Well done to the Supreme Court.

[N35t0r]

...companies could unionize? Amazing

[-Jrabbit]

Ginsburg's 35-page dissent is a great read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one of any importance cares. Jesus! There is ALOT of whining over the fact a company refuses to pay for 4 out of approximately 20 available forms of contraception.

Lord almighty, y'all are making me agree with DD .

A) This isn't ALL contraception. Hobby Lobby had a problem with paying for 4 which it considered abortifacents (which I think was silly, but hey).
B) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act mandates that strict scrutiny be applied for any generally applicable law that impacts religious freedoms (in consequence of the Employment Division v. Smith ruling which denied the use of peyote in services because of generally applicable drug laws).
(B)(i) Strict Scrutiny means that there must be a compelling governmental interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to that compelling government interest
(B)(ii) In addition, the RFRA mandates that the least restrictive method be undertaken to achieve a compelling governmental interest
C) The majority ruled that while there was a compelling governmental interest to provide birth control for women, the law was not narrowly tailored to that interest, BECAUSE:
(C)(i) There is already an alternative for religious non-profits, whereby they opt-out of paying for birth control, and then the insurer is mandated to pay for the birth control
(C)(ii) Justice Kennedy in his concurrence even says that this can be expanded for profit companies.
(C)(iii) And this could not apply to racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, etc, because those laws are narrowly tailored for the compelling governmental interest they are meant to serve - there are no valid alternatives to achieve the compelling governmental interest

The only real issue here involves corporations asserting religious rights, and the majority pointed out that if religious non-profits can assert religious rights, why can't religious profits? After all, a corporation is only a legal fiction for certain legal ends - a lot of corporations are really just sole proprietorship or partnerships encompassed in a corporate framework.

There is an argument to be made that perhaps when a company avails itself of the benefits of incorporation, it surrenders other rights, and one of those rights is to act like a sole proprietorship in religious belief - that's the only argument that has any weight for me (and it may be where I'd fall on the matter - I'm actually torn on this one). However, that doesn't change the RFRA analysis on this, if say Hobby Lobby was a sole proprietorship

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a great decision with the proper result that employers have freedom of conscience too. Unless the job involves something where contraception would affect job performance, I don't see why employers should be compelled to pay for it.

[Dinner]

China denies a great many human rights to its people. Do you criticize any other company for importing products from them?

If their supposed religious convictions were genuine instead of just a matter of financial convenience... Yes. Hell, at the very least they should stop investing their pension fund into pharma companies which make birth control, right?

[Sava]

Presumably a company could also impose a mandatory religious tithe on employees too right?

Hey, it's their right to!

[Felch]

If their supposed religious convictions were genuine instead of just a matter of financial convenience... Yes. Hell, at the very least they should stop investing their pension fund into pharma companies which make birth control, right?

I seriously don't believe that you read what I wrote. China does many bad things which Americans can sincerely oppose. Everything from mandatory birth control to sham trials and censoring the truth about Tiananmen Square. By your logic, anybody who would oppose these human rights violations in America should abstain from doing business with China. Do you hold this viewpoint consistently, or are you just applying it to a group you hold a political grudge against?

As far as investing their pension funds, that's hardly as cut and dry as you make it out. Mutual funds invest in dozens or even hundreds of companies, and while there are alternative funds that try to avoid morally ambiguous investments, most are just trying to deliver the maximum value for their customers. It's something I expect Hobby Lobby may try to change now that it's been pointed out, but most people don't know the names of every company their mutual fund invests in, much less the whole range of products those companies sell.

In other words, you're looking for some sort of hypocrisy and finding it. The same could be said of literally everybody on the planet. Unfortunately for you, the case was decided on the basis of law, not your personal bias.

[Dinner]

So, claiming they are morally opposed to birth control but investing in companies which make birth control is just me "attempting to find hypocrisy", eh? It seems that morally they have no problem with it as long as they're making money off of it.

[MrFun]

Lord almighty, y'all are making me agree with DD .

A) This isn't ALL contraception. Hobby Lobby had a problem with paying for 4 which it considered abortifacents (which I think was silly, but hey).
B) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act mandates that strict scrutiny be applied for any generally applicable law that impacts religious freedoms (in consequence of the Employment Division v. Smith ruling which denied the use of peyote in services because of generally applicable drug laws).
(B)(i) Strict Scrutiny means that there must be a compelling governmental interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to that compelling government interest
(B)(ii) In addition, the RFRA mandates that the least restrictive method be undertaken to achieve a compelling governmental interest
C) The majority ruled that while there was a compelling governmental interest to provide birth control for women, the law was not narrowly tailored to that interest, BECAUSE:
(C)(i) There is already an alternative for religious non-profits, whereby they opt-out of paying for birth control, and then the insurer is mandated to pay for the birth control
(C)(ii) Justice Kennedy in his concurrence even says that this can be expanded for profit companies.
(C)(iii) And this could not apply to racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, etc, because those laws are narrowly tailored for the compelling governmental interest they are meant to serve - there are no valid alternatives to achieve the compelling governmental interest

The only real issue here involves corporations asserting religious rights, and the majority pointed out that if religious non-profits can assert religious rights, why can't religious profits? After all, a corporation is only a legal fiction for certain legal ends - a lot of corporations are really just sole proprietorship or partnerships encompassed in a corporate framework.

There is an argument to be made that perhaps when a company avails itself of the benefits of incorporation, it surrenders other rights, and one of those rights is to act like a sole proprietorship in religious belief - that's the only argument that has any weight for me (and it may be where I'd fall on the matter - I'm actually torn on this one). However, that doesn't change the RFRA analysis on this, if say Hobby Lobby was a sole proprietorship

If corporations can assert religious rights, then what would stop them from claiming exemption from taxes, just as churches do?

[The Mad Monk]

The law?

[Felch]

So, claiming they are morally opposed to birth control but investing in companies which make birth control is just me "attempting to find hypocrisy", eh? It seems that morally they have no problem with it as long as they're making money off of it.

Do you even know how mutual funds work?

[DinoDoc]

So, claiming they are morally opposed to birth control but investing in companies which make birth control is just me "attempting to find hypocrisy", eh? It seems that morally they have no problem with it as long as they're making money off of it.

If corporations can assert religious rights, then what would stop them from claiming exemption from taxes, just as churches do?

Let me try this again. I'll try and go slowly for the mentally handicapped among us. Imagine, if you will, that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 2. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:

1. Male condoms

2. Female condoms

3. Diaphragms with spermicide

4. Sponges with spermicide

5. Cervical caps with spermicide

6. Spermicide alone

7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)

8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)

9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)

10. Contraceptive patches

11. Contraceptive rings

12. Progestin injections

13. Implantable rods

14. Vasectomies

15. Female sterilization surgeries

16. Female sterilization implants

Where are her "rights" to access contraception being violated?

[Dinner]

DD, they're claiming any sort of female birth control which uses hormones is outside of their religious beliefs so several of the things you mentioned, such as patches, are out. Also the birth control pill also is used to treat numerous other medical conditions so the blanket ban is just reprehensible.

[DinoDoc]

DD, they're claiming any sort of female birth control which uses hormones is outside of their religious beliefs so several of the things you mentioned, such as patches, are out. Also the birth control pill also is used to treat numerous other medical conditions so the blanket ban is just reprehensible.

They object to 4 forms of birth control out of a list of 20 approved by the FDA. Not one of the forms they object to are on the list. Seriously, stop being such a God damn liar.

[Dinner]

Yes, genious, and we are currently talking about how the main form of birth control in the country, the one Hobby Lobby's women hating owners object to, is also something which hobby lobby invests heavily into. Oh, they also invest heavily in abortion drugs and abortion providers so, yes, they're f'ing hypocrites. Now, stop trying to derail the thread as I'm speaking with Felch.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers