• 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.

Supreme Court Divided on Hobby Lobby and birth control issue

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
alzan said:
The owner(s), executives and employees are not being forced or even asked to use the devices/medication that they believe cause abortions; their freedom to practice their religion is not being infringed.
Click to expand...

That could be a argument but religious rights have always been difficult to define and it goes both ways. For example the concept of separation of church and state is not found in the constitution, but is inferred by the comments of those who participated in it's framing. No one wanted another Church of England being able to collect taxes and have putative powers so the like could not established. Of course that is not how things are handled in the real world. Forcing someone to go against their religious principles has been seen as included in religious rights. The tricky part is determining what applies when, and that's something that's happening right now. Note in the link I provided that the SCOTUS made comments about forcing others to provide support for abortions.

This isn't clear cut by any means. At issue is what the government can properly compel others to do when there are potential rights involved. The SCOTUS really really didn't want this and I can't say I blame them.
 
eskimospy said:
Of course being taxed enters into it. If there is no mandate then there is no case.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore, although I do know that it has basically nothing to do with what I said.
Click to expand...


The mandate was about whether the government could raise taxes to fund the ACA. It can. That's not what this is about but what the government can compel HL to do apart from taxation. That the government can tax your property does not mean it can make you do whatever they want because of it. They are separate issues.
 
HomerJS said:
Speaking of simple minds an IUD does not induce an abortion it prevents fertilized egg implantation. There is no pregnancy until egg implants.
Click to expand...
Yes, everybody knows this. I can't speak for the plaintiffs but my guess would be that they consider a fertilized egg to be life.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The mandate was about whether the government could raise taxes to fund the ACA. It can. That's not what this is about but what the government can compel HL to do apart from taxation. That the government can tax your property does not mean it can make you do whatever they want because of it. They are separate issues.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. If it is a general tax that the ACA is providing an exemption to then the case is basically over at that point. ie: if every business over a certain size has to pay a tax but by doing certain things you can avoid paying the tax like say, providing health care. In that case the health care exemption is simply a tax break being offered by the government.

That means it simply doesn't matter what your religion is because no one is entitled to a tax break.

What HL needs to establish is that this IS a mandate by the government and that they are being penalized for not complying with an edict that conflicts with their religious faith. It is the same issue that came forth in the previous individual mandate case. SCOTUS ruled that because the individual mandate was NOT a penalty for not doing something, but instead a general tax that one could get an exemption for, it was constitutional.

In this case it would be the same thing if that reasoning holds. Hobby Lobby is not entitled to tax breaks.
 
eskimospy said:
This is not correct. If it is a general tax that the ACA is providing an exemption to then the case is basically over at that point. ie: if every business over a certain size has to pay a tax but by doing certain things you can avoid paying the tax like say, providing health care. In that case the health care exemption is simply a tax break being offered by the government.

That means it simply doesn't matter what your religion is because no one is entitled to a tax break.

What HL needs to establish is that this IS a mandate by the government and that they are being penalized for not complying with an edict that conflicts with their religious faith. It is the same issue that came forth in the previous individual mandate case. SCOTUS ruled that because the individual mandate was NOT a penalty for not doing something, but instead a general tax that one could get an exemption for, it was constitutional.

In this case it would be the same thing if that reasoning holds. Hobby Lobby is not entitled to tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so if HL pays the money it doesn't have to provide contraception. OK.
 
HomerJS said:
Speaking of simple minds an IUD does not induce an abortion it prevents fertilized egg implantation. There is no pregnancy until egg implants.
Click to expand...

But that means a woman might have sex for a reason other than to get pregnant! ! 😱

🙄 John 8:7
 
boomerang said:
Here's the phone number of the SCOTUS. 202-479-3000 Give them a ring and share your infinite wisdom. Hey, maybe you can sway them.
Click to expand...

This case is a no brainer if consistency is applied. That asshat Scalia will reverse himself just for convenience.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
That could be a argument but religious rights have always been difficult to define and it goes both ways. For example the concept of separation of church and state is not found in the constitution, but is inferred by the comments of those who participated in it's framing. No one wanted another Church of England being able to collect taxes and have putative powers so the like could not established. Of course that is not how things are handled in the real world. Forcing someone to go against their religious principles has been seen as included in religious rights. The tricky part is determining what applies when, and that's something that's happening right now. Note in the link I provided that the SCOTUS made comments about forcing others to provide support for abortions.

This isn't clear cut by any means. At issue is what the government can properly compel others to do when there are potential rights involved. The SCOTUS really really didn't want this and I can't say I blame them.
Click to expand...

Good point. I'm no legal eagle but I've always understood that if practicing your religious beliefs violates someone else's civil rights is where the line is drawn and where the government needs to step in.

Unrelated but it also has to do with an individuals definition of when life begins.

And as you pointed out a solution is being proposed that would cover partially or fully the four BC methods to which Hobby Lobby, et al, object.
 
I havent been following this whole thing. But shouldnt Hobby Lobby's beef be with their employees that choose to use these birth control options? I mean just because they have access to them doesnt mean they have to use them. Especially if it is the employees belief they are wrong or bad.
 
I go back to my earlier question. Can a business owned by, say a Christian Scientist, be forced to provide insurance that will cover the costs of medical care such as blood transfusions? After all, that is something that is against their religious beliefs...

At what point do you draw the line?

No one is forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to use birth control products to which they disagree...

If it's about the imposed costs...if it only adds 3 cents/month per employee...is that too much? How about $3? Or $30? What if it was included at NO additional cost...but was otherwise included in the costs?

Once again, where do you draw the line?
 
BoomerD said:
I go back to my earlier question. Can a business owned by, say a Christian Scientist, be forced to provide insurance that will cover the costs of medical care such as blood transfusions? After all, that is something that is against their religious beliefs...
Click to expand...

...what beliefs are against a transfusion?
 
kia75 said:
If we go back to the bible for our thoughts on birth control then killing your children when they're old enough to carry wood or go camping is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

Only if God gives the go-ahead. Old Testament is so damn weird.
 
cuafpr said:
oh i know she did.. i just see a HUGE difference between heart surgery and a few types of BC, to the point its apples and oranges.

My stance is pretty much that since they are private they can deny certain types of BC unless the employee needs the BC for reasons other than BC (had a few ex's take BC pills to help with severity of their time of the month.) but if its just for the sake of sex to bad so sad pay for it yourself. I've also always wondered why it doesn't provide for BC for guys? why am I forced to spend my money on BC ?
Click to expand...


No.

the argument HL is making that they can deny certain types of medical care based on religious practices. If SCOTUS were to allow this argument, birth control is not the issue. In fact, with HL, it really isn't about birth control. It's about "religious freedom" at the core. HL claims to be fine with certain birth control, but they are offended by other forms based on religious grounds--so again, this has nothing to do with birth control. It is only about letting religious belief dictate the coverage of their employees.

For religions that find other "offenses" with certain types of medical care, such as the pig valve, this is the same issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top