blood transfusions . . . And company owner C, the
Jain, can deny coverage that involves use of antibiotics because living microbes
are killed in the process . . . And company owner D, the orthodox Jew, can
deny coverage that pays for any treatments on the Sabbath . . . And away
we go . . .
It's a pretty narrow ruling by a split, activist court. It forbids a few
contraceptives not widely used. Unfortunately, for the Republicans this will
help the liberals continue to win the women vote as the GP exalts a minor
victory in their "war on women".
Religious freedom.How many women voted for this decision?Women should remember that when they enter the voting booth.No one
knows how you voted except you.Women have the FREEDOM to vote for
ANYONE they choose.Men should remember that last sentence.
The bottom line here is that some women who believe a medication is in their
best interest, may be even based on the advice of their physicians, will be
denied economical access (or denied access entirely) to that medication. Women
- you're still property.
Great decision by the Supreme Court! Just because one person has a right to
contraception doesn't mean they have the right to make someone else pay for
it against their religious conscience.
Here's quote from Justice Ginsburg's dissent:"Would
the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to
blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists);
medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and
pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and
vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by
today's decision.""Approving some religious claims while
deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring
one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's]
Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.""The court, I fear,
has ventured into a minefield."Anyone care to comment? Care to
comment, Deseret News?
LDS Liberal,Are you seriously correlating business/corporations with
the beast spoken of in the Book of Revelations in the New Testament?A corporation is an organization with purpose. That purpose can be to provide
a valuable service in exchange for an agreeable compensation (usually money).
The corporation can be good or bad, depending upon the intent and ways of the
people within the corporation, as well as the systems and policies set up by the
people of the corporation. Jacob teaches (in the Book of Mormon) to
think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free
with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. But before ye seek
for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope
in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them, and ye will seek them for the
intent to do good--to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry, and to liberate
the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.A
corporation can be good or bad, depending upon the people. So yes, a
corporation can espouse principles of faith.
Liberals want it both ways. They don't want government to legislate what
happens in the bedroom. For example, homosexual or adulterous behavior cannot
be legislated. Liberals call for privacy. What happens in the bedroom is
nobodies business. But then liberals want to require everyone to pay for what
happens in the bedroom: condom distribution, abortion medications, etc.I have been cautioning that the pendulum has gone too far to the left
for several years and that it will begin to swing back to the middle. This will
continue through the elections of 2014.
One of the core values of the nation is that it owes no homage to your religion.
That's why any decision regarding health care needs to be removed from all
Leave it to a publication of the lds church to write this:"In
our opinion: Supreme Court right to protect free exercise of religion"The problem is that the Hobby Lobby folks are exercising their religion
on other people, which is a sin, in my view.The lds did something similar
in Prop 8.Plainly, women who take entry-level jobs in stores usually
do not get to pick and choose.If Hobby Lobby could somehow only hire
people with like religious beliefs legally, and there were jobs elsewhere for
the other people, it might be different.In the USA, people do not
have to follow the religious beliefs of their boss.
The worst part of this decision is the continuing expansion of a
corporation's personhood. First, the corporation had a right to free
speech, and now a religion. What is next? The right to vote and bear arms?The whole idea that a corporation had a right to do anything other than
conduct business began after the Civil War, and has been expanded gradually
through the years until the reign of King Roberts. Now, we see ever expanding
interpretations of law (aka judicial activism) and novel ways of Constitutional
interpretation (aka judicial activism) to pursue a set of goals by and for the
US Chamber of Commerce. King Roberts is doing what he was hired to do, along
with his cronies on the right.Way to go Republicans and
Corporatists. Your money got the best it could buy. What else do you have in
store for us?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments