Supreme Court strikes down contraceptive requirement for Hobby Lobby

[Ian 325]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html

 

Pretty big story. Only applies to closely held corporations but I can't think of a time in our history when a corporation was recognized as having religious beliefs.

[Oreo 2073]

Good.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html

 

Pretty big story. Only applies to closely held corporations but I can't think of a time in our history when a corporation was recognized as having religious beliefs.

 

It states that "family-owned corporations" can't be required to pay. Corporations can have religious beliefs but it depends on the circumstances in it, which is what they basically set. Considering the circumstances, it seems to be the right decision to not force a family owned corporation to have to support something that they religiously don't approve of. I am curious as to how this would affect corporations such as EA though.

 

They might have taken into account the supreme court ruling that corporations are technically people as well. I'd imagine that played a solid part in it.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Oreo

[Clamps 4783]

Good.

 

 

It states that "family-owned corporations" can't be required to pay. Corporations can have religious beliefs but it depends on the circumstances in it, which is what they basically set. Considering the circumstances, it seems to be the right decision to not force a family owned corporation to have to support something that they religiously don't approve of. I am curious as to how this would affect corporations such as EA though.

 

They might have taken into account the supreme court ruling that corporations are technically people as well. I'd imagine that played a solid part in it.

 

IMO it sets a real dangerous precedent that I think will open the floodgates for loopholes to be found and exploited. It pretty much gives the green light to any private company to use "religious beliefs" to their advantage. 

 

Corporations should not have religious beliefs. The owner isn't paying their benefits out of his own pocket, its coming from the company. 

 

 

Just my opinion... If anything it'll spark a great debate.. 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

While I don't agree with it I understand it if it's just family owned corporations but as clamps said this is gonna end up being exploited. I'm just gonna wait for companies to go anti gay like chick filet or whatever it's name was tried to do.i didn't read the full article I'm just going off what I see in comments.

[Oreo 2073]

IMO it sets a real dangerous precedent that I think will open the floodgates for loopholes to be found and exploited. It pretty much gives the green light to any private company to use "religious beliefs" to their advantage. 

 

It's an explicit ruling. The loopholes opened by it will be few. You're not going to see companies able to challenge paying taxes or providing other services in regards to "religious beliefs". I'm not so sure why people are getting this sort of thought that it's going to be openly abused because the fact is, it can't be with this ruling.

 

In regards to the corporation, that is technically the property of the owner. I don't know enough regarding the topic, but I wouldn't agree with the corporation not being a person's "pocket" when it comes to supporting something. This is a family owned corporation, as are all three of the companies involved in these suits. This is why the "closely held" part of the ruling is key, this won't apply to something split among numerous groups.

 

While I don't agree with it I understand it if it's just family owned corporations but as clamps said this is gonna end up being exploited. I'm just gonna wait for companies to go anti gay like chick filet or whatever it's name was tried to do.i didn't read the full article I'm just going off what I see in comments.

 

Chick-Fil-A didn't do anything "Anti-gay" in regards to how it treated it's customers. Chick Fil A simply donated money towards a group that viewed marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's no different than Starbucks giving money to a group that campaigns for gay marriage to be legalized. If you're going to bring up something like that, at least know what the hell you're talking about.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Oreo

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Ahh ok I hadn't followed the chick fil a thing much as it was going on. Musta heard some false info

[camelFun 1435]

Holy crap, I think Ian Kinsler is just some master troll or something, 'cause this thread just became cancer. Can we know about things before arguing about them next time, please? Goodness.

[BeauutifulChaos 902]

I'm not reading all the text but. As far as I am concerned birth control is a woman's own responsibility. If she can't afford it, just use a freaking condom.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Christmas 643]

I'm not reading all the text but. As far as I am concerned birth control is a woman's own responsibility. If she can't afford it, just use a freaking condom.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Not all women use contraceptives solely to prevent pregnancy. I also don't think that's the point. The issue people have is that Hobby Lobby is now allowed to pick and choose what to cover based on religious beliefs.

 

Birth control pills? Nope. Vasectomies and Viagra? A-okay.

[BeauutifulChaos 902]

Not all women use contraceptives solely to prevent pregnancy. I also don't think that's the point. The issue people have is that Hobby Lobby is now allowed to pick and choose what to cover based on religious beliefs.

 

Birth control pills? Nope. Vasectomies and Viagra? A-okay.

 

 

That I understand. I was initially put on birth control to regulate my cycle. But still. Women are getting way too greedy and self-important and it's annoying as fuck.

 

But yeah, religious stuff blah blah blah. <- That's my opinion. =X

Edited July 1, 2014 by BeauutifulChaos

[Tuxedofunk 42]

I can easily think of one.

Remember the big Chik-fil-A controversy? I don't remember the exact details, but it had something to do with the restaurant publicly discriminating against the LGBT community because Chk-fil-A is a Christian company. There was all kinds of protests nationwide with many LGBT people embracing each other outside the restaurants, and business was extremely damaged for a few weeks. It's the biggest instance of controversy surrounding a company's religious standpoint that I can think of.

[Clamps 4783]

I can easily think of one.<br />Remember the big Chik-fil-A controversy? I don't remember the exact details, but it had something to do with the restaurant publicly discriminating against the LGBT community because Chk-fil-A is a Christian company. There was all kinds of protests nationwide with many LGBT people embracing each other outside the restaurants, and business was extremely damaged for a few weeks. It's the biggest instance of controversy surrounding a company's religious standpoint that I can think of.

<br /><br /><br />.... Go back and read the first page of this very thread..

[Oreo 2073]

Not all women use contraceptives solely to prevent pregnancy. I also don't think that's the point. The issue people have is that Hobby Lobby is now allowed to pick and choose what to cover based on religious beliefs.

 

Birth control pills? Nope. Vasectomies and Viagra? A-okay.

 

Depends on their religion. Contraceptives tend to be a more debated item in the religious circle due to the fact that some view things such as birth control as not only a contraceptive but also a form of abortion. If they're Catholic then they don't support certain forms of pregnancy help.  I don't see Viagra(situational) being an issue among Catholics but i'll have to look it up to be 100% sure. Vasectomies aren't supported for them, but once again, it differs on beliefs among the religious groups. Catholics tend to be the most disapproving of artificial pregnany help/control of all the groups, so I can't imagine any other religion trying to avoid it if they don't.

 

I can easily think of one.

Remember the big Chik-fil-A controversy? I don't remember the exact details, but it had something to do with the restaurant publicly discriminating against the LGBT community because Chk-fil-A is a Christian company. There was all kinds of protests nationwide with many LGBT people embracing each other outside the restaurants, and business was extremely damaged for a few weeks. It's the biggest instance of controversy surrounding a company's religious standpoint that I can think of.

 

LOL

 

No, it had nothing to do with discrimination in any way shape or form, nor was their business damaged. They actually received an increase in customers nationwide.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Oreo

[Kim 469]

[JFK 546]

I can only imagine the outrage the Supreme Court would have incurred if Hobby Lobby was a Muslim-run family business that wanted to impose some level of Sharia Law onto their customers.