Religion
Related: About this forumFive takeaways from the Hobby Lobby case
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception/Lauren Markoe and Cathy Lynn Grossman | Jun 30, 2014
Five things to know about the most-anticipated Supreme Court decision of the year.
1. Corporations cant pray, but they do have religious rights
Hobby Lobby isnt a person. Its a company owned by a religious family. And though the evangelical Green family objects to parts of the Affordable Care Acts contraception mandate, its not the Greens but their company that writes the check for employees health insurance. The first question the justices had to answer was this: Does Hobby Lobby have religious rights? To many Americans, this sounds a little nutty. Does Burger King believe in God? Can Home Depot go to Mass?
A majority of the justices held that a closely held company such as Hobby Lobby does have religious rights. The court didnt apply those rights, however, to publicly held corporations, where owners religious beliefs would be hard to discern.
But well before the justices had delivered their verdict on this question, many legal scholars said they wouldnt be surprised were they to affirm the companys religious rights. American corporations do have some of the rights and responsibilities we usually associate with people. And in the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance case, the justices overturned bans on corporate political spending as a violation of freedom of speech corporations free speech.
2. The Affordable Care Act isnt the only way to get contraception to women
The justices in this case interpreted not only on the 225-year-old Constitution but also the 21-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). One of the things RFRA says is that if a federal law is going to substantially burden someones religious freedom, the feds must make sure that the law uses the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose. In this case, the purpose is providing FDA-approved birth control to female employees at no cost.
more at link
muriel_volestrangler
(101,368 posts)for at least 3 reasons - (a) it's the government paying for something, and even if it's a public good, they're against that unless it's pork that gets them re-elected (b) they need the support of the religious crazies (c) Obama would want it, so they must be against it.
The government paying for it would be at risk whenever there's a Republican House or president - and I suspect you'd need a Democratic supermajority to get the initial legislation past the Senate.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While it sounds ok in theory and is basically consistent with what the Obama administration once proposed as a solution, it is highly unlikely to happen.
Unless, of course, this decision causes a serious backlash, as recent polls showed that the public is not in agreement with this decision.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,368 posts)For instance, the public thinks some extra background checks or closing the guns show loophole would be a good idea, but no-one expects anyone to lose their seat by ignoring public opinion on that. The Repubs have a base of reliable voters, who, in gerrymandered seats, are enough to get them re-election unless they show incompetency and idiocy across multiple issues.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Like everyone else. So that should be another take-away: buy rubbers at 7/11 just like everyone else
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123388
A FUCKING MILLION TIMES THIS.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's disgusting enough to see sexist or homophobic bullshit elsewhere on the Inernet, but to have to read it on DU?
I use my Ignore list to avoid the worst bigoted nonsense.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Or that is the official story anyway.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They want to fight? Fine. Let's have a fight.