Judge rules against Hobby Lobby (health care, Obama, insurance, companies)

[Bagger]

Just heard about this on the Martin Bashir show. Judge ruled against Hobby Lobby.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...erage-mandate/

[HappyTexan]

Your link didn't work but google found numerous articles.

The judge ruled based, not on religious beliefs of the owners, but on the fact that Hobby Lobby is not an organized religion and for profit corporations do not have the right of free exercise of religion.

So Hobby Lobby must offer the morning after pill and week after pill in their healthcare plans.

[chielgirl]

OP, I just posted this article in my UN thread.
Another judged ruled the opposite in a different case.

Point made, HL is not a religious organization.
Well, duh.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Your link didn't work but google found numerous articles.

The judge ruled based, not on religious beliefs of the owners, but on the fact that Hobby Lobby is not an organized religion and for profit corporations do not have the right of free exercise of religion.

So Hobby Lobby must offer the morning after pill and week after pill in their healthcare plans.

I'm starting the Church of Capitalism.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by freemkt

I'm starting the Church of Capitalism.

Too late.

[Little-Acorn]

From the linked article:

----------------------------------
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."
----------------------------------

Let me get this straight.

The Catholic church forbids, not only abortions, but any form of birth control other than the rhythm method. No condoms, no pills, no nuttin.

This judge says that, while religious GROUPS are covered under the 1st amendment's ban on govt mandating or forbidding religious practices, religious INDIVIDUALS are not covered???

I'm trying and trying to find where it says in the 1A, that individuals are not covered. Haven't had any luck yet.

Somebody help me out here?

[bluesjuke]

Good question and I ponder that frquently when it comes to this issue.

If individuals start a business they must pay for something that violates their belifefs.
Makes no sense forcing that on anyone.

Especially when it comes to the abortion pill.

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

From the linked article:

----------------------------------
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."
----------------------------------

Let me get this straight.

The Catholic church forbids, not only abortions, but any form of birth control other than the rhythm method. No condoms, no pills, no nuttin.

This judge says that, while religious GROUPS are covered under the 1st amendment's ban on govt mandating or forbidding religious practices, religious INDIVIDUALS are not covered???

I'm trying and trying to find where it says in the 1A, that individuals are not covered. Haven't had any luck yet.

Somebody help me out here?

Yes, good question. What would be the ruling regarding faith-affiliated hospitals that don't peform abortion?

Hobby Lobby is appealing. Glad to hear that!

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

From the linked article:

----------------------------------
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."
----------------------------------

Let me get this straight.

The Catholic church forbids, not only abortions, but any form of birth control other than the rhythm method. No condoms, no pills, no nuttin.

This judge says that, while religious GROUPS are covered under the 1st amendment's ban on govt mandating or forbidding religious practices, religious INDIVIDUALS are not covered???

I'm trying and trying to find where it says in the 1A, that individuals are not covered. Haven't had any luck yet.

Somebody help me out here?

The judge is talking about business entities (ie, companies), not individuals.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli

The judge is talking about business entities (ie, companies), not individuals.

Companies are individuals. The fact that they are doing business, changes neither their status nor their constitutional protections. How could it?