Supreme Court rules corporations can cite religion to avoid contraception coverage

Something tells me you hadn’t spent a lot of time there before.

I used to shop there for myself and for gifts. I knew the owner was religious or whatever, but I didn’t hold that against him. I bought a bunch of shit there for gifts, etc. just last Christmas.

Never again. Actually, I want to return anything and everything I’ve ever bought and get my money back. If they won’t take it back, I want to fucking burn their shit in their parking lot. I feel horrible that my money went to support these fucking hypocritical evil sacks of corporatist shit.

Despite what corporatist appeasers, charlatans and idiots like David A. Cortman say, this is NOT about religion for Hobby Lobby, by the way. It’s about corporatism and oppressing the general public under the guise of religion. So much evil is perpetrated against us under the guise of religion and now it’s happening again.

Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare’s contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers.

More:

The Most Egregious Examples of Hobby Lobby’s Religious Hypocrisy
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/04/the-most-egregious-examples-of-hobby-lobbys-religious-hypocrisy/

Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them
http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-provided-emergency-contraceptives-they-opposed-them

From Forbes and even catholic.org:

A case of hypocrisy in Hobby Lobby’s stance on contraception?

16 Likes

I don’t think you were the only one with that question. According to the IRS it is a corporation where at least 50% of the stocks are held by less than 5 people.

3 Likes

It doesn’t matter how painful. If the cysts were jolly, it would still be appropriate for insurance to cover treatment.

Which makes me recall an interesting possible solution. There’s a prescription drug that works great as an antidepressant. It happens to have a side-effect of making it easy to quit smoking - but for that purpose, it’s marketed under a different name. Same drug, different brand.

When I wanted to quit smoking, my doctor found that my insurance wouldn’t pay for the quit-smoking pills. So he prescribed some antidepressants, which were covered just fine. Couldn’t the same strategy just end-run this entire issue? Give all the ladies some “ovarian cyst” pills?

2 Likes

How dare you stop shopping there!!! You are curtailing their religious freedom!!

/s

… heard from people when I stopped going to chick-fil-a

12 Likes

What is to stop insurance companies from jacking up membership costs for enrollee companies who don’t play fair? What is to stop insurers in insurance marketplaces from offering discounted plans to individuals who wish to opt out of their shitty company plan?

As I understand the new health laws, nothing, in either case.

Sure, it’s a shit decision by SCOTUS, but I see it as nothing more than more price warring. At least we have that.

They have GREAT lemonade. But I refuse to go there because of the warped religiosity, so fuck their great lemonade.

3 Likes

Ginsburg pretty much nailed it in her dissent. Namely this point:

“Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

10 Likes

Of course, ADP will be picking up the cost of cutting the extra paychecks per this decision.

2 Likes

Women shouldn’t have to jump through hoops and loopholes for their health care. It’s time to attack the corporatists head on and unseat them from power within our government.

Then again, I’m actually beginning to think this is what some average Americans deserve.

I just wish the damage was only limited to those who vote Republican and the percentage of dunces in America that continue to fall for false equivalency between Democrats and Republicans and don’t vote or throw away their votes when they have the chance to vote in a lesser evil with much less damaging long-term consequences for us all.

We must be idiots, I mean for fuck’s sake we still don’t even have a single payer system for health care because too many morons fall for this:

Not that many in America have the attention span to fucking watch that interview all the way through or anything, nor comprehend its ramifications. Fuck it.

America is an embarrassment. Welp, good luck with Iraq, suckers. Fuck this country.

HINT: To dense fucking Americans who didn’t see a trend in those pictures up there. Every single one of them was sworn in by Republicans.

10 Likes

Here’s the List

3 Likes

Jewish corporations will now demand retroactive circumcisions for their male employees.

8 Likes

I do not want a retroactive circumcision, nor do I understand one.

1 Like

Beforeskin?

17 Likes

time for a boycott smack down.

2 Likes

Koch Industries sprang to my mind, as Charles and David each own 42%. If the company were public it would rank 17 on the Fortune 500.

2 Likes

The conservative’s decision is not a surprise, they are traditionalists, conditioned by a corporate ‘Plantation State’ legacy, where the religious beliefs of Massa governs the wombs.

The court essentially just transferred Massa’s traditional “rights” to the Plantation, aka a “closely held corporation”.

4 Likes

7 Likes

Unfortunately, I doubt that would do much good, because there are enough people who do think this is a “good decision” because of “religious freedoms” who will actively shop there because they like the decision. Our own boycott will likely not put them out of business nor will it send much of a message. I’ve been avoiding the place since this all started (the blatant anti-Semitism was part of that too) and I suspect I’m not the only one.

That doesn’t mean a concerted effort can’t be made, just that those who support it will only double down on their end.

I will forever have a hard time with your insistence that people vote the lesser evil or they are contributing to the greater evil. That simply isn’t necessarily true. It might be true, depending on a lot of specific things in the situation, but it isn’t necessarily true.

To me, it’s like this:

Don’t vote for A because he kills people! Vote for B because he only kills puppies.

I can’t vote for either of these two assholes.

I’d rather attack the system that makes it only possible to vote for A or B, a murderer or an animal cruelist. Or, in less strawmannish hyperbolic, more real terms, an overt corporatist vs. a covert corporatist.

No, they are not ALL like this every time (Sanders, Warren, Franken), but the point remains. If the system is presenting you with bad choice A or bad choice B and there are no alternatives, then in simple game theory terms, all you are doing by voting B is delaying the inevitable, eventual occurrence of A & vice-versa.

I would rather put my effort towards disincentivizing B from being corporatist, and therefore worthy of more votes and therefore stripping A of probability.

I am not voting for puppy killers because they are better than murderers. In real terms, I like Afghan and Pakistani children. I want them to live. I like government that isn’t full of biz-friendly Republicans-in-disguise Democratic cronies at the top echelons. I like laws and administrations that don’t use extra-legal prisons and secret courts. I like administrations that scale back police power and focus the judiciary on stuff that matters, not pot convictions. Etc.

Now, go ahead, attack away. But this is just a difference of opinion that nobody can win. I just cannot accept your lesser evil argument as the solution above all others. To me, the Lessig solution is the solution.

Now don’t start with me about the Lessig of two evils, triple fucking facepalm.

5 Likes

The frequent consonance between constitutionality and barbarism can’t be terribly comforting, can it?

Egad, we’ve returned to the barbaric regulatory regime of … 2011.