Skip to main content

View Diary: In Hobby Lobby, Supremes grant religious objection rights to for-profit corporations. (340 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You don't think other companies are going to (4+ / 0-)

    see how far they can take this, particularly the religiously extreme?  I just don't see how the SCOTUS can not rule in favor of a plaintiff who is a "closely held corporation" with "sincerely held religious beliefs" on any similar objection with regards to health care, can you?  

    I guess I'm just like the 70% of Americans who don't have confidence in the SCOTUS.

    America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

    by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:33:07 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I am sure the law will be tested (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk

      and we may see some cases in 2016, but I don't think those cases will win on the absurd topics being suggested in diaries and comments all over DKOS and the Internet.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  These are my concerns. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        They've been on my mind for some time. Since the decision, I have found others share my concerns.

        Justice Ginsberg: "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
        CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “While the Court purports to limit its ruling to closely-held corporations on this issue only, the majority opinion invites a number of  ‘me too’ religious objections by other companies on matters ranging from anti-discrimination law to other medical procedures such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.”
        The Human Rights Campaign: "Religious groups have a long-established first amendment ability to operate according to their own beliefs," said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. "Instead of protecting religious liberty, this ruling gives license for businesses to use their personal beliefs as a reason to deny people access to basic, yet crucial medical services."  

        "We will remain vigilant in the event business owners attempt to use this decision to justify other forms of discrimination, including against LGBT people," the Human Rights Campaign said in a statement.

        Are these absurd?  Are my concerns absurd?  I don't know which concerns you are talking about but these attempts by the SCOTUS to limit the scope of the decision have been proven to have little impact.   Bush V. Gore and the DOMA decision, both high profile and both made with supposedly strict limitations, have been cited in many decisions hence.

        Sorry, but I think limitations on this law will have as much teeth as suggestion boxes at town hall.

        America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

        by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:52:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We'll rest easy knowing you're not concerned. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        What is that even supposed to mean?

        Nothing to see here! VClib isn't worried.

        Can't you do any better than that?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site