START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Hobby Lobby and Sharia


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: GOP Hate, GOP lies, maddow, pseudo-Christians, SCROTUS, video )

TomCat
- 89 days ago - politicsplus.org
See 1st comment



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

TomCat S. (230)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 12:11 am
Injustice Alito, aka Scalito, promised that Hobby Lobby is a very narrow ruling that applies only to that one situation. I think he is lying and in comments I made yesterday, here and elsewhere, I questioned the Republican Reichís Reaction when a closely held company, owned by Muslims, refuses benefits to Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christian employees, because of the owners had a sincere belief in Sharia. Great minds fall in the same ditch, because Iím not the only one, who thought of it.
 

Ingo Schreiner (8)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 12:51 am
ok
 

Jason R. (60)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 1:58 am
"Injustice Alito, aka Scalito, promised that Hobby Lobby is a very narrow ruling that applies only to that one situation."

What's the difference from leaking down your leg and telling you it's raining? OMG! 5 of our SCJ's are con artists!
Thom's blog
The Supreme Court Thinks That Corporations Are People but Women Aren't

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we're still in the 19th century when it comes to women's rights. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby can discriminate against their female employees by denying them birth control coverage as required under Obamacare as long as those corporations believe that doing so "violates" their religious beliefs.

According to the Court, "closely-held" corporations like Hobby Lobby are protected by a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - a law that protects people - let me repeat, PEOPLE, as in homo sapiens sapiens - from having "substantial burdens" placed on their religious beliefs.

There are a lot of things to talk about when it comes to the Hobby Lobby case - the fact that Hobby Lobby's arguments weren't based in scientific fact, the fact that Hobby Lobby actually invests in companies that make the very same birth control it says goes against its religious beliefs, the fact that it's more than ready to pay for male birth control procedures like vasectomies, the fact that much of what they sell comes from China, the home of forced abortions - you name it.

All of these things are important and show just how insane and fundamentally hypocritical the Court's decision really was. But in the end, the most damning thing of all about today's ruling is that it shows that one branch of our government, the Supreme Court, believes that the "rights" of non-breathing, definitely-not-alive corporations trump the rights of the 51 percent of the population which has a uterus.
 

Lona Goudswaard (71)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 4:34 am
The very fact that the ruling had to be so narrow in order to give it the appearance of sensibility shows how fundamentally wrong it is. The five were clearly never going to rule any other way than this from the start, they wanted both to please their masters, the big corporations and Ring Wing religious fundamentalists, and rule according to their own male Christian religious views. There was no way, however, to turn a basically wrong ruling into a right one, however much they tried -and failed - to narrow it down. Or perhaps the 5 are simply not as clever as they deem themselves to be to do it well. Even laymen can see that, for starters the "closely held company" could encompass a majority of firms and that in future it would be downright unconstitutional to rule differently when companies ask to strike paying for any conception at all on the basis of their "sincere belief", and when that hurdle is taken, any other religious prejudice or bigotry can no longer be dismissed. Both the Daily Kos article, Rachel Meddow's items and your comments make that very clear, TomCat.

With this ruling the SCOTUS five have given everyone clear sight on their motives; they have given up the pretence that they are objective, non-partisan, unprejudiced and independent. They no longer pretend that their rulings are made independent of their own political and religious views. That in itself is a positive development, because opposition to this SCOTUS is growing in numbers, other religious spokesmen like Gaddy speak out against them, people are rallying against them.
At the end of the day the SCOTUS has shot itself in the foot and this undoubtedly will have negative consequences for Republicans in the fall.
 

Arielle S. (317)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 5:47 am
Poop on the ceiling would be okay if it only fell on the few who deserve it. It is against my religious beliefs to support hypocritical pompous butt-holes who think there is no separation of church and state and so I hope this can of worms completely covers those who made this ruling. Women everywhere should be furious and we all know, hell hath no fury....
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 7:11 am
Apocalyptic erosion of constitutional rights and all that separates religion and state instead of narrow IMO. Hope an Islamic example makes its way quickly to become grounds for Congress to start impeachment proceedings (this one would suffice if it wasn't the way so many in the House want to believe it should be).
 

pam w. (191)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 8:02 am
I've had the same thought, Tom. This sets up a totally separate legal system for Christians. In a way, I can't wait until a Muslim puts the same thing into effect against Christians.

Wanna' bet we'll all need EAR PLUGS to get past their squealing?
 

Ashley heffner (457)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 9:00 am
There are only TWO differences between the hardcore religious zealots in the U.S. and Sharia Law.

1) What they call their God.

2) Our zealots prefer to use the law to control everything you do. Because they are morally superior because they claim to have found Jesus. The Taliban uses physical violence. Ours just goes crying to the Supreme Court. Because clearly wanting to spend your COMPENSATION, that you EARNED, is violating their religious freedom. What if Hobby Lobby decided cars were sinful and some employee went out and bought a car. Would they go crying to the Supreme Court again?
 

Joanne Dixon (38)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 9:43 am
I doubt if the insurers have any policies up their sleeves that do not cover birth control, or specific kinds of birth control, or what have you. Therefore, they will have to custom design them for the companies that insist they want them. Custom designing group policies is not free. These policies should therefore carry fees for additional underwriting; in other words, be MORE expensive than policies which cover birth control. I doubt whether the insurers can design them in such a way as to make sure these costs are not passed on to employees, but I'll bet the administration can.

Those of us not in that particular food chain should boycott these companies. There was a link a couple of days ago which led to the list indirectly, but here is the direct link:

http://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/

I very much hope other faiths will get into the act here. Without vision the people perish, and Rethuglcans are blind..
 

Gene Jacobson (253)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 9:51 am
"How would conservatives and their agents respond if a company with Islamic beliefs (however defined) decided to impose its religious values on white, Christian, American employees?"

Oh it isn't a question of if, but when. These right wing zealots have NO idea how big a hole they just punched in our constitution and it WILL come back to bite them. We are a secular nation and so we should remain, allowing each to practice his or her own particular form of delusion, but respecting none officially. This changes that game completely, they did not think it through, so eager were they to keep women down and push their particular brand of hokum further into the entrails of government. That amendment should say "freedom FROM religion" not freedom of religion and should be read that way as well. Because they have just opened wide the door for suits of all kinds linked to someone's idea they are being persecuted in some way by one law or another. Once you open this door a crack, the floodwater will race right in. They have just made lawyers a fortune. More's the pity.
 

Chris C. (149)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 10:35 am
THis new ruling by SCOTUS - not one bit narrow - is already becoming a VERY slippery slope!
 

Kathy B. (99)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 12:45 pm
Expanding a little bit along Joanne's thought line - which do you suppose is more expensive, birth control or a pregnancy or 2 or more? Does Hobby Lobby even provide maternal benefits, time off when the babies due, children's health care, do they pay their employees enough to provide for a family, or will we be faced with supporting their children thru welfare much like we support WalMart families?

There is so much wrong with this ruling, and every time I think about it it makes me mad all over again.

Boycott Hobby Lobby, boycott any craft maker who hasn't stated their products aren't made from Hobby Lobby merchandise.
 

Debra G. (0)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 2:27 pm
And thus starts the slow dismantling of the ACA. No surprise. Boycotting Wahabi Lobby and all the other plaintiffs is a start.
 

Dave C. (214)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 2:30 pm
when I first heard the ruling result it was followed by an interview with a MN lawyer who represents 7 companies that he says are going to "immediately" follow along and believe that this will benefit them......


I think Hobby Lobby should now come forward and be willing to pay for all future childcare and education for any children born to their employees who aren't able to afford birth control that they refuse and have an unwanted child....
 

Dave C. (214)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 2:31 pm
...by the way....get religion out of politics......oops, too late....
 

Dianna M. (14)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 2:37 pm
Scroll down to the picture here (trust me, itís good!):

http://mic.com/articles/92703/a-customer-walked-into-a-hobby-lobby-and-told-them-what-we-re-all-thinking

Daily Kos posted this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311419/-George-Takei-s-blistering-response-to-HobbyLobby-Could-a-Muslim-Corp-impose-Sharia-Law?detail=facebook

I submit that birth control pills are not ďslut pills.Ē Viagra is the real ďslut pill.Ē In fact, itís my sincerely-held religious belief that any man taking Viagra or any other ED pharmaceutical is the slut. (But since Iím neither a corporate entity, nor rich . . . )
 

Pamela Tracy (3)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 3:21 pm
FACT...VIAGRA CAN EVEN MAKE A MAN BLIND...I THINK THE OTHER DRUG LIKE THAT CAN ALSO...THAT IS A SIDE EFFECT. THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL...IN THE 60'S I AM SURE WE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORIZATION OF OUR BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ON OUR INSURANCE SO WE, MY HUSBAND AND I PAID FOR THEM PRIVATELY AND WE KEPT OUR LIVES PRIVATE...HAHAHAHAHHA....SO I LEARNED LATER OTHERS DID NOT AND LIED ABOUT OUR LIVES, ALSO. ANYWAY, I ALSO AS A SINGLE WOMAN TOOK BIRTH CONTROL PILLS THAT CAUSED DYSPLASIA, TOLD SO BY MY MALE GYN AND I STOPPED TAKING THEM, JUST IN TIME TO NOT SUFFER FROM CANCER ALTHO DYSPLASIA CAUSED ONE SMALL INSITU AND THEN I HAD TO HAVE LASER SURGERY. IF I WAS YOUNG I WOULD LOBBY FOR SAFER CONTRACEPTION....AND ALSO ....TUBAL LIGATIONS AND VASECTOMY'S ARE NOW REVERSIBLE.....JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT EVERY MONTH. IN FACT, I THINK BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE KILLER PILLS AND SHOULD BE USED CONSERVATIVELY AND I AM NOT PRIG CONSERVATIVE, JUST TELLING A STORY. I TOOK THE VERY FIRST BIRTH CONTROL PILL IN THE 60'S AND THE SECOND BIRTH CONTROL PILL IN THE 70'S AND THE MINUTE I STOPPED TAKING THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL MY DYSPLASIA DECREASED, ONLY IT WAS TOO LATE, SO I HAD TO HAVE LASER SURGERY LATER..BUT SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN SAFE FROM FEMALE CANCER. AND, IF YOU DO HAVE DYSPLASIA DO NOT LET YOUR DOCTOR TELL YOU LIES...READ UP ON THE TYPES OF DYSPLASIA. I DO BELIEVE IF YOU USE CONTRACEPTION AND CAN PAY FOR IT YOURSELF IT SHOULD STAY BETWEEN YOUR DOCTOR, YOU, AND YOUR PHARMACY.....EVEN IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE.. TOO MANY FANATICS OUT THESE WANTING TO CONTROL OUR BODIES.
 

James Maynard (68)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 3:25 pm
Worst Supreme Court ever!
What the heck are they drinking
up there?!?!?!
 

Birgit W. (145)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 3:30 pm
Noted, thanks for sharing.
 

Katie D. (84)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 4:35 pm
Thank you TomCat
 

Barb PL (1067)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 6:52 pm
The Hobby Lobby is not against these types of birth control due to religious beliefs, that was the excuse for the sheep people. They had been covering all those types of birth control up until the point where they were required by PPACA. Once they were require by PPACA, they had a fit and didn't want to! It was soley politically motivated.
Also not to forget their retirement funds are heavily invested in the companies that make the same birth control, they are supposedly so religiously against.

Noted! ty
 

Dan Nickerson (178)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 6:56 pm
I agree with the argument that religious objection rights were granted to for-profit corporations. SCOTUS gets it wrong, again.
 

Dandelion G. (384)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 7:30 pm
5 white men that want the days to return when only white males ruled the roost, owned property, could vote, and kept the women on par with the barn animals.

Stand up women.......this is no time to be quiet. I also agree, boycott those businesses that go along with this. I'm sure this decision wasn't based on a "fair" court, else they would not have gone this way knowing that those who claim such religious feelings on this didn't mind while making money for themselves on the stock.
 

Edith B. (141)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 9:53 pm
This is only the beginning. This Scrotus won't be satisfied until every woman in this country is reduced to slavery, and every corporation has total control over its employees. Great comments tonight, sent as many stars as C2 would let me.
 

Lynn Squance (232)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 11:37 pm
Personally, I think that SCROTUS has opened Pandora's box, the contents in which it will be buried alive. I would love to see a closely held company owned by Muslims try a similar tactic with benefits. If it rendered the decision the same way, there would be great nashing of teeth by pseudo Christians. I agree with the author, Chauncey de Vega, when he says:

"Sharia hysteria would spread in such a way as to make the present day-to-day Islamophobia of the Right-wing echo chamber appear benign and muted by comparison."

"The White Right would explode with claims of "reverse discrimination" and "black racism"."

We have already experienced this with laws that sought to even things out . . . affirmative action.

I have heard SCOTUS referred to as "this auspicious court" but I find nothing auspicious in its recent decisions. Its decisions have been nothing but biased, without regard to consequences and the constitution. Time for some retirements from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts . . . or find them being impeached which can only happen with a Democratic majority in Congress.
 

TomCat S. (230)
Thursday July 3, 2014, 11:45 pm
Thanks to akk ans kudos to many, especially Debra W. for "Wahabi Lobby". That one;s good enough to steal!!
 

Maria Teresa Schollhorn (44)
Friday July 4, 2014, 1:32 am
Noted. Thanks TomCat for sharing.
 

Terrie Williams (772)
Friday July 4, 2014, 6:52 am
LOL good one--Wahabi Lobby....Love it!

Just a head's up to ma peeps....SCROTUMS came out and clarified their so-called 'narrow' ruling wasn't so narrow after all and they don't care.....their ruling covers ALL forms of contraception, including pills. Ginsberg's prophetic dissent has come true in less than 24 hrs.....more corporations are filing suits in lower courts to challenge ACA coverage of Contraceptives under 'religulous views' of the corporation. Meanwhile....back at the ranch....those 'closely held' corporations.....consist of 90% -- NINETY PERCENT!!!!! of ALL corporations in the US. Chew that one over for a moment......

Angry? Why nooooooooooooooooooo, I am not 'angry'.......I went onto the enraged gear 10 minutes after the decision was announced and the enragement has not abated. It will not abate for a very long time....if ever.
 

Dandelion G. (384)
Friday July 4, 2014, 7:07 am
And those 90% are run by MEN.......WEALTHLY MEN. Who can afford to purchase their family size.

Gee why haven't I heard anything about it being against their religious beliefs not to pay for Viagra and penis pumps?

There was a little video I placed on for the 4th of July......at 1:41 one can see the formation of our Government and how it was applied from the formation of the Iroquois Confederacy. Note that our current Supreme Court, now with mostly men in it, was actually based upon the Women's Counsel from Native traditions.

There was a reason for that........I think it's very clear no matter what day and age we live in. That set up of having Women in that position was most critical. Anyone wanting to view it is below.
The Story Behind the Story of July 4th
 

Ashley heffner (457)
Friday July 4, 2014, 7:21 am
Like I said, write Hobby Lobby and tell them it's against your religious beliefs to spend money at the stores of sexist, hypocritical, Theocratic, dictator wannabes!
 

Thomas M. (7)
Friday July 4, 2014, 7:23 am
Thanks to Scotus our secular nation has legally became sectarian. Now the cultural and religious wars will begin in full force in the US and we will look just like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. in the years to come. Let the religious and cultural wars begin in America, land of the free and home of the brave. Thomas Jefferson would have vomited upon hearing this decision. Declaration of Independence? Bill of Rights? Constitution? 4th of July? The Little Five has just blown a hole in our democracy and republic that is unacceptable.
 

Kathy B. (99)
Friday July 4, 2014, 7:24 am
I heard part of an interview on NPR yesterday morning regarding the subject yesterday morning. The interviewee ended by saying he didn't see Ginsberg's dissent happening. Oh really? Already I saw an article regarding companies trying to claim religious exemptions regarding gays. I'm sorry now that I deleted the article in anger or I would share.
 

Pat A. (116)
Friday July 4, 2014, 7:36 am
How on EARTH can a ruling only apply in one, very specific, narrow place - my understanding of law is that a lot of it is based on precedent - and this sets a mighty worrying precedent!
 

TomCat S. (230)
Saturday July 5, 2014, 4:26 am
The slope had gotten even more slippery. See today's Open thread, which I shall upload shortly.
 

Bojan Kunstelj (22)
Tuesday July 8, 2014, 11:40 am
facebook
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

TomCat S.

TomCat S.
TomCat's contributions:
Stories noted recently: 85
Stories submitted: 2793
Front Page stories: 2448




 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.