September 21, 2014

Elyria
Cloudy
60°F
test

UPDATED: Supreme Court rules employers can’t be forced to cover contraception

A demonstrator holds up a sign outside the Supreme Court in Washington Monday. The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

A demonstrator holds up a sign outside the Supreme Court in Washington Monday. The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama’s campaign for re-election. On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners, like the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores that challenged the provision.

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to emphasize that the administration can solve its problem easily. “The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it,” Kennedy said. He said that arrangement “does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requirement to offer birth control.

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision “potentially sweeping” because it minimizes the government’s interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. “And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer’s religious beliefs,” Ginsburg said.

The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what’s best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government’s supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

Nearly 50 businesses have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like those involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. Other companies object to paying for any form of birth control.

There are separate lawsuits challenging the contraception provision from religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges and charities.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

Most working women will probably see no impact from the ruling, corporate health benefits consultants expect. Publicly traded companies are unlikely to drag religion into their employee benefit plans, said Mark Holloway, director of compliance services at the Lockton Companies, an insurance broker that serves medium-sized and growing employers.

“Most employers view health insurance as a tool to attract and retain employees,” said Holloway. “Women employees want access to contraceptive coverage and most employers don’t have a problem providing that coverage. It is typically not a high-cost item.”

It is unclear how many women potentially are affected by the high court ruling. Hobby Lobby is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets.


  • mdr12372

    THis sets a very dangerous and terrifying precedent. What stops the next company from deciding that they don’t want to cover cancer treatments? Antibiotics? Well-child checkups?

    • golfingirl

      Like the VA Healthcare System?

      The ACA has given exemptions to all types of organizations, unions and others, for lots of reasons.

    • JoyceEarly

      Obamacare is a very dangerous and terrifying directive. We need to reverse it and go back to what we had.

    • reallyoldfarts

      Please name those religions that forbid treatment of cancer, antibiotics and child check-ups and I’ll name those companies who are closely held by people who follow those religions. Then again, I’ll save you the trouble. THERE ISN’T ANY!

      • Rtgh123

        Christian Scientists have been in the news numerous times for refusing to get their children medical treatment for cancer and other life threatening illnesses. By the way, it wasn’t any trouble for me to point this out to you.

        • reallyoldfarts

          Yes, their CHILDREN, not employees! Try again!

          • Katrina Doxsie

            Really? If it is there sincerely held religious belief you don’t think they’ll take that to court to deny it to their employees? Get a clue. Hobby Lobby offered the very same things they are fighting against in the past before the ACA! They even admitted it. The Koch brothers funded the bullshit. Learn something instead of spewing talking points.

          • oldruss

            Hobby Lobby has never provided the abortifacients that are the issue here. Hobby Lobby has, and still does, provide some sixteen different types of birth control for it’s employees.

    • oldruss

      You’re sounding like a hysterical Justice Ginsburg.

  • golfingirl

    This was the appropriate decision.

    People have a right to religious freedoms, and the government has no right to mandate what a business must provide to it’s employees, if it goes against their religious beliefs and conscience.

    Fact is, Hobby Lobby pays for many forms of birth control, and only excludes a couple.

    Simple solution……don’t like it, don’t work there.

    • B4CE

      Corporations are people, my friend.
      The law wasn’t forcing corporations to use birth control.
      I just read where Obama Care has contributed to the sky rocketing sales of prescribed Oral Contraceptives! You and Big Pharma should be elated! Think of your stock portfolio!

      • Sis Delish

        Sandra Fluke must be having an orgy every day!

      • golfingirl

        No, not really. All generics now, which sell for about $3.00 per month to the pharmacies. “Big Pharma” walked away from that business a long time ago.

        No money to be made there.

        As for my stock portfolio, I never invest in pharma. Conflict of interest and I always avoid anything which can even remotely be viewed as “insider trading.”

        I do thank the Fed under Obama for the increase in the market however. The “rich” got richer. The wealth gap has increased more under his administration than under any other president.

        Wasn’t this the very thing Obama despised? Wasn’t he for the poor and middle-class?

        Oh well, he can’t even be a successful socialist, despite his best efforts…..laughing.

        • Pablo Jones

          What can be created can be destroyed. With an overvalued market either the economy rebounds sharply 5+% increase for the next several years (don’t see that happening) or the market will crash.

          We haven’t seen much inflation (compared to what we should have seen with all the government printing) because all the money is being pumped into the market. The easiest way to remove the excess money is a massive market correction to wipe out the excess cash.

          Once the Fed turns off the spigot the market will crash. I wouldn’t doubt that President Obama would put action in place for this to happen towards the end of his term. His friends will cash out before hand locking in their gains. The rest of the “rich” and normal people will be on their own to lose their money. But the poor don’t invest in the market so they won’t lose. The wealth gap will narrow as the “rich” lose their money and Obama will be praised for sticking it to the rich. But his friends will be even richer and they will buy him a nice house and sell it to him real cheap.

          • golfingirl

            A smart investor will convert their holdings to cash.

            Inflation will kill the market when it hits….and it will, as we cannot keep printing money at the current rate.

            The “poor” would lose the most with inflation, since it will make it more difficult to buy essentials on a limited income.

            They made nothing in the market through investment income, and will be hurt the most with the inevitable inflationary period which is on the horizon.

        • B4CE

          WHAAAT? You mean to tell me the markets have flourished and Obama isn’t what you CONServatives say he is?
          If this is true, what are the R’s going to run on next election cycle? Probably time to unsuccessfully vote for the 52 time to repeal ObamaCare. Or launch another Benghazi investigation. ….laughing

          • golfingirl

            How about the stagnant economy and pathetic employment market.
            Declining GDP.
            The explosion of welfare entitlements
            Gasoline prices
            Food prices
            Rising healthcare costs, despite the Presidents promise to the contrary.
            Borders being flooded with children.
            Foreign policy in turmoil

            All hurting the middle-class and the poor, much more than the “wealthy.”

            Don’t even need to get into any of the multiple scandals, do we? NSA, IRS, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Bergdahl, Solyndra, VA System………on and on.

            It seems the Democrats running in November are all distancing themselves from the president. I wonder why?

          • B4CE

            You must have been watching the top of the hour on Faux News while you were typing that. Looks like the ticker on the bottom of the screen!
            I believe that between the Iraq War debacle, where we were not greeted as liberators, and the mission was not accomplished, and this Supreme Court decision which will alienate even more women, coupled with Boner’s lawsuit against the Prez( which garnered the largest fund raising day of the year for Dems after it was announced), you guys are digging yourself a huge hole.
            Couple that with pure numbers and your only hope is more voter suppression.
            But hey, maybe the numbers won’t be skewed next time.

          • Pablo Jones

            who’s votes have been suppressed?

  • Sis Delish

    All the women on the SCOTUS voted one-way?

    • B4CE

      All five men on the SCOTUS voted the same way?

      • Sis Delish

        Yep, they certainly did, even the Liberal one.

        The femme Justices should leave Emotion out of their Rulings.

        • fitzgeraldl

          You better go back & check that unless you’re calling John Roberts a liberal! Why was the sexist slur necessary?

          • Sis Delish

            Yep, he made Obamacare possible, if you recall.

            Sexist slur, please explain yourself.

            Are B4CE’ comments also sexist?

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Couldn’t careless about this decision aside from it opening pandoras box.

    Say i am a Muslim business owner and a female employee files for divorce from her husband. That violates Sharia law and i now can fire her immediately. She will have no grounds to file for unemployment either.

    Again, do not care about Hobby Lobby and how they run their business. It is the broader implication that i am concerned about.

    Will things like this happen? Time will tell. But now things like this can happen and that is scary.

  • Bill Love

    I don’t get why any employer should have to pay for anybodys birth control

    • Sis Delish

      I don’t get why any employer should have to pay for anyone’s Obama Phone or 2nd of July Fireworks in a Union-dominated town.

      • Bill Love

        I agree that’s the new American Way let everybody else pay for it

    • golfingirl

      Because women feel it is a “right.”

      Birth control is a choice, not a right!

  • golfingirl

    A great day for the Constitution.

    A private company has every right to run their business based on their religious convictions.

    When did birth control become a right? It is a personal choice. You want it, you pay for it!

    The benefits package is an important consideration when choosing a job, don’t like what they offer, look elsewhere.

  • SniperFire

    America 1

    Neo-Stalinists 0

    • golfingirl

      2 to 0. Unions lost today as well.

      They also ruled that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employee unions.

      Been a very tough court session for the Obama Administration.

      • SniperFire

        Constitution 1

        Leftists 0

  • golfingirl

    All these comments about a pill that cost $9 per month?

    Really? Guess what ladies, if you can’t cough up 9 bucks, keep your legs closed.

    This is ridiculous already!!!!

    • Pablo Jones

      No. 28 pills that cost $9. roughly 30 cents a pill.

      • golfingirl

        Equals $9 per month.

  • Joe

    Three thing politicians hide behind: The flag, the bible, and children.

  • fortheluvof

    oddly enough the decisions of modern government don’t make much sense to the individual in need-so government directed insurance programs are about who? if Obama care was truly meant to provide health insurance for the nation the Supreme court would not allow corporations to dictate health care for employees their choice would trump the CEO’s

  • Peter Aldrich

    “cancer ” seems to be the topic of talking points puts out by lib organizations. That’s what every liberal is crying about

  • Scout

    The news organization headlines seem to lead people into thinking that Hobby Lobby is against all contraception. Actually they are only against 4 out of the 20 that are provided through insurance companies. They left off the other 2 contraceptive devices from the list: keep the zipper zipped and keep the legs together.

  • oldruss

    The headline is the big lie of the day. From the White House on down, the Left has deliberately misstated the Court’s ruling, and are using the decision (as deliberately mischaracterized) to start a brush fire and raise contributions for Democrat candidates.

    The Court found that Hobby Lobby and the other appellants, all closely held corporations, could legally be exempt from providing four particular contraceptive methods to employees, THAT’s FOUR out of TWENTY, based on religious objections. No woman will be deprived of getting a contraceptive pill or device. The Court further suggested that the government (HHS) provide the employees from Hobby Lobby, who want them, with their choice from those four pills/devices, if the employees can’t pick one of the sixteen other methods that Hobby Lobby already does provide.

    • rob

      That’s a great point, however, the bigger question is to what extent is an employee bound to the employers religious beliefs?

      • oldruss

        No employer, that I know of, including Hobby Lobby, is binding any employee to the employer’s religious beliefs. To try and make that argument is no better than the “big lie of the day”.

        • rob

          In its most basic form, as its sure to be interpreted in future cases, this ruling indicates that when religion is prevalent in an employer’s beliefs, they may chose to neglect employee rights, as they are written in law, through a religion. The factor isn’t the companies discretion as to which birth control they will provide, its the ability to justify limiting rights because of religious conflict.

          • oldruss

            And when did employees get “rights” to have employer paid for birth control?

            The ACA does NOT require employers to provide birth control, including abortifacients. That was someone in the bowels of the HHS building, who wrote a regulation, not approved by Congress, which is the gravamen of this whole thing.

            That said, no one is denying women’s rights. Women who want one of the four contraceptives/abortifacients that Hobby Lobby, for religious reasons, cannot provide, can still get them from their local pharmacist, just as they have always gotten them before the ACA regulations were promulgated by HHS. In fact, the Court suggested that HHS pay for these prescriptions in lieu of forcing Hobby Lobby to do so.

  • golfingirl

    Looks like Obama has been slapped down several times by the Court in the past couple of weeks.

    Many decisions were unanimous against his ideas and policies. Even his own appointee couldn’t side with him.

    Do ya think the Executive Branch may be overstepping their bounds?

    • Katrina Doxsie

      No, I don’t. He’s made less executive orders than any President before him. What would you like him to do while congress chooses nothing?

      • Starryeyes63

        It is not the number of EO’s but what is in them He has used them to change laws ie 28+ changes to ACA, He has Changed Immigration law. And attempted gun control, with them. The House is 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government. The house has passed many bills in which the Democratic held Senate Has failed to do anything with.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    I will take your highly ignorant and blatantly racist retort as your way of stating that you have no intelligent statement to refute my opinion and as a result it has validity.

    When a woman gets canned for getting a divorce you should be just as much behind this ruling then as you are now.

  • Sis Delish

    Muslims are a Race of People? News to me.

    Recant your statement, otherwise, be ignorant.

  • Starryeyes63

    Not the same HL is not saying their employees can use them says they won’t PAY for them. Muslim employer would not pay for a divorce either. HL is NOT firing anyone.

  • SniperFire

    The basis of our system of government is founded in the fact we all have inalienable rights specifically granted by the ‘Creator’ – putting said rights beyond the vagrancies and whims of governments to violate them.

    Do any other God-granted inalienable rights bother you as well?

  • stop ur whining part deux

    definition of race: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.

    Muslims easily fall into that definition.

    Again, the supreme court set a scary precedent today, my argument could easily be presented and could easily win.

    So remeber this ruling when religious groups all over the US start using this.

  • Sis Delish

    Where did you get that definition, Al Jazeera?

    Are you going to Recant, or remain eminently ignorant?

    Muslims are NOT a Race. Go Hire one, see if you have to check a box on the employment form for the same.

  • Pablo Jones

    I like that definition. That means the majority of the people in this country are in the Christian race. No more whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, ect. We now have Christians, Muslims, Jews, and the undecided.

    A Persian person is also a Muslim, but if you call them Arab they will be highly offended.

  • SniperFire

    Nonsense. That would be like saying all Christians are Chinese since China will soon become the most Christian nation on earth.

  • Katrina Doxsie

    I agree with your original point, but Muslims are NOT a race. It’s a religion. HUGE difference.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    That was Webster’s dictionary. The law is all about interpretation and the argument that you can make. In this case it is a very easy argument to make.

  • Rtgh123

    You are so ignorant. Considering you don’t have a job or anything meaningful going on in your life, as shown by how many hours per day you spend on this website, you’d think that JUST ONCE you could make an intelligent comment.

    Take a break from your GED studies and learn the difference between Islam and Muslim.

  • Sis Delish

    B.S. Webster’s would never consider a “belief system” as a Race of People.

    Recant, you ignorant rabble-rouser!

  • stop ur whining part deux

    It is irrelevant. It is the fact that the Supreme Court just ruled in favor of religious rights. It opened the door to all sorts of debates on that subject.

  • golfingirl

    Excellent point.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    That is straight out of Webster’s. I was proving a point to sis delish. The point is that in regards to the law it is the interpretation of the law. IN this case it is reasonable to suggest that a Muslim business owner could in fact terminate an employee for divorcing their husband.

    It, according to the supreme court violates the first amendment in the same way they ruled today.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Again, quick to name call and spout nonsense because you do not like the facts.

    Again, i have posted nothing that is not factual in defense of my opinion.

  • Sis Delish

    Based on your damaged reasoning, what Race is a Democrat?

    No matter how you answer, you remain an Ignorant Race-Bating Rabble Rouser who must Recant your original statement.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Nothing intelligent to retort still i see. Still resorting to name calling. Someone says something you do not like and they are a “doodie head” right?

    How sad and truly pathetic.

    Lets just forget the fact that i am 100% correct. Again the law is interpretation and the case you can make of your interpretation.

    I have easily displayed that the courts broad ruling can lead to serious implications.

  • Pablo Jones

    I disagree with your example I don’t think it is along the same lines. The closest example I can think of is the following.

    The government says all grocery stores that sell meat have to at least carry Chicken, beef, and pork.

    The muslim and jewish stores say forcing us to sell pork violates are religious ban on that product and will contaminate the rest of our meat.

    If you are against this ruling you are saying the government should be able to force them to sell pork.

    If you are for this ruling you are saying the stores should be able to not sell the pork because it violates their religion.

    Or I guess there is a third where you feel it isn’t the governments right to tell you what to sell.

  • golfingirl

    The Supreme Court just upheld the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Let the debates begin.

  • Pablo Jones

    Another thought on this. Would you want to be part of a business is that different from you? Or would you want to buy pork from a place that was forced to sell it? It is just a setup for an unhappy relationship.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Tried to reply to one of your posts but for some reason it is awaiting moderation. Not sure why.

    A man should not be fired as they are permitted under Muslim law to divorce their wife. Woman are not. SO she gets canned.

    My business, my religion, my religious rights being suppressed. It is exceedingly easy to make the case. A

    Again good for the goose, good for the gander. That is the problem with this ruling. It opened up a can of worms.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    The example does not have to be the same. It does not even have to be similar. All that i need to prove is that my employees are violating the law of my God.

    Thanks to this ruling if I can prove that as a business owner my religious rights are being violated the law is now on my side.

  • Starryeyes63

    Well I have never bought ham in a Jewish deli and I have never complained about it.

  • Pablo Jones

    My comment got put on hold lets try it again.

    Divorce is not a protected civil right. If an employee is an “at will” employee or signed a contract that prohibits divorce, either explicitly or implicitly, then they can be fired for getting a divorce. There have been several examples of this happening already.

    However if they only fire women who get divorced and not men then it would be treating her differently since she is a woman. In that case she would have a legitimate case.

    If she were a different religion then she might also have a case where she could say divorce is ok with my religion and you are violating that. And if they were the same religion it would still fall back on discriminating because of gender(of course she would probably go along with it without fighting back).

    I don’t see the similarity between your example in the case.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    It will be much more then debate. I am all for freedom, but that is freedom for all and not just Christians. The minute Mulsim business owners start talking about their rights, or Mormons, or how about the made up religions that nuts think up in their basements.

    All religions, all protected.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    First off we put government laws ahead of God Granted rights already. The Muslim world commends that theft be dealt with harshly by cutting off hands. That is a “god given right to Muslim Americans but last i checked we do not chop hands off. First amendment, freedom of religion and we step on that all the time.

    Secondly, remember that Christianity is not the only show in town. If as a Muslim business owner I choose to terminate a female employee bc she filed for divorce I am not permitted to do so. I am also permitted to discriminate against hiring any female who has divorced their husband.

  • SniperFire

    ‘First off we put government laws ahead of God Granted rights already. ‘

    You deflect. I asked you if there were any other God-granted inalienable rights you would like to reject?

    Or perhaps you don’t care to admit that America is a defacto theocracy?

  • Pablo Jones

    I see where you are trying to go, but I still don’t think there is a connection.

    Firing someone based on your religion is you taking an action on an employee. Not providing a certain drug coverage is a lack of action. No employee rights are being violated by not having that drug.

    Rights go as far as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. If a business owner belongs to a religion that condones rape that doesn’t mean he can go around and rape his employees.

    As a business owner you are free to express your religious views however you want. But it stops when you start to tell your employees they have to be your religion to work at your place.

    If you have a muslim store and you want women to be covered you can have your non-muslim female worker cover up to conform to your beliefs but you can’t force her to change her beliefs.

    Is there an example that you can come up with where you would like to impose your religious views that don’t infringe on the rights of others that you think would be bad?

  • SniperFire

    ‘All that i need to prove is that my employees are violating the law of my God.’

    Dead wrong. You really don’t have much of a grasp on the subject.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    I did not deflect in the slightest. I acknowledge your point and pointed to the fact that we already do have laws that trump inalienable rights endowed by our creator.

    So you are perfectly ok with a Muslim business owner firing a woman for getting a divorce right?

  • SniperFire

    Again, you haven’t the slightest grasp on how rights work. So yes, they are not absolute and we do in fact have laws against yelling FIRE in a movie theatre. That would be using your rights to injure others.

    Not forcing an employer to PAY for someone elses free services based on religious grounds is not the same.

  • Pablo Jones

    This ruling would not allow a woman and not a man to be fired for getting a divorce. That would violate her civil rights and she can sue and would most likely win.

    I am perfectly fine in a business owner wants to fire employees for getting divorced, if they applied it equally to men and women.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    By firing a woman who got divorced how am i infringing on her rights? Does she have a right to be in my employment?

    In Ohio you and i both know that you can get fired for nothing. The owner can just not like you and fire you for it. Now that employer will most likely have to pay unemployment but that is besides the point.

    “As a business owner you are free to express your religious views however
    you want. But it stops when you start to tell your employees they have
    to be your religion to work at your place.”

    I would not be insisting that the woman be a muslim, i am insisiting that she respects my religious beliefs. In this case Hobby Lobby is doing the same thing. They are not making their employees be christian, they are asking that they simply respect the religous laws that Hobby Lobby’s owners belong too. If you do not like their rules, work elsewhere, same applies for a Muslim owned business.

    I understand that this is just a theoretical possibility and that it most likely will not occur. But now, it can be something that is heard at our highest level of law and with the supreme courts ruling they, in the future, may have no choice but to rule in my favor.

    Imagine the uproar if something like this were to happen.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    That is Webster’s definition. That is the double edge sword that is the law. It is all about interpretation of the law and making an argument for and against. I easily have made a case that according to this supreme courts ruling more than holds water.

  • SniperFire

    ‘I have easily displayed that the courts broad ruling can lead to serious implications.’

    LOL. You were blasted out oft the water by several people with your silly, uninformed contention.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    How would it violate her civil rights? But they need not apply it to men as it is permitted for a man to divorce his wife and not vice versus. Firing the woman is now thanks to the supreme court my first amendment right. That trumps all.

    That is my problem with this ruling.

  • SniperFire

    ‘. I easily have made a case’

    LOL. Not even close.

  • golfingirl

    Who’s freedom? The employer, or the employees? Both are entitled to their religious freedoms, but why should one be forced to pay for the others?

    By paying for certain types of contraception, the owners feel they are acting against their religious principles, through participating in the destruction of an embryo.

    Hobby Lobby never said the employees cannot take them, and are not tested to determine if they have. They simply feel participating in the process through paying for the drug is a sin.

    Really? Oral contraceptive cost $9 per month. Free at any clinic in the country.

    Again, if one does not like it, find another job. They are open and candid about their position and it is an employees choice to work there, or not.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    I do not grasp how it works? Wow, you have totally missed the point as usual sniper.

  • SniperFire

    ‘By firing a woman who got divorced how am i infringing on her rights? Does she have a right to be in my employment?

    In Ohio you and i both know that you can get fired for nothing’

    You can be fired for nothing. You cannot be fired for getting a divorce. You really are stuggling, dude.

    LOL

  • Pablo Jones

    Firing for a divorce has nothing to do with it. You can legal fire people if they get a divorce, if your business is that concerned about it.

    She doesn’t have a right to be your employee. But you can not fire her for being a woman. It is her right not to be fired because of her gender. Regardless of your religious right you can not fire her because she is a woman who got a divorce.

    If company policies are applied equally across all protected classes then firing for a divorce is legal. Once you narrow it down to certain classes it becomes illegal.

  • Starryeyes63

    NO ONE even Hobby Lobby is saying woman can not take BC or abortion pills. THEY are SAYING the should NOT have to PAY FOR IT> BIG DIFFERENCE>

  • Pablo Jones

    The civil rights act title 7.

    “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin; or

    (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.”

    Divorce isn’t a protected class but gender is. If they apply divorce firings equally her rights aren’t being violated but if they only fire her for getting a divorce and she is a woman then they violated her rights because of her gender.

    Your rights don’t trump other’s rights.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Did you not read? I do not care about Hobby Lobby. Never did. My point is that this now applies to ALL religions. It is the broad interpetation of this rulling i have issue with.

    Again I can easily make the case that a Muslim business owner can fire a woman for getting a divorce. If people do not like the way i run my business, do not work for me.

  • SniperFire

    ‘ why should one be forced to pay for the others?’

    Bingo. This is where he is not getting it. In his mind, peeps are just entitled to receive things they want from others. He thinks of entitlement as a right, and not paying for his free stuff is violating his right to the entitlement.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Your point is still mute. It is the fact that now ANY religious business owner can hide behind their religions laws in order to trump written law.

    There are a lot of religions in this country, all with different beliefs and laws. We now have to accept all of them and expect all to be ABLE to trump our nations laws.

    I’m sorry but i have a huge problem with that and I imagine if a scenario like i have eluded too took place you would too. If a Muslim business owner does something like that the uproar will be tremendous and the supreme court has boxed themselves into a corner. a dim wit attorney can easily connect the dots.

  • SniperFire

    ‘I do not grasp how it works? ‘

    Correct. Your lamer Muslin example has case law examples throughout American history which belie it where others – specifically, Christians – .have been prevented from forcing their beliefs on others in the way you prescribe. Give up.

  • SniperFire

    ‘My point is that this now applies to ALL religions. ‘

    It always has. The Supremes defended it.

  • golfingirl

    Missing the point completely.

    Hobby Lobby never mandated their religious beliefs on their employees. if they want to take birth control, they are free to do so.

    They simply state that by paying for it, they are violating their own religious principles, as this makes them a participant, in facilitating abortion.

    Remember, they still pay for the overwhelming majority of contraceptives, but draw the line at those they consider to cause an “abortion.”

    Since when does anyone have to pay for something they don’t believe in? Unless of course it is their government mandates and taxes.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Ohio is an “at will” state. That means : which means an employee may be fired at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all provided it is not illegal.

    In this case i am making a case that firing a woman for violating my religions laws is not illegal.

    Fact is Sniper i am correct in our states laws and have made a extremely valid point in the flaw of the courts ruling. Even a novice attorney would agree.

  • Pablo Jones

    Divorce is not a protected class and you can fire people for getting a divorce as long as it has been a stated policy and applied equally.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Good thing you are not a lawyer sir. No have mommy make some din din and leave the debates to the adults.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    Please explain how i have been “blasted out of the water”. Sorry little guy but as usual you are wrong.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    “Since when does anyone have to pay for something they don’t believe in?” Exactly and since a woman in my business divorced her husband and violated my Muslim Laws why should i pay a woman i do not believe in?

    I get your point, i do, 100% loud and clear. The problem is that you have not viewed this ruling in broad terms as the law usually is applied. We have now opened the box to all sorts of objections based on religious beliefs.

    That is a problem.

  • SniperFire

    ‘ provided it is not illegal.’

    Right. And firing somebody for a change in marital status is unjust cause, and is therefore, illegal. dope. LOL

  • stop ur whining part deux

    You do not get it. When applied with horse blinders yes, this ruling is fine. Apply it to birth control and hobby lobby and it is not big deal.

    Apply this ruling broadly to cover all religious beliefs and all of a sudden we have a tremendous issue. That sniper is what you do not understand about the law.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    That is the point. NOW it is legal. The supreme court just ruled that my religious freedom trumps her right to be in my employment.

    Get a clue.

  • SniperFire

    ‘Apply this ruling broadly to cover all religious beliefs and all of a sudden we have a tremendous issue.’

    LOL. Ummmmmmm. No.

    All they did was uphold the Constitution.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    It is not giving up when you won the argument hahaha.

  • SniperFire

    ‘It is not giving up when you won the argument hahaha.’

    Again, there are countless case law examples of where Christians have lost attempting to do what you claim will happen in your extremely ignorant Muslim example.

    Now you are just looking foolish.

  • SniperFire

    ‘That is the point. NOW it is legal. ‘

    Gawd, are you stupid. The Supremes said peeps could not be forced to pay for something. Firing someone without just cause is completely different.

  • Pablo Jones

    It is not legal. No where in this ruling did they say religious rights trump other rights.

  • golfingirl

    We simply have to disagree on this one. That’s ok. Glad we can do it in a civil manner.

    The Constitution, regardless of how it is interpreted, always opens the door to additional challenges. This does not mean it should ever be interpreted for the sake of taking the “easy” road.

    Either way this decision went, it would be viewed as a violation of one party’s religious rights; either the employer, or the employee, in this case.

    My guess is if a Muslim woman was fired because of a divorce, no women’s organization would even step in to support her. Contraception is a highly political issue for women, and they really could care less about a Muslim worker being fired.

  • rob

    I understand your point. When the supreme court comes to a ruling, it’s used as a baseline in its simplest format, for future cases. The baseline of this decision is not birth control, it’s an Employer’s religious rights v. Employee rights. They cannot limit the religious aspect only in regard to birth control, nor can they limit it to Christianity. To be clear, this became an employee right when the affordable health care act was instituted. Now that this ruling has been made, your rights as an employee can be limited by whatever religious transcripts your employer decides to openly embrace. The only protection in place now is the free market and wether these religious freedoms coincide with the companies agenda and demographic.

  • Pablo Jones

    I am still waiting for an example where religion would trump the law but not violate anyone else’s rights.

  • stop ur whining part deux

    But the problem is the Supreme Court just decided the opposite. That is my point. They created the precedent for any corporation to hide behind the vail of religion.

    How about a Jehovah’s Witness has a business and they are very much against vaccines and antibiotics. Who is to stop them from cutting out paying for those? That is the exact same as Hobby Lobby. They are refusing to pay for birth control. So it is OK then for Them not to pay i assume, I mean it has to be now.

  • Pablo Jones

    It is perfectly legal for them not to offer any healthcare if they so choose. The stupid issue that brought all this up is if they are going to offer insurance it has to cover what the government says.

    Another solution is to add on the contraceptive as a rider to the insurance policy and let the employee pay for it, or if you really don’t want them to have it make the rider cost $100.

    If a person is so concerned about their health benefits they can review that before deciding to work for a company.

    Again health insurance is not a right. Please give me an example that you have a probleme with where religious rights trump the law but doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights

  • stop ur whining part deux

    “Please give me an example that you have a problem with where religious rights trump the law but doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights” not sure what you are fishing for. I believe you are looking to the answer to my quote

    “First off we put government laws ahead of God Granted rights already.”

    If that is the case.

    1) accurately quote an individual in the future, it prevents confusion.

    2) The Muslim religion calls for a thief to have their hands removed. That is the law of God but we do not adhere to it, at least in the United States.

    All religions have “laws” from their God and all have laws that man ignores for one reason or another.

  • Pablo Jones

    Yes, but that religious issue (cutting off a hand) would violate another individual, especially if they were of a different religion. Just like a human sacrifice would not be allowed because it would violate the sacrificee’s rights (if they are unwilling).

    Again a persons rights go so far as they don’t violate another persons rights.

    I wasn’t referencing any quote from you. I am just looking for an example that you would have an issue with that conforms to this ruling where religious rights will trump laws but doesn’t violate someones rights?

  • Sis Delish

    Why don’t you save the entire World some precious time and introduce all of us to your brilliance?

    Can you tell me which one is a Race of humans? Muslims or followers of Islamic Law?