Stop trying to oversimplify this with facts and stuff!
Of this part, I can agree, although I think their actions belie that.
This seems like a moral justification to me. You don’t see something as problematic because it would eat into your profits. But this is just speculation (and some experience) on my part, so okay, I suppose.
Now this could be true or, as a lawyer, I’m sure you’ve seen many a client advised to never do anything to show you admit to any guilt. Even if you’re caught red handed with a smoking gun, don’t go out of your way to confess to that until it’s your best interest, right?
And I think I’ll save the question of following a moral code outside of what your religion teaches and rather post it as another thread. Thanks for your time and answers.
I was listening to an analysis today about the ruling on NPR and surgical sterilization is OK, which to me is weird. Or maybe its OK if you work for Hobby Lobby because Hobby Lobby does not object to that procedure, but if you work for Hobby Lobby and you do anything to screw with an actual egg, the egg wins.
Any lawyers out there who can clarify?
Important distinction, seeing as how sincerity of belief is quantifiable and objective, whereas validity isn’t.
Let us pause for a moment of reflection.
Here is the detail of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Here is who sponsored The Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Here is who voted to pass The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Senate.
Now carry on…
Ah, the courts will now be sitting in judgment of the professed religious sincerity of corporations. Wise men, indeed!
Bricker, could I get some cites on this please?
It was quite telling to see the right wing reaction to yesterday’s decisions. A lot of them had their biggest erections since they heard that George Zimmerman murdered an unarmed black teen. A whole lot of end zone dancing. As I’ve said many times, being a conservative doesn’t make you an asshole- being an asshole makes you conservative.
In the long term, the forces of goodness and light can take comfort in the fact that this has energized the women voters, doubtlessly switching a lot of R votes to the D column, and making sure that a lot of Ds that would otherwise have stayed home.
But it does set a precedent. I’m guessing that there are closely held corporations out there owned by families or organizations that object to any and all contraception methods, and it’s likely that at least some of them will now want an exemption from covering those methods.
Have you tried reading a news story on the case? Every one I’ve seen mentions this.
Or even just doing a quick .02 second google?
Asking “Cite?” for easily-verified information is kind of lazy, y’know?
Thank you for indulging my laziness.
Here is more specific information - What Birth Control is Affected:
It doesn’t affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B “morning-after pill”
• Ella “morning-after pill”
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
Time to take a deep breath. I am not in support of this decision at all due to the potentially slippery slope, but it is not as bad as I initially thought.
It doesn’t affect discussion or prescribing at all. It affects paying for the prescribed items at the pharmacy. If Ella, Plan B, or two IUDs are prescribed, the insurance of a Hobby Lobby employee won’t cover the usual partial payment that happens when an insured person buys prescribed medicine.
People could use the money they would normally give to their Church and use it for Birth Control.
I guess the owner didn’t read the part of the Bible where Jesus is quoted as telling the young man;" Sell what you have and give it to the poor".Strange how they can avoid some of their scriptures and worry how some people don’t follow their beliefs,when they don’t seem to know the scriptures themselves.
I think Hobby Lobby and other right wingers follow Supply Side Jesus.
And they mistook an anti-Obamacare tantrum for a sincerely held religious belief, so we’re off to a rousing start.
A moment’s thought would make the unwieldy nature of your advice clear. If every Christian were literally required to sell what they own and give the money to the poor, how do you imagine Christians would then live?
Perhaps you picture sort of a Christian Ponzi scheme – the first guy to follow the advice is now himself poor, and is eligible to receive the largess of the next couple of folks to follow the guidance?
Of course, your view that following the scriptures requires a literal adherence to the admonition to sell your possessions is the problem: it’s wrong.
So I guess the shall not kill part of the bible didn’t matter to you?
IUDs don’t kill. That’s just Hobby Lobby’s factually incorrect but sincere belief.
Sure they do. They result in the death of a human living creature.
Do you have some factual definition for human living creature?