Hobby Lobby Ruling

We kind of took over another thread, and starting a new one for this topic is long overdue. If you'd like to catch up on the discussion thus far, it more or less starts here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

Also, Hobby Lobby's response to the accusation that their employee 401 (k) invests in companies that produce abortion drugs was. "The employees choose to invest in that" . So why are they against their employees choosing to use said drugs? It's OK to make money off of a "sin" ?

Also, as a small businesses owner, I can know claim that anything I don't want to pay for goes against my religion. By granting businesses the ability to ignore laws based on fictional dichotomy, the Supreme court had opened a pandoras box of ridiculous scenarios.

I completely agree with you. This ruling has opened the door for any business owner to stop paying for healthcare items they are opposed to, for pretty much any religious reason. Its a very slippery slope.

I am confused by this. Who is the judge of the religious principle of it ?

This really is a Pandora's box of shit. Anybody want to suggest how this would be monitored by the government ?

Thanks for bringing my last post over here.

To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with the ACA. I do believe that affordable healthcare should be offered to all citizens I just don't like forcing people to do it through money grabbing insurance providers. That said, it's the law now and I have to follow the law or face consequences. I'm waiting for Rastafarians to just start openly smoking marijuana because it clearly states, according to their religion, that marijuana is good for you and a religious experience.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

I completely agree with you. This ruling has opened the door for any business owner to stop paying for healthcare items they are opposed to, for pretty much any religious reason. Its a very slippery slope.

Wrong SP each dropped item would have to be adjudicated. I think the Court was clear in this area of the ruling.

There should be no exemptions for anything. If the social conservatives want religious freedom in it's current interpretation ( do your American history, peeps.....that definition has changed 180 degrees in the last 150 years) ., then they should pay full boat on their taxes like the rest of us do, and not be able to duck out of their responsibilities to their employees on full health insurance.

Non profit status for any religion mocks the separation of church and state.

[youtube]zSQCH1qyIDo[/youtube]

Quote:

Originally posted by Topsail

...

Wrong SP each dropped item would have to be adjudicated. I think the Court was clear in this area of the ruling.

Oh sure, they're going to have to do some paperwork and file for exemptions...companies won't just be able to stop on their own. However, they will have the option to do that, and if they claim religious beliefs, there is a very good chance that it'll pass.

As John Oliver says in the above video, you don't get to pick and choose what items you pay for with healthcare, its a package deal. If you can drum up enough support on a national level and have a referendum to change the law, so be it, but allowing companies to be exempt of a law based on religious beliefs is just wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

I am confused by this. Who is the judge of the religious principle of it ?

This really is a Pandora's box of shit. Anybody want to suggest how this would be monitored by the government ?

Its just ridiculous, you're exactly right. Monitoring it and deciding what is a valid religious principle and what isn't is going to be impossible. I mean, what is stopping some company from saying they don't want to pay for any healthcare because they are devout members of the Church Of Euthanasia? Yes, to you and I that may seem like a silly scenario because we don't take that religion seriously, but thats my point...who gets to decide if one religions claims are reasonable and the others aren't?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Its just ridiculous, you're exactly right. Monitoring it and deciding what is a valid religious principle and what isn't is going to be impossible. I mean, what is stopping some company from saying they don't want to pay for any healthcare because they are devout members of the [Link]? Yes, to you and I that may seem like a silly scenario because we don't take that religion seriously, but thats my point...who gets to decide if one religions claims are reasonable and the others aren't?

Isn't there already a silly law in the US stating that any organisation can be declared as a religion and get some taxes exemption for them and their associated businesses (just like the scientology cult church do ?).

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

...
Isn't there already a silly law in the US stating that any organisation can be declared as a religion and get some taxes exemption for them and their associated businesses (just like the scientology cult church do ?).

I'm not sure, but I know there are many cases where if you don't want something (for instance, vaccinations for your children) you just have to claim its against your religion...you don't have to list the religion, just state its against it.

My religion states that religious judges are against my religion.

It seams the president can change this law at any point and time like he has illegally done many times. Nothing about this law is affordable and more people have lost the coverage they had and have been forced to get obamacare. Wait until the employers mandate goes in effect. Millions more will loose healthcare and be forced into this crappy plan. I'm so glad the govt. is now in charge of healthcare said no one ever. It only gets worse.

Quote:

Originally posted by blackwatermerc

It seams the president can change this law at any point and time like he has illegally done many times.

Not really. I'm assuming you're talking about executive actions, which are allowed. And despite cries from the GOP that Obama is exercising this executive action way too much, he's used it less to this point in his presidency than Clinton, GWB, and Reagan.

kylecook, I think blackwater was referring to the fact that Obama has used Executive orders to change ACA or the implementation of ACA which is outside his purview as President. Changes to the law itself or its implementation are under the purview of Congress (i.e. the Legislative branch), Obama's duty to ACA just like any other law is to ensure that it is enforced as it was written, not change how it works because it suits his agenda better that way. The delay of implementation of the Employer mandates and any other portion of ACA, is beyond Obama's authority.

Quote:

Originally posted by nemisis02

kylecook, I think blackwater was referring to the fact that Obama has used Executive orders to change ACA or the implementation of ACA which is outside his purview as President. Changes to the law itself or its implementation are under the purview of Congress (i.e. the Legislative branch), Obama's duty to ACA just like any other law is to ensure that it is enforced as it was written, not change how it works because it suits his agenda better that way. The delay of implementation of the Employer mandates and any other portion of ACA, is beyond Obama's authority.

I understand what he's saying. And I disagree with his presumption that what Obama is doing is necessarily illegal. The party out of power (and others who just disagree with the order) have always said that the order is illegal. Or that allowing executive orders at all is illegal.

Executive orders have been allowed to further implementation of a law. Only two have been overturned by the courts - one for creating law and one for contradicting an already existing law. It's a vague power, and I have a problem with it for that reason. It seems people will always disagree with the power because it has so much gray area.

You can certainly make the argument that Obama has overstepped his power. But I think you can also make the argument that many of the previous executive orders have been an overstep of a president's power, but nothing has come of it.

This is veering off topic of the hobby lobby case, though. Executive orders weren't really the issue in that case.

Correct. EO's are a moot point and are exercised according to the balance of politics at the moment. Everyone uses them and everyone abuses them.

Snore...

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

This is veering off topic of the hobby lobby case, though. Executive orders weren't really the issue in that case.

They weren't at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by blackwatermerc

It seams the president can change this law at any point and time like he has illegally done many times. Nothing about this law is affordable and more people have lost the coverage they had and have been forced to get obamacare. Wait until the employers mandate goes in effect. Millions more will loose healthcare and be forced into this crappy plan. I'm so glad the govt. is now in charge of healthcare said no one ever. It only gets worse.

Here in Sweden health care is taken care of by the goverment, insured or not (I think)... It works pretty good. So if Sweden can do it... Why can't you? Or are you just afraid that goverment run health care will give every equal treatment without crippling bills?