Do you agree with the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:40:31 -0400

The Supreme Court backed Hobby Lobby in their challenge against the mandate to provide contraceptive care. What do you think.

Supreme Court rules ObamaCare provision can't force some employers to cover contraception

The decision was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Jun 30 at 2014 12:49 PM

MSG Wade Huffman — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:49:35 -0400

I actually took the time to read the ruling (and the dissenting opinion) this morning and I do agree with the decision. I also agree with the decision on Harris v. Quinn (although that ruling has a very narrow basis).

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2014 3:41 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:41:17 -0400

And what happens in the case of an employer whose religion forbids transfusions, operations, or even seeing a doctor? Any business owned by a scientologist or christian scientist will oppose vaccinations and medications for things like depression on religious grounds.

Response by Cpl Michael Jadrnak made Jun 30 at 2014 4:17 PM

Cpl Michael Jadrnak — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:17:31 -0400

You should not be forced by Obamacare to go against your religious beliefs. If your employees share the same then its just like a union fighting for your rights.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jun 30 at 2014 4:46 PM

SFC Jerry Humphries — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:46:39 -0400

Yes because the government was deffently violating the 1st amendment. I am concerned about the 5-4 split in SCOTUS do to activist Justices who think our Constitutuon is a living document. As I read the responses here I understand why the current administration chooses to defund the Military and Veterains . The Vast Majority of us believe in the oaths we swore unlike our politicians.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2014 5:20 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:20:40 -0400

While I don't personally agree with the owner of Hobby Lobby and think it would be a long term financial benefit to provide birth control, the SCOTUS made the right decision, staying within the confines of the Constitution.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2014 5:29 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:29:18 -0400

I have now read both the Majority and dissenting opinions released by SCOTUS. I do agree with the majority decision.

For me it comes down to choice and personal responsibility where contraceptives are concerned. A lot of people will jump up and down and scream "women's rights" and "women's health" etc. To them I say that they have the right to not have sex. They have the right to make the man wear a condom when having sex. IMHO they DO NOT have the right to shirk responsibility and expect others to pick up the pieces when they drop the ball.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2014 6:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:05:11 -0400

NO one shou;ld be forced to pay for something like that against their will. if the employ wants to go forward they need to do it them selfs, no way , no how should the company be forced to

Same goes if a christain or any other wants a religious surgery

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Jun 30 at 2014 9:51 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:51:12 -0400

I 100% agree.

The US Govt. has no common sense and has no business telling a business owner or corporation (unions included) they have to do something that runs counter to their personal beliefs. "of the people, by the people" seems to have been forgotten by our Legislatures. And don't get me started on ANY of the Constitutional issues that we have been told are not really good for us.

OK Take a Deep Breath like the nice Dr. told you to. Ahhhhh, thats better.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jul 1 at 2014 12:40 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 12:40:56 -0400

My personal belief is this: The government is reaching WAY to far beyond what it should be to control private enterprise in this country. Part of looking for a job is to look at pay and benefits. If you do not like the benefit package (of which insurance is part of it), you can either negotiate for something else OR look at a different company. The Contraceptive care that is most under fire is "morning after pills" and not as much the daily birth control pills that everyone is familiar with (as far as I can tell anyway).

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Jul 2 at 2014 9:25 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:25:33 -0400

I do agree. Hobby Lobby itself is known for paying more than minimum wage to its workers, and they have no problem paying for birth control, they simply don't want to pay for those drugs that cause abortions, such as the "Morning After" pill, and three other types of pills.
This, in effect is not as Clinton claims "A war on women's health" it is a family owned company that does not wish to be responsible for abortions. Just saying....

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jul 2 at 2014 10:03 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:03:29 -0400

i have to say i agree.
the one thing i keep seeing ommitted is that Hobby Lobby was not against all contraceptives.
They held in on objection the contraceptives that would have caused the women to loose the baby( plan b and etc.), and also they are a privately owned company, which i believe was also part of the decision made by SCOTUS.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2014 10:30 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:30:26 -0400

Just learned today - Hobby Lobby's 401k plans are invested in the same companies that provide the birth control they supposedly oppose. More hypocrisy and more proof that this is a financial vs moral decision.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2014 11:26 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:26:11 -0400

I have to agree with Hobby Lobby. I am not responsible for you getting pregnant, so why should I have to pay to murder your child. If its from Rape then the child can be born and the given up for adoption. If you don't want to have the child, they make the day after pill take it and be done with the pregnancy. You pay for it. I am responsible for catching the perpetrator and see that he pays for his actions. When I say catch, I mean I pay the Police salaries and they have a duty to perform to protect you from such assaults. I know all can not be prevented but the woman has specific duties to perform by watching where she is and what she is doing. Lock the doors on car, home and Motel rooms, don't flirt with men in Bars. Know who you are with! Etc. Confucius say Rape impossible, Woman run faster with dress up than man with pants down. What I am getting at is, get a license, carry a weapon be trained and prepared to use it to protect yourself. If I see an attack I will get involved and I am armed! I will do all I can once again to protect the innocent and their rights, even if it means my death. I at least have tried and usually win!

Response by SSgt Ressie Mull made Jul 2 at 2014 4:33 PM

SSgt Ressie Mull — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 16:33:21 -0400

At some point you have to be able to stand behind the beliefs on your company. You have a choice as to whether you stay with a company or not. This will draw a lot of debate for many days to come.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 9:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:07:01 -0400

Definitely agree. Spiritual beliefs notwithstanding, it is NOT proper to force others to to do things against their will or beliefs. It is not right for government to intrude on a person's spiritual beliefs. Just as I disagree with discriminating against ANY religious background, be it Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Atheist/Pagan/Wiccan/etc, I equally expect the same respect from others for my Christian faith. Discrimination is discrimination REGARDLESS of WHO does it.

To be clear, I will not tolerate idiotic statements by fellow Christians. And I WILL call them out on it too. Ridiculous verbage comes from ALL sides, aspects, ethnic backgrounds and gender. This is NOT to excuse ANY of it but to posit and encourage more rational objectivity instead of emotional subjectivity.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 11:52 AM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:52:24 -0400

Folks need to do their research before rushing to judgement. Morning after pills do not cause abortions. http://ec.princeton.edu/references/Mechanism_of_action_Contraception2006.pdf and http://www.ctcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/OBGYN-Clinical-Alert-3-2014.pdf

LNG, one of the morning after pills, is over the counter. So that is not even relevant to the debate.

Additionally regarding the issue of HL investing in the 401k plans that support the manufacturing of said pharmaceuticals are not managed by HL and the employees have the opportunity to choose who to invest in!!!

Response by 1SG Frank Boynton made Jul 3 at 2014 1:21 PM

1SG Frank Boynton — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 13:21:14 -0400

I absolutely agree with the decision. Personally, I believe life begins at conception, and abortion is murder, plain and simple. And I've heard all the arguments. But the one I am absolutely shocked by is the one that it's a viable form of birth control. The liberal left would have you believe it's ok to kill a baby because you accidently got pregnant. There are other forms of birth control that a person can take to avoid becoming pregnant. To me abortion is simply not acceptable.

But this isn't about a personal belief. This is about the government over-reaching it's authority and violating our freedoms established by the constitution. I should never be forced to pay for someones abortion and I don't care what the circumstances are. My right to exercise my 1st amendment rights are not trumpted by some liberal agenda. They are constantly attacking the very foundation that made this country great.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2014 4:49 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:49:26 -0400

I would back it if they were a Church, but they aren't. It pisses me off that in 2014, the things women have already fought for and won, we still have to go back and fight for. It makes me sick. I will never shop there.

Response by SFC Thomas Skinner made Jul 5 at 2014 2:49 PM

SFC Thomas Skinner — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:49:25 -0400

In my opinion an employer is in no way responsible for providing any health insurance to its employees, much less recreational medication like birth control. You are not entitled to employer provided health insurance, it is a benefit, an incentive to draw quality employees. If you don't like the coverage your employer is providing find a different job.

This entitlement attitude in our society is disgusting, no one owes you $hit! Work for what you want, take responsibility for your own life and your own actions!

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Jul 5 at 2014 4:44 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 16:44:06 -0400

In our society we have determined that we will not force someone to commit a sin in accordance with their belief system as long as there is not an overwhelming detriment to society.
The threshold of "deeply held religious beliefs" isn't something that you can just fake.

Understand that most religions do not differentiate between business personal conduct as it pertains to sin.
Commit a sin and be held accountable for the consequences.

It is unacceptable and immoral to force an individual, by way of his or her ownership in a closely held business, to sin against their belief structure, simply for the convenience of a voluntarily employed individual.

You consider benefits when you pursue civilian employment.
If that small shop run by Christian Scientists doesn't meet your needs in the benefit department, go elsewhere.

Response by SGT John Phillips made Jul 6 at 2014 10:37 AM

SGT John Phillips — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 10:37:51 -0400

Yes, I agree with the Supreme Court. I think it's sad than many people don't realize exactly what that ruling was. Even the article cited is highly misleading. Hobby lobby has in no way refused to provide contraception, it only refused after the fact contraception.

Response by SSG Vernon Hartnett made Jul 7 at 2014 10:06 AM

SSG Vernon Hartnett — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:06:27 -0400

Hobby Lobby have already been providing contraceptive care through their provided insurance. What they didn't want to pay for was the "day after pill" or the abortion pill, which is against their policies and beliefs as a company deeply rooted in Christian beliefs. I support them and am glad the Supreme Court backed them, even though it should have never have gone that high up in the justice system.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2014 11:13 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:13:25 -0400

I has been supposed herein that not paying for a birth control option is tantamount to denying a right.

So if I do not pay for an employee's lunch, would anyone suppose that I was somehow preventing that employee from eating?

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2014 11:22 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:22:09 -0400

100%

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2014 12:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:10:41 -0400

Here's the latest deceptiveness. "Not My Bosses Business Act"??? Really? Who ever said it was? NO ONE is saying that it is an employer's business. These people are deliberately twisting the facts to suit their own agenda of forcing THEIR morals down the throats of others. The utter hypocrisy and double standards is so glaring.

"We are here to ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to healthcare," Murray, of Washington state, said, speaking at the Capitol. "I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decision about their own health care and their own bodies."

The above is such a blatant and obvious lie. First off, NO ONE is guaranteed access to healthcare. I challenge anyone to show me proof of this guarantee. Second, as I stated above it is NOT an employer's business to stand between a person and healthcare. It is therefore NOT right for a person to demand an employer to pay for such healthcare. Third, the right of Americans to make their own choices is still there. NO ONE has taken it from them. A deliberate and very deceptive lie designed to evoke fear and anger in the people. Stop buying the lies. Our rights have NOT been infringed upon by the Supreme Court's decision. In fact, they have UPHELD our rights. Think about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-strike-back-hobby-lobby-case-not-bosss-182210871--abc-news-politics.html

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2014 4:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:47:05 -0400

I agree whole heartedly with the decision. And for those of you who get their information from Hillary clinton, NewsFlash... SCOTUS said the closely held companies and corporations can chose which contraceptives they will and wont cover with EPI so as not to violate their religious beliefs.... SCOTUS DIDNT say companies and corporations didnt have to provide contraceptives in their employer provided insurance plans... If some people cant understand this simple fact by reading the decision, then you should not be allowed to have or raise children.

Response by 1SG Frank Rocha made Jul 10 at 2014 8:41 PM

1SG Frank Rocha — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:41:52 -0400

I'm not going to pick sides here but from my perspective it would seem logical that any type of medical or dental care that is considered "extra" or "a luxury" should not be covered unless its in relation to a different injury (e.g. getting plastic surgery to correct a deformation caused by a severe injury). If a perfectly healthy person wants a specific type of "extra" care, and would otherwise be perfectly healthy and have no illness or injury (be it psychological or physical) as a result of not receiving the aforementioned "extra" care, then they should be required to foot the bill on their own.

This is not to say they are, or are not restricted or prohibited from receiving the care (not to mention any related moral and ethical issues) its just that this type of care is unrelated to their health and well being and is a luxury and should not be the responsibility of anyone but themselves.

That said, A good employer always goes the extra mile for their employees and this one does not seem to fit that description. They may be right by the "letter of the law" but it sure doesn't seem like a positive outcome, for either side.

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Jul 11 at 2014 11:35 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:35:30 -0400

i don't think it is the Governments position to require something that goes against that companies religious beliefs. They are one of a handful of companies that closes on Sundays so the employees can spend that day with their family.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Jul 12 at 2014 12:08 PM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:08:03 -0400

Because I do not agree with the Citizens United decision and will never accept that a corporation is a 'person' under the law, I do not agree with the Hobby Lobby decision. That is my objective opinion on the legality of the issue. Citizens United is the crux of the problem here.

My more subjective view is, hell no I don't agree with it! Why can my employer make decisions about my healthcare because of their beliefs???? I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard that they offered contraceptives under their old program and stopped when the ACA made it mandatory. If that's true, that's pretty dastardly. I have never been able to use that word in a sentence before and am proud to have just done so.

It's one thing to limit something like contraceptives because of cost, or supply; that I could understand. But I don't believe (Remember, I am being subjective at the moment) that my employer has the right to enforce, in any way, their religious beliefs over my own.

Can anyone on this website honestly say that they believe a corporation is a person? In any way? I have yet to actually meet someone who can look me in the eyes and say this. Mitt Romney said it in a debate and many people have said it in the news. Nobody in real life though. So, please say so if that's your opinion/belief and please explain that position. I simply don't understand it.

Response by A1C Neil Van Dyke made Jul 12 at 2014 12:11 PM

A1C Neil Van Dyke — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:11:12 -0400

I agree with the decision when it come to not for profit groups and small business, but Hobby Lobby is neither a small business or a not for profit business. Plus a corporation can't be granted the same rights as a person. The owners beliefs are irrelevant, they incorporated to separate themselves form the company in case the company fails or gets sued they don't also. You can't have it both ways.

Response by SSG Robin Rushlo made Jul 12 at 2014 12:42 PM

SSG Robin Rushlo — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:42:07 -0400

I can not believe how many adult on RALLY POINT can not read and understand. First, this ruling allows Hobby Lobby to opt out of 4 types of birth control. They still supply 16 others for their employees.

WOW I just can not believe such BS, and WAR on Women crap is posted here and other place.

Example means if you a woman want the day after birth control pill and you work for HOBBY LOBBY you have to pay for it yourself. If you want the daily pill or 15 other kind of birth control and work for hobby lobby it is paid for.

READ and understand.

Response by CPT Dave Shephard made Jul 16 at 2014 10:42 AM

CPT Dave Shephard — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:42:36 -0400

A slightly more satirical take on the decision from those who do it best....

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/must_see_morning_clip_stephen_colbert_and_jon_stewart_destroy_the_hobby_lobby_decision/

Must-see morning clip: Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart destroy the Hobby Lobby decision

Back from a two-week vacation, the two tackle the terrible Supreme Court decision in their own unique way VIDEO

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Jul 20 at 2014 11:25 AM

SSG Mike Angelo — Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:25:30 -0400

I agree with the decision. Some may say...ya for religions freedom, while others say that we all have choices.

Big Government was warned not haze the Catholic Church.

I was raised in a Catholic home and attended Catholic school.

Piss off the Pope, send Priests to jail but the One thing I learned early on in life is not to piss off a Nun. Religious literacy and practice 101. Don't tell Sister Mary Theresa that she has a mandate to comply with contraceptive practices.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 4:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:13:28 -0400

I agree. It's not anyone's bosses' business regarding their birth control means.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2014 6:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:44:14 -0400

I agree with hobby lobby and the bottom line is they should be able to choose what health insurance they provide if an employee does not like it they are free to either go elsewhere for employment or they can pay for their own private medical insurance.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2014 6:58 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:58:28 -0400

Personally, I have a problem with private companies pushing their religious views on citizens in principle, and with this case I'm concerned that other companies may spontaneously develop new religious views that are less concerned with religious belief and more concerned with cutting the bottom line for their ACA-mandated healthcare plans.

It just seems odd that a civilian employer would get a say in their employee's healthcare decisions.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Aug 11 at 2014 4:31 PM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:31:27 -0400

I don't agree with Hobby Lobby, but I also don't agree with the government forcing businesses to do things. I realize there are legitimate arguments on both sides. At the end of the day the issue is bigger than Hobby Lobby and goes into healthcare as it is. For now, if you don't like Hobby Lobby practices, get a job elsewhere. If they can't staff their store, they will either have to close down, or change their policy.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2014 4:45 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:45:10 -0400

I can see how this is 1st amendment violation. Let's see if this trend will spark other controversial [in]decisions

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 5:23 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:23:04 -0500

This is about America's favorite political topic, who is going to pay for something I want? It goes from people demanding Hobby Lobby to pay for what they want to MIT health economist Johnathan Gruber, who can be watched saying:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said in one 52-second clip. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”

Gruber then trumpeted the value of a “lack of transparency” — and called American voters stupid. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

Critical for those who think that the government has the right to reach into your pocket to pay political favors.

Rubbers are cheap. The pill is cheap. Abstinence is free. I don't care what you choose, as long as you don't demand that I pay for your choice.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jul 5 at 2016 12:55 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 12:55:10 -0400

Yes. I agree.