Best
909 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    I have mixed feelings about it in the sense that while I feel people's religious beliefs should be respected, what happens in the case of an employer whose religion forbids transfusions, operations, or even seeing a doctor? I'm also curious. Does this mean men will be able to get free condoms or any other birth control procedure, such as a vasectomy, under an employer's health plan as well?
  • #57
    !
    According to this case, you had better never work for a Christian Scientists because since they don't believe in modern medicine, they should have no obligation to provide any kind of health insurance.
  • #136
    !
    So corporations are people....and as such...they can give anonymous unlimited campaign contributions...and now corporations have religious beliefs....and as such...can decide based upon their so called corporate moral code....what they deem worthy of covering and not covering...involving their employees health care....why don't we just save some time?...and declare corporations the government...and hell...give it time and corporations will be god!.....ONE OF THE WORST SUPEME COURT RULLINGS OF ALL TIME!

    Blind conformity in the wake of tyranny equals insanity.
  • #178
    !
    Tamal........You raised a very good question. I don't recall seeing anything about having/not having in the plan tubes being ties for males or females. If it's done for males, it should be done for females. AND, as far as condoms go, there are female condoms available. If on a male plan, should be available on female plan. I seriously doubt that in either case, that it's allowed for either.
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    !
    Holy f*ck.

    Now when you apply for a job, you're going to have to ask what the companies Religious beliefs explicitly are, so you can be sure they match with yours, or else you might be forced into something you don't want, like not getting contraceptives covered on your health care plan.

    Now we need a new law: all Employers MUST post every single one of their "religious beliefs" in a place where every potential employee can see them, before AND after they get hired, so they are aware of everything they will be getting screwed out of.
  • #40
    !
    @Knightkore Good...I'm glad you are all for this. Because when a Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or even Scientologist company uses this ruling for their benefit, I don't want to hear a friggen word out of your mouth.
  • #53
    !
    @boombatic Hey.....that's their religious freedom, however the satanic religious orgies would probably want healthcare for the std's.....but I'm all for them if they are running a family/privately owned business and they advertise or don't keep their religious beliefs hidden.....good....
  • #92
    !
    It is YOUR responsibility to find out if you want to work for a particular company, and what they offer or don`t offer if it is already not made clear to your satisfaction.. Hobby Lobby is very clear as to who they are and what they believe in.
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more replies

  • #167
    !
    RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, IT's the worst HYPOCRISY there can ever be.
    Is HOBBY LOBBY ALSO going to screen their customers to remain consistent with their so called
    religious liberties?
    Are they going to do background checks and medical history to be sure no women who had an Abortion, any devil worshipper, atheist, gay or lesbian that buys their products?
    How is it possible they can excercise their religious liberty knowing the money they collect could possibly come from a woman who has had an abortion?
    But you see, sin doesn't matter when they are collecting. Hypocrites, whose God is money regardless where it comes from!
  • #197
    !
    Don't forget all the crap they sell from China and how China's abortion policy fits so well with their beliefs.
  • #210
    !
    This is about forcing someone to pay for something that is in conflict with their religious beliefs. It is not about public accommodations.
  • #243
    !
    @ithink Its about evil. How can the money they collect from all sorts of sinners, including women who have had abortions, adulterers, satanists,wiccans, gays,mormons, agnostics and atheists be somehow cleansed, so that then they can open their eyes and accuse.
    With the same money which came from an unclean altar, I tell you, you are right.
    It is a conflict of religious beliefs, the conflict between Hobby Lobby's false, god, money that is clean when they receive it but becomes a tool of immorality when they disperse fraction of that same money.
    You said it right when you said "religion" because if you would have said, the question was about Christianity, you would be a liar.
    How can you take money from thieves,murderers, and idolaters then later with the same money, throw even one stone?
    I am convinced if Jesus told have asked a crowd today, when the question was whether to stone an adulteress to death, every hypocrite would have hurled their stones.
    It says in the Bible, in those days, I blinded them, lest they see,I made them deaf, lest they hear.
  • #265
    !
    @bertho What does communist china have to do with this? of corse, everyone that breaks their necks gettin to Walmart has helped communist China be everything they can be.
    Abortions, yes, but when a child with pre-existing conditions is born, you want insurance say NO , to coverage.
    When a child needs a school lunch, because parents are mailing slave wages in this right to work society republicans have created, you want banks to finance loans that will keep a young person in debt half their lives, you want to privatize schools, so only the wealthiest can actually afford an education,
    not one so called religious establishment will accept any of the resonsibility for those children, not wanted,
    How about it what if a family simply can not afford to raise an additional child
    You know what, watching nightime shows I often see commercials, about hungry starving little kids.
    The companies want money to feed them, but no one has ever asked the question why does a mother keep having babies when she has two starving kids already dependent on a money making racket to send them some crumbs?
    Maybe the Chinese did ask that question?
    What is more of a sin, using contraceptives and possibly abortion, then continuing to have babies
    You know will starve?
    Have you ever seen starvation, will you adopt all those children parents can't possibly raise because there just isnt enough money?
    Or the woman raped by her relatives or any rapist,
    Yeah there are ready little cliche answers, tidy little responses that put any of us into the highest place in a synagogue, pointing our fingers, but never lifting a finger for the least of them.
    There will be wheeping and gnashing.
  • #306
    !
    Ah but you are overlooking a very important aspect of this case. By selling their merchandise to anyone who enters the store, they are being *NONjudgmental,* aren't they? Your logic doesn't work here. The company does not discriminate against others. It merely retains the right to not be forced to pay for abortafacients. An employee can obtain any form of birth control they want, so long as they pay for it themselves.
  • R Load more replies

  • #596
    !
    If Muslim becomes the major religion in this country we will lose religious freedom. They have already proven that.
  • #611
    !
    @SSearan "If Muslim becomes the major religion in this country we will lose religious freedom. They have already proven that. "
    -Just ask the Indians and then slaves of the 1860's. How did Christianity become the major religion of this country? If my understanding is correct Native Americans religion was the dominant religion and then some how the religious freedom of Christianity flourished. AMIRITE?
  • #709
    !
    Not true, the law that Bill Clinton signed in 1993 protects all of them. That is what the court had to side with, Bill Clintons law on restoring religious freedom.:)
  • R Load more replies

  • #616
    !
    @SSearan People who run a business are different than A BUSINESS. A business is not a natural citizen. A group of people is not a PERSON. This goes against every definition of a person found in any dictionary. A corporation is a piece of paper given substance by government, people work for and in a corporation but the corporation in and of itself is NOT A PERSON.
  • #627
    !
    @DeathToVirtue If a business has no freedom of speech or rights, then do away with the copyrights, patents and advertisements.
  • #632
    !
    @SSearan I never stated that corporations do not have rights, I have just stated that they DO NOT have the right to be a person, natural born citizen. How does it make sense to take a group of people who control other people and give them the same rights as a single person?
  • R Load more replies

  • #64
    !
    @Knightkore The religious freedom of women, is being trampled by the religious freedom of a corporation. Even if it is a closely held family corporation, the corporation is an artificial construct... not a real person with religious rights deserving our protection.
  • #73
    !
    @MarkColwell It is a christian family.....and YOUR law would violate the First Amendment church state separation.....

    There is NO violation of religious freedom of women.....they can purchase a plan in different way or not work at Hobby Lobby.....

    Look.....you go to a porn shop you know what you're getting.....you go into a christian store you know what you are getting.....to think you will get anything different is ignorant and arrogant.....
  • #111
    !
    @9MileTrucking Thanks for making it clear to everyone that all or even most women who use birth control are in your eyes (and the rest of the religious right) loose women who will sleep with anyone but you.
  • R Load more replies

  • #390
    !
    Hobby Lobby's health insurance pays for birth control, so this study supports Hobby Lobby. This case came about because Obamacare forced them to also pay for the abortion pill, which was objectionable to them for religious reasons. They pay, and have paid, for all forms of birth control except abortion.
  • #407
    !
    @galt45 I know they invest in abortion pill manufacturers, however it's quite the stretch to call use of IUDs and Plan B abortions since there was never a pregnancy. RU486, I could understand... however these alternatives prevent fertilization most of the time and when that is unsuccessful, they prevent the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine lining. Fertilized eggs fail to attach to a women’s uterine lining all the time, if each and every one of those counts as an abortion there tens, possibly hundreds of millions of "abortions" happening in the US every year. The only way to prevent this holocaust is to prevent fertilization via birth control or outlaw intercourse when procreation isn’t the objective.
  • #441
    !
    @MarkColwell None of those are abortions as there is no developing baby. And if there was a law outlawing intercourse when procreation wasn't the objective, there would probably be a lot of divorces.
  • #444
    !
    @BritAustenpal
    They hadn't been paying for it, but the ACA would have forced them to, which is why they objected and why it went to the Supreme Court.
  • R Load more replies

  • #51
    !
    @Tactus01

    Naw, this ruling has butt hurt the Liberals bad...they will be a while getting over it and for some time it will be the top news in Liberal media.

    Prepare for the big whine down...LOL!
  • #83
    !
    @BravoJuliet The one that will really hurt them is the ruling on the forced unionization of home healthcare workers. It will cut their financing badly, when they can't get the government with the guns to steal their money for them, to donate back to the campaigns of the Democrats who steal it.
  • #114
    !
    @Tacitus01 We should be a right to work nation and unions should have no ability to compel membership nor should any level of government collect union dues for unions.
  • #134
    !
    @fscott777 At least this ruling is a step in that direction. Forcing it on people who care for relatives in their own home is wrong, and taking part of the disability check to give to a union who does NOTHING for the 'home health care worker' who's not being paid is a travesty. Getting a disability check from the government does NOT make you a government worker.
  • #187
    !
    @Tacitus01 Amazing isn't it what unions like SEIU will do if they are allowed to do in states like Illinois. I am a strong believer in the right to work movement where no one is forced to join a union and pay dues.
  • R Load more replies

  • #323
    !
    Many Islamic businesses in the UK will not hire unmarried women of any age or men without children over a certain age .

    They have absurd rules but due to the European liberal impotency they get closer and closer to a government based on religion .

    In USA it is the conservative voters who want the same thing and to blind to see how it will only hurt them when corporations deny all types of care and say it is due to religious beliefs .
  • #735
    !
    Doesn't apply here. Not corporations, family business protected by a law passed by Democrats and signed by Bill Clinton in 19093.

    Read about the case first then interpolate.
  • #249
    !
    It is not a narrow ruling. It has broad implications for any "closely held company" claiming religion beliefs are violated by having to comply with secular law, whether refusal of blood transfusion, denial of rights to gays, beliefs that deny rights to blacks, or any number of anti-Constitutional acts under the name of religion.

    This High Court conservative decision means religion is less free, freedom is less free, liberty is harmed, and we all will pay the price for this a little more merging of religion with the state.

    The only hope for this nation is changing the complexion of the Court and making the Senate more liberal by reducing the number of conservatives holding elective office.
  • #737
    !
    The Religious Freedom Restorative Act was voted for by ALL Democrats and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

    Get a grip, tell Hillary to stop bad mouthing the Court, they had no chance.

    If you want your free condoms, tell Obama to pass a law saying all Insurance companies have to pay for them. He is just drawing the foul looking for dummy votes.
  • #738
    !
    @BritAustenpal Paying for your condoms has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with bigotry?

    You never think first do you?
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    Yes....good ruling...since it was for a Christian religion that you support.

    Just remember, not all business owners in America ARE Christian, so when they bring Sharia law through corporations, remember.....Good ruling.
  • #60
    !
    Yeah, because your employers 1st amendment rights should trump your own. Great ruling for the oligarchs.
  • #69
    !
    @AceLuby Hold on.....since when is buying healthcare or offering healthcare a religious freedom? And getting the government to force someone to buy insurance that covers abortions is violating the separation of church and state.
  • R Load more replies

  • #743
    !
    This freedom of religion act doesn't cover corporations. I see you haven't even read the abbreviated synopsis. Thanks for your contribution anyway.
  • #305
    !
    Yet America's health care does cover viagara because it is used for more than impotency but so are birth control pills as far as women go.

    Women also use them to regulate certain things .
  • #745
    !
    It doesn't kill a fetus after you consummate the act, and protects both partners from VD and Death much better than pills and unprotected sex.
  • #94
    !
    This is another nail in the coffin of reason and logic. A corporation is NOT an individual. As one writer said: If a corporation owned by a family who are Islamic, began instituting health care restrictions & other things in accordance to 'Sharia Law' I bet this would not have ended like this. SCOTUS is driving the final nails to destroy our country, giving more and more ground to corporations. Our politicians already openly worship corporations & demand that we worship them by allowing for us to pay them 'tithes & offerings' in the form of tax cuts, loopholes (evasion), subsidies & govt. contracts......" And I would add that some of those corporations/lobbies already OWN our lawmakers. The Supremes have just opened Pandora's box.
  • #622
    !
    @ithink
    Apparently there are at least three elements of ACA that do not align with the Muslim faith. Under a strict interpretation of the Koran, one of those elements forbids acceptance of public or private insurance. Shariah law encourages a health-sharing ministry where individuals protect and cooperate with one another against loss, damage and I assume health issues.
  • #789
    !
    @Clara007 Interesting. I am not familiar with the Muslim faith.

    If you think our lawmakers are owned by the corporations, then let's take them back. If we can't get them to work for us, then let's get rid of them.

    I like term limits. Most of what ails our elected representatives is tenure. Too comfortable, too beholden, too accustomed to playing the game. Term limits lets them go home at least for a while and live in the real world. If our elected representatives had to live with the laws they make, we'd get better laws and this mess with the ACA would not have happened.
  • R Load more replies

  • #492
    !
    I doubt that every employee of Hobby Lobby has the same beliefs. This ruling basically means that the beliefs of people with money outweighs the beliefs of poor people. If the owners of HL have such deep religious convictions, I'd like to see them obey All the rules of the bible and not just the ones they decide to follow.
  • R Load more comments...
Post