Hobby Lobby & Supreme Court Decision

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser8396

Guest
As many of you know, the corporation known as Hobby Lobby argued their case in the Supreme Court to be exempt from the "law that requires no-cost access to contraception as part of a healthcare plan." Hobby Lobby did this under the argument that it violated the corporation's religious sense of morality (in this case, Christian).

You can read in more detail here: Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Ruling ~ The Guardian

As for the debate:

1. Is the Supreme Court's ruling viable and abiding by the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment?

2. Was this decision poorly considered in terms of what leeway it has granted other corporations, religious sects, and more? (Despite the answer to the above question).

3. Does any corporation executive's religious belief give him justifiable reason to deny a service? Why or why not?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This debate is now open. I ask that everyone abide by the forum rules, as well as the DnD rules.

If you have any questions, please PM Baudin Toolan or myself.

- Lane
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
I am confused.

I read the linked article which I think said that the court supported Hobby Lobby's wish to not supply contraceptives as part of a free healthcare package.

I read shadis' reply here which seems to agree with Hobby Lobby, but say the court made a terrible decision.

Do I just need more coffee?
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
I am confused.

I read the linked article which I think said that the court supported Hobby Lobby's wish to not supply contraceptives as part of a free healthcare package.

I read shadis' reply here which seems to agree with Hobby Lobby, but say the court made a terrible decision.

Do I just need more coffee?

No, no. I'm confused too.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No, no. I'm confused too.

*facepalm* Being the pessimist I am, and from hearing many people think they would rule against, I decided to assume they did. That's what happens when you are given the option to read an article when you're half asleep and decide not too.. so I'm cool with the Supreme Court again... yippee... I'm going to just pretend this never happened and walk away..
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Cool, it was shadis that needed more coffee.

So, yeah, the court made a terrible decision. Is there a higher court?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So I had not yet heard of this situation and after reading up on it a bit I feel like I understand it enough to warrant a response here. My opinion is probably going to surprise some of you here as I am going to disagree with this
So, yeah, the court made a terrible decision. Is there a higher court?
and say that the decision made by the court is the correct one.

Now before Hazel is going to lynch me, let me explain :p
I do believe that that no-cost contraception and sex-ed is very important, however, I do not think that the responsible party for access to these services should be the employer. I do not fully understand the American system, but as far as I can see, the law of which Hobby Lobby is now exempted from forced companies to include no-cost access to (emergency) contraception as part of the health insurance benefits from the job. Now even though I think it is morally and ethically right to include this in your employees' plans, I do not think you, as a CEO/company, should be forced by law to include it. If you want to be a bigoted scumbag, you should be allowed to be.

These contraceptive means should be free to everyone, at any time, regardless of job. You should just be able to walk into any pharmacy/doctor's office and ask for them. This is how it works in the Netherlands and it works.



1. Is the Supreme Court's ruling viable and abiding by the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment?
No, the government isn't choosing any religion over the other or over the lack of religion. They are, however, allowing companies to do so, which is, and should stay, completely legal.


2. Was this decision poorly considered in terms of what leeway it has granted other corporations, religious sects, and more? (Despite the answer to the above question).
This is something that I am afraid of, but only time will tell. The precedence set isn't very open to interpretation so I hope the abuse will be kept to a minimum. Nonetheless, I am convinced certain religious groups will attempt to exploit this ruling.


3. Does any corporation executive's religious belief give him justifiable reason to deny a service? Why or why not?
Depends on the definition of service.
Should they be able to disallow you access to water or restrooms? No, definitely not. But they should not be forced to give you services that oppose their personal beliefs either. So yes, they should be able to deny you services within the limits of the law.

PS: If this ruling means that their female employees cannot use contraceptives whatsoever while working for them (which I doubt, else VVTF America) then disregard this whole post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser23986

Guest
No, the government isn't choosing any religion over the other or over the lack of religion. They are, however, allowing companies to do so, which is, and should stay, completely legal.
How so? How could special provisions be provided for a religious group just because it offends their beliefs?

what about those who deny to accept or follow any religion? Should they be compelled be provide extra services just for the lack of religious belief? What about their own personal opinions or beliefs? Should they be just neglected because they are personal and not religious?

Isn't now the court supporting having a religion over lack of religion.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
How so? How could special provisions be provided for a religious group just because it offends their beliefs?

what about those who deny to accept or follow any religion? Should they be compelled be provide extra services just for the lack of religious belief? What about their own personal opinions or beliefs? Should they be just neglected because they are personal and not religious?

Isn't now the court supporting having a religion over lack of religion.
The thing is, I don't see it as special provisions being provided for a member of a religious group. Before this ruling, companies were forced to provide a service that clashed with certain personal beliefs. Now the court has ruled that companies are no longer forced to provide these services but instead get to choose for themselves whether or not they want to do this. Having a religion is not being favoured, it's just that companies get more freedom in how they want to operate.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm just gonna start off by saying that I believe that a private business should have the right to refuse anyone anything at any-time (not completely like to the extent of death etc but enough of that) all that being said.

This is not a supporting of religion, it is simply not a backing of anti-religion. It is allowing people to freely practice their beliefs without harm to others, as there is no harm to others then it is not the government's issue to deal with. So minus the government this will be dealt with in several ways.

1. people who say this is wrong will by their craft stuff elsewhere.
2. people who are share this view point will shop there more.
3. and most important workers who think they have a right to force their employer to buy them stuff can go work at starbucks.

I don't think contraception is evil, it's obviously helpful in some cases, but as I said before unless there is harm to the public involved the government should not be involved.

ps. before you respond to the first thing I said saying "so they can refuse you service because you're a gramma, or because you have scarring, or because you have a limp" yes yes and again yes, refusing people services for those things is stupid and senseless but it's my money to lose I should be allowed to lose it simply because I don't like people with spray on tans etc.
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
I'm just gonna start off by saying that I believe that a private business should have the right to refuse anyone anything at any-time (not completely like to the extent of death etc but enough of that) all that being said.

This is not a supporting of religion, it is simply not a backing of anti-religion. It is allowing people to freely practice their beliefs without harm to others, as there is no harm to others then it is not the government's issue to deal with. So minus the government this will be dealt with in several ways.

1. people who say this is wrong will by their craft stuff elsewhere.
2. people who are share this view point will shop there more.
3. and most important workers who think they have a right to force their employer to buy them stuff can go work at starbucks.

I don't think contraception is evil, it's obviously helpful in some cases, but as I said before unless there is harm to the public involved the government should not be involved.

ps. before you respond to the first thing I said saying "so they can refuse you service because you're a gramma, or because you have scarring, or because you have a limp" yes yes and again yes, refusing people services for those things is stupid and senseless but it's my money to lose I should be allowed to lose it simply because I don't like people with spray on tans etc.

Why should we not think of govt as employer of the private business? And hence they should have a right to deny them anything they want.

Also, I don't think(unless I got confused) the decision allows companies to select which services they want to provide, just exempts one from some on RELIGIOUS ground. So why should a company having no religious ground, be expected to provide extra services.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Why should we not think of govt as employer of the private business? And hence they should have a right to deny them anything they want.

The government and private business are individual parts. Much like a business has customers, the people are 'customers' to the government. The people pay taxes, the government provides services. Business-Customer relation, not Employer-Employee relation.
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
The government and private business are individual parts. Much like a business has customers, the people are 'customers' to the government. The people pay taxes, the government provides services. Business-Customer relation, not Employer-Employee relation.

True, that is people govt relationship.

I was talking about govt - corporation relation. Govt does provide a platform to corporations. Ofc it deosn't pay but people(its customers as per you:p) do!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Also, I don't think(unless I got confused) the decision allows companies to select which services they want to provide, just exempts one from some on RELIGIOUS ground. So why should a company having no religious ground, be expected to provide extra services.


because having no religion is a "religion"
 

DeletedUser

Guest
an environmentalist could refuse to make something they think hurts the environment, or a sign maker could refuse to make something that is "offensive" both are beliefs you could hold without being in a religion.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm just gonna start off by saying that I believe that a private business should have the right to refuse anyone anything at any-time (not completely like to the extent of death etc but enough of that) all that being said.

This is not a supporting of religion, it is simply not a backing of anti-religion. It is allowing people to freely practice their beliefs without harm to others, as there is no harm to others then it is not the government's issue to deal with. So minus the government this will be dealt with in several ways.

1. people who say this is wrong will by their craft stuff elsewhere.
2. people who are share this view point will shop there more.
3. and most important workers who think they have a right to force their employer to buy them stuff can go work at starbucks.

I don't think contraception is evil, it's obviously helpful in some cases, but as I said before unless there is harm to the public involved the government should not be involved.

ps. before you respond to the first thing I said saying "so they can refuse you service because you're a gramma, or because you have scarring, or because you have a limp" yes yes and again yes, refusing people services for those things is stupid and senseless but it's my money to lose I should be allowed to lose it simply because I don't like people with spray on tans etc.

I agreed with you up until your last paragraph. Do you realize hat what you are saying is literally the same situations the Jews were in in WWII under the nazi regime? Jewish people were denied access to regular shop simply because they were Jewish. I agree that businesses shouldn't be forced to provide certain services/benefits to their employees, but I do not think that they should be able to deny customers their business based on ethnicity/race/age/anything other than behaviour.

Also, I don't think(unless I got confused) the decision allows companies to select which services they want to provide, just exempts one from some on RELIGIOUS ground. So why should a company having no religious ground, be expected to provide extra services.
You are correct, but I think it is a step in the right direction. Also, businesses aren't known for their integrity and will happily change their moral stance to be able to use this exemption.
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
an environmentalist could refuse to make something they think hurts the environment, or a sign maker could refuse to make something that is "offensive" both are beliefs you could hold without being in a religion.

They are more than simply beliefs. They have a logical base, quite similar to one on which constitutions of most modern countries are built.

I for one, won't like to be back to days, where any religious institutions start making laws. Now that may not be exactly to the point here, but for once, we need to check which religious beliefs are being supported.

You are correct, but I think it is a step in the right direction. Also, businesses aren't known for their integrity and will happily change their moral stance to be able to use this exemption.

true! But then it lures them to change their moral stance. Or their moral stance as they show. Not exactly promoting equality, is it?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser5819

Guest
First off, no skully, I won't be attempting to lynch the (arguably) most intelligently logical guy on the forum :p

I will admit to not having read the murican 1st amendment because <yawn>, so I am relying on the linked article, which opens with
When the supreme court ruled on Monday that some corporations are exempt from a law that requires no-cost access to contraception as part of a healthcare plan, reaction was swift from all sides
leading me to believe that only companies with a religious objection to contraceptive-type stuff will be exempt.
It does not state that they will have to pay/donate the cost savings to anyone/place in any way, and it clearly indicates that the get-out requires being signed up to an appropriate religion, so the cost of provision will still have to be carried by those not making a religious stand.

This happens to be the sort of thing that pees me off, and I think I am aligned with Hasan on this one.

Here is an incomplete list:
Female staff/students must wear skirts unless their religion requires them to cover legs to the ankle.
No headwear or facial hair is permitted unless you are male sikh/orthodox-jew or female religiously required - icba to list (or know) the variations cue facial hair jokes
No jewelry is permitted unless its a christian cross

Either these things are ok or they are not! :Angry:
Modern laws pertaining to religious requirements have seen employers re-examining their (equally pernicious) cultural requirements, to avoid litigation, but they are still allowed to demand them of anyone not carrying a mainstream "get out of dress-code free" card. The day we see saudi women winning gold in beach volleyball without either side requiring ludicrous dress codes, I can die happy.

Whilst this ruling does not discriminate against individuals based on their own religious alignment, it discriminates against corporations based on the religious alignment of their owners or boards etc. If there isn't a law/amendment/whatever about that, perhaps there should be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
This whole thing is way off topic. I am a United States of American. Let me explain. The overreach of our government has reached individual business owners. Hobby Lobby views life as starting from conception; ie Plan B pills are murdering people. I know it's hard for people to understand across the pond but we actually don't like the government telling us what to do. There is more I could say but I would be rambling and well.... frankly I haven't read the whole thread.
 
Top