Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Hobby Lobby S.C. Case. "Religious Liberty at Stake"


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 2926 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

So what I'm hearing about this, its gonna be bad with either outcome. If they win the exemption it sets precedent for all kinds of crazy claims and refusals based on religion. If they lose then we lose religious freedom bc govt can force ones to act against their "beliefs" (not us of course). Decision expected in June.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hobby Lobby is a company with thousands of employees,they are owned by a "Christian" family that does not want to pay for birth control for their female employees that they find objectionable, IUD's and morning after pills,that destroy a fertilized fetus,abortion.If the company refuses to pay for medical care for their employees they will suffer a stiff fine...millions of dollars...due to the new Healthcare act .They are willing to provide insurance coverage but not for things they find objectionable.

The government says Hobby Lobby can't decide what's acceptable for their employees,imposing their religious beliefs on them.Hobby Lobby says they should not be made to violate their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, it's a political dispute over medical insurance.

 

Does the medical insurance specify certain procedures which are covered and which are not?  I would have thought that covering medical expenses would have been a blanket coverage and would be similar to our paying taxes. The fact that tax money funds armaments is not a reason we would refuse to pay our taxes, it is up to the government to decide on the use of the money.  Is this a different principle?

 

I can see we are going to have to come over there and show you how to do things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the real question isn't about "personal" religious freedom as that is well established US constitutional law.

 

The questions is - does a business / corporation have the same rights as a person. If a business can claim a religious exemption, perhaps it can claim other "rights" granted to people. 

 

In the case of Hobby Lobby, it is the business required to provide that coverage to its employees. "Businesses" that are completely religious - churches - are exempted from the law, but what about the schools run by churches, hospitals, and all other types of business churches run - like Coca Cola for a while.

 

If a business gets this "religious" exemption, it is really going to open up a can of worms. Unfortunately this Supreme Court has already started to open that can with saying business are people and so can donate as much as they want to political campaigns. In fact, that decision is the linchpin in Hobby Lobby's case.

 

It will be interesting to see if they put the lid back on the can or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hobby Lobby is a company with thousands of employees,they are owned by a "Christian" family that does not want to pay for birth control for their female employees that they find objectionable, IUD's and morning after pills,that destroy a fertilized fetus,abortion.If the company refuses to pay for medical care for their employees they will suffer a stiff fine...millions of dollars...due to the new Healthcare act .They are willing to provide insurance coverage but not for things they find objectionable.

The government says Hobby Lobby can't decide what's acceptable for their employees,imposing their religious beliefs on them.Hobby Lobby says they should not be made to violate their beliefs.

Government telling Religion what they can and cannot do - really sounds interesting doesn't it?    ..... as we wait for the trigger prophesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government telling Religion what they can and cannot do - really sounds interesting doesn't it?    ..... as we wait for the trigger prophesy.

 

That's just it. This case isn't about government telling religions what to do - they are exempted. It is about whether government can tell businesses what to do. And if they can't - that is when things get really scary!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the court has seen the damage already done by considering companies as "citizens" and allowing them to put as much money as they want into political campaigns. So, they will not grant that a company can have "religious" rights as well. It just pops that can of worms open too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the thrust of the argument here in the Bible belt.  People want their BIRTH CONTROL paid for!  Too many mouths to feed now is what we here.  And with a poor job market they do not want to spend on birth control.  They won't even pay a sliding scale fee to have their animals neutered/spayed..  They just bring them out to the country and drop them off for my husband to take care of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the issue is whether a for-profit business has a right to religious freedom.

 

On another note, instead of spending $thousands, if not $millions, on the defense of this case why doesn't Hobby Lobby just pay the $2,000 per year per employee tax?  The $2,000 per year per employee tax would be less than a company research department full of employees searching every year for insurance "options."  That way there is no loss of constitutional rights. I'm thinking Hobby Lobby will lose here and that ultimately it will end up paying the tax just as most business/companies have decided to do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really makes no sense....... I'm sure there are plenty of Brothers/Sisters that own businesses and offer health insurance, so that would be like them saying "You can't make my business have insurance that will pay for a blood transfusions".  Shouldn't that "problem" be entirely in the employee?  Does my health care offer to pay for blood transfusions?  Yes.  Would I take one? No.  Where's the problem?  If Hobby Lobby doesn't think birth control is right then they should hire people that feel the same way and then they won't have to worry about it.  Even if an employee DID use it, it would be "their bad" not Hobby Lobby's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What irks me about this case is that Hobby Lobby is essentially trying to dictate what their employees can do with a contractually agreed benefit.

 

Would it be proper for a Jewish-owned business to reduce or eliminate an end-of-year bonus for anyone who wants to use that money for Christmas gifts? How about a Catholic-owned business that eliminates vacation days for Muslims who plan to use those vacation days for a pilgrimage to Mecca? Both businesses could completely accurately say that they are providing money to pay for something that goes against their beliefs, but does that give them the right to withhold payment from the employee?

 

While I can understand the point behind the case, at some point individual rights have to take precedence over corporate rights, religious or otherwise. If not, then before long everyone is going to end up being a hostage to the beliefs of their owner employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really makes no sense....... I'm sure there are plenty of Brothers/Sisters that own businesses and offer health insurance, so that would be like them saying "You can't make my business have insurance that will pay for a blood transfusions".  Shouldn't that "problem" be entirely in the employee?  Does my health care offer to pay for blood transfusions?  Yes.  Would I take one? No.  Where's the problem?  If Hobby Lobby doesn't think birth control is right then they should hire people that feel the same way and then they won't have to worry about it.  Even if an employee DID use it, it would be "their bad" not Hobby Lobby's.

 

 

Tommy!  There you go thinking with logic and reason again!  Who taught you?  Jehovah?  Even though we don't agree with some of these things (abortion, blood transfusions) we can still use common sense for the good of all men--allowing them to make their own choices (mistakes)--just like Adam and Eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hobby Lobby stores owner says it is against their religious rights to force them to provide contraception to their employees. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and the decision is that you do not have to go against your religious beliefs to supply certain insurance coverage to your employees and in particular small businesses. They claim this is a big win for religious freedom in the US.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the majority opinion drafted by Justice Alito, specified that the decision DID NOT APPLY TO BLOOD TRANFUSIONS, nor vaccinations.

 

In other words, those who hold a sincere religious conviction against blood transfusion still cannot be excused from making that medical procedure available as a 'benefit' of the employer provided health insurance coverage.

 

I have been curious if the Watchtower legal department chooses to weigh-in with an amicus curiae brief in certain cases. I wouldn't expect them to do so in this particular case. But, when it comes to fundamental civil liberties; speech, assembly, worship, it wouldn't surprise me if our organization stepped up with some well informed help.

 

Does anyone know how to find out if and when the Watchtower has filed such a 'Friend of the Court' brief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What disturbs me about this ruling isn't the topic itself (it's not our right to enforce our religious beliefs on others, scripturally or legally), it's the fact that corporations now have de-facto religious rights, and the right to enforce their views on others. Since most religions allow a shunning policy of some sort, does this open the door for legal religious discrimination? I.E, could a Muslim-owned company cite religious beliefs to refuse service to women and non-Muslims? Could the Ku Klux Klan be cited as a religious belief in order to excuse discrimination against African Americans and other minority groups?
 
Then again, that kind of destabilization of the world economy and regression of civil rights under the guise of "religion" would go a long way toward drawing the UN's attention toward the full extent of Babylon's control...
 

Does anyone know how to find out if and when the Watchtower has filed such a 'Friend of the Court' brief?

 
I'm only aware of one, regarding the taxation of literature distributed by a religious organization. https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerAmicusCuriaeJimmySwaggart
 
I'm sure there are others, but I'd expect that they'd only be in cases that could directly affect the Kingdom work as a whole. This case, even with the direct mention of blood, would have zero direct effect on the branch, or even the vast majority of Witnesses (only those who own companies and employ 50 or more full-time workers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.5.22 (changelog)