Posted on Jun 30, 2014
Do you agree with the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision?
20.8K
507
161
4
4
0
The Supreme Court backed Hobby Lobby in their challenge against the mandate to provide contraceptive care. What do you think.
Posted in these groups: 
Obamacare
Supreme Court
Obamacare Supreme Court
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 40
1
1
0
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/
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
(1)
(0)
CPT Dave Shephard
MAJ Carl Ballinger, can you give us your take or play by play? As a guy on the fence (and generally in search of an unbiased or well thought out rationale), I'd be interested in hear your take or response to it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger, in that case, the government shouldn't force us to get health insurance, auto insurance, or any kind of insurance. There shouldn't be any kind of welfare. As a matter of fact, the government should take away our pension plan because it is our responsibility to make sure that we have enough saving for our retirement, not the government's.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger, it is a person's right to have a child or not. It is not even a privilege. So how can one deny a person's right because of one's religious point of view? I say that it is a point of view because they view a fertilized egg as a human being. How can a human being be without any vital organs or even a brain?
(0)
(2)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Fung. Because it is? It requires substances, it requires many things to keep on living AND it can medical be declared dead. No way in living dose it say you need a brain or organs (Hello jelly fish)
(0)
(0)
CW2 Ernest Krutzsch
I think the issue has been blurred, Hobby Lobby provides Birth control, they only objected to the 4 forms of Birth Control that in their eyes aborted a fetus. The other 16 forms of birth control are still available. Personally I think the government has no business in this at all
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG William Patton
MSG, great point. Instead of the AFA, it would have made more sense to market health insurance like car insurance, across state lines. Competition would drive the cost of insurance down. Unfortunately, many insurance companies have voices in the Congress that keep this from happening and thus, the costs are abnormally high.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Michael Jadrnak
Since I work for the railroad right now I pay 200 a month for my wife and I. I'm sure in 2016 when our contract is up NS will kick us to Obamacare.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSG Wise - there's reasons that across state lines are not allowed. Go take a look at credit cards, there's a reason they'e all from the Dakotas, because they can charge 24% interest and avoid usury laws in other states. Allowing insurance across state lines will be a race to the bottom.
(0)
(1)
Col (Join to see)
Yes, AFA is great unless you are a small business owner forced to provide it. So as a result, you cut your employees hours to below 30 so you don't have to pay for AFA and can keep your business afloat. Another step towards low quality socialized medicine on the back of tax payers wallets.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/225559
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/225559
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I can see how this is 1st amendment violation. Let's see if this trend will spark other controversial [in]decisions
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google