SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS

:lol:


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

I know I've been gone a while but....WTF?? Lol!

When I first read this post it sounded so far out there that I knew something was not right. Where I see the relevance of the post, it is not what the intent of the ruling was to cover.

What the Supreme Court actually ruled on...

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday that for-profit employers with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare.

The ruling deals directly with only a small provision of Obamacare and will not take down the entire law but it amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.
Continue Reading

Breaking news: Hobby Lobby wins
Latest on POLITICO


“We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] — or, for that matter, ACA – would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

(Also on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby ruling full text)

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The court’s majority also rejected the Obama administration’s argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under RFRA. However, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the portion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent that argues companies do not have such rights.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan did not join that section of Gingsburg’s opinion and said in a one-paragraph dissent of their own that they would have left for another day the issue of the rights of for-profit companies and their owners.

(Also on POLITICO: Left on Twitter: 'War on women' continues)

The majority decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief — a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.

In the short term, the ruling appears to allow the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties to opt out of the health care law’s requirement that they provide all Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of birth control in their health plans.

The court’s latest decision promises to reignite a national debate over women’s health and access to contraception ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. It is likely to force House and Senate candidates to answer for whether they supported the contraception coverage, a provision that’s more politically popular than the law itself. Advocates have promised to make it an election issue.

(Also on POLITICO: Right celebrates ruling on Twitter)

The Obama administration and women’s health groups have warned that if they lost in the Supreme Court, the ruling could have much broader health coverage implications. If a company can skirt the contraception requirement, what’s to prevent another employer from objecting to providing access to vaccines or blood transfusions on religious grounds, they asked.

Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that the ruling that would have wide repercussions and “untoward effects.”

“Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private,” she wrote.

The Obama administration argued that the requirement wasn’t a mandate at all because the companies could have dropped coverage.

(Earlier on POLITICO: Takeaways from the Hobby Lobby arguments)

The court’s conservative justices accuse the Obama administration and the dissent of questioning the religious beliefs of the families that own the two closely-held companies, in particular the owners’ position that providing the contraceptive coverage would put a substantial burden on their religious views.

“[Health and Human Services] and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step,” Alito wrote.

Ginsburg and the dissenters sharply disagreed with the pointed critique.

“The Court levels a criticism that is as wrongheaded as can be. In no way does the dissent ‘tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed,” she wrote. “Right or wrong in this domain is a judgment no Member of this Court, or any civil court, is authorized or equipped to make. What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”

(Earlier on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby aims for Obamacare win, Christian nation)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to try to restore the contraception coverage.

“If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will,” Reid said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room.”

Hobby Lobby and its supporters, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the decision.

He said the court made clear that “the Obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that Americans hold dear” by requiring businesses to cover birth control in employee-health plans under the ACA.

McConnell called Obamacare “the single worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 50 years” and praised the court for agreeing that the contraception requirement violates the RFRA.

(Earlier on POLITICO: Poll says most side against Hobby Lobby)

The challenges were brought by the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a national craft store chain owned by evangelical Christians with more than 13,000 employees, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a small Pennsylvania cabinet company owned by Mennonites.

The owners of both said they have religious objections to providing access to certain forms of contraception — Plan B, Ella and certain intrauterine devices, which they call abortifacients — in their employee health plans. They had the backing of the Catholic bishops, several Republican lawmakers and at least 50 other for-profit companies that have filed similar legal challenges.

There is a separate string of lawsuits filed against the same policy by religious-affiliated groups, such as Catholic schools.

During a rare 90-minute session of oral arguments before the justices, the companies argued that the Obama administration is forcing them and their owners to set aside deeply held religious beliefs by requiring them to provide contraception in their employee health plans. The owners said they cannot have any role in providing access to certain forms of contraception without having to violate those beliefs. Their attorney, former Republican Solicitor General Paul Clement, said that because the Obama administration has provided some exemptions to the rule — for churches and certain nonprofits — it should be willing to exempt companies, too.

Scalia was not at the court on Monday and a court spokeswoman said he was traveling.

Natalie Villacorta contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-contraception-mandate-108429.html#ixzz36FSqzgSP

Here's the even better story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900

My post was funnier....


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nice kitty! Good kitty!

Somebody get Daniel on the line quick!

Jestor wrote: My post was funnier....


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Lol I meant, better story that's related to your post. it's ECHR:france vs. islam, not Supreme court:companies vs. useless pills.

ren wrote:

Jestor wrote: My post was funnier....


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Lol I meant, better story that's related to your post. it's ECHR:france vs. islam, not Supreme court:companies vs. useless pills.

:lol:, I missed your post, I was telling Wescli that, lol....

Clearly clint is to blame for all this confusion. As if obamacare had anything to do with my right to turn my employees into cat food. :silly:

As usual, there is more than one way to look at it. On the one hand, we see that the government has a bill stating that you (being companies) have to provide birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms and other means of contraceptives to employees as part of health care. Personally, I see abstinence as the best policy to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs. :ohmy:

And what the Supreme Court did was decide that it was unconstitutional for the government to force its policies on those that it would infringe upon their religion. I know that birth control is a far cry from sending people to be eaten by lions and nowhere near as funny. I mean, what’s funnier than people being prosecuted and murdered for their religious beliefs? :whistle:

And if the ECHR would have come to the same conclusion then Muslim women would have the freedom to wear the face veil, or niqab. And quite possibly be less repressive on people and their religious practices. :pinch:

But it’s the US and they never do anything right so let’s get our sticks and poke fun at them some more.

Good Ole George Takei's side of things....


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Wescli Wardest wrote: And if the ECHR would have come to the same conclusion then Muslim women would have the freedom to wear the face veil, or niqab. And quite possibly be less repressive on people and their religious practices. :pinch:

I'm confused by the ECHR response, because if it is solely about face concealment (for security reasons) and not about religious beliefs, then how comes that pretty much the only head wear covered by the ban are religious veils? The only other item I could think of is a balaclava, but they're not exactly common everyday head wear.

The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.

I have always found it interesting; the conclusion that because someone is not forced to provide something for another individual that it infringes on their rights. No one is saying that women cannot have birth control. It would be nice if it were covered by health care, but I do not see it as a requirement for good health. Good health would be not getting pregnant or contracting an STD. And the best way to do that is abstinence. And that goes for men and women. And contraceptives would slow the spread of STD’s but I haven’t heard anyone make claims for men’s rights not to catch them… maybe we just don’t care about the spread of STD’s as much as women getting pregnant?

And just as having health insurance is a good thing and we should all have it, so is having automobile insurance. I just feel that it is unconstitutional for the government to force people to purchase a private companies product. Or force us to pay into a retirement supplement plan and dictate when we can retire. Maybe having the government run everyone’s life is good for some? But I prefer to live in a state of freedom. And a major price of freedom is personal responsibility. Being accountable for one’s own actions and decisions and not relying on someone else to provide for you.

I will never say that birth control or abortion should be illegal. I think that women should have the right to choose. I think they should have the right to protect themselves. I hope that they make choices that are for the betterment of the whole and not what is convenient and easy at the time, same goes for men!

So, then women should just not work there....

Or men, if they want their wife covered by healthcare.... And want birth control....

As far as STDs, yes they are a concern, but less so, it would appear...

So, let Hobby Lobby do as they want, THEN, once the dust has settled, I think I will start going to Michaels for my craft stuff, even though they suck, lol....

Those same employees probably dont complain they get Sundays off, lol, due to the religious convictions of the owners...

When our children's children start applying for jobs, there will be a list of questions....

What does your health package exclude? Contraception, Healthcare for a gay partner, children out of wedlock, abortion...

Not to mention all the stuff Takei pointed out...

Edan wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: And if the ECHR would have come to the same conclusion then Muslim women would have the freedom to wear the face veil, or niqab. And quite possibly be less repressive on people and their religious practices. :pinch:

I'm confused by the ECHR response, because if it is solely about face concealment (for security reasons) and not about religious beliefs, then how comes that pretty much the only head wear covered by the ban are religious veils? The only other item I could think of is a balaclava, but they're not exactly common everyday head wear.

I don’t think I’m following the confusion…

I will try again though. From what I gathered for the link Ren posted was that the ECHR upheld the decision to deny the religious practice of wearing a face cover. The only reason I can think for there to be a ban against it in the first place is for security purposes. But it seems that security takes precedence over religion on that matter.

The fact that the US Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to have policy forced above religious freedom is what I was referring to.

I was poking fun at Ren.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I don’t think I’m following the confusion…

I will try again though. From what I gathered for the link Ren posted was that the ECHR upheld the decision to deny the religious practice of wearing a face cover. The only reason I can think for there to be a ban against it in the first place is for security purposes. But it seems that security takes precedence over religion on that matter.

Perhaps I should have quote Ren, oh well! My general confusion is that previously, to me, it just seems the French are banning face coverings because of the religious aspect but saying it's for security. If you can wear a helmet or a festival mask, the law seems a bit redundant.

Wescli Wardest wrote: No one is saying that women cannot have birth control.

this.

To clear up a few misconceptions:

• Nobody is saying women can't get contraceptives.
• Nobody is saying contraceptives should be banned.
• Nobody is saying insurance companies can't pay for contraceptives.
• Nobody is actually denying anyone anything.
• The ruling was limited to privately owned companies, not publicly traded ones.
• The Cthulhu version of this joke was even funnier.

All that's been decided is that certain companies with certain objections have the right to refuse to pay that portion of healthcare costs. That's it. Nobody said insurance companies, taxpayers, or the ACA can't step in and cover that for these women, nobody said these women are banned from using contraceptives while working for these companies, nobody said these women can't pay these expenses out of pocket, nobody said they can't find healthcare credit, social welfare programs, taxpayer funded means, or anything else they need to get these contraceptives. Literally all that was said (to the very best of my knowledge, I only skimmed the case twice) is that the employers of closely held companies are not required to actively pay for that portion of healthcare if they have certain, defined religious objections.

I am not denying you cake by refusing to buy it for you. And, to extend the metaphor to include non-profit religiously-held pharmacies people like to gripe about, I am under no obligation to sell you a cake, either, especially if this is a pie shop.

There are two companies that I know of that I have frequented for years. Both shut down every Sunday because of their religious convictions. Hobby Lobby and Chick Fillet. And the employees at both places are very well treated and each one I have talked to seems happy to work there. I have always respected the attitude that their religious beliefs are strong enough to trickle over into their work practices. And that to is not just about making the almighty dollar. Think about how much more money they could make if they opened on Sunday… they could easily pay for birth control.

Even though some may view it as unfair, I have seen their actions over the years be far above fair. Sometimes life is about give and take. Even though we want everything we want, we can’t always have it and be fair to all parties involved.

I’m sure there are plenty of people (including women) that share the same religious views that will be happy to work there.

As for applying for jobs, there should be a list of questions! The medical insurance is one of the reasons I chose to work where I do. It is pretty good. Benefits packages should always be a consideration when choosing employment.

Perhaps I should have quote Ren, oh well! My general confusion is that previously, to me, it just seems the French are banning face coverings because of the religious aspect but saying it's for security.

I will admit that I have no idea the actual reason for banning the wear. To me, growing up in the States, it seems like an unjust law that should have never been passed. I know that women wear them here and I have seen it. I also know that establishments and government buildings have the right to ban articles of clothing or deny entry based on security reasons. Example, there are bars that will say, “no bandanas allowed." Or when you go to a government building you are not allowed to wear any face covering of any kind, even sun glasses.

Wescli Wardest wrote:
But it’s the US and they never do anything right so let’s get our sticks and poke fun at them some more.

OUCH, stop poking...