SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[alfred russel]

So what if it is a small number of businesses? Surely you aren't suggesting that the law shouldn't apply equally to everybody?

The law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Maybe it should, but I'm not going to freak out when an instance comes up where it doesn't.

[alfred russel]

the SCOTUS seems to set the responsability for finding out the religious views of the employer on the employee before getting hired. What if the employer has a conversion experience after hiring the employee?

What happens when an employee demands that part of his or her employment contract includes a clause preventing the employer from converting religion?

The more I think about it the more FUBAR it gets. Not for the religious reasons you guys would normally apply to me, but I think about pacifists, vegans, or niggardly fuckers who have a religious zeal for not wanting to pay for health care,

Worst of all it also discriminates against non-closely held corporations.

Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.

If Hobby Lobby was run by someone with religious objections to medical care, and thus they didn't offer health insurance at all, it wouldn't bother me to work there. When they made the offer I would evaluate it with the knowledge that I would need to get my own insurance privately.

That isn't an advantage for Hobby Lobby--tax and other incentives make it cheaper for them to offer insurance rather than an employee pay for it privately. Hence basically all employers offered their higher value employees health insurance long before Obamacare.

[Malthus]

What happens to the employees if the corp elects to pay fines instead? Does the government pay for their insurance, or are they just shit out of luck?

Seems a bizzare system,

Shit out of luck.

Not sure why it is a bizarre system. People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.

Obamacare reformed the system by encouraging employers to offer high quality insurance to employees, improving options in the private market, and augmenting government programs for the poor and old.

It is a bizzare system because presumably the intent is to have people insured. It would make more sense if the fines went towards actually providing the insurance that the employer should have provided in the first place (plus a little extra, just for a kick in the nuts for non-compliance).

[Maximus]

People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.

And this is a bizarre system. In what way does it make sense to tie health care coverage to employment?

[alfred russel]

People have long been responsible to get their own insurance. People with decent jobs typically get it through their employer. Those that don't either get it privately, through government programs (if poor or old), or they go without.

And this is a bizarre system. In what way does it make sense to tie health care coverage to employment?

It makes sense because it builds off the pre existing system. I don't think anyone would build the system this way from scratch, but a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.

[Maximus]

a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.

Basic coverage or supplementary?

[alfred russel]

a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.

Basic coverage or supplementary?

Supplementary, though in many if not most cases "basic" is quite substandard.

[Razgovory]

I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way.  Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.

You just need to have your buttons pushed.  Read a bunch of articles from Breitbart.

Okay.


It didn't work.

I don't know what else to do.  There's not a lot of work done in psychology for curing sanity.

[CountDeMoney]

Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.

Most Americans are going to accept the best job they can get. Fucking dumbass.

[merithyn]

Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.

If Hobby Lobby was run by someone with religious objections to medical care, and thus they didn't offer health insurance at all, it wouldn't bother me to work there. When they made the offer I would evaluate it with the knowledge that I would need to get my own insurance privately.

That isn't an advantage for Hobby Lobby--tax and other incentives make it cheaper for them to offer insurance rather than an employee pay for it privately. Hence basically all employers offered their higher value employees health insurance long before Obamacare.

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.

[merithyn]

a lot of countries have similar employer / health insurance links.

Basic coverage or supplementary?

Supplementary, though in many if not most cases "basic" is quite substandard.

Most first world nations offer pretty good basic health care with companies upping the ante through supplementary plans. At the very least, the basic healthcare covers things like well-checks, emergency care, and birth control.

[Admiral Yi]

Anyone know if guys can buy rubbers using their insurance?

[alfred russel]

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.

That seems stupid.

[The Brain]

So, Max? How does Canada sound now?

In a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against women's right's groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.

In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.

The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The government defended the provision as an essential part of health care coverage for women.

Here's what you need to know about the decision:

What did the court rule?

The court rejected the government's claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga ... protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies," Alito wrote.

Alito says the court has "little trouble" concluding that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage."

What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?

"The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."

"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies," Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Alito said the opinion was limited to closely held corporations: "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. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. "

What did Ginsburg's dissent say?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.

In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :"Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of "Me, too" questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices."

Ginsburg wrote , "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations' employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure"

She took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.

What did Alito say about freedom of religion?

Alito: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."

Does the law apply to corporations?

Alito: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies."

What are liberals and allied groups saying?

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn. Many of the basic workplace standards and protections that we take for granted as Americans are thanks to the efforts of organized labor. These benefits have been sought and achieved on behalf of all workers, regardless of whether or not they've paid union dues. I fear that this decision will seriously diminish the capacity of labor unions to represent the best interests of American workers who have fought for and won significant progress on wages, benefits and working conditions, and jeopardize the progress that has been made over the last century."

What are conservatives and allied groups saying?

"This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our founding," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must not take.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, on Hobby Lobby: "The Supreme Court today upheld the liberty at the heart of the Constitution: the right to religious freedom. The Court rightly concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious business owners just as much as it protects their employees. RFRA guarantees not just a right of religious worship or speech, but religious exercise. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious freedoms that literally centuries of Americans have enjoyed from even before the founding of this country.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins learned of the ruling this morning as he met with the Hahn family, founders and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties: "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.

What are prominent GOP members of Congress saying?

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.: "Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is terrific news -- but now is no time to rest. We cannot rely on the courts alone to defend our religious liberty"

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, both individually and collectively. The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some, and even then only in private, defies our nation's traditions, our laws, and our Constitution. And as the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn: "I am extremely encouraged by today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the Green family of Hobby Lobby.

What do contraceptives have to do with destroying embryos? Also, who needs insurance to buy contraceptives?

[derspiess]

Anyone know if guys can buy rubbers using their insurance?

No.  Guys should buy those with their own money if they wanna get their jollies by having sex.  Besides, Viagra is covered.  BE HAPPY WITH THAT.