Page 2 of 2

Re: Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS decision

PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:35 am
by Sandy
I would agree completely that this was purely a political case, for the purpose of attacking the ACA. One of the facts that came out fairly early was that Hobby Lobby's company provided private insurance plan prior to the ACA being passed, paid for coverage that included the four drugs mentioned in the SCOTUS case. This didn't appear to be a matter of conscience for them prior to the ACA.

If it was a political statement and an attack on the ACA, they haven't gained much from it. I doubt if there are very many businesses that will demand to be exempt from specific prescription drug coverage. The insurance provider for Hobby Lobby will most likely raise their rates in order to compensate for the special provision required by the court. And why not, since Hobby Lobby obviously has a lot of extra money to spend on court cases. Public opinion is against the decision, and it has rallied Democratic party fundraising exponentially in the week since the decision was announced. Making this political was a mistake, and it cheapens the value of the real issue, which is opposition to abortion.

Re: Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS decision

PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:29 pm
by Tim Bonney
The whole concept of making corporations "people" is a bad idea for our nation, not just on religious freedom issues but on tax issues and political influence issues.

This was a poor decision that is the camel's nose under the tent for worse decisions giving corporations freedoms tha will trample on the freedoms of individuals. When Hobby Lobby brought suit on this issue they were added to a small list of companies that I will no longer do business with.

Re: Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS decision

PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:25 pm
by KeithE
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: Keith I agree. However when you write "And BTW, religious organizations (not for-profits organizations like Hobby Lobby) can choose to hire only those of their brand of religion currently.
I think it would convey your thought more clearly if you had started the parenthetical statement after "not". As it is on first read, it looks as if your are calling Hobby Lobby a "not for profit".

I hope our friend Bruce faces no real disaster.

Thanks for the edit.

Re: Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS decision

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 12:16 am
by Haruo
Sandy wrote:One of the facts that came out fairly early was that Hobby Lobby's company provided private insurance plan prior to the ACA being passed, paid for coverage that included the four drugs mentioned in the SCOTUS case. This didn't appear to be a matter of conscience for them prior to the ACA.

Where did this "come out", Sandy? It's a fascinating assertion, but I want to see documentation before I repost it. Mrs. H. concurs.

Re: Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS decision

PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:55 am
by KeithE
J. Brent Walker’s comments on Hobby Lobby Case are given here. He appears to be above the fray merely quoting from Alito and Ginsburg. He is the current leader of the Baptist Joint Committee (BJC) which played a key role in establishing the RFRA.

Also interesting:
5 Takeaways
BJC's General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman written before the ruling.

Re: Hobby Lobby and the SCOTUS decision

PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:22 am
by Sandy
Haruo wrote:
Sandy wrote:One of the facts that came out fairly early was that Hobby Lobby's company provided private insurance plan prior to the ACA being passed, paid for coverage that included the four drugs mentioned in the SCOTUS case. This didn't appear to be a matter of conscience for them prior to the ACA.

Where did this "come out", Sandy? It's a fascinating assertion, but I want to see documentation before I repost it. Mrs. H. concurs.


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... l-coverag/

They claim they "didn't know" and discontinued it when they "found out", though that wasn't until after the ACA was enacted, and there were already several lawsuits on the religious freedom issue related to church-owned or related institutions. They provided the coverage for a number of years prior to the ACA.