Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Most people think that yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision was a big win for social conservatives, but maybe they shouldn't start sucking each other just yet   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 241
    More: Interesting, Religion News Service, Russell Moore, American Jewish Committee, contraceptive mandate, for-profit corporations, Reince Priebus, Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court decisions  
•       •       •

5348 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2014 at 7:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



241 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-01 06:56:23 AM  
It also strengthens the hand of folks who decide to take the ACA as their other option for health care. Essentially, this decision drives a fair number of folks away from taking their employers' insurance option, and instead, it only puts more folks on the ACA cadre of plans.

This decision is a step towards illustrating that employer controlled insurance is going to be a fading memory in another twenty or thirty years. Employers can rejoice, although, I'm fair certain that they'll then complain bitterly later when the bill comes due...
 
2014-07-01 07:38:01 AM  
I, for one, don't believe this was an issue of religious freedom. Rather, this was all a political action against President Obama, as well as a publicity stunt to advertise Hobby Lobby nationwide.

I'll never shop at a Hobby Lobby ever again. Besides, Michaels is better.
 
2014-07-01 07:38:08 AM  

hubiestubert: It also strengthens the hand of folks who decide to take the ACA as their other option for health care. Essentially, this decision drives a fair number of folks away from taking their employers' insurance option, and instead, it only puts more folks on the ACA cadre of plans.

This decision is a step towards illustrating that employer controlled insurance is going to be a fading memory in another twenty or thirty years. Employers can rejoice, although, I'm fair certain that they'll then complain bitterly later when the bill comes due...


Shhhh....
 
2014-07-01 07:38:13 AM  

hubiestubert: It also strengthens the hand of folks who decide to take the ACA as their other option for health care. Essentially, this decision drives a fair number of folks away from taking their employers' insurance option, and instead, it only puts more folks on the ACA cadre of plans.

This decision is a step towards illustrating that employer controlled insurance is going to be a fading memory in another twenty or thirty years. Employers can rejoice, although, I'm fair certain that they'll then complain bitterly later when the bill comes due...


I guarantee you wages will not increase in response as the employers no longer have to pay for health insurance, however.
 
2014-07-01 07:43:59 AM  
In the us vs. Obama view of the conservative Christians I know, it is a huge win. The views of other Christians and especially other religions are invalid because they are wrong for supporting anything in the aca. There is no nuance, nuance is for those who aren't firm enough in their convictions.
 
2014-07-01 07:45:20 AM  
judging by the complete leftwing meltdown, this is a poor attempt at rationalizing a huge defeat.
 
2014-07-01 07:45:52 AM  

Skail: hubiestubert: It also strengthens the hand of folks who decide to take the ACA as their other option for health care. Essentially, this decision drives a fair number of folks away from taking their employers' insurance option, and instead, it only puts more folks on the ACA cadre of plans.

This decision is a step towards illustrating that employer controlled insurance is going to be a fading memory in another twenty or thirty years. Employers can rejoice, although, I'm fair certain that they'll then complain bitterly later when the bill comes due...

I guarantee you wages will not increase in response as the employers no longer have to pay for health insurance, however.


Of course they will.  The owners and CEOs will make more and that raises the average.
 
2014-07-01 07:47:51 AM  
Employees of some companies will have to pay for their own abortifacients if they want them and it's a big deal? It really does bug some of you when the government can't force everyone to knuckle under to its every whim, doesn't it?
 
2014-07-01 07:49:59 AM  

jjorsett: Employees of some companies will have to pay for their own abortifacients if they want them and it's a big deal? It really does bug some of you when the government can't force everyone to knuckle under to its every whim, doesn't it?


You think corporations can have a religion. Just sayin.
 
2014-07-01 07:50:30 AM  

jjorsett: Employees of some companies will have to pay for their own abortifacients if they want them and it's a big deal? It really does bug some of you when the government can't force everyone to knuckle under to its every whim, doesn't it?


2/10 - get back to me when you buy a plan that doesn't cover viagra or cialis.
 
2014-07-01 07:50:39 AM  
is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients
 
2014-07-01 07:50:41 AM  
Yeah, I hate when people are free to make their own decisions too.
 
2014-07-01 07:52:27 AM  
Although this decision is being framed as a victory for religious freedom, my FB feed was flooded yesterday by my Catholic, ardently anti-contraception brother and his wife. For them (and for many), this is the first step towards making contraception illegal in the US.
 
2014-07-01 07:53:09 AM  
It wasn't a win for social conservatives. It was a win for a huge corporation managed by Teatards. The religious folk are just along for the ride.
 
2014-07-01 07:54:17 AM  

sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients


Then please explain this to me, if they are so anti-abortifacients:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-di sc overed-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products- while-claiming-religious-objection/
 
2014-07-01 07:54:45 AM  

Brostorm: judging by the complete leftwing meltdown, this is a poor attempt at rationalizing a huge defeat.


0.5/10. And you only got the 0.5 for not making any ironic spelling errors.
 
2014-07-01 07:55:31 AM  

jjorsett: Employees of some companies will have to pay for their own abortifacients if they want them and it's a big deal? It really does bug some of you when the government can't force everyone to knuckle under to its every whim, doesn't it?


The treatments Hobby Lobby didn't want to cover are "abortifacients" in name only. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' consensus opinion on those treatments is that they do nothing to end an already-established pregnancy. Lucky for you, Justice Alito said that profoundly wrong religious beliefs deserve First Amendment protection.
 
2014-07-01 07:55:42 AM  

LucklessWonder: sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients

Then please explain this to me, if they are so anti-abortifacients:

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


what does that have to do with the arguments in the case
 
2014-07-01 07:56:32 AM  

MetryPapi: Although this decision is being framed as a victory for religious freedom, my FB feed was flooded yesterday by my Catholic, ardently anti-contraception brother and his wife. For them (and for many), this is the first step towards making contraception illegal in the US.


I think they're a bit optimistic.
 
2014-07-01 07:56:37 AM  
I can't wait to see what the rights view will be if a Muslim owned business wants to require its employees to pray.
 
2014-07-01 07:57:23 AM  

Skail: hubiestubert: It also strengthens the hand of folks who decide to take the ACA as their other option for health care. Essentially, this decision drives a fair number of folks away from taking their employers' insurance option, and instead, it only puts more folks on the ACA cadre of plans.

This decision is a step towards illustrating that employer controlled insurance is going to be a fading memory in another twenty or thirty years. Employers can rejoice, although, I'm fair certain that they'll then complain bitterly later when the bill comes due...

I guarantee you wages will not increase in response as the employers no longer have to pay for health insurance, however.


If it eventually gives us single payer employers elm have skin in the game in the dorm of taxes. If that's the case why would it impact wages?
 
2014-07-01 07:58:03 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: It wasn't a win for social conservatives. It was a win for a huge corporation managed by Teatards. The religious folk are just along for the ride.


A win for blind partisanship.   Like so many issues today, the right has "won," but they don't care or comprehend what they've won.  In this case, an established corporate religion.
 
2014-07-01 07:59:54 AM  

sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients



This is another thing about the conservative majority's opinion that is stupid.  The 4 contraceptives are not, medically speaking, "abortifacients."  But hey, HL "thought" or "believed" that they are (to the extent that a corporation is a legal entity capable of "believing" anything), and that's good enough for the conservative majority to say they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

The decision is bad for all sorts of reasons, but if there's a silver lining it's that it might help swing voters who, for whatever reason, didn't realize that many conservatives actually believe that contraception is morally "wrong" and therefore should be less available or illegal.  Which is pretty nuts when you think about it - you might as well have a modern political party that wants to outlaw interracial marriage.
 
2014-07-01 08:00:35 AM  

sprawl15: LucklessWonder: sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients

Then please explain this to me, if they are so anti-abortifacients:

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

what does that have to do with the arguments in the case


Nothing, but it has to do with the hypocrisy of not being willing to pay for alleged "abortifacients" whilst simultaneously investing in abortion products. I realise that hypocrisy is part and parce of most religion though...
 
2014-07-01 08:00:37 AM  
The 'Supreme' Court, or the 5 nuts on it, think corporations are people, and women are not.
 
2014-07-01 08:00:43 AM  
but....  i thought this was sticking it to the libs!   *patriotic tear*  :(
 
2014-07-01 08:02:54 AM  

Alphax: The 'Supreme' Court, or the 5 nuts on it, think corporations are people, and women are not.


Let's see...  ahh yes here it is

The right of the people to have medical expenses of every kind paid for by a 3rd party shall not be infringed.
 
2014-07-01 08:04:11 AM  
 

hubiestubert: This decision is a step towards illustrating that employer controlled insurance is going to be a fading memory in another twenty or thirty years. Employers can rejoice, although, I'm fair certain that they'll then complain bitterly later when the bill comes due...


This has  also made a huge case for single payer.
 
2014-07-01 08:04:20 AM  
Didn't Justice Alito point out in the decision that the government could totally step in and provide those contraceptives?  I still hate the decision based on corporate personhood issues but it sounds like it's a step on our way to single payer, which will be nice.
 
2014-07-01 08:04:59 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: jjorsett: Employees of some companies will have to pay for their own abortifacients if they want them and it's a big deal? It really does bug some of you when the government can't force everyone to knuckle under to its every whim, doesn't it?

You think corporations can have a religion. Just sayin.


I think they can.  At least in the context here, where every single owner of the company is a member of a relatively small and religiously devout single family.

Plus, out of the 20 "approved" contraceptive methods in ACA, they only had an objection to 4 of the methods:  Two intrauterine devices, and two "morning after" pills.  They had no objection to the other 16 methods.

/Princess Leia uses the Millennium Dalkon.
 
2014-07-01 08:05:03 AM  
That article made no sense. But then, it was thinkprogress.
 
2014-07-01 08:05:19 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: It wasn't a win for social conservatives. It was a win for a huge corporation managed by Teatards. The religious folk are just along for the ride.



It was a win for the right of for-profit corporations to have more control over their employees' personal lives.  So now the conservative majority is fine with allowing a for-profit corporation to force its "religious beliefs" onto its employees.  Because as you know, Hobby Lobby, Inc., (an entity that is legally separate from its owners and has annual revenues of $2.28 billion) is actually a devout catholic.  I wonder if Hobby Lobby, Inc., goes to church every Sunday like a good catholic should.  I hope that Hobby Lobby, Inc. remembers to pray before every meal and goes to confession regularly, too.
 
2014-07-01 08:05:27 AM  

Chummer45: Which is pretty nuts when you think about it - you might as well have a modern political party that wants to outlaw interracial marriage.


We do, they just learned to stop crying about it. Though maybe they can form a corporation that won't hire anyone in an interracial marriage.
 
2014-07-01 08:05:51 AM  

Serious Black: Lucky for you, Justice Alito said that profoundly wrong religious beliefs deserve First Amendment protection.


Lucky for everyone, you mean.
 
2014-07-01 08:06:12 AM  

Chummer45: sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients


This is another thing about the conservative majority's opinion that is stupid.  The 4 contraceptives are not, medically speaking, "abortifacients."  But hey, HL "thought" or "believed" that they are (to the extent that a corporation is a legal entity capable of "believing" anything), and that's good enough for the conservative majority to say they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

The decision is bad for all sorts of reasons, but if there's a silver lining it's that it might help swing voters who, for whatever reason, didn't realize that many conservatives actually believe that contraception is morally "wrong" and therefore should be less available or illegal.  Which is pretty nuts when you think about it - you might as well have a modern political party that wants to outlaw interracial marriage.


http://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(20 00)
 
2014-07-01 08:06:15 AM  

MugzyBrown: Alphax: The 'Supreme' Court, or the 5 nuts on it, think corporations are people, and women are not.

Let's see...  ahh yes here it is

The right of the people to have medical expenses of every kind paid for by a 3rd party shall not be infringed.


Yes, right next to where it says you don't have to follow a law of common application if you decide to predicate your morality on arbitrary inferences from an old book that you sometimes follow in a piecemeal manner.
 
2014-07-01 08:06:46 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Chummer45: Which is pretty nuts when you think about it - you might as well have a modern political party that wants to outlaw interracial marriage.

We do, they just learned to stop crying about it. Though maybe they can form a corporation that won't hire anyone in an interracial marriage.



You're right - I don't think they've ever really given that one up, they've just learned not to be so vocal about it.  Many social conservatives still believe that interracial marriage is morally wrong.
 
2014-07-01 08:08:07 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Chummer45: sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients


This is another thing about the conservative majority's opinion that is stupid.  The 4 contraceptives are not, medically speaking, "abortifacients."  But hey, HL "thought" or "believed" that they are (to the extent that a corporation is a legal entity capable of "believing" anything), and that's good enough for the conservative majority to say they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

The decision is bad for all sorts of reasons, but if there's a silver lining it's that it might help swing voters who, for whatever reason, didn't realize that many conservatives actually believe that contraception is morally "wrong" and therefore should be less available or illegal.  Which is pretty nuts when you think about it - you might as well have a modern political party that wants to outlaw interracial marriage.

http://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(20 00)



Holy shiat - in 2000, 40% of Alabama voters voted against repealing their anti-interracial marriage amendment?   The Southern States shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves.
 
2014-07-01 08:08:07 AM  

dittybopper: HotWingConspiracy: jjorsett: Employees of some companies will have to pay for their own abortifacients if they want them and it's a big deal? It really does bug some of you when the government can't force everyone to knuckle under to its every whim, doesn't it?

You think corporations can have a religion. Just sayin.

I think they can.  At least in the context here, where every single owner of the company is a member of a relatively small and religiously devout single family.


Well we've learned they're not that devout, they're happy to invest in the companies that make the things they're so opposed to paying for. But no, corporations don't believe in gods.
 
2014-07-01 08:08:16 AM  

Chummer45: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: It wasn't a win for social conservatives. It was a win for a huge corporation managed by Teatards. The religious folk are just along for the ride.


It was a win for the right of for-profit corporations to have more control over their employees' personal lives.  So now the conservative majority is fine with allowing a for-profit corporation to force its "religious beliefs" onto its employees.  Because as you know, Hobby Lobby, Inc., (an entity that is legally separate from its owners and has annual revenues of $2.28 billion) is actually a devout catholic.  I wonder if Hobby Lobby, Inc., goes to church every Sunday like a good catholic should.  I hope that Hobby Lobby, Inc. remembers to pray before every meal and goes to confession regularly, too.


Forget that. Does it tithe 10% to the church?
 
2014-07-01 08:08:59 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: It wasn't a win for social conservatives. It was a win for a huge corporation managed by Teatards. The religious folk are just along for the ride.

A win for blind partisanship.   Like so many issues today, the right has "won," but they don't care or comprehend what they've won.  In this case, an established corporate religion.

Most of these people don't care about anything beyond the fact that the SCOTUS "Stuck it to the Libs".

So yet another irreconcilable issue turning Americans against one another when we need to be pulling together. Yay us.

 
2014-07-01 08:09:08 AM  
Can I, a devout follower of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be with him) force my employees to eat pasta 3 times a day? Or do I have to incorporate first?
 
2014-07-01 08:09:48 AM  

Chummer45: Shakin_Haitian: Chummer45: sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients


This is another thing about the conservative majority's opinion that is stupid.  The 4 contraceptives are not, medically speaking, "abortifacients."  But hey, HL "thought" or "believed" that they are (to the extent that a corporation is a legal entity capable of "believing" anything), and that's good enough for the conservative majority to say they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

The decision is bad for all sorts of reasons, but if there's a silver lining it's that it might help swing voters who, for whatever reason, didn't realize that many conservatives actually believe that contraception is morally "wrong" and therefore should be less available or illegal.  Which is pretty nuts when you think about it - you might as well have a modern political party that wants to outlaw interracial marriage.

http://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(20 00)


Holy shiat - in 2000, 40% of Alabama voters voted against repealing their anti-interracial marriage amendment?   The Southern States shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves.


It's heritage.
 
2014-07-01 08:12:30 AM  

Hugh2d2: Can I, a devout follower of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be with him) force my employees to eat pasta 3 times a day? Or do I have to incorporate first?


lol if you haven't incorporated yourself by this year of our lord 2014.
 
2014-07-01 08:12:44 AM  

DrPainMD: That article made no sense. But then, it was thinkprogress.


Reading is so hard.
 
2014-07-01 08:12:49 AM  
There are no "people of faith."
 
2014-07-01 08:13:03 AM  

sprawl15: LucklessWonder: sprawl15: is this article writer stupid or just ignorant of the fact that hobby lobby only raised issue with four of the twenty FDA directed contraceptives because HL thought they were abortifacients

Then please explain this to me, if they are so anti-abortifacients:

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

what does that have to do with the arguments in the case


You don't get to voluntarily invest in abortion and contraceptive products as a company, while simultaneously denying coverage for these products on the company health plan to your employees on the claim of religious grounds. Either Jesus is a hypocrite, or your beliefs are a sham.
 
2014-07-01 08:14:38 AM  
IMHO, it's another giant step toward a truly nationalized healthcare system.

It's one of those things that will never get done waiting on the states to do it right and business will always worship the almighty dollar first and foremost, born again corporations like Hobby Lobby aside.

/When was the last time you saw Hobby Lobby in church? I'm just asking the question. CINOs.
 
2014-07-01 08:15:47 AM  

kronicfeld: MugzyBrown: Alphax: The 'Supreme' Court, or the 5 nuts on it, think corporations are people, and women are not.

Let's see...  ahh yes here it is

The right of the people to have medical expenses of every kind paid for by a 3rd party shall not be infringed.

Yes, right next to where it says you don't have to follow a law of common application if you decide to predicate your morality on arbitrary inferences from an old book that you sometimes follow in a piecemeal manner.


And that's where it really gets me.  What makes  this belief valid, but anti-homosexuality invalid? or anti-blood-transfusion? or a host of other religious beliefs?  What business does the government have determining what is a valid religious belief?  Seems like the court just cracked the door to dozens of potential challenges, when they could have slammed it shut and locked it, putting the issue to rest once and for all.

If I was the Democratic Party right now, I would push for an additional business tax to cover these drugs.  If they want to be dicks, let's charge them for it.
 
2014-07-01 08:19:25 AM  
"One way to look at it is this: The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability," he writes. "Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways."

And this has been a major problem I've had with the Hobby Lobby case from the start.  We allow sham corporations like this to exist (shiat, I've worked for several of them) that are still fully owned and run by the family but they get all the legal protections of being a corporation.
 
Displayed 50 of 241 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report