Supreme Court Sides With Hobby Lobby MERGE

[16strong]

Well Hobby Lobby, you have just ensured that I will never shop at your establishment again. The Joann's craft store in my town is literally in the same shopping center (on the same side of it, too), and there is a Michael's right down the road from the shopping center. I have absolutely no reason to set foot in your sexist, ass-backwards store again. Bye.

[madpsych78]

So, dumb question...

It was stated earlier that the ACA requires employers with at least 50 employees to provide health insurance to them. Does "provide" mean "offer" or "force them to take it?" I buy my insurance privately through Humana, but am contemplating switching to Cigna through the ACA so that I can lower my premiums by half AND my deductible to a tenth of the amount I have. I just need to research more closely the coverage that Cigna provides.

Because if Hobby Lobby is mandated to provide health insurance, meaning that their employees must take it, then of course this is wrong and akin to HL telling employees how to spend their paychecks. If it is the former (where it is just "offering"), then all discrimination against women aside (which is wrong, but not my point), the fact is that we pay for auto and health insurance directly from those insurance companies. We don't purchase them through our employers. Why do we obtain health insurance through our employers?

[apple1]

Why do we obtain health insurance through our employers?

Historically, in the US, employers began offering health insurance as part of a benefits package that allowed employers to negotiate for and attract employees, as opposed to losing their preferred potential employees to their competition.

Additionally, prior to the ACA, pre-existing conditions (which everyone eventually has at least one, if not more) made it nearly impossible to purchase health insurance independently at a cost that one could afford to pay and which did not exclude everything related to the "pre-existing" condition.

The ACA is changing things - gradually. But it may or may not (depending on several variables) still be the best coverage for less money to obtain health insurance through one's employer's group plan.

The ACA does not force you to participate in your employer's plan, but it does require employers with more than 50 employees (IIRC) to offer it.

[apple1]

In 10 or 15 years, we may look back on this day and celebrate it as our first step toward the progressive healthcare system the rest of the world has already figured out.

I think I disagree. What if this decision is interpreted more widely, not limited to healthcare, but interpreted that employers can impose their own corporate religious persuasions on all kinds of other topics?

The optimist in me wants to think that this decision will be challenged in new ways and eventually shot down.

I'm a menopausal Grandma, far past the need for BC for myself. But I have daughters and a granddaughter, and I NEVER thought they would be facing something like this.

[lilwriter85]

This came up on my FB feed awhile ago.

[LeopardLady]

Not to take away from all the horribleness that this ruling is going to kick up, but Hobby Lobby was actually not asking not to cover any birth control. Instead they were only against IUDs and Plan B which they claim prevent implantation and are therefore abortificants.

[chaotic life]

Alito spelled out that the contraceptive mandate is valid and stands. But under RFRA, for profit corporations have religious freedom. So, whatever system HHS has established to cover contraceptive for employees of non profits with religious objections can be used for for profits as well. The texpayers will cover it. They argue that this will not open the door to other claims of other things because 1. There is no other claims before them and 2. There is not an established alternative to cover other things that might be religiously objectionable. I think Ginsberg is right and they extended rights of corporations and this will come up again. However, I also thing HL's involvement in this case was to try to tear down ACA and while they got corporate welfare they did not succeed in taking down the ACA, so I think everyone lost.

I haven't shopped HL in six years since I found out about their Gothard connections.

[Savoring Samsara]

Okay, a few responses to various questions and topics I have seen on this thread.

1) A closely held corporation is a corporation in which at least 50% of the stock is owned by 5 or fewer individuals. Closely held corporations employ 52% of the US workforce.

2) Hobby Lobby has specifically won the right to deny coverage for 2 brands of the morning after pill and 2 types of IUD (I'm betting Mirena and Paragard). Hormonal birth control pills are not impacted yet by this ruling as Hobby Lobby covers them - for now. As we all know, there are many fundies oh also erroneously believe that HBC is an abortifacient, which opens the door for them to deny coverage under this law. But nobody is doing that yet to my knowledge.

3) Whole Foods is a fairly progressive company that treats its employees okay, but its CEO is a libertarian nut job.

4) Until you have swallowed your pride every day to work a job that went against your deepest held principles because it was the only way to keep your family clothed and fed, don't talk to me about how easy it is to switch jobs if you don't like how this ruling would affect you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts or their own laws.

[Coconut Flan]

I agree that their intention was to attack the ACA more than birth control so they succeeded only in making things worse overall.

I have never been in a Hobby Lobby and plan to keep that record intact.

[chaotic life]

The three corporations in question won the right to not carry those four options, which must instead be covered by HHS at no cost to those employees now. However, they acknowledged that any corporation that can prove a sincerely held religious objection can extend it to any part or all if the contraceptive mandate now.

[Mama Mia]

I know Apple is openly pro-equality, and was a bit presence at Pride last weekend.

I thought Whole Foods was, but a friend who works there has been making me doubt that.

It's a lot of picking and choosing and ranking of causes though. Apple is great about being pro- equality, but they are absolutely evil regarding some of their labor practices in China.

I think it's a sad state of the world when a company is progressive just by not letting people wave guns around in their restaurant while families are trying to eat :pink-shock:

The Hobby Lobby ruling I think really points out why access to health care being based on employment is stupid. Employees will, fortunately, be able to get their birth control covered by the government if their covered employer refuses due to religious beliefs.

But the really big issue from this ruling isn't religion, or sexism --- it's the validation of corporations being people. And not just people, but people who count more than other real, actual people. IMHO that's the result of the ruling EVERYONE should be terrified of. Conservatives just as much as liberals and men as much as women, and the deeply devout fundamentalists as much as an atheist.

[doggie]

This ruling hurts everyone it makes corporations into people. It makes one Christian able to force their faith on other Christians (polls show most Christians were against hobby lobby ) it makes the supreme court look like morons gives corporations the ability to pick and choose what laws to obey. Only hobby lobby and a few fundies benefit from it

[scc12]

I bet the Duggars,Smuggar,and the rest of their ilk are just eating this shit up.

I agree,we need to fight back.

Birth control should not be up as an issue.It is a basic woman's healthcare right.

Down with Hobby Lobby.I haven't ever shopped there,but I sure as heck won't now.

[Rebelwife]

This ruling hurts everyone it makes corporations into people. It makes one Christian able to force their faith on other Christians (polls show most Christians were against hobby lobby ) it makes the supreme court look like morons gives corporations the ability to pick and choose what laws to obey. Only hobby lobby and a few fundies benefit from it

This, to me, is the scariest part of it all. Now corporations are people when it comes to free speech (Hello, Citizens United) and can make unlimited campaign contributions and when it comes to religious protections. When it comes down to a contest between an individual's right and a corporation's rights, who do you think is going to win?

[Rebelwife]

Not to take away from all the horribleness that this ruling is going to kick up, but Hobby Lobby was actually not asking not to cover any birth control. Instead they were only against IUDs and Plan B which they claim prevent implantation and are therefore abortificants.

Right, but plenty of women use IUD's for purposes other than birth control. My husband had already had a vasectomy when I looked into getting the Mirena IUD to help with bleeding issues I was having. I ended up not being a good candidate for various reasons and subsequently got a hysterectomy, but I know lots of people who have used it for that.

Plus, it's just BAD SCIENCE! :angry-banghead:

[slickcat79]

I know I will regret this but...

I worked for a Catholic hospital system and they did not cover birth control.

Is it all birth control or just the emergency morning after pill? This morning I heard it was the morning after pill.

Don't work for Hobby Lobby if you don't like their policies. I would be like a fundie going to work at Hooters then complaining about the dress code.

An employer does not have to provide health care coverage at all. It is a BENEFIT not a requirement. The alternative would be for them not to have any employee covered.

Last thing then you can start throwing tomatoes at me. I am on an ACA health plan. (My dh hasn't worked in over three years. I haven't worked in a year and a half) I found out this week that it will not cover gastric by pass surgery. I have obese, I have high blood pressure, high blood sugar, cholesterol and anxiety problems. I NEED this surgery I defiantly do not have the $12,000 to pay for it. Am I suppose to sue the government because I feel it is my right to have this surgery that will make me healthier? Do I suck it up until I find a job? but I can't find a job because I am fat and no one will hire me. it is a vicious cycle. I know it's not the same thing as birth control.

Any insurance that is paid for my your company is a benefit. If I went to work for any religious company I would expect that some of those beliefs would manifest itself into the work place.

You may now throw rotten fruits and vegetables....(if anyone has some squash though I'm jonseing for some fried squash) :)

1. An employer the size of HL does have to provide health care coverage for its employers under the ACA. It is part of an employee's compensation. Typically employees give up things like higher wages and other benefits in order to have their health care covered because the cost to employers can be substantial. I think this is a fucked up system because employers do not need to be involved in health care coverage at all, but this is what we've got to work with at the moment.

2. The idea that you can't get a job just because you are obese is laughable. I am also obese and have HBP, and I have a great job. Obese people are employed in many different positions in many fields. Companies are not allowed to discriminate against you for a medical condition.

3. You support a company who will deny medical care coverage based on their purported religious beliefs and fake science. This company will not cover a $500 mirena IUD, but you think the same (or a comparable) company would give you $12K for gastric bypass? Buy a fucking clue. This decision sets a precedent that would also allow companies to deny you the medical care you need because they decide that you shouldn't be rewarded for "gluttony" :roll:

4. Hey, if you don't like your coverage, maybe you should take your own advice and get another job. We'll pray for you!

[scc12]

I think the bottom line is about money,and they don't want to pay for *certain plan B's or *certain IUD's.why not ALL plan B's and iud's?

the choosiness is very telling.

[karen77]

http://www.people.com/article/ruth-bade ... lobby-song

[salex]

I beleive that the corporations, including Hobby Lobby, are using this in part to get out from under providing health care as an employee benefit. Whether the Greens recognize it or not, they are moving us closer to single payer.

However, I believe they and the Becket Fund (becketfund.org/) the political activist group where they got their attornies, are also happy to try to get rid of those annoying laws assuring equality by using religion as an reason not to follow laws. While they toss in a few non Christian cases from time to time, I am not convinced yet that the Becket Fund is not the higher level legal arm of the Christian Taliban... sort of the more polished brothers of Jey Sekulow's American Center for Law and Justice (aclj.org/)

[doggie]

this is a pretty good article I think.

In response to today’s Supreme Court decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed the the craft store giant and other “closely-held corporations†to be granted religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraception mandate, political and religious conservatives are framing the case as a “win†for religious liberty. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, released a statement celebrating the ruling and saying, “The central issue of this case was whether the federal government can coerce Americans to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.†Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) echoed this sentiment in his own statement, saying, “the Court has made it clear today that the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom in this case went too far.†Meanwhile, Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted, “#HobbyLobby wins. This is a great day for religious liberty. Government is not lord of the conscience.â€

But while conservatives would have the American public believe that protecting Hobby Lobby is about protecting all religious people, the reality is that today’s ruling actually hurts people of faith. In fact, a Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey conducted in early June found that a substantial majority of almost every major U.S. Christian group support the idea that publicly-held corporations and privately-owned corporations should be required to provide employees with healthcare plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. This is likely why so many progressive Christian leaders have vocally opposed Hobby Lobby in the press, why Americans United for the Separation of Church and State submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court opposing Hobby Lobby on behalf of nearly 30 religious organizations, and why both the Jewish Social Policy Action Network and the American Jewish Committee submitted their own amicus briefs decrying the corporation’s position.

And while white evangelicals were an outlier in the PRRI poll — only 40 percent of evangelical respondents supported the ACA’s contraception mandate for privately-owned corporations — a sizable cadre of conservative Christians have publicly articulated nuanced, faith-based opposition to the case in recent months, drawing attention to the fact that Hobby Lobby only speaks for a small minority of people of faith in America. David Gushee, an evangelical Christian professor of Christian Ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University, offered an extensive treatment of the case in the Associated Baptist Press in April. He examined the issue from the perspective of a Christian theologian, noting that any attempt to broaden the legal status of businesses to include religious exemptions — however well-intentioned — is inconsistent, dangerous, and unfair to other religious Americans.

“One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability,†he writes. “Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.“

In addition to fearing the social implications of a pro-Hobby Lobby ruling, other evangelical Christians take umbrage with the theological premise undergirding their case — namely, that opposing the ACA mandate is somehow an extension of a pro-life position. Richard Cizik, former Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of evangelicals, wrote in the Huffington Post this weekend that evangelicals who support Hobby Lobby “are not actually being pro-religious freedom or pro-life.†Similarly, Julia K. Stronks, evangelical Christian and political science professor at Whitworth University, teamed up with Jeffrey F. Peipert, a Jewish family-planning physician, to pen an op-ed for Roll Call earlier this month in which they argue that granting Hobby Lobby religious exemption will actually lead to more abortions. They write:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/30/3453598/no-a-win-for-hobby-lobby-is-not-a-win-for-religion/

[BeaSnarky]

1. An employer the size of HL does have to provide health care coverage for its employers under the ACA. It is part of an employee's compensation. Typically employees give up things like higher wages and other benefits in order to have their health care covered because the cost to employers can be substantial. I think this is a fucked up system because employers do not need to be involved in health care coverage at all, but this is what we've got to work with at the moment.

2. The idea that you can't get a job just because you are obese is laughable. I am also obese and have HBP, and I have a great job. Obese people are employed in many different positions in many fields. Companies are not allowed to discriminate against you for a medical condition.

3. You support a company who will deny medical care coverage based on their purported religious beliefs and fake science. This company will not cover a $500 mirena IUD, but you think the same (or a comparable) company would give you $12K for gastric bypass? Buy a fucking clue. This decision sets a precedent that would also allow companies to deny you the medical care you need because they decide that you shouldn't be rewarded for "gluttony" :roll:

4. Hey, if you don't like your coverage, maybe you should take your own advice and get another job. We'll pray for you!

Indeed. My insurance coverage (and I work for a HUGE bank) is not a benefit. It is not provided for free. I have to pay for my insurance. The benefit is that it is offered at a discount price. It is part of my compensation - in that if I elect not to choose health care benefits, my pay would go up.

And as for the obese non-sense, I was obese my entire life. I manage to land a job every time. Good jobs at that. In fact, I had gastric bypass surgery. The reason many won't pay for it is because it is still (after 30 years) considered "experimental" surgery. My surgery, by the way, was covered by my insurance because my company thought I'd be more productive alive, but I had to dance the dance of a thousand insurance companies in order to get approved and a sugery day. And also, $12,000? Isn't that special. Mine billed at over $50K. Maybe it's getting cheaper.

This whole thing is scary. Hobby Lobby won't pay for BC now because they think women should be baby makers. If that is the case, I wonder if they will eventualy deny paying for a necessary hysterecomy? Sigh.

[Becket70]

Since corporations are considered people, according to our Supreme Court, I'm sure next on the agenda would be to give corporations the right to vote in elections.

Hobby Lobby is going to open in my community and I think they may be in for a surprise. We have large populations of gays and Jews and I am guessing they will stay away from HL. It's not like HL is the only game in town...we also have Michaels and Joanns. I wouldn't step one inch into the new Hobby Lobby and am embarrassed that it will be the anchor store of the shopping center.

I think the saddest part of this was the predictability of the court decision. Clarence Thomas is a waste of oxygen and the rest of the Conservative majority are swayed by their ideology. With each passing day, it is becoming more and more clear that the ordinary citizen in the US has no value nor say. Business and lobbying groups are all that matter anymore.

Lastly, I have heard that Christian music is played in HL stores. Is that true?

[GeoBQn]

I just went to a local rally against the SCOTUS decision. The organizer had gone to True Value to get sticks for the signs. When the salesperson found out what the sticks were for, she immediately gave the organizer a whole stack of them for free.

[RandomTrivia]

Lastly, I have heard that Christian music is played in HL stores. Is that true?

Yep. I have avoided HL since Xmas (went with mom) and it was all religious carols, but the ultra crappy Muzak versions. Last summer, it was bluegrass-Muzak church hymns. (And I only went there because Michaels was out of whatever it was we needed for the school project. Now that our Joann store is open again I don't need HL.)

It's about time for another one of their full page newspaper ads for the holiday. For a company so patriotic, the do buy a lot of their crap from china. I wonder if they sell anything made in the USA??

[Becket70]

I wish I didn't have to be a Debbie Downer but I think any emotion arising from this decision will be short-lived. If nothing happened after Sandy Hook, I don't see a sustained effort to make our voices heard and boycotting Hobby Lobby succeeding. I hope I am wrong. The optics are bad for the GOP and can be used and, yes, even manipulated against them but who is going to lead this cause? In my youth, the Vietnam War was an ongoing issue and millions of people took to the streets to protest. I took part in several "moratoriums" against the war and stood with tens of thousands of like-minded people in Chicago. Using social media without "boots on the ground" protests will not work. Again, who will lead us? After Sandy Hook, I emailed the chairwoman of our local Democratic party and asked about getting a protest going. Crickets....I never heard back from her. If the Democrats are so impotent that they cannot rally women so their voices can be heard, there is no hope.