Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:44 am**

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... bby-lobby/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.

The 5-4 decision was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.
At issue in the ObamaCare case was a challenge brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans.

It was the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.

Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:52 am**

When a Republican President gets into office
punching holes in the affordable care act will be a daily routine

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:59 am**

Chizzang wrote:When a Republican President gets into office
punching holes in the affordable care act will be a daily routine

Poorly conceived and poorly constructed laws are easy to punch holes in. Obama had the chance early in his tenure to get this right and he wasn't able to rein in the supermajority and do it correctly, and we'll be suffering the consequences of that missed opportunity for long after Obama is out of office.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:02 am**

GannonFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:When a Republican President gets into office
punching holes in the affordable care act will be a daily routine

Poorly conceived and poorly constructed laws are easy to punch holes in. Obama had the chance early in his tenure to get this right and he wasn't able to rein in the supermajority and do it correctly, and we'll be suffering the consequences of that missed opportunity for long after Obama is out of office.

He was too busy trying to fix all the problems he inherited.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:05 am**

GannonFan wrote:
Chizzang wrote:When a Republican President gets into office
punching holes in the affordable care act will be a daily routine

Poorly conceived and poorly constructed laws are easy to punch holes in. Obama had the chance early in his tenure to get this right and he wasn't able to rein in the supermajority and do it correctly, and we'll be suffering the consequences of that missed opportunity for long after Obama is out of office.

It might get repealed - or something like that - and I don't disagree with you at all

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:05 am**

89Hen wrote:
GannonFan wrote:
Poorly conceived and poorly constructed laws are easy to punch holes in. Obama had the chance early in his tenure to get this right and he wasn't able to rein in the supermajority and do it correctly, and we'll be suffering the consequences of that missed opportunity for long after Obama is out of office.
He was too busy trying to fix all the problems he inherited.

This would never have occurred under a white presidency.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:12 am**

Chizzang wrote:When a Republican President gets into office
punching holes in the affordable care act will be a daily routine

Obama himself has been doing an admirable job of that already

I am actually waiting for him to have a "John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it" moment.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:22 am**

This says it all:

"What we saw today was five male justices essentially rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all," Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered. "They said it's OK for bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor."

Sad day for America, but we all have to respect the decision.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:27 am**

Cap'n Cat wrote:This says it all:

"What we saw today was five male justices essentially rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all," Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered. "They said it's OK for bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor."

Sad day for America, but we all have to respect the decision.

No I think what they said was that it is ok to make your own decision, your boss just doesn't have to pay for it. But let's not let the truth stand in the way of a good argument

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:28 am**

OL FU wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:This says it all:

"What we saw today was five male justices essentially rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all," Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered. "They said it's OK for bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor."

Sad day for America, but we all have to respect the decision.
No I think what they said was that it is ok to make your own decision, your boss just doesn't have to pay for it. But let's not let the truth stand in the way of a good argument

Yup. But that doesn't make for good bolded, large font posts.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:32 am**

Sexual Health is important, but if your company doesn't want to provide contraception b/c it doesn't agree with it's beliefs, then I don't see the problem. Don't be shocked when your religious boss doesn't want to do something that contradicts his ideology.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:43 am**

If someone believes that life beings at conception, and that aborting the life is murder. Someone who believes that, doesn't want to provide being accessory to murder, ei paying for it.
This isn't a womens health issue.
Its a case of being forced by the goverment to pay for something that is morally acceptable to them.
If a HobbyLobby employee wants contraception, tell them to go to the fucking free government clinic, and continue to use your health insurance for other medical needs.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:47 am**

Cap'n Cat wrote:This says it all:

"What we saw today was five male justices essentially rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all," Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered. "They said it's OK for bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor."

Sad day for America, but we all have to respect the decision.

Indeed - a very sad day for LIBERTY, EQUALITY and everything America stands for.

Alito/Scalia/Thomas need to be impeached. They are the worst trio of justices in the history of the SCOTUS.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:53 am**

But in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as "a decision of startling breadth" that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The majority view "demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ" wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court's liberal wing.

She continued: "Persuaded that Congress enacted the (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court's judgment can introduce, I dissent."

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:06 am**

GannonFan wrote:he wasn't able to rein in the supermajority.

just to be clear, democrats barely ever had a supermajority in the senate during obama's term.

they briefly had a supermajority in july and august 2008 - but, congress was in its summer recess for most of that.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:10 am**

OMG itsa the end of the world!

total meltdown on the left

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:15 am**

dbackjon wrote:But in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as "a decision of startling breadth" that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

The majority view "demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ" wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court's liberal wing.

She continued: "Persuaded that Congress enacted the (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court's judgment can introduce, I dissent."

Admittedly, haven't read the opinion but from what I have heard it is a very narrow opinion dealing only with ACA. So just like the president of NARAL above, she is stretching much more than the majority opinion she accuses.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:17 am**

Since when is HIV/AIDS a gay disease? Haven't we been taught not to think that way already?

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:24 am**

andy7171 wrote:Since when is HIV/AIDS a gay disease? Haven't we been taught not to think that way already?

Well, considering you can only get it from ass banging, it's pretty safe to say it's a gay disease.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:25 am**

93henfan wrote:
andy7171 wrote:Since when is HIV/AIDS a gay disease? Haven't we been taught not to think that way already?

Well, considering you can only get it from ass banging, it's pretty safe to say it's a gay disease.

This will not go over well.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:27 am**

It's interesting how the "slippery slope" arguement is being employed by those that bash it in the gun control debate.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:28 am**

dbackjon wrote:
Cap'n Cat wrote:This says it all:

"What we saw today was five male justices essentially rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all," Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, countered. "They said it's OK for bosses to make personal decisions about health care which we pay for with our labor."

Sad day for America, but we all have to respect the decision.

Indeed - a very sad day for LIBERTY, EQUALITY and everything America stands for.

Alito/Scalia/Thomas need to be impeached. They are the worst trio of justices in the history of the SCOTUS.

So, it's a sad day in America because someone isn't being forced to pay for someone else's birth control?

jon, you have a serious deficiency on what liberty and equality actually are.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:28 am**

well honestly if Roberts understood the difference between a tax and penalty we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:30 am**

dbackjon wrote:the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—

It was split on party lines, not sex.

Posted: **Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:33 am**

andy7171 wrote:It's interesting how the "slippery slope" arguement is being employed by those that bash it in the gun control debate.

Yes, Dback thinks this will allow blacks and minorities being denied insurance coverage due to religious reasons.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

America 2, Obama 0

America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0

Re: America 2, Obama 0