General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHobby Lobby's Supreme Court Win Sets Up Battle Over Anti-Gay Discrimination
DYLAN SCOTT JUNE 30, 2014, 1:19 PM EDT
While the company Hobby Lobby triumphed at the U.S. Supreme Court in challenging Obamacare's contraceptive mandate on Monday, the Court does not seem to have flung opened the floodgates for anti-LGBT discrimination as some had feared it might.
Instead, legal observers noted, the ultimate resolution has been left for another day on whether a private business could lawfully discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds. But Justice Anthony Kennedy offered gay rights advocates a glimmer of hope on that front as well.
The Court ruled 5-4 that the government could not mandate "closely held" private companies with sincerely held religious beliefs, like Hobby Lobby, to cover certain kinds of birth control for their employees. That decision hinged in part on the religious freedom rights of a private corporation. Prior to the ruling, LGBT rights advocates had worried that a broad decision could open the doors for more anti-gay discrimination bills like the Arizona bill that stirred national debate earlier this year.
Based on initial readings of the Hobby Lobby decision, LGBT advocates seemed to have dodged a bullet. The Court's ruling, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, is explicitly narrow in effect. But some advocates worry that those pushing anti-LGBT bills will see an opening to introduce new bills and file new lawsuits to legitimize discrimination. Whether they'd win, though, is much less clear.
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hobby-lobby-decision-gay-rights
frazzled
(18,402 posts)That seems to be the undertone of this little article. I'm sure that our gay brothers and sisters would disagree, and that they oppose the Supreme Court ruling because it's wrong, not out of some sort of bullet-dodging self-interest.
Right?
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Many of these same corporations did not provide any healthcare coverage to begin with. These same women are allowed to purchase coverage through the ACA at cheaper prices than before.
Yes, it sucks, but not as bad as some are making it. It's a very narrow ruling. I think it would act as a wake up call to women who work for companies that do not value their personal decision making abilities.
Hobby Lobby employs approximately 21,000 employees. Conestoga Wood employs about 1,200 employees.
I truly doubt that many other corporations are going to be able to fit within the scope of this ruling to avoid providing one aspect of coverage
JustAnotherGen
(31,980 posts)When I chose to get married - I chose to be very very married. So did my husband.
I'm assuming those female hets at Hobby Lobby that let's say - are married - are very very married.
This impacts heterosexual men too.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a-lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-decision/
So who cares if there's just an itty-bit of discrimination permitted by the Courts? Why did Ruthie Bader get herself so worked up?
I guess I shouldn't care about the anti-union decision passed down today either, because--after all--so few people are actually union members.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)the next 2-3 Supremes.
Yes, this is a horrible ruling, but from what I read it appears to be narrowly applicable. I hope this is a very narrow ruling
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)virtually alone in criticizing the activists and the endorsements of them.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)It's the truth!
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)(Btw he must be thrilled by today's decision.)
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... at the Hobby Lobby decision. Don't think I haven't noticed.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I have had enough of their bullshit.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)... people from even trying by being explicit but these bastards made it REALLY wide by opening new definitions like
"Closely Held"... - well shit.... just fire the BOD of a F5 company and now a company is "closely held"!?
"alternatives"... - to what?! Anything?! Yes, I have an alternative to a really racist company... a non racist one... over in some other state or somewhere...
This decision is horrible