Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision

RondackHiker · July 2014

I've been wondering what the F14 bumpies are thinking about this.

No matter what you answer, please elaborate in the comments.

Please feel free to weigh in even if you're not from the US! Don't feel like you can't have an opinion because it's not your court.

Are you:

RondackHiker · July 2014

I am furious about this decision. A corporation is NOT a person and can't hold religious beliefs and these "beliefs" are completely idiotic and not based in science.

I think this has some horrifying long reaching consequences.

ras26 · July 2014

I am unhappy with the decision, but not surprised. No matter what your beliefs are, I think that this and the Citizen's United decision have created a very slippery slope in considering corporations as people.

In addition, I think that it is a weak argument that supporters make that Hobby Lobby is covering 16/20 of the available BC options. The options exist for a reason, and I don't think it is an employer's right to decide which options are available to their employees based on their personal beliefs. It is a medical decision to be made between a woman and her physician.

C12H22O11 · July 2014

So, I have mixed feelings.

I worry about the precedent that this ruling establishes - what if a corporation or legal entity takes religious offense to serving minorities, selling goods to women who aren't clothed "appropriately" or to NIP?

On the other hand, HL is still paying for certain types of BC, so it's not like they've said they're not going to cover it at all. Also, they're not a publicly held corporation AND I have the choice to decline to shop there, just as their employees have a choice to remain employed with them.

I'm torn. I don't like the idea that a corporation can have religious freedom (people yes, corps no), but I also don't like the idea that a privately held business (and by extension it's owners) cannot set their own rules.

The ruling probably won't keep me from shopping there, but I believe boycotting (by both consumers and employees) is an effective way to express displeasure with this ruling, should the individual feel strongly about the ruling.

magentawarped · July 2014

I am livid. Corporations are not people. Women are people. The SCOTUS just told every woman in America that her boss's religious beliefs outweigh her right to make her own medical decisions. It's forced morality, and it's wrong. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it's a goddamn craft store, and one I won't be shopping at any longer.

courtls22 · July 2014

Unhappy isn't a strong enough word for my feelings on this. A company's religious views should have nothing to do with a woman's decision over her own body. If her own religious views kept her from it, so be it, but her boss's no way!

ETA: Plan B is not an abortion pill anyway and they need to be educated on what it is and what it actually does. It really isn't much different from regular birth control. This always confuses me when companies make a big deal about this specific drug or when pharmacists refuse to sell it.

JackieP1023 · July 2014

I voted not knowing enough. I have seen several posts about it, but haven't really paid attention to it. Someone posted this graphic to FB.

Photo: be very clear about the impact of today's ruling.....

I don't think that an employer has the right to say what the employee can and can't do medically (which this seems to be indirectly saying). Most insurances (mine included) don't cover anything related to infertility, which is also basically saying that my insurance carrier is 'telling me' that I can't have kids simply because I need to have a little help getting there.

That being said, I have PCOS. Contraceptives are commonly used to 'treat' it, but all it really does is mask the symptoms. It doesn't address the disease at all. IF they did, I would be absolutely livid... PCOS is a 'disease'. It has nothing to do with anyone's beliefs.

From reading the previous responses, I agree-corporations are NOT individuals. There shouldn't be any religion attached to a corporation. BUT: employees also have the freedom to not work for that employer. Seems like a double-edged sword.

Meghan14 · July 2014

Here's what I wrote on Facebook:

When I first read about companies objecting to covering things they had religious objections to, I wasn't sure how I felt. A company not paying for something they were morally opposed to seemed reasonable. But, the more I thought about it, the more flaws I saw. While a part of me understands where Hobby Lobby is coming from, my brain would not stop asking questions. I asked things like: If I owned a business, as a vegetarian could I deny coverage to food poisoning victims who ate tainted meat? Could a Muslim or Mormon deny coverage for a liver issue associated with alcohol abuse? Could obesity or heart disease be denied by a company claiming they were caused by the sins of "sloth" or "gluttony"?
Justice Ginsburg put my concerns far more eloquently: "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

Who decides what is a valid religious objection? When is a company doing what they believe in, and when are they exploiting religion in order to save money and how can you tell the difference? This decision goes beyond the obvious debates of "when does life begin?" or "equality in the work place." There is much more to think about with this decision than many people realize.

Then I read about their investments and went from disagreeing to completely pissed off.

notreal2 · July 2014

The ruling angers me but what is really bothering me is people's reaction to it. Friends, family and acquaintances are showing themselves to be so uninformed and naïve that I seriously can't stand talking to them right now. We can have differeing opinions, but don't base your opinions on faulty information and then refuse to educate yourself. Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and I should be besties. I need to make that happen.

Lemon81 · July 2014

I am the minority here (which I knew I would be), but I think it is the right decision. Hobby Lobby is a privately held company. If it was a publicly traded company, I would feel differently, but its not. It is a family owned business. Also, they are willing to cover 16 out of 20 contraceptives. They are only objecting to IUDs and morning after pills. I have endometriosis and PCOS and the drugs to treat that would be covered under their plan.

ras26 · July 2014

Also, SCOTUS just later further clarified that in addition to the Hobby Lobby case they are affirming the lower court rulings in several other similar cases. In some of those cases all 20 kinds if BC were excluded on religious grounds. So, the only 4 and only the "abortafactant" arguments are both null. They knew that in affirming the lower court decisions it allows companies to not offer any BC at all.

I'd genuinely like to hear from the 2 people who are happy with the decision...

notreal2 · July 2014

notreal2 · July 2014

The hell? I can't post my additional opinions. The BUmp keeps erasing my posts. BOOO

notreal2 · July 2014

As of this post, there are 2 people who haven't followed Rondack's request. Vote and elaborate. Why does this ruling make you happy? Tell us. Unless you are one of the Greens, then the reason for your opinion is obvious.

Unknown · July 2014

This content has been removed.

shellbell3845 · July 2014

Livid. And if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

notreal2 · July 2014

Also, anyone who says, "GO work somewhere else then." Annoys the snot out of me. The economy is crap, jobs are difficult to come by. If this is not the case where you live, then you are really lucky. Also, if anyone responds with, "Should have gone to school then." You, again, are a bubble liver.

Realizing that most of F14 would never utter the above words, I was just posting this as preemptive comments to lurkers and newbs who decide to post.

notreal2 · July 2014

carleys said:

So these companies that don't want to support birth control that women take for more reasons than family planning- are they going to be providing paid maternity leave/child care, medical aftercare etc ? because that would be a more acceptable way to handle their Christian beliefs. Would women on a HL salary won't be able to afford child care? Probably not but god forbid she's able to choose her BC. It just opens up a whole can of worms. I bet our Canadian bumpies are glad they don't have to deal with this ridiculousness .

Since FMLA is a federal law, and this basically says corporations don't have to follow federal laws due to religious beliefs, then if you get pregnant "out of wedlock" what's to say some company won't come along and say, "Nope, sorry, your pregnancy's against my religion."

Yes this is a strawman, but really, SCOTUS started it.

Meghan14 · July 2014

For those who said they didn't know that much about the case but would like to know why many of us are upset, here are 2 article to check out:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

There's also one somewhere about Hobby Lobby's business dealing with China, but too lazy to go looking for it.

Codypup · July 2014

I'm incredibly upset about this decision. I feel like it's set women's rights back a million steps. A company now has rights over a woman's body and her choices, and that's just wrong. I don't give two shits about HL's religious beliefs - they do not have right to impose those beliefs onto anyone else.

It scares me to think about what doors this has potentially opened.

Codypup · July 2014

Mevaroo said:

I voted mixed feelings. DH and I were just talking about this last night. Mixed because I don't agree with the use if a morning after pill (I know that wasn't the only thing this lawsuit was about) but I also don't agree with a company making decisions on what medicines are allowed to be covered by insurance. That part is crap. @Meghan14‌ summed it up nicely.

@mevaroo - Can I ask why not? Curious, not snarky.

coralreefmom · July 2014

Outraged. It shouldn't be my boss or my husband's boss that decides what bc I can use.

notreal2 · July 2014

Mevaroo said:

I voted mixed feelings. DH and I were just talking about this last night. Mixed because I don't agree with the use if a morning after pill (I know that wasn't the only thing this lawsuit was about) but I also don't agree with a company making decisions on what medicines are allowed to be covered by insurance. That part is crap. @Meghan14‌ summed it up nicely.

Just going to put this here for general knowledge, PLAN B (and other EC) is not effective if you are already pregnant. It will not cause an abortion. It merely, to simplify, makes your uterus hostile to sperm and prevents ovulation.

djtippietoes · July 2014

magentawarped said:

I am livid. Corporations are not people. Women are people. The SCOTUS just told every woman in America that her boss's religious beliefs outweigh her right to make her own medical decisions. It's forced morality, and it's wrong. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it's a goddamn craft store, and one I won't be shopping at any longer.

This exactly.

SuzyQq02 · July 2014

My biggest objection to this, and to citizens united, is granting personhood to corporations. They are not people, and therefore cannot hold religious beliefs. The owners certainly can, and can make certain decisions about how they run their companies based on those beliefs, but they cannot put those out as the company's beliefs and use that to circumvent the law... the company is a separate entity from its owners.

I understand there were conditions put forth in the decision that attempt to define where those lines are... but basically ail they've done is create a glut of litigation over whether or not someone's religious beliefs are substantial enough to apply to their company... it's an arbitrary standard.

karich · July 2014

I have mixed feelings, but ultimately think the decision was BS.

I wanted to point out that the implications of this can go much further than just contraceptives.
What happens when the owner of a company decides that blood transfusions are against his religion (Jehovah witness) and therefore decides not cover it? Or vaccines? There are lots of instances where one's faith can get in the way of proper medical treatment.
It's a very slippery slope....

Meghan14 · July 2014

SuzyQq02 said:

My biggest objection to this, and to citizens united, is granting personhood to corporations. They are not people, and therefore cannot hold religious beliefs. The owners certainly can, and can make certain decisions about how they run their companies based on those beliefs, but they cannot put those out as the company's beliefs and use that to circumvent the law... the company is a separate entity from its owners. I understand there were conditions put forth in the decision that attempt to define where those lines are... but basically ail they've done is create a glut of litigation over whether or not someone's religious beliefs are substantial enough to apply to their company... it's an arbitrary standard.

So wonderfully put!

courtls22 · July 2014

@notreal2 Did you hear about the teacher at a private school who was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but your post sparked a vague memory of that happening.

TessyMessy · July 2014

I am not angry about the SCOTUS ruling, I am definitely disappointed. It was a great opportunity to make a statement for women's rights and equality in the US. Instead this decision has opened the door to further law suits and stifling of women's rights in our country. Do not be mistaken, women are still not treated equally in the workplace nor do we carry the same value as our penis-weilding counterparts.

What makes me angry is that there are so many women that have no idea what this means for their reproductvie rights or the future for their daughters. I guarantee the women that do not care enough to know about this issue have no problem keeping up with the Kardashians...

Lemon81 · July 2014

Since the morning after pill is over-the-counter and my insurance will not cover OTCs, I wouldn't expect it to be covered anyway or is it forced coverage even though it is OTC?

karich · July 2014

courtls22 said:
@notreal2 Did you hear about the teacher at a private school who was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but your post sparked a vague memory of that happening.

That happened around where I live. The teacher taught at a Catholic school and it was in her contract that she had to live her life within the principles of the church.
Agree or disagree, I think the school was within it's rights to fire her.
It's pretty clear that getting pregnant out of wedlock doesn't jive with the Catholic church's beliefs.

Meghan14 · July 2014

I'm curious about the 4 who posted voted "happy" but didn't explain why. And I will applaud @Lemon81 for voicing her opinion knowing she is in the minority. Even though I disagree with you, posting your opinion was a brave thing to do. Thank you.

SuzyQq02 · July 2014

karich said:

courtls22 said:
@notreal2 Did you hear about the teacher at a private school who was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but your post sparked a vague memory of that happening.
That happened around where I live. The teacher taught at a Catholic school and it was in her contract that she had to live her life within the principles of the church.
Agree or disagree, I think the school was within it's rights to fire her.
It's pretty clear that getting pregnant out of wedlock doesn't jive with the Catholic church's beliefs.

This may make me sound like a hypocrite, and I'm sort of ok with that, but I do understand drawing a distinction between for profit companies and non profit actual churches. It makes sense to me that a mosque couled reasonably say that their receptionist needs to cover her hair at work, for example, but I don't belive a Muslim owner of a restaurant (which has no relationship to the practice of the faith) could tell all their waitstaff they need to take a hijab.

Firefly9 · July 2014

I'm absolutely disgusted by the decision. Fine with me if they are a Christian company and pray before each store opening, whatever. But to push THEIR religious beliefs on their employees (granted, most employees are hired in knowing full well their business practices and are probably in line with them)??

It's absolutely a slippery slope. What's next? Not covering vaccines because they are against the owner's religion? Not hiring women because the owner's believe a woman's place is at home? Not serving gays because homosexuality is against their religion?

I'm annoyed by people who say, "Well, the woman CHOSE to have sex. She CHOSE to have unprotected sex," and so on. That's not the point. First, blaming woman? It's a two way street, the woman isn't solely responsible here. They could also say, then, "Well, you CHOSE to go out in peak flu season and you CHOSE not to wash your hands, so it's your own fault for getting the flu and so we aren't covering your bills/medicine/vaccine."

For those who say, "If you don't like it, don't work there." I hope that happens and no one wants to work there and they go out of business.

The ONLY positive is that it doesn't include all birth control. (and really, like others have pointed out, they still suck even with this. It's not enough of a positive to make the decision right in ANY way.)

And fuck them. I like the crap they carry in their store, but I really don't want to shop there.

Firefly9 · July 2014

A friend just posted this.

magentawarped · July 2014

Firefly9 said:
A friend just posted this.

Bingo. Yay Murica.

keags5496 · July 2014

I'm beyond mad...so disappointed I just can't even. Everyone else has already covered my main points so I won't restate them, but it was a sad day for women's rights. And like others have said its a slippery slope. Scary.

Soap1 · July 2014

While I totally agree that the broader implications of redefining what it is to be a corporation are extremely problematic (corporations can't have 1st amendment rights, in my opinion), I agree with the decision that corporations should not have to provide insurance they don't like to employees or insurance at all. Alito himself wrote that the government could always pay for these contraceptives. Sounds like he's advocating a single-payer system to me. Problem solved.

keags5496 · July 2014

Just to further add to this has anyone see this Fox News clip?

https://youtu.be/CBcMW2q_pQg (hope that works I'm mobile). That makes me so ragey I don't even know where to start.
1. Implying that single ladies are te only ones who use birth control is ridiculous.

2. Figuring women either rely on government or a husband. Wtaf?!?

3. The women in the room completely going along with this douchebag. Grrrrrr

Lemon81 · July 2014

SuzyQq02 said:

@notreal2 Did you hear about the teacher at a private school who was fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock? I can't remember the details but your post sparked a vague memory of that happening.
That happened around where I live. The teacher taught at a Catholic school and it was in her contract that she had to live her life within the principles of the church. Agree or disagree, I think the school was within it's rights to fire her. It's pretty clear that getting pregnant out of wedlock doesn't jive with the Catholic church's beliefs.
This may make me sound like a hypocrite, and I'm sort of ok with that, but I do understand drawing a distinction between for profit companies and non profit actual churches. It makes sense to me that a mosque couled reasonably say that their receptionist needs to cover her hair at work, for example, but I don't belive a Muslim owner of a restaurant (which has no relationship to the practice of the faith) could tell all their waitstaff they need to take a hijab.

I actually would say that if a business owner who is Muslim wanted a hijab to be a part of the uniform for the waitstaff, he would be well within his rights to require that as long as employees were informed upon their hire it would be required. However, that owner must also be willing to accept that some people will not eat in his restaurant because of that just as Hobby Lobby may have some boycotters because of its owners' beliefs. There is a much bigger issue than contraceptives here. The central issue is how much say government has in the operations of privately held companies.

breadpudding · July 2014

djtippietoes said:

magentawarped said:

I am livid. Corporations are not people. Women are people. The SCOTUS just told every woman in America that her boss's religious beliefs outweigh her right to make her own medical decisions. It's forced morality, and it's wrong. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it's a goddamn craft store, and one I won't be shopping at any longer.

This exactly.

I agree 110%.
I'm still way too heated over the Facebook nursing pics thread to get truly engaged in this here.
So stabby today!

Want a personalized experience?

Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision

Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision 118 votes

Re: Current events- hobby lobby SCOTUS decision

Choose Another Board

Search Boards