Jump to content

Hobby Lobby? Proof that conservatives hate women?


Recommended Posts

Well? I'm surprised there hasn't been a topic on the case. And actually, there have been a LOT of really interesting cases come down the pipe in the past week or so. But the Hobby Lobby birth control case was by far the most notorious. What are your opinions? Especially yours Carrie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We do all understand that Hobby Lobby will still be paying for birth control, right? Ok good.

 

Side note: I personally believe that "this leaves the door open for..." is usually the dumbest and laziest argument against something ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets mention personal choice for where someone decides to work.

 

Will a woman looking for a job disregard places like hobby lobby? Maybe this ends up hurting the company.

 

I like this ruling because it hurts obamacare which i dislike because the gov has no business telling Americans they need to have healthcare. That is wrong and i know too many people me included who are getting screwed from obamacare. I want it gone!

 

I dont like this decision because i feel women are getting screwed here. Plus male health related topics are covered like the hard on pill and frankly that needs to go too.

 

This issues big problem stems from the government overstepping its bounds. The only person who should be qualified to deal with health is the doctor and their patient. Not some gov program

Link to post
Share on other sites

OBAMACARE ISN'T A THING GOOD GAWD! And this wouldn't "hurt" it if it were! It's a LAW called the affordable care act and all it does is mandate most of us have body insurance.

 

I'd sat women will be applying in fewer numbers at HL, knowing their health care is sub-standard going in.

 

My biggest problem with it, outside the inherent misogyny-intended or collateral damage-is the precedent it sets AND that Hobby Lobby can continue to get taxed as a corporation when it's acting like a church.

 

"The only person who should be qualified to deal with health is the doctor and their patient. Not some gov program "

 

Really? You feel this way about abortion, too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Doctor and patient. fuck insurance companies!

 

Because of obamacare i now have to pay much more now for health insurance. People i know lost what health they had because of obamacare. They too now have to pay more. That is why it sucks! The gov has no business telling any citizen it has to have insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you know...all the other birth control pills out there minus the, what(?), two(?) four(?) that it was fighting against.

 

As a woman, I just don't see how this is a decision against women.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a more narrowly tailored victory than many people realize. So you are correct about that Cerina. I don't really know all of the ins and outs, I haven't read the full commentary and dissent. What I find more interesting is that the decision has, by some interpretations, imbued a corporation with a right that it has never previously had before-- namely to exercise religion. THAT is the really interesting thing about the case in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just vote with my wallet and go to Michaels or JoAnne's Fabrics. I don't wanna hear Jesus music while browsing the aisles. The ruling and the opinions are interesting though concerning corporations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well? I'm surprised there hasn't been a topic on the case. And actually, there have been a LOT of really interesting cases come down the pipe in the past week or so. But the Hobby Lobby birth control case was by far the most notorious. What are your opinions? Especially yours Carrie?

Is there a particular case you're curious about Ev? I'm pretty busy at work this week, but I'd be happy to share my opinion when I get a chance.

 

For now, what I'll say is that these cases are not nearly as sweeping and note-worthy as they're being billed as. Burwell v Hobby Lobby and Harris v Quinn are way narrower than people are describing and certainly not these huge, society altering, broad decisions. They are not like, say, the recent Obamacare or DOMA cases, which are important cases and probably had an actual effect on everyday Americans. NLRB v Noel Canning from a political perspective is a very interesting case and certainly changes things, but only in the world of insider Washington politics and unless you're someone playing the game on the Hill (which most Americans aren't), it has really little effect on wider society and most people would be hard-pressed to even explain what it does. McCullen v Coakley has some great writing from the Justices and is the type that will get people talking, but it's the sorta case that has really little practical effect- I mean, it certainly doesn't change how easy it is to get an abortion in any respect whatsoever, and is being unfairly described by outraged pro-choice people, who didn't really seem to actually read the opinion and what it did (which is not much).

 

The case that actually has the most effect on everyday life is the case that is probably being talked about the least- American Broadcasting Cos v Aereo. This is an absolutely fascinating case, IMO. Also, it had a really interesting result- the liberals won the day on this case, but the liberals, counter-intuitively, sided with large networks and big business, while the conservatives sided with Aereo, small internet business, the average consumer and the little guy! That is not a result you see every day... I think Scalia wrote a particularly good dissent in that case and I recommend reading it. I also think Aereo got sorta screwed, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you know...all the other birth control pills out there minus the, what(?), two(?) four(?) that it was fighting against.

 

As a woman, I just don't see how this is a decision against women.

Are you serious??? WHO ELSE takes birth control pills? Viagra and Cialis-covered. Birth control, not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you know...all the other birth control pills out there minus the, what(?), two(?) four(?) that it was fighting against.

 

As a woman, I just don't see how this is a decision against women.

Until some other company doesn't want to cover THOSE and uses this as precedent. You think the slippery slope idea is stupid, but I agree with Justice Ginsberg in this case.

 

Most importantly, I don't believe an employer should be able to make morality decisions regarding health care. (Especially when it involves something like Plan B which does not cause an abortion, but Hobby Lobby has their own opinions on "science", I guess.)

 

This is more reason why I hate that my health insurance is tied to my employer, but the United States has decided that's the way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chime back in with more detailed thoughts as your work allows Carrie, I always enjoy your insight on legal rulings. To a couple of points:

 

Hobby Lobby-- I agree, and as Cerina has pointed out, it's a much more narrow ruling than the average blogger paints it to be. It only applies to closely held corporations, and thus the impact is likely to minimal upon most women. But beyond the whole "birth control = good/bad" debate which I'm not so interested in, how do you feel about the Constitutional implication of granting exceptions to the law to for-profit corporations (who allege religious conviction)? Why is there a line drawn between a closely held corporation versus a publicly traded one? I get it from a pragmatic standpoint-- but could not a publicly traded corporation vote via shareholder meetings on whether to enact "religiously inspired exceptions to the law?" It seems fuzzy to me. Being the liberal I am, you can paint me as skeptical of anything that imbues institutions that exist on paper with rights that only humans can truly exercise.

To me, you should be free in the privacy of your own home to worship whatever statues and pray to whatever deity you see fit, and rape your wife while praising Allah, etc. (facetious on the last point). But when you enter into the realm of conducting public commerce, your individual freedoms SHOULD be curbed to accommodate the larger social good. Maybe that means having to hire part of the cursed black race (Mormons), or divorced people, or single mothers, or having to serve the gays, etc. Or in this case, abide by a legally passed healthcare standard that is supposed to apply to all insurance plans. Your individual rights to religion have been usurped by the greater collective good (in my mind). Now my exceptions would perhaps be explicitly religious, non-profit organizations. And I might even extend that to for-profit institutions that are so explicitly religious that you can't paint their major source of revenue as being derived from anything but religion (Bible/Christian bookstores for instance). But Hobby Lobby was neither of these and was just a business selling cheap Chinese craft supplies housewives.

 

So I guess the decision is a "win" for "religious freedom" (whatever the hell that is). But I DO think it sets a dangerous precedent. I know the justices were decidedly careful in limiting the scope of this (in a traditional 5-4 split, making this a partisan decision in my mind and not a Constitutional one). But based on the logic that is applied here (getting past the whole birth control = abortion divide that exists in our society), could similar logic not be used to further limit medical care? There is the usual suspect of limiting blood transfusions because some faiths are against them. Extend that more broadly, could a closely held corporation deny coverage for medical ailments related to smoking or obesity? Both smoking and gluttony are a sin in some traditions-- so what is to stop the next corporation from not wanting to pay for a fattie's heart attack against their conviction (mostly their conviction to save a buck)

 

The Aereo case was interesting too, though I've shied away from it for not knowing much of the precedent in broadcast and copy right law. It's one of those cases where I sort of just defer to the Justices and hope they're right, because they are certainly smarter than I am on the topic. But I was certainly pulling for Aereo (or any upstart that could help chip away at traditional broadcasts). It is ironic that liberals sided with the "wrong team" here...Maybe that is why there are the perennial accusations of the MSM being in the Democratic fold. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Birth control, not.

Stop saying that. I know you keep posting all these rage inducing memes and info-graphics on FB which keep saying that, but it's just untrue. It's wrong. It's not factual. It ain't right. So stop that.

 

 

And you know...all the other birth control pills out there minus the, what(?), two(?) four(?) that it was fighting against.

 

As a woman, I just don't see how this is a decision against women.

Until some other company doesn't want to cover THOSE and uses this as precedent. You think the slippery slope idea is stupid, but I agree with Justice Ginsberg in this case.

 

Most importantly, I don't believe an employer should be able to make morality decisions regarding health care. (Especially when it involves something like Plan B which does not cause an abortion, but Hobby Lobby has their own opinions on "science", I guess.)

 

 

Because they're paying for it. Everybody is still free to go out and get whatever healthcare they want, but why do you think it should be ok for someone else to pay for you to make morally deficient decisions? (I'm not saying that you, specifically are making immoral decisions, or even that I consider it to be an immoral decision. But the Christian church has a long and well-documented history saying that it does.) You're also free to work somewhere else.

 

That's what I think I don't get the most about all of this. Ok, so you disagree with what Hobby Lobby does, then don't shop there. Don't work there. How hard is that? It doesn't affect you personally. It's not like every other corporation is suddenly going to develop these strong religious beliefs concerning their employees. It's way too unpopular and alienates a good portion of the general public. Not many for profit companies are going to risk it, even if their higher ups are of a particular religion.

 

But why all the outrage for something that's not going to affect 99% (made up statistic, I don't know how many for profit religiously based companies are out there and how many women they employ, but I imagine it's relatively small) of the population?

Link to post
Share on other sites

TWO VERY IMPORTANT POINTS [EDIT : AND ONE EXTRA ACTUALLY IMPORTANT POINT!]

 

1) I am not a lawyer or an American or a woman (or even someone whose reading comprehension abilities would receive a unanimously agreed upon level of estimation by all Nightly.net participants) but the Mccullen v. Coakley decision (aka Nice Lady Who Just Wants To Talk To You About Your Abortion versus A Thirty Five Foot Radius Of Oppression) ends with Justice Scalia basically going full old man crazy for pages and pages.

 

2) I thought for sure Hobby Lobby was the name of the company which ran all the comics conventions around here but it turns out that's HobbyStar.

 

3) A recent graduate of Georgetown Law breaks the whole thing down at length and in detail.

 

 

And you know...all the other birth control pills out there minus the, what(?), two(?) four(?) that it was fighting against.

 

As a woman, I just don't see how this is a decision against women.

Are you serious??? WHO ELSE takes birth control pills?

 

If men are taking birth control pills then I applaud them for their caution and foresight. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY!

Edited by R.CAllen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop saying that. I know you keep posting all these rage inducing memes and info-graphics on FB which keep saying that, but it's just untrue. It's wrong. It's not factual. It ain't right. So stop that.

Sorry! Misogyny just pisses me off! And how is this NOT true?

 

why do you think it should be ok for someone else to pay for you to make morally deficient decisions?

Taking medication prescribed by one's doctor is a "morally deficient decision"??

 

Ok, so you disagree with what Hobby Lobby does, then don't shop there. Don't work there. How hard is that? It doesn't affect you personally. It's not like every other corporation is suddenly going to develop these strong religious beliefs concerning their employees.

Jesus ****ing CHRIST, Reese, THINK. It DOES have an effect on us. Do you not understand setting legal precedents? WATCH how many corporations will now develop 'religious' objections to things they don't feel like paying for.

 

I don't have the time or patience to list everything I feel is bad about this decision but think a tiny bit beyond the surface. I'll scratch that surface-it IS misogyny, either by design or default-the intention doesn't matter to this point. I think it sets a bad legal precedent in that any corporation that engages in any type of business can now claim objections on religious grounds for anything they don't feel like covering. This is also another legal ruling for the 'corporations are people' idiocy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't care less about what happens to Obamacare or women who "can't" get birth control. I do hate Hobby Lobby (and apparently, Amanda), though.

 

But ya know, in the larger scheme of things, I think it's actually pretty sweet Hobby Lobby can claim a "win," if only to provide yet another example of how problematic and absurd employer-based healthcare is, and pivoting the conversation in that direction. The feminist rage has been fairly entertaining, too.

 

Thank you, Hobby Lobby.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day Hobby Lobby is only denying medical coverage on 4 birth control methods. They are paying for 16 others.

 

If female employees want the other 4 then they can pay for them themselves,or go find another job that will cover it.

 

I would be more sympathetic for women if all forms were denied but 16 out of 20 is alot of options for a woman and her doctor to choose from.

 

Looking at it from this perspective i agree with this ruling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but some women want different options and can't afford them. You would deny them that? Rude.

 

Also, according to my Facebook feed, this is the worst, scariest thing to happen in the last 50 years! So bad!

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...