Hobby Lobby decides they're a religion instead of a business, so they don't have to answer to the government, just God. — Page 2

Oh my sides.

---

"Centrism" is the first vestige of the scoundrel.

---

Hmmm - if I was still in litigation I might just argue that Hobby Lobby has effectively demonstrated that the corporation is in fact an extension of their personal ideas and interests, and therefore, the limited liability protections of a corporation are now gone, since clearly, the corporation is not an independent legal entity, but an extension of the personal religious views of its owners.

They cannot have it both ways - they cannot set up a corporation to limit individual responsibility and exposure while at the same time use the corporation to advance their personal religious beliefs. If I was a plaintiff's attorney, and had a lawsuit against the corporation, I would name all of the sitting officers as Doe defendants and argue that their own conduct has demonstrated that the corporation is an extension of them.

And, I hope for the Dems this ruling energizes its base and gets people out to vote for the midterms.

So Hobby Lobby used to cover birth control for its employees but when the ACA mandated they do so they decided not to. Maybe the real sin is agreeing with Obama?

LH is so damned centrist.

---

I think the Supremes split the baby in an appropriate way by keeping the decision very narrow. Closely held corporations are frequently owned by families or single individuals who should not be expected to leave their ethical principles at the door. And if employees don't agree, they are not required to work there. Any broader decision in either direction would have trampled on the First Amendment in some respect.

But isn't that just because those are the 4 objected to by Hobby Lobby in their lawsuit. If they'd have objected to all 16, would the outcome have been different?

I personally believe so, Reg. But we may never know until some other corporation turns around and tries to use this ruling in support of eliminating birth control coverage all together. From what I understand, however, no corporation could use this ruling as case law or precedent for such a broader argument. That is part of the reason many analysts believe this ruling is not as legally significant as it is politically and socially significant.

"If you do not like the limitations of the health benefits offered...work for a different employer."
This argument drives me crazy. As if it's that easy. Especially for low wage, low skilled workers in this job market. But who cares about low wage workers right?

The practical result will likely be an administrative fix by the Obama administration that subsidizes the contraceptives at issue, said CNN political analyst Gloria Borger. "So in terms of a real gap in medical coverage for these women, should they want it, I think what you are going to see is the government sort of picking up where Hobby Lobby would leave off," Borger said.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest signaled as much, telling reporters the Obama administration will work with Congress to ensure women affected by the ruling will continue to have coverage for contraceptives.

Updated On: 6/30/14 at 02:24 PM

Wait until a Muslim owned company refuses to give Christian staff the day off on December 25.

---

You may have been building an alternate reality and second life on here since 2004, but that doesn't give you the right to tell me what I can and cannot do. You do not own this website. Rob Diamond does. Ask politely and remove the obnoxious CAPS LOCK, and I'll be happy to stop. Strangely enough, I've actually agreed on a number of the posts you've made here in the last few weeks. One day common ground will be found.