The Hobby Lobby Case

[imanihonjin]

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

Pretty sure there is no "right" to contraceptive coverage. Nobody is going to go to jail if they don't provide contraceptive coverage rather they simply have to pay a penalty....err...a tax if not provided.

Just because Congress requires something, doesn't mean that something is a "right".

[Jeff Lebowski]

Pretty sure there is no "right" to contraceptive coverage. Nobody is going to go to jail if they don't provide contraceptive coverage rather they simply have to pay a penalty....err...a tax if not provided.

Just because Congress requires something, doesn't mean that something is a "right".

Jail? Who said anything about jail? Not following your logic here.

[imanihonjin]

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.

No idea. You shouldn't concern yourself with it though, you have far more important things like sneakers and hand gestures by bishopric members to occupy you brain space.

[imanihonjin]

Jail? Who said anything about jail? Not following your logic here.

You are the one trying to equate the right to contraceptives to property rights or were you saying it was more equivalent to the right not to have damage done to a person?

[byu71]

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

OK, my death is going to be unplanned. However, unless I pay for life insurance no one is going to pay my kids anything.

Maybe we should force companies to pay for life insurance for their employee's.

I know, to you my death is comparable to a sun burn, but have a heart others place a bit more value on me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You are the one trying to equate the right to contraceptives to property rights or were you saying it was more equivalent to the right not to have damage done to a person?

Just trying to understand how some corporate "beliefs" should be protected while others should not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, my death is going to be unplanned. However, unless I pay for life insurance no one is going to pay my kids anything.

Maybe we should force companies to pay for life insurance for their employee's.

I know, to you my death is comparable to a sun burn, but have a heart others place a bit more value on me.

Do you believe in any kind of preventive health care? You are aware that many preventative procedures are routinely covered by health insurance?

[Uncle Ted]

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.

How about allowing business to provide a "health coverage" subsidy (as part of one's salary) and give the individuals the choice to buy whatever health coverage they want? In fact religious groups could get together and create a group plan with enough volume to save money. The LDS group plan could have a couple of levels. One for TR holders than follow the WoW and don't smoke, drink, eat large amounts of bacon, eat food out of season, etc. (giving deeper discounts). Another for everyone else.

[imanihonjin]

Just trying to understand how some corporate "beliefs" should be protected while others should not.

I get it, and I think my answer, while others disagree with it, is fairly clear at where the line should be drawn. As long as a company is not causing damage to a person or to a person's property rights, then I don't think the government should be involved.

[Sleeping in EQ]

If you live long ernough, a regular crap is more important than sex.

Trust you to know.

[SeattleUte]

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

This case is making my head explode. My intentse skepticism of religion vs. my intense skepticism of government. There are two issues -- Can a for profit corporation exercise religious freedom? If yes to the first question, Do the ACA requirements to provide coverage for contraception and abortion unduly burden said corporations' religious liberty?

When I write out the issues it helps; my head's torment relents, and I'm thinking that Obama probably has the better argument.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This case is making my head explode. My intentse skepticism of religion vs. my intense skepticism of government. There are two issues -- Can a for profit corporation exercise religious freedom? If yes to the first question, Do the ACA requirements to provide coverage for contraception and abortion unduly burden said corporations' religious liberty?

When I write out the issues it helps; my head's torment relents, and I'm thinking that Obama probably has the better argument.

Yeah, it is a tough one.

[Nakoma]

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

Hobby Lobby wins. Its brief is only 50 pages. The government's brief is 250 pages long. If it takes 250 pages to justify your position, you lose.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hobby Lobby wins. Its brief is only 50 pages. The government's brief is 250 pages long. If it takes 250 pages to justify your position, you lose.

Wow. All this time I had no idea that legal analysis is so simple.

[byu71]

Do you believe in any kind of preventive health care? You are aware that many preventative procedures are routinely covered by health insurance?

Yes, I do believe in preventitive health care. I guess where we have a difference of opinion is what type of preventitive procedures should be covered by health insurance and what preventitive procedures should be the responsibility of the individual.

However the Supreme Court decides I will accept and move on.