The Hobby Lobby Case

[Jeff Lebowski]

Going before SCOTUS this week I believe. Can we get some legal opinions on this one? Curious to see what you all are expecting.

[Uncle Ted]

I saw this article but only read down to the part about the Green's being SOB's (Southern Orthodox Baptists)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/

[imanihonjin]

My guess is that Obamacare wins the day as a Corporation will not be viewed as an individual with freedom of religion rights that are protected under the Constitution. Really sad, IMO.

[Moliere]

My guess is that Obamacare wins the day as a Corporation will not be viewed as an individual with freedom of religion rights that are protected under the Constitution. Really sad, IMO.

Corporations are people, my friend.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My guess is that Obamacare wins the day as a Corporation will not be viewed as an individual with freedom of religion rights that are protected under the Constitution. Really sad, IMO.

Where would you draw the line? What if your religion forbade interracial marriage? Should you be allowed to not serve (do business with) interracial couples?

[Moliere]

Where would you draw the line? What if your religion forbade interracial marriage? Should you be allowed to not serve (do business with) interracial couples?

I actually think there is a decent argument to be made that Hobby Lobby should win this case. It's not that they are denying a service to a group of people, they just are choosing to not subsidize the cost of the service, which cost savings would be expected to be passed on to the employee. That seems different than totally denying service to someone. It's the reason I find humor in businesses that won't serve SS couples because SSM is against the business owner's religious views when they are more than willing to serve adulterers, liars, thieves, and other forms of sinners.

I think a good ruling would allow Hobby Lobby to provide health coverage without contraception, however they have to provide a "health coverage" subsidy in the employee wages that would be equivalent to the cost of contraception. That way the employee is not out the coverage if they want it (although they have to pay cash) and the business isn't directly subsidizing the cost.

[byu71]

It's the reason I find humor in businesses that won't serve SS couples because SSM is against the business owner's religious views when they are more than willing to serve adulterers, liars, thieves, and other forms of sinners.

I think a good ruling would allow Hobby Lobby to provide health coverage without contraception, however they have to provide a "health coverage" subsidy in the employee wages that would be equivalent to the cost of contraception. That way the employee is not out the coverage if they want it (although they have to pay cash) and the business isn't directly subsidizing the cost.

Excellent point on discriminating on what type of sinner you will serve or won't serve.

I just don't get why contraception should be part of "health care". Is buying a face mask to prevent inhaling germs covered under health care? How about sun screen so you won't get a sun burn? Maybe laxatives should be part of what you get so you can shit regular? If you live long ernough, a regular crap is more important than sex.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I actually think there is a decent argument to be made that Hobby Lobby should win this case. It's not that they are denying a service to a group of people, they just are choosing to not subsidize the cost of the service, which cost savings would be expected to be passed on to the employee. That seems different than totally denying service to someone. It's the reason I find humor in businesses that won't serve SS couples because SSM is against the business owner's religious views when they are more than willing to serve adulterers, liars, thieves, and other forms of sinners.

I think a good ruling would allow Hobby Lobby to provide health coverage without contraception, however they have to provide a "health coverage" subsidy in the employee wages that would be equivalent to the cost of contraception. That way the employee is not out the coverage if they want it (although they have to pay cash) and the business isn't directly subsidizing the cost.

Seems like a reasonable compromise in this case, but how would you formulate that in a generic manner that applies to all cases? Seems awfully specific.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Excellent point on discriminating on what type of sinner you will serve or won't serve.

I just don't get why contraception should be part of "health care". Is buying a face mask to prevent inhaling germs covered under health care. How about sun screen so you won't get a sun burn. Maybe laxatives should be part of what you get so you can shit regular.

Unplanned pregnancies lead to very large healthcare expenditures. It is a little more serious than a sunburn or constipation.

[TripletDaddy]

My guess is that Obamacare wins the day as a Corporation will not be viewed as an individual with freedom of religion rights that are protected under the Constitution. Really sad, IMO.

Agree. Super sad. Tough to get focused on other stuff.

[imanihonjin]

Where would you draw the line? What if your religion forbade interracial marriage? Should you be allowed to not serve (do business with) interracial couples?

What you are comparing is different because one religious belief is based on race and the other is not. The one that is not is easier to answer obviously as it would apply to all races equally. It is abhorrent to believe that a business would do something as stupid as not serving a person because they are in an interracial marriage. But businesses should be allowed to make stupid decisions, as long as they are not causing damage to another person or another person's property rights. Stupid businesses don't stay in business very long.

[Moliere]

Seems like a reasonable compromise in this case, but how would you formulate that in a generic manner that applies to all cases? Seems awfully specific.

I really have no idea and frankly I find the inclusion of the cost of contraception in insurance coverage kind of silly, but it's the way we are going as we move out of the health insurance realm and into the prepaid health coverage realm.

One interesting thing from the article that was posted above was that Hobby Lobby provided the contraception coverage in their health insurance prior to Obamacare so it was either not an issue or not big enough of an issue for them to really look into it. Given the history it seems they are cherry picking something in the law just to make a fuss, which makes me not like their intentions even if I think they have a reasonable case (keep in mind I'm not a lawyer so my law analysis is about as good as my March Madness bracket picking).

[imanihonjin]

Agree. Super sad. Tough to get focused on other stuff.

Sorry that you can't multitask.

[TripletDaddy]

Sorry that you can't multitask.

When will the sadness pass? The last time I felt this way, Obama and United States had similarly and wontonly turned its back on the Constitution.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What you are comparing is different because one religious belief is based on race and the other is not. The one that is not is easier to answer obviously as it would apply to all races equally. It is abhorrent to believe that a business would do something as stupid as not serving a person because they are in an interracial marriage. But businesses should be allowed to make stupid decisions, as long as they are not causing damage to another person or another person's property rights. Stupid businesses don't stay in business very long.

Like their employees' rights to contraception coverage as defined by federal law?