Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But even then Hobby Lobby is not allowed to offer coverage for those drugs to some of it's employees but not others. They have to have the same policy for everyone.
A baker can choose to not offer wedding cakes just like HL decided not to provide those particular medications. But they must do so across the board, they can not offer them to some people but not others.
The Holly Lobby ruling swung a few doors wide open (a possible Pandora's box full) for further applications. Another reason why it's considered a landmark decision.
Quote:
Hobby Lobby's founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug.
...At least eight of those funds have been invested in companies that produce contraceptives such as Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA), Bayer (BAYRY), and Pfizer (PFE), according to a CNNMoney analysis. Teva makes Plan B. At least one fund also held Forest Laboratories, which makes a drug that is used to induce abortions. ...
What is your personal opinion regarding? Offering 401k investments to employees in, for example, a company that produces or sells a drug used to induce abortions.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 04-08-2016 at 06:26 PM..
it doesn't even have to be about religious belief. ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER SOMEONE HAS HAD THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATED. ...
In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., Maurice Bessinger refused to let black folks enter the dining rooms of his restaurants. The Supreme Court decision eventually forced him to comply with the law.
Piggie Park was about Civil Rights violations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster
Actually, it really has nothing to do with 'moral law'.
If someone asks you to perform a service, and you refuse to do so, the ONLY thing that matters is this: Were the civil rights of the person asking for the service violated? The reason for refusing the service is almost irrelevant. As long as their civil rights aren't violated by your refusal then there is no reason they should be allowed to COMPEL you to do something.
The current laws being proposed are not about protecting an individual's civil rights, they're about the religious beliefs exercised by a corporation.
If you work in public, you cannot refuse service... it doesn't matter, what you believe in... what you believe, you can keep to yourself, you don't need to force others to believe in your faith... the government should not force you to believe in something and neither should you force others to believe in something... it is hypocritical...
Personally, I think what you're saying here makes a lot of sense. I think much of it is about a customer's expectation. If one goes into a bakery, one expects to buy pastries or cakes or breads or whatever. One does not expect to participate in a religious ceremony or share religious beliefs with the employees.
Conversely, there's a different expectation when one enter a place of religious worship.
So the Muslim cab drivers should be allowed to refuse people with dogs or alcohol without threat of losing their license. Right?
Why would they need to lose their license? You DO realize that cabs refuse to go into dangerous minority neighborhoods and they don't lose their license for doing so, no?
Why would they need to lose their license? You DO realize that cabs refuse to go into dangerous minority neighborhoods and they don't lose their license for doing so, no?
My point was that you openly admitted that the bakers have the free will to move their business.
The Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling applies here. Which is the most burdensome: Forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to violate their religious beliefs? Or the women insured by Hobby Lobby acquiring ACA-mandated abortifacients elsewhere? ...A bakery moving their business? Or gay clients custom-ordering a wedding cake for a SSM from another bakery?
SCOTUS gets it correct on this... It's a simple matter of who is burdened least when less-restrictive means to achieve the same results are available.
If this is truly a free country, I should have the freedom to decide who I want as a customer. The Government should stay out of peoples personal lives and feelings. If they get too involved then we have a system where the State makes all of our decisions for us.
Don
The kind of freedom you're describing is not likely to be had by starting a business, especially if other folks' Civil Rights are not your concern. You are more likely to have the freedom you're describing here by starting your own Religion. Take a cue from science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
Corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution either, the Bill of Rights are (or were) people's rights.
Corporations are not all the same. SCOTUS clearly draws the distinction in the Hobby Lobby case. The ruling is limited to closely held privately-owned corporations. Kroger (grocery store chain), for example, cannot refuse to make a custom-ordered wedding cake for a SSM.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
