• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Since it will be the supreme court that now and forever decides when religion trumps personal constitutional freedoms, I wonder how long it will be before women have to hide their face in public with a scarf, and men have the last say on what women do and cannot do? Sound familiar? it should. We just moved a giant step closer to that type of society.
Can you imagine if we had a full republican right wing controlled US supreme court?
 
sportage said:
Since it will be the supreme court that now and forever decides when religion trumps personal constitutional freedoms, I wonder how long it will be before women have to hide their face in public with a scarf, and men have the last say on what women do and cannot do? Sound familiar? it should. We just moved a giant step closer to that type of society.
Can you imagine if we had a full republican right wing controlled US supreme court?
Click to expand...

They already ruled that women going to an abortion clinic deserve close up shaming.
 
Amazing the people in this country in an all out push to reverse progress and go back to the the Middle Ages ("traditional American values")

No immigrants
Women have no rights
No gays
No education/creationism
No vaccines
The black guy in charge must be from another tribe/Kenya
Etc
 
You know.... I find it humorous the people applauding this ruling where they can not see the writing on the wall nor past their own nose.
Its suggested hobby lobby and the likes could also seek to refuse to hire or serve gay people.
Or refuse to cover medications such as hiv medications that that hiv positive employee would need to survive.
And I'd suppose many of those same people happy with the court ruling would also be very happy when the court rules in favor or hobby lobby vs gay people.
When it comes to religion, it never stops.
I wonder how those same people would feel when hobby lobby has the desire thru religion to fire that single mother employee? Or that employed mother with a child born out of wedlock.
Or more so, that divorced man or woman?
After all, many religions and especially the Catholic religion do not recognize divorce.
So there you are... Another ruling to fire or refuse service to any person known to have been divorced.
Big smiles and happy dance after this latest high courts ruling.
But what happens to those smiles and happy feet when what goes around comes around and the high court rules against you as well?
People have this idea that this will stop with a challenge to employing or servicing gay people. But it will not stop there. It never does. Companies like hobby lobby will seek to clean house with favorable rulings against anyone and everyone that they feel, along with the US supreme court, are non compliant with biblical scripture.
Talk about opening a can of worms.
And being careful what you wish for.
When it comes to religious qualification, the process is and will be never ending.
That happy smiling supporter of today's ruling may easily find themselves on the wrong side of the fence come tomorrows ruling.
And THAT is exactly how the process works.
Just ask mein fuhrer Adolf.
Or any middle eastern country that has no US constitution.
The high court took an axe and chopped a huge chunk out of our protected constitutional rights with yesterdays ruling.
Sacrificing defined personal freedoms for undefined religious freedoms.
Democracy as we knew it ceased on June 30th 2014. Note that date.
 
Last edited:
sportage said:
Since it will be the supreme court that now and forever decides when religion trumps personal constitutional freedoms, I wonder how long it will be before women have to hide their face in public with a scarf, and men have the last say on what women do and cannot do? Sound familiar? it should. We just moved a giant step closer to that type of society.
Can you imagine if we had a full republican right wing controlled US supreme court?
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha you are being dramatic.
 
TerryMathews said:
Classic liberal thinking: that was yesterday, what have the Supremes done for me today?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with liberals?

Regardless, this seems to be a bad ruling on strictly the legal merits. It will open an avalanche of lawsuits challenging regulations of every type, a lot of it based on bullshit claims. As other people have said, the fundamental reasoning seems to be pretty much either stupid or evil, no matter where you stand on religious freedom.

They say that providing contraception serves a compelling government interest, but that because it interferes with religion it has to be narrowly tailored and it isn't. They also say this reasoning doesn't apply to blood transfusions, etc. that means that either they don't consider Christian scientists, etc to be 'real' religions, or that for some reason contraception plays by different rules than other medical issues that the government has a compelling interest in.

Seems like it's either "your religion doesn't count" or "eww, scary lady parts". My money is on the second, but either way that's a terrible precedent to set.
 
eskimospy said:
What does that have to do with liberals?

Regardless, this seems to be a bad ruling on strictly the legal merits. It will open an avalanche of lawsuits challenging regulations of every type, a lot of it based on bullshit claims. As other people have said, the fundamental reasoning seems to be pretty much either stupid or evil, no matter where you stand on religious freedom.

They say that providing contraception serves a compelling government interest, but that because it interferes with religion it has to be narrowly tailored and it isn't. They also say this reasoning doesn't apply to blood transfusions, etc. that means that either they don't consider Christian scientists, etc to be 'real' religions, or that for some reason contraception plays by different rules than other medical issues that the government has a compelling interest in.

Seems like it's either "your religion doesn't count" or "eww, scary lady parts". My money is on the second, but either way that's a terrible precedent to set.
Click to expand...

Because it does play by different rules.

Contraception is a lot closer to a boob job than it is to blood transfusions. Namely, one is a life-saving treatment whereas the other is basically a life style drug.

Comparing the 2 is absurd.
 
OutHouse said:
They are free to go buy the 4 drugs on their own. Nobody is restricting them of anything.
Click to expand...

And if Jehovah's Witnesses are granted the same "rights" as Hobby Lobby, I suppose they would not be restricting their employees from blood transfusions or organ transplants since the employees are free to buy them on their own?

Individuals should not get to use their religious beliefs to determine the health coverage of their employees. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Religious freedom ends at the person's nose; they don't get to force their beliefs on others.
 
child of wonder said:
And if Jehovah's Witnesses are granted the same "rights" as Hobby Lobby, I suppose they would not be restricting their employees from blood transfusions or organ transplants since the employees are free to buy them on their own?

Individuals should not get to use their religious beliefs to determine the health coverage of their employees. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Religious freedom ends at the person's nose; they don't get to force their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

Of course the irony of course is that this case is all about liberals trying to force their beliefs on Hobby Lobby.
 
nehalem256 said:
Of course the irony of course is that this case is all about liberals trying to force their beliefs on Hobby Lobby.
Click to expand...

Members of Hobby Lobby are not being forced to take any of the 4 forms of birth control.

Also this case is about denying science, something in which conservative excel.

Their objection to the 4 drugs was they terminate pregnancy or cause abortions. This is scientifically not true. HL was not questioned as to what specifically their religion says about Plan B/morning after pill. Aleto just took their word.
 
nehalem256 said:
Because it does play by different rules.

Contraception is a lot closer to a boob job than it is to blood transfusions. Namely, one is a life-saving treatment whereas the other is basically a life style drug.

Comparing the 2 is absurd.
Click to expand...

The morning after pill is not and is not designed to be a "lifestyle choice"

Unless you consider rape a lifestyle. Where have we heard that before?

BTW - Will HL deny a boob job to a woman who has had a mastectomy?? You know fake boobs are not "Christian"


For the record where in the bible or any religious document does it state Plan B pill is a sin???
 
nehalem256 said:
Because it does play by different rules.

Contraception is a lot closer to a boob job than it is to blood transfusions. Namely, one is a life-saving treatment whereas the other is basically a life style drug.

Comparing the 2 is absurd.
Click to expand...

Not really like a boob job, its more like a blood test that can detect issues that cause further expenses. BC prevents pregnancy.
 
child of wonder said:
And if Jehovah's Witnesses are granted the same "rights" as Hobby Lobby, I suppose they would not be restricting their employees from blood transfusions or organ transplants since the employees are free to buy them on their own?

Individuals should not get to use their religious beliefs to determine the health coverage of their employees. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Religious freedom ends at the person's nose; they don't get to force their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

What do you think the role of govt is exactly?
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Not really like a boob job, its more like a blood test that can detect issues that cause further expenses. BC prevents pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Whereas boob jobs increase the likelihood of pregnancy making men more attracted to her 🙂

I look at this situation and I don't like either side. Birth control is such a mundane topic, it shouldn't be religiously opposed to. On the other hand, people should take on their own personal responsibility and pay for their own sex products, not force other people to pay for them.
 
HomerJS said:
The morning after pill is not and is not designed to be a "lifestyle choice"

Unless you consider rape a lifestyle. Where have we heard that before?
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think the reason liberals are so obsessed with making BC free is to help rape victims.

Maybe you should stop using rape victims as tools to advance your social agenda. Its hard to think of anything more disgusting.

Fanatical Meat said:
Not really like a boob job, its more like a blood test that can detect issues that cause further expenses. BC prevents pregnancy.
Click to expand...

So its like a motorcycle helmet. It prevents "injury" caused by certain lifestyle choices.
 
sportage said:
Since it will be the supreme court that now and forever decides when religion trumps personal constitutional freedoms, I wonder how long it will be before women have to hide their face in public with a scarf, and men have the last say on what women do and cannot do? Sound familiar? it should. We just moved a giant step closer to that type of society.
Can you imagine if we had a full republican right wing controlled US supreme court?
Click to expand...

Oh please.

You guys need to get a freaking grip.
 
Last edited:
nehalem256 said:
How exactly do you shame someone for something that isn't shameful?😕



So buy your logic my employer is denying me the right to a Lexus by not providing me with one 😡
Click to expand...

Birth control for women is now a luxury, according to Republicans. Looks like you guys got your outreach message honed to perfection, proceed along 🙂
 
sandorski said:
It is using Religion for the purpose of Oppression. The Employees can practice their Religious Choice, they shouldn't have it dictated to them by their Employer.
Click to expand...

Are you freaking kidding me?

"We will force you to provide this product you have a moral objection to."

"No."

"Don't be such a dictator."
 
child of wonder said:
And if Jehovah's Witnesses are granted the same "rights" as Hobby Lobby, I suppose they would not be restricting their employees from blood transfusions or organ transplants since the employees are free to buy them on their own?

Individuals should not get to use their religious beliefs to determine the health coverage of their employees. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Religious freedom ends at the person's nose; they don't get to force their beliefs on others.
Click to expand...

Alito specifically noted blood transfusions and vaccines to make clear that this ruling is to allow specifically anti-abortion Christians like himself to discriminate against specifically women not like himself.

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

So don't you dare tell him that Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientologists have same "rights" (he created out of thin air) as anti-abortion Christians to not cover procedures they are religiously against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top