Hobby Lobby case a slippery slope [Co...

Hobby Lobby case a slippery slope [Commentary]

There are 63 comments on the The Baltimore Sun story from Mar 30, 2014, titled Hobby Lobby case a slippery slope [Commentary]. In it, The Baltimore Sun reports that:

That bit of live and let live wisdom, usually attributed -- some say misattributed -- to Oliver Wendell Holmes, provides a useful framework for considering a high profile case argued before the Supreme Court last week.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Baltimore Sun.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Chance

Grove City, PA

#1 Mar 30, 2014
"And court watchers say the justices -- or at least the conservative wing -- gave that argument a sympathetic hearing in last week's session. That is an ominous sign."

No, the ominous sign is that any business has to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny in the first place. Government should be out of the medical business entirely and companies have the Constitutional right to do business as they see fit. That right has been eroded drastically in the last 50 years.

"A woman's contraceptive choices are none of her employer's business."

Absolutely right! It is not an employer's business what contraceptive she uses nor is it an employer's business to provide it. If she wants contraceptives, she should pay for them herself or at least be willing to realize that her choice of contraceptive is her employer's choice as long as they are paying for it.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Mar 30, 2014
Chance wrote:
"And court watchers say the justices -- or at least the conservative wing -- gave that argument a sympathetic hearing in last week's session. That is an ominous sign."
No, the ominous sign is that any business has to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny in the first place. Government should be out of the medical business entirely and companies have the Constitutional right to do business as they see fit. That right has been eroded drastically in the last 50 years.
"A woman's contraceptive choices are none of her employer's business."
Absolutely right! It is not an employer's business what contraceptive she uses nor is it an employer's business to provide it. If she wants contraceptives, she should pay for them herself or at least be willing to realize that her choice of contraceptive is her employer's choice as long as they are paying for it.
The employer doesn't pay for the employee's insurance

In those businesses that take it upon themselves to arrange for group insurance for their employees (to get a cheaper rate); the employees insurance cost is listed right there on his pay stub for all to see
.
The business cannot dictate how the employee uses his insurance any more than the business can dictate how the employee spends his paycheck
.
These sorts of 'Hobby Lobby' mentalities are forcing the federal government take control of the medical industry just to stop these sorts of scams and abuse rampant in the private sector
Fundies R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Mar 30, 2014
Male employees get Viagra covered by their health insurance plans, and we know that isn't all for pure health uses, but is for erectile issues.

These "religious" freeeks never complain about the financial or moral burden of _that_.

Meanwhile women pay for their health insurance, including contraception, by their work product, insurance premiums and co pays.

If Hobby Lobby can do this then there's no reason - except christianist exceptionalism, which is impermissible in a non theocracy - that a Scientologist owned business could not on the basis of "religious" belief refuse to pay for any mental health care in employees' health insurance.

So it's completely crazy xstains thinking their jaysus stuff is special yet again.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Mar 30, 2014
Chance wrote:
"And court watchers say the justices -- or at least the conservative wing -- gave that argument a sympathetic hearing in last week's session. That is an ominous sign."
No, the ominous sign is that any business has to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny in the first place. Government should be out of the medical business entirely and companies have the Constitutional right to do business as they see fit. That right has been eroded drastically in the last 50 years.
"A woman's contraceptive choices are none of her employer's business."
Absolutely right! It is not an employer's business what contraceptive she uses nor is it an employer's business to provide it. If she wants contraceptives, she should pay for them herself or at least be willing to realize that her choice of contraceptive is her employer's choice as long as they are paying for it.
I agree. Good post.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#5 Mar 30, 2014
Interesting that they don't want to pay for women's health, but they probably don't object to "stiffy pills" for men.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#6 Mar 30, 2014
Chance wrote:
"And court watchers say the justices -- or at least the conservative wing -- gave that argument a sympathetic hearing in last week's session. That is an ominous sign."
No, the ominous sign is that any business has to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny in the first place. Government should be out of the medical business entirely and companies have the Constitutional right to do business as they see fit. That right has been eroded drastically in the last 50 years.
"A woman's contraceptive choices are none of her employer's business."
Absolutely right! It is not an employer's business what contraceptive she uses nor is it an employer's business to provide it. If she wants contraceptives, she should pay for them herself or at least be willing to realize that her choice of contraceptive is her employer's choice as long as they are paying for it.
You didn't read the article did you bigot? All Hobby Lobby has to do is opt out of ACA and let their employees buy their own insurance. Problem solved.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#7 Mar 30, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Good post.
You're as stupid as the OP.
Fundies R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Mar 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as stupid as the OP.
Far more deranged than even Chance or Snickers or the other sexually sick fussbudget liars fer jaysus.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#9 Mar 30, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as stupid as the OP.
I think that SCOTUS will find in favor of HOBBY LOBBY.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#10 Mar 30, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that SCOTUS will find in favor of HOBBY LOBBY.
I think the decision will be based on this:
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Mar 30, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the decision will be based on this:
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/...
You would be wrong. That has nothing to do with this case.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Mar 30, 2014
And btw, corporations DO have RIGHTS.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#13 Mar 30, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be wrong. That has nothing to do with this case.
SEC. 201.(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
.
Hobby Lobby is a place of pubic accommodation attempting to discriminate against people on grounds of religion
.
How much clearer does that have to be?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Mar 30, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
SEC. 201.(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
.
Hobby Lobby is a place of pubic accommodation attempting to discriminate against people on grounds of religion
.
How much clearer does that have to be?
I studied constitutional law in college. You obviously haven't. I'm not going to waste my time debating this with a nit wit like you. You will have SCOTUS's answer to the questions in this case in about 90 days. Please hold your breath waiting for their decision.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#15 Mar 30, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I studied constitutional law in college. You obviously haven't. I'm not going to waste my time debating this with a nit wit like you. You will have SCOTUS's answer to the questions in this case in about 90 days. Please hold your breath waiting for their decision.
No

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#16 Mar 30, 2014
fr Chance:

>...No, the ominous sign is that any business has to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny in the first place. Government should be out of the medical business entirely and companies have the Constitutional right to do business as they see fit. That right has been eroded drastically in the last 50 years....<

No business is having to "defend themselves against this kind of tyranny". It's NOT "tyranny" to have employers cover birth control as well as Viagra. You know you'd be frothing at the mouth if HL wanting to discontinue guys getting Viagra.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#17 Mar 30, 2014
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Chance:
>...No, the ominous sign is that any business has to defend themselves against this kind of tyranny in the first place. Government should be out of the medical business entirely and companies have the Constitutional right to do business as they see fit. That right has been eroded drastically in the last 50 years....<
No business is having to "defend themselves against this kind of tyranny". It's NOT "tyranny" to have employers cover birth control as well as Viagra. You know you'd be frothing at the mouth if HL wanting to discontinue guys getting Viagra.
So do you believe that a retail business has, or should have, the right to refuse to serve someone because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ?
Fundies R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Mar 30, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I studied constitutional law in college.
You are a complete fool who argued hilariously that Scaliar and Thomas would be votes for marriage equality.

You don't know the first thing about the law...except that your jurist relative back in NY State kept you out of prison many times.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Mar 30, 2014
Fundies R Mentally illin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete fool who argued hilariously that Scaliar and Thomas would be votes for marriage equality.
You don't know the first thing about the law...except that your jurist relative back in NY State kept you out of prison many times.
ummm.... only 16 times (My sister's a lawyer and my uncle's a judge.:))(But with all the warrants out for me in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and that other state that begins with an "M" I can't remember, I decided it would be a good time to get out of Dodge, and lay low here in the wilds of the southern Arizona desert with my pussycats.:))(And surprisingly I found out that arms trafficking here in Arizona is a lot more lucrative than in New Jersey or the northeast. Who knew ?!:))
Fundies R Mentally illin

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Mar 30, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
ummm.... only 16 times
No one asked you, cretin.

Just stfu with your inane SCOTUS analyses which are always risible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 3 min Please do not com... 1,645
News Huge Media Cover-Up of Criminal Charges Against... 3 min Reverend Alan 69
News CO lawmaker: Gay Scout leaders will molest kids 9 min Newt G s Next Wife 7
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 10 min tongangodz 6,540
News Boy Scouts of America ends ban on gay adults 11 min Straight Man 51
News Elkhart mayor asks city council to withdraw LGB... 19 min WasteWater 21
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 28 min Been There Did That 1,160
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 32 min Reverend Alan 8,072
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 38 min Reverend Alan 24,052
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 44 min Reverend Alan 758
More from around the web