[Laissez-faire capitalist]

The SCOTUS ruling was based upon: the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage.

If the owners of a closely held company have religious objections to vasectomies, infertility treatments, blood transfusions, etc, etc, they will try to deny.

Then the lawsuits will come,

Then theses issues will work their way up.

Or do you think that the majority on SCOTUS will only safeguard closely held religious beliefs for some religious peoples, but not all?

[plain talk]

Yes I do. I don’t think all religions are the same. Jim Jones had a religion too. This belief that blood transfusions are bad is extreme and downright nutty. Blood transfusions save lives. Not like the concern over killing babies. so it is quite different. Supremes won’t mess with it but if they did they would devise a simple remedy that would have little effect on ObamaCare

I do get your argument. slippery slope — lets keep demonstrating how this law tramples rights etc I get it. However I think it borders on pathetic to harp on how owners now have to fund health care plans for employees that allow awful blood transfusions. A special plan without transfusions would cost no different.

I just think / hope more effective cases can be made than this. This is pretty far down on my give-a-damn list. I want the whole law repealed.

[BlackElk]

Sometimes it may be hard to remember that SCOTUS is no more our national council of philosophers than it is supposed to be our continuing constitutional convention without need of ratification by the states. The SCOTUS is limited in its jurisdiction to real cases and controversies between real litigants and not faculty lounge speculations on perfect philosophical answers to general questions.

Litigation is a messy but usually necessary way to resolve precise narrow questions. Can Hobby Lobby's Evangelical Christian owners and the closely held corporation that is their business entity be required against the morality of the owners to fund four abortifacient forms of birth control? Not can anyone anywhere ever be forced to pay for whatever?

So, there may be future cases involving vasectomies, infertility treatments, blood tranfusions or many other less controversial procedures. So be it.

[BlackElk]

Sometimes it may be hard to remember that SCOTUS is no more our national council of philosophers than it is supposed to be our continuing constitutional convention without need of ratification by the states. The SCOTUS is limited in its jurisdiction to real cases and controversies between real litigants and not faculty lounge speculations on perfect philosophical answers to general questions.

Litigation is a messy but usually necessary way to resolve precise narrow questions. Can Hobby Lobby's Evangelical Christian owners and the closely held corporation that is their business entity be required against the morality of the owners to fund four abortifacient forms of birth control? Not can anyone anywhere ever be forced to pay for whatever?

So, there may be future cases involving vasectomies, infertility treatments, blood tranfusions or many other less controversial procedures. So be it.