Hobby Lobby case fuels bigotry

Hobby Lobby case fuels bigotry

There are 51 comments on the Statesman Journal story from Apr 3, 2014, titled Hobby Lobby case fuels bigotry. In it, Statesman Journal reports that:

In 2003, I prepared for my consecration as a bishop by donning a bulletproof vest beneath my religious robes because of death threats from "good, religious people" who still believed that homosexual people are despicable in the eyes of God.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Statesman Journal.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Listen to the Word

Kingman, AZ

#1 Apr 8, 2014
As we celebrate Lent and Easter, it is obvious that sincere, faithful Christians are accused of "perverting the nation," just as Jesus was accused of doing by the religious and government establishments of his days.

As Ahab accused Elijah as the one "who is troubling Israel," so faithful pastors and Christians are accused of troubling the United State today.

When the liberalism of America and many of its churches crumbles, will they also blame Christians as Nero did so many years ago? Time will tell.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Apr 8, 2014
Listen to the Word wrote:
As we celebrate Lent and Easter, it is obvious that sincere, faithful Christians are accused of "perverting the nation," just as Jesus was accused of doing by the religious and government establishments of his days.
As Ahab accused Elijah as the one "who is troubling Israel," so faithful pastors and Christians are accused of troubling the United State today.
When the liberalism of America and many of its churches crumbles, will they also blame Christians as Nero did so many years ago? Time will tell.
Climb down from that cross sweetie, it's not yours. Your hard to confuse with Christlike version of Christian beliefs hold dominion over you, but the rest of us enjoy the right to live free from them. We are your equal, whether you believe God thinks so or not. You have every right to your unfortunate choice of beliefs, but they are your God problem, not ours. Hobby Lobby's insistence that they get to treat their employees as if they were of the same belief as theirs, whether they want to be treated that way or not, an act worthy of limitation.
Dan

United States

#3 Apr 8, 2014
From the article:

"That argument should sound familiar. Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments by Hobby Lobby, a nationwide chain of craft stores, asking the court for the right to discriminate against their employees who are entitled to reproductive health care under the Affordable Care Act. I know that Hobby Lobby’s owner family, the Greens, are deeply religious people, and I respect their beliefs. They object to certain forms of birth control, claiming they constitute abortion (a “fact” disputed by much of the medical community). The Greens claim that corporations, through their owners, have freedom of religion -- a very slippery slope. But should the entire company and its 14,000 employees be held hostage by the beliefs of its owners?"

False premise.

No one at HL is being discriminated aginst if HL doesn't offer ANY of their employees BC in their health plans. They don't offer it yesterday, today and they don't want to offer it tomorrow. Thus, any current employee claiming to be "held hostage" by the beliefs of the owners is a willing captive.

Corporations, like Mozilla, certainly have asserted recently that they enjoy freedom of association, thus their defenestration of Brandon Eich. Not sure why freedom of religion is such a stretch, since even the author here proclaims both knowledge of and respect for the owners' religious beliefs.

Can't have it both ways. If someone's freedoms and viewpoints are to be tolerated, then everyone's are-not just people with whom you agree.
Dan

United States

#4 Apr 8, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Climb down from that cross sweetie, it's not yours. Your hard to confuse with Christlike version of Christian beliefs hold dominion over you, but the rest of us enjoy the right to live free from them. We are your equal, whether you believe God thinks so or not. You have every right to your unfortunate choice of beliefs, but they are your God problem, not ours. Hobby Lobby's insistence that they get to treat their employees as if they were of the same belief as theirs, whether they want to be treated that way or not, an act worthy of limitation.
"Hobby Lobby's insistence that they get to treat their employees as if they were of the same belief as theirs..."

Hobbly Lobby is closed on Sundays due to the religious convictions of the owners.. Should their employees be able to go in and open the doors on Sunday so they can work? I mean, just the ones who aren't Christian. Everyone else gets that day off.

I haven't heard anyone crying about that.
Dan

United States

#5 Apr 8, 2014
Again, from the article:

"The Supreme Court’s rulings on gay rights, with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s leadership, have been on this path for more than a decade. The court has made great strides in recognizing the worth and dignity of women and LGBT Americans. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would change that direction. It would not be a victory for religious freedom, but a victory for discrimination and a repudiation of the vital progress the court has made in securing equal justice for all."

Another false premise.

This case has not one thing to do, specifically, with women's worth and/or dignity, nor LGBT Americans. The Government isn't making that claim at SCOTUS in defense of the suit.(why did Robinson weigh in on this anyway, other than to have a cleric go against Hobby Lobby?)

If the Supreme Court decides in Hobby Lobby's favor, it means simply that Hobby Lobby will not be compelled to provide insurance coverage for things that it believes are counter to the stated religious beliefs of the company. That's it. Hobbly Lobby won't have to buy something. The employee will buy it and use it if they want it, and only if they want it.

How is "equal justice for all" not served if someone doesn't have to buy something?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#6 Apr 10, 2014
Dan wrote:
Again, from the article:
"The Supreme Court’s rulings on gay rights, with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s leadership, have been on this path for more than a decade. The court has made great strides in recognizing the worth and dignity of women and LGBT Americans. A decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would change that direction. It would not be a victory for religious freedom, but a victory for discrimination and a repudiation of the vital progress the court has made in securing equal justice for all."
Another false premise.
This case has not one thing to do, specifically, with women's worth and/or dignity, nor LGBT Americans. The Government isn't making that claim at SCOTUS in defense of the suit.(why did Robinson weigh in on this anyway, other than to have a cleric go against Hobby Lobby?)
If the Supreme Court decides in Hobby Lobby's favor, it means simply that Hobby Lobby will not be compelled to provide insurance coverage for things that it believes are counter to the stated religious beliefs of the company. That's it. Hobbly Lobby won't have to buy something. The employee will buy it and use it if they want it, and only if they want it.
How is "equal justice for all" not served if someone doesn't have to buy something?
That's a very good question, Dan.

It goes right to the heart of the matter of how the government can force enrollment in a "single-payer" government enforced healthcare system in the first place. Though we are not subject to a "single-payer" system - truly "socialized medicine" - yet, that is where the present road leads.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#7 Apr 10, 2014
Life's a game, whoever dies with the most toys wins!
George

Jacksonville, FL

#8 Apr 10, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a very good question, Dan.
It goes right to the heart of the matter of how the government can force enrollment in a "single-payer" government enforced healthcare system in the first place. Though we are not subject to a "single-payer" system - truly "socialized medicine" - yet, that is where the present road leads.
If the US government adopts a single payer system of heath care, it is unlkely anyone could successfully challenge its right to do so. Individuals have virtually no say in how government spends our tax dollars. It can give 26 weeks or 52 weeks or 'til the grave unemplyment benefits. However, it should not be able to force me to buy an insurance policy, or a television or a trip to the Bahamas. Obamacare survived in the Supreme Court becasue the Court found it within Congress' power to TAX even though Congress and the President disclaimed that its adloption was purusant to Congress' taxing authority.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#9 Apr 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
If the US government adopts a single payer system of heath care, it is unlkely anyone could successfully challenge its right to do so. Individuals have virtually no say in how government spends our tax dollars. It can give 26 weeks or 52 weeks or 'til the grave unemplyment benefits. However, it should not be able to force me to buy an insurance policy, or a television or a trip to the Bahamas. Obamacare survived in the Supreme Court becasue the Court found it within Congress' power to TAX even though Congress and the President disclaimed that its adloption was purusant to Congress' taxing authority.
Interesting, isn't it?

In my opinion, the Court took this position, even though the Obama Administration tried to disclaim that its new law is a "tax," because of a prevailing "activism" belief that if it did not protect the health care legislation, a genuine grounds for an upwelling revolution against the whole system of government would result, beginning with the inner city and urban poor in every center of population in the USA.

I personally believe that either Justice Roberts was a chicken and caved, or that he was peculiarly prescient and realized that this whole thing would cave in upon itself as unworkable, forcing Congress to at least partially repeal and rewrite the Act.

Which is what I think will happen. I think Medicare will be reconfigured to pick up the tab. I do not believe that the population will actually allow a single-payer system to be implemented.

We are watching the dumbing-down of the best healthcare system in the world - but, also, the most expensive. And, the most expensive for reasons that we have not yet had the political stomach to cure. So, rather than take the cure, we have incorrectly and insufficiently gone after a few of the most politically divisive effects, rather than their causes.

Making the IRS out to be the Enforcer and the Collector and the ultimate Agent of Obamacare will probably backfire.

Rev. Ken

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#10 Apr 10, 2014
Dan wrote:
Another false premise.{/QUOTE]In the world according to you.
[QUOTE who="Dan"]This case has not one thing to do, specifically, with women's worth and/or dignity, nor LGBT Americans.
Hobby Lobby treating its female employees as baby factories, whether they want to be or not, by denying them access to health care that every other woman with health insurance in the country has a right to and LGBT Americans will have the most to lose if corporations are granted the right to make the purported "religious beliefs" of a company the problem of their employees. So you were saying?
Dan wrote:
The Government isn't making that claim at SCOTUS in defense of the suit.(why did Robinson weigh in on this anyway, other than to have a cleric go against Hobby Lobby?)
The government not be raising these issues, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people concerned about these issues.
Dan wrote:
If the Supreme Court decides in Hobby Lobby's favor, it means simply that Hobby Lobby will not be compelled to provide insurance coverage for things that it believes are counter to the stated religious beliefs of the company. That's it. Hobbly Lobby won't have to buy something. The employee will buy it and use it if they want it, and only if they want it.
How is "equal justice for all" not served if someone doesn't have to buy something?
Hobby Lobby and every other company covered under the AHCA are required to insure their employees, as all Americans are now required to have health insurance. The Act sets the minimum requirements for a qualifying plan and that includes coverage for birth control for women. Hobby Lobby is seeking to deny their female employees their right under the law in the name of corporate religious beliefs. Why should these women get less coverage than a woman working for a company with no corporate religious beliefs or beliefs that aren't going to stand in the way of the law?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Apr 10, 2014
George wrote:
<quoted text>
If the US government adopts a single payer system of heath care, it is unlkely anyone could successfully challenge its right to do so. Individuals have virtually no say in how government spends our tax dollars. It can give 26 weeks or 52 weeks or 'til the grave unemplyment benefits. However, it should not be able to force me to buy an insurance policy, or a television or a trip to the Bahamas. Obamacare survived in the Supreme Court becasue the Court found it within Congress' power to TAX even though Congress and the President disclaimed that its adloption was purusant to Congress' taxing authority.
Where have you been? The government has been forcing folk to buy insurance policies for every vehicle on the road and every structure with a mortgage, every practicing physician is required to have malpractice insurance, every business is required to carry liability coverage and the list goes on and they've been doing it for decades now. Health insurance is the one kind of coverage that hasn't been legally mandated by any level of government until now.
Mr Peabody

Phoenix, AZ

#12 Apr 10, 2014
swedenforever wrote:
Life's a game, whoever dies with the most toys wins!
For gays it's whoever dies with the most toys up their ass wins.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Apr 10, 2014
Mr Peabody wrote:
(nothing worth repeating).
Do you EVER have heteroerotic fantasies? All we ever hear from you are your odd homoerotic ones. You seem to think about 'gay' sex an awful lot for somebody insisting they are straight. You aren't living proof that heterosexuals can forget they're straight are you?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#14 Apr 11, 2014
Listen to the Word wrote:
As we celebrate Lent and Easter, it is obvious that sincere, faithful Christians are accused of "perverting the nation," just as Jesus was accused of doing by the religious and government establishments of his days.
As Ahab accused Elijah as the one "who is troubling Israel," so faithful pastors and Christians are accused of troubling the United State today.
When the liberalism of America and many of its churches crumbles, will they also blame Christians as Nero did so many years ago? Time will tell.
Ah HUGE correction here. The born again evangelical political cult NEVER quotes Christ. They say Christ brought the old testament to the forefront and that he DOES believe in it. Not true, but that's not the point. The point is, the Radical religious political cult of the born again evangelical movement only picks and chooses verses from the Old Testament...so they really are persecuted "Christians" at all.

Gotcha'.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#15 Apr 11, 2014
Mr Peabody wrote:
<quoted text>
For gays it's whoever dies with the most toys up their ass wins.
Funny, but SICK. LOL

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#16 Apr 11, 2014
A lot of people compare our struggle for equal protection of the laws, with the struggle of black Americans for their civil rights.(This comparison gets some people very angry.)

One of the most important pieces of legislation regarding the protections of civil rights for black Americans is The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) which outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

However, I read an interesting article today in which the author argues that Chief Justice Roberts, and other conservatives on the court are laying the groundwork to gut that law. Not rule the whole thing unconstitutional, but rather laying the groundwork to rule key parts of the law unconstitutional, so that the law becomes unenforceable

.http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10 /us/roberts-court-civil-rights -law/

If that happens, it may have broad implications for our struggle for equal protection of the laws.
George

Jacksonville, FL

#17 Apr 11, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Where have you been? The government has been forcing folk to buy insurance policies for every vehicle on the road and every structure with a mortgage, every practicing physician is required to have malpractice insurance, every business is required to carry liability coverage and the list goes on and they've been doing it for decades now. Health insurance is the one kind of coverage that hasn't been legally mandated by any level of government until now.
With the exception of auto insurance, I believe each of the examples instances you cite is erroneous; Putting aside, for the moment, the difference in powers between states and the feds, there are other factors that make the auto situation different. First - the state does not require me to have auto insurance. It requires that as a condition of registering my vehicle, the auto must be covered by minimum liability coverage. Second - the auto insurance is required to protect the public, not me. Health insurance is designed to protect me. Generally - the state has an interest in protecting the public from me. It has much less interest or concern with me protecting me from myself.
The government does not force you to buy homeowner's insurance - at least not directly. Your lender requires it to protect the value of its collateral. The bank's regulators might cite the bank for excessively risky lending if it did not require insurance but that is not the government requiring the insurance. I don't know of any state that mandates that doctors carry malpracice coverage. Frequently as a condition to letting them do business in a form that limits personal liability (i.e., professional corporation, LLC, etc.), it will require the entity to carry lsuch insurance. Businesses are not required to carry comprehensive general liability insurance. Adequate insurance, however, can sustitute for capital. A failure to have one or the other (insurance or adequate capital) could result in personal liability on its principals but having insurance is not required. The government generally only "forces" the purchase of insurance as a conditon of eligibility to do something that we require a license fromr government to do.
comment

Pomona, MO

#18 Apr 11, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Where have you been? The government has been forcing folk to buy insurance policies for every vehicle on the road and every structure with a mortgage, every practicing physician is required to have malpractice insurance, every business is required to carry liability coverage and the list goes on and they've been doing it for decades now. Health insurance is the one kind of coverage that hasn't been legally mandated by any level of government until now.
Good comment,
I guess my question would be, regarding the examples you cite: Which ones of those, require my funding as a taxpayer? I realize I pay more as an individual because the government mandates auto insurance, but I can also understand that it's cost is still controlled by the market system. Also, I as an individual can choose not to drive, and thereby control my participation as regards the law.

I think a degree of choice is present in all the examples you cite, which does not appear to be true for the affordable healthcare act.(AHA)(at least not without a financial penalty evoked
by the government.

A more accurate comparison is between AHA and Social Security. Because unless one chooses not to work, participation (except for political exceptions) is by and large mandatory.
The difficulty with government managed programs is that there is just no effective oversight
or control of spending or expenses. I predict that the monies generated via this law's provisions will turn both transparent and eventually unavailable for those who it is advertised will be helped by this legislation.

I'm glad you believe that the AHA is beneficial. My opinion is that you will realize a better health future without it, and if its record parallels Social Security, you will lucky (or unlucky)
to recover your investment.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 Apr 11, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, isn't it?
In my opinion, the Court took this position, even though the Obama Administration tried to disclaim that its new law is a "tax," because of a prevailing "activism" belief that if it did not protect the health care legislation, a genuine grounds for an upwelling revolution against the whole system of government would result, beginning with the inner city and urban poor in every center of population in the USA.
I personally believe that either Justice Roberts was a chicken and caved, or that he was peculiarly prescient and realized that this whole thing would cave in upon itself as unworkable, forcing Congress to at least partially repeal and rewrite the Act.
Which is what I think will happen. I think Medicare will be reconfigured to pick up the tab. I do not believe that the population will actually allow a single-payer system to be implemented.
We are watching the dumbing-down of the best healthcare system in the world - but, also, the most expensive. And, the most expensive for reasons that we have not yet had the political stomach to cure. So, rather than take the cure, we have incorrectly and insufficiently gone after a few of the most politically divisive effects, rather than their causes.
Making the IRS out to be the Enforcer and the Collector and the ultimate Agent of Obamacare will probably backfire.
Rev. Ken
We do have the best healthcare system in the world. However, delivery of that system to the masses is the problem. Why we have to have this morass of the ACA is beyond me. All we had to do was establish Medicare For All, leaving the established system in place and just having everyone else included and change the premium for those not 65 or older. The private healthcare carriers are included now through the Advantage programs and the supplements. And finally, keep the individual mandate and allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Huba Buba

Bladensburg, MD

#20 Apr 11, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>We do have the best healthcare system in the world. However, delivery of that system to the masses is the problem. Why we have to have this morass of the ACA is beyond me. All we had to do was establish Medicare For All, leaving the established system in place and just having everyone else included and change the premium for those not 65 or older. The private healthcare carriers are included now through the Advantage programs and the supplements. And finally, keep the individual mandate and allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
You're an uppity pos.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 min Eagle 12 21,177
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min Eagle 12 256,564
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Eagle 12 18,574
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min SoE 43,275
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 14 min rabbee yehoshooah... 253,962
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min Phooey 654,173
News Why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse army service 46 min Anonymous Brother 32
More from around the web