Unintentional consequence of ruling for religious business against Obamacare

[JEDI]

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/22/muslim-company-forcing-christian-employees-to-wear-headscarfs/

Christians must wear headscarves in Muslim owned business:

A Muslim-owned arts-and-crafts store in Dearborn, Michigan is forcing its female Christian employees to wear traditional Islamic headscarves while on the job.

According to local reports, Khilāf Krafts began requiring its eight female employees to wear hijabs last week, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which gave religious rights to family-owned businesses.

Although praised by conservative Christians, liberals fret that the decision will allow companies with devout owners of any faith to opt out of American laws they simply don’t like.


What do you think? Outrage or agree?
This is an Onion-like article

 

[pete6032]

I vote for wrong forum.

 

[Hacp]

So employees must be dressed in uniform? What's so radical about that? Its like the NFL players being forced to wear their costumes. If they don't comply, they're let go.

 

[SandEagle]

there is a 3rd party trying to start a holy war between Christians and Muslims. do not fall for the propaganda. instead, gropapanda.

 

[pcgeek11]

The court specifically said that the ruling did not go beyond what was covered by Hobby Lobby. Period.

This is BS.

 

[sandorski]

The court specifically said that the ruling did not go beyond what was covered by Hobby Lobby. Period.

This is BS.

How the SC tried to limit the Hobby Lobby decision is ridiculous and won't have much affect in future cases, IMO. However, assuming the story in the OP is true, this situation is a completely different scenario than what was in the Hobby Lobby decision.

 

[John Connor]

I vote for wrong forum.

Me too and I had my shit tossed in P & N.

 

[Hacp]

How the SC tried to limit the Hobby Lobby decision is ridiculous and won't have much affect in future cases, IMO. However, assuming the story in the OP is true, this situation is a completely different scenario than what was in the Hobby Lobby decision.

Basically, the supreme court wanted to reverse the health care law because it believed the previous ruling was a mistake. This is one small step for justice.

 

[alzan]

Neither outrage or agreement, just a frustrated <sigh> at this and other future fripperies that various businesses will attempt because of the recent USSC decision.

The Hobby Lobby ruling was idiotic; the legal entities that are corporations cannot and should not have the same religious freedom rights as do citizens.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Agreed this is different, I don't approve of HL case but this is essentially enforcing your views on someone else where as HL is about your views not participating in something you do not agree with.

 

[cubby1223]

This is an Onion-like article

So... what exact commentary are you looking for?

The Hobby Lobby case said that a company did not have to pay extra to provide a non-job related product for some of their employees to have while off the job. Said employees have total freedom to purchase the product on their own.

Your fictional story is talking about forcing a religious dress code while on the job.

If you can't tell the difference between the two scenarios...

 

[dank69]

So... what exact commentary are you looking for?

The Hobby Lobby case said that a company did not have to pay for a non-job related product for their employees.

If Hobby Lobby were forcing all employees to, say, wear a cross necklace while on the job, now you'd have a comparison.

But at it sits now, this is a pure troll thread. Thanks so much for wasting everyone's time.

Was posted in OT as a joke. Apparently nobody bothered to look at the spoiler.

 

[nehalem256]

I believe employers could require uniforms even before Hobby Lobby. So why couldn't they have required an Islamic head scarf as part of the uniform?

 

[cubby1223]

Was posted in OT as a joke. Apparently nobody bothered to look at the spoiler.

But it fails as a joke...

Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the decision made in the Hobby Lobby court case, should birth control be mandatory coverage in health insurance?, that is completely separate from the question if the decision is forcing religious beliefs or religious behaviors onto their employees. Yes, Hobby Lobby is acting the way they are because the owners are Christian, but not enrolling in a health insurance plan that divides up the costs of birth control products across all the members, is not forcing Christianity onto the employees.

If Hobby Lobby fired any female employee who purchases birth control products on their own, now you have a massive lawsuit on your hands in which case Hobby Lobby would lose big time. But that is not what is happening.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Fake article is fake.

But, it does point to a problem the defective mind of Conservatives have not thought about;
- they cheered about the government protecting the 'right' of a corporation, to enforce personal/religious beliefs,..
- now, a personal/religious belief comes along that does not agree with Conservatives,...

,.. what next?

 

[nehalem256]

Fake article is fake.

But, it does point to a problem the defective mind of Conservatives have not thought about;
- they cheered about the government protecting the 'right' of a corporation, to enforce personal/religious beliefs,..
- now, a personal/religious belief comes along that does not agree with Conservatives,...

,.. what next?

The issue is that employers could regulate uniforms before Hobby Lobby.

 

[fskimospy]

This article might be fake, but similar things are actually happening. Using Hobby Lobby as precedent Satanists are suing to exempt themselves from abortion restrictions.

 

[nehalem256]

This article might be fake, but similar things are actually happening. Using Hobby Lobby as precedent Satanists are suing to exempt themselves from abortion restrictions.

Satanists Troll Hobby Lobby
...
In short, if the Satanic Temple took this to court, it would probably have a hard time showing that informed-consent laws are a violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs, rather than a group of people's political views.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/satanists-troll-the-hobby-lobby-decision/375268/

Yeah. Somehow I don't think its a good example.

 

[thraashman]

But it fails as a joke...

Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the decision made in the Hobby Lobby court case, should birth control be mandatory coverage in health insurance?, that is completely separate from the question if the decision is forcing religious beliefs or religious behaviors onto their employees. Yes, Hobby Lobby is acting the way they are because the owners are Christian, but not enrolling in a health insurance plan that divides up the costs of birth control products across all the members, is not forcing Christianity onto the employees.

If Hobby Lobby fired any female employee who purchases birth control products on their own, now you have a massive lawsuit on your hands in which case Hobby Lobby would lose big time. But that is not what is happening.

The point with the Hobby Lobby decision is that the court essentially ruled that you can be religiously exempt from following laws. They've set a precedent that can be used in virtually all instances. And it's both a dangerous and insane precedent.


On a side note I'm thinking of starting a religion that has a prime tenet that if you meet him in person you must kick Justice Scalia in the balls. Citing the USSC precedent that my religious freedom trumps laws, I'm sure that Scalia himself will insist I am not guilty of assault.

 

[Retro Rob]

This article might be fake, but similar things are actually happening. Using Hobby Lobby as precedent Satanists are suing to exempt themselves from abortion restrictions.

Just asking, is there anything in the Santanists faith that view abortion as wrong?

 

[nehalem256]

The point with the Hobby Lobby decision is that the court essentially ruled that you can be religiously exempt from following laws. They've set a precedent that can be used in virtually all instances. And it's both a dangerous and insane precedent.

Actually I think Obama set that precedence when he exempted certain groups from the mandate based on their religious beliefs.

All the SCOTUS did was extend that EXACT same exemption to other groups.

 

[fskimospy]

Just asking, is there anything in the Santanists faith that view abortion as wrong?

Not a Satanist, so I don't really know. I'm pretty sure they are all about personal choice though. I sincerely doubt they are serious, but it does highlight the transparently silly logic behind the Hobby Lobby decision.

 

[1prophet]

What's next, cats and dogs living together, pigs flying, or worst of all,

Christian bakers refusing to sell devils food cake on religious groundsD:

 

[Retro Rob]

Not a Satanist, so I don't really know. I'm pretty sure they are all about personal choice though. I sincerely doubt they are serious, but it does highlight the transparently silly logic behind the Hobby Lobby decision.

OK, and it really doesn't highlight anything other than the level of ignorance people will stoop to because they simply "disagree" with a court decision.

I may not agree with a ruling, but it doesn't help me any by wasting the time of the courts and my litigators by making up a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[fskimospy]

OK, and it really doesn't highlight anything other than the level of ignorance people will stoop to because they simply "disagree" with a court decision.

I may not agree with a ruling, but it doesn't help me any by wasting the time of the courts and my litigators by making up a frivolous lawsuit.

To be honest I think the case has real merit even if the plaintiffs aren't totally serious. They are highlighting the dangerous precedents set by Hobby Lobby in an effort to have them either scaled back or overturned.