Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby

Win one for religious folks. The upside of the decision that liberals should appreciate is that moslems will be able to refuse coverage for tobacco, alcohol, and drug related illnesses that are caused by practices.

Which is exactly why this is a poor decision.

Gilead never sleeps.

PS: just read that the vast majority of Hobby Lobby's inventory is made in China, where there's been around 340 million abortions in the last 30 years. Way to stay consistent with your moral outrage, you oh-so-honest churchgoers.

My reply was actually for Barts post.

was a poor decision. And when Obama started issuing waivers he opened up the door for more and more waivers until the Supreme Court had to rule that waivers for Hobby Lobby make sense since Obama issued waivers for so many other reasons.

Equal protection under the law means that if SEIU can have an Obamacare waiver (which they do) then so can Hobby Lobby.

Hmmm, Hobby Lobby here in Edmonton means something very different...RC toys

Hobby Lobby.jpg

Just goes to show how up on American politics I am!

On the radio I'm hearing that this decision means that the moslem-owned hotel in Beverly Hills will now be free to discriminate against homosexuals in both lodgings and hiring.

Mutliculturalism and , don't you know?

So it's a triumph if Christians act and behave as poorly as Muslims do? Is that some kind of moral victory?

Next up, these "Christians" decide that their health care plans will no longer cover drugs that any of their employees with AIDS may have who need them to stay alive. Yup, lots of the Christian ethic is really on display here. i.e concentrate solely on the parts of the Old Testament that rant on and on about faggots and whores, toss out practically everything else altogether.

Are you guys sure you understand what was decided here?

Hobby Lobby already gave out birth control. That wasn't what this was about. They objected to being made to supply abortifacients. The scope of the decision was narrow. There's a wide area this decision doesn't cover. What's his name, the Italian supreme specified that in his decision.

Buying plates from China, or kicking gay people out of Moslem hotels are false equivalencies to what was decided here.

Hobby Lobby is an openly Christian and privately held company. The question before the Court was as to whether or not the state could compel individuals or their businesses to act in violation of their closely held religious values.

Hobby Lobby has always been pro-life and they have never provided abortion coverage.

It's never been an issue until Obamacare came along and the Federal government tried to force Hobby Lobby to provide this coverage or else stop doing business.

Just as I do not go into a moslem-owned halal butcher shop demanding that they serve me pork chops you don't go into Hobby Lobby demanding they pay for an abortion. Go work somewhere else.

And, you're right, this decision means an employer could refuse to pay for AIDS medications. Again, this ruling protects the halal butcher shop from having to pay for things that violate their values just the same as it protects anyone else.

This ruling also protects the right of the Christian bakery to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. Which is as it should be.

Yet the Hobby Lobby stock plan invests in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and distribute the exact same products that they claimed it was immoral for them to have to supply to their employees thru their health care plan.

Maybe someday some evangelical Christians will come along and show that they aren't completely hypocritical and vicious dumb fucks that only do things for political reasons and not because God demands it of them. Never gonna happen in my lifetime though. The game just isn't played that way.

It's kind of ironic that the dissent of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is the statement that made the scope broader than the majority intended when she said:



Say what you will, she issued a finding on behalf of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and that finding has a legal power of its own.