Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:39 AM Jun 2014

Five takeaways from the Hobby Lobby case

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-contraception/

Lauren Markoe and Cathy Lynn Grossman | Jun 30, 2014
Five things to know about the most-anticipated Supreme Court decision of the year.

1. Corporations can’t pray, but they do have religious rights

Hobby Lobby isn’t a person. It’s a company owned by a religious family. And though the evangelical Green family objects to parts of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, it’s not the Greens but their company that writes the check for employees’ health insurance. The first question the justices had to answer was this: Does Hobby Lobby have religious rights? To many Americans, this sounds a little nutty. Does Burger King believe in God? Can Home Depot go to Mass?

A majority of the justices held that a closely held company such as Hobby Lobby does have religious rights. The court didn’t apply those rights, however, to publicly held corporations, where owners’ religious beliefs would be hard to discern.

But well before the justices had delivered their verdict on this question, many legal scholars said they wouldn’t be surprised were they to affirm the company’s religious rights. American corporations do have some of the rights and responsibilities we usually associate with people. And in the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance case, the justices overturned bans on corporate political spending as a violation of freedom of speech – corporation’s free speech.

2. The Affordable Care Act isn’t the only way to get contraception to women

The justices in this case interpreted not only on the 225-year-old Constitution but also the 21-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). One of the things RFRA says is that if a federal law is going to substantially burden someone’s religious freedom, the feds must make sure that the law uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve its purpose. In this case, the purpose is providing FDA-approved birth control to female employees at no cost.

more at link
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Five takeaways from the Hobby Lobby case (Original Post) cbayer Jun 2014 OP
"Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the government could pay" - but we know the Repubs won't muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #1
I think you are absolutely right about this. cbayer Jun 2014 #4
Unfortunately, backlashes against Repubs are very rare muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #5
Hey your own husband said women can just buy rubbers at 7/11 Heddi Jun 2014 #2
THIS. trotsky Jun 2014 #3
I still have unresolved rage from that thread. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #7
Perfectly understandable. trotsky Jun 2014 #8
well after all that is the *atheist* viewpoint. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #10
Single payer fixes everything. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #6
6. religion and religiosity are huge problems. Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #9

muriel_volestrangler

(101,311 posts)
1. "Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the government could pay" - but we know the Repubs won't
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jun 2014

for at least 3 reasons - (a) it's the government paying for something, and even if it's a public good, they're against that unless it's pork that gets them re-elected (b) they need the support of the religious crazies (c) Obama would want it, so they must be against it.

The government paying for it would be at risk whenever there's a Republican House or president - and I suspect you'd need a Democratic supermajority to get the initial legislation past the Senate.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
4. I think you are absolutely right about this.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:49 PM
Jun 2014

While it sounds ok in theory and is basically consistent with what the Obama administration once proposed as a solution, it is highly unlikely to happen.

Unless, of course, this decision causes a serious backlash, as recent polls showed that the public is not in agreement with this decision.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,311 posts)
5. Unfortunately, backlashes against Repubs are very rare
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:47 PM
Jun 2014

For instance, the public thinks some extra background checks or closing the guns show loophole would be a good idea, but no-one expects anyone to lose their seat by ignoring public opinion on that. The Repubs have a base of reliable voters, who, in gerrymandered seats, are enough to get them re-election unless they show incompetency and idiocy across multiple issues.

Heddi

(18,312 posts)
2. Hey your own husband said women can just buy rubbers at 7/11
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:42 PM
Jun 2014

Like everyone else. So that should be another take-away: buy rubbers at 7/11 just like everyone else

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123388

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
8. Perfectly understandable.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:14 PM
Jun 2014

It's disgusting enough to see sexist or homophobic bullshit elsewhere on the Inernet, but to have to read it on DU?

I use my Ignore list to avoid the worst bigoted nonsense.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Five takeaways from the H...