Judge: Hobby Lobby has no constitutional right to the free exercise of religion

http://www.gopusa.com ^ | November 20, 2012 | Tim Talley

[NKP_Vet]

A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

[Sioux-san]

There is another solution - hire no woman under the age of 45.

[Truth2012]

Ooops I got confused, I thought this was the ruling on the appeal.

[Jacquerie]

a government lawyer said . . . the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In the vernacular of Chris Matthews, "compelling interest" is liberal dog whistle speak which means, "the Constitution be d@mned."

[muir_redwoods]

I wonder what will be the eventual trigger (no pun intended) for the start of the shooting war as we face the assault and destruction of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments. So far he’s not quartering troops in our homes.

[Skepolitic]

No need to close shop. They just need to drop medical coverage for employees, and pay the $2000/employee penaltax.

The problem with the penaltax is that it is a dead-weight expense whereas medical benefits are a form of compensation enjoyed by employees.

To minimize the total penaltax, of course, HobbyLobby will have to make most of their employees part time.

The real losers at HobbyLobby will be its employees.

This is only fair because they have jobs and other people don’t. Fundamental transformation, baby.

[WVNan]

I said don’t hire anyone (male or female) under the age of 50. That eliminates most of the women (wives/daughters) who might seek birth control on the insurance.

[harpu]

Rut roh...I see a lot of employees having their current schedules being reduced to 29 hours (or less) per week.

[FrankR]

Simple...go “Papa John” and cut everyone back to less than 30 hours...thus, NO healthcare at all.

If that hits a snag, close the sucker down, or sell it off, and move to Costa Rica

[Boxsford]

No, but this is one to watch. Its going to get interesting.

[fella]

And here I thought that Federal law said that corporations have the same rights as people and must be treated as if they were a person in court. If this stands it could change a whole lot of laws and campaign financing.

[ought-six]

“On the contrary, insurance is not socialism, it’s more like gambling.”

No, it’s not. In gambling, one creates risk by putting one’s money “on the table.” If one doesn’t put one’s money on the table, one does not create risk. In insurance, one buys into a “pool” of like-minded people to protect against a risk or a hazard they did not create, and over which they have no control.

[Windflier]

The libs sure are trying to make that pressure relief valve pop, aren’t they?

[Truth2012]

Indeed. The last month has dragged on endlessly for me. I guess I got caught up in a time warp. ;) I doubt many people understand the implications of this next judgement. it is horrifying what has become of us- so I wouldn’t be surprised if the judgement is against Hobby Lobby. I pray I am wrong. I will watch closely. :)

[Windflier]

Two more liberals on the SC and bye bye to more than simply the Constitution.

Yeah, they can say bye bye to several red states, for starters.

[crghill]

Yep but dont dare suggest something radical like voting for Ron Paul. FReepers crucify those that do so give your three cheers for Romney Rino.

[Springfield Reformer]

Well, I dunno ‘bout that. Gambling in its most general form is putting value at risk in hopes of getting back a greater value. I pay for my own insurance, voluntarily, so I’m putting quite a lot of money “on the table” that I’d rather keep. Yes, its going into a shared risk pool, but somebody in that pool will be the “winner,” will come out ahead and avoid a loss far greater than their investment. Value not lost is just as valuable as value gained. So maybe investment is a slightly better model than, say, blackjack, but even investment is close enough to gambling for the analogy to work. The point is, it’s a choice you make, as a free, private person, and you live or die with the consequences. The government has no reason to be involved, other than to amplify its collective ego.

[Windflier]

I would close up shop. I would take this opportunity to make a stand. If this family was smart enough to start one business, they are smart enough to start another.

There's an armchair quarterback comment, if I ever saw one. Do you have any idea what it takes to start and build a successful family business like theirs? It takes decades of hard work and perseverance, my friend. Ask anyone who's done it (including yours truly).

One doesn't just fold their arms and shut down operations on an enterprise that large and long-established, because a court ruling didn't go your way. If you're the type that has what it takes to overcome the obstacles to building a business like that, you don't just give up and leave your employees, suppliers, and customers in the lurch. You do the usual, which is doing whatever it takes to find a solution to the problem.

[coloradan]

First of all, I said it's like gambling, I didn't say it was gambling. But it's more like gambling than socialism. Consider who pays, and who "wins." In gambling and with insurance, only those seated at the table, or who have bought a contract, pay, and only those people who have paid, may "win" the payout (used advisedly, e.g. because your house burned down). In particular, no one who didn't ante up, or who didn't sign a contract, is eligible to win. In contrast, in socialism, everybody "wins" (used advisedly, because everyone is equally miserable), irrespective of who paid, or how much they paid. In fact, those who pay less, tend to "win" more, while with insurance and with gambling, those who pay more (higher stakes games, more expensive premiums) tend to get larger payouts than those who just bet the minimum, or pay for basic coverage.

As for your rebuttal, putting money on the table not only creates your risk, it also inextricably creates the potential for reward, which would otherwise be unaccessible to you.

Tell me: in what way is insurance not like betting someone that you will crash your car? He is willing to take the other side, betting that you won't, for a fee. If you're right, he pays you more than you paid him. If you're wrong, he keeps your money. Most of the time, he's right, so he can afford to make the payout much larger than the premium, although his fee will depend on your driving record and some other factors (age, gender, etc.).

In order for insurance to not be like gambling, something in this analogy must be essentially wrong, missing, not applicable, misstated, or otherwise in error. What is it? (The fact that The State mandates insurance but not gambling isn't it.)

[Usagi_yo]

On the contrary, insurance is not socialism, it's more like gambling.

Absolutely incorrect. First off there is no 'win', you are indemnified -- meaning "made whole, or in part", mostly in part because of deductables. Furthermore, Insurance is the spread of like risk, which is inherently socialistic (but one that I agree with). Everybody is at risk for health, and most P&C. Death is not a risk, it is an inevitability and has no indemnification value.

If you had read my whole post, the rest of your response wouldn't have been necessary. I freely admit that today's type of government cannot run such a program. It's too mired in money and political interests to be cost effective. But with the right people and right laws, it could be done. Look at SS for instance. We all know it could be done right, but government can't because it's become a piggy bank.

And regarding flood/earthquake insurance -- I don't think you're entirely correct in that the government has such a program that's government subsidized at the policy holder level. The government mandates re-insurance programs between insurers that have greater risk and those that have little to no risk. The government provides incentives for this to the re-insurer, but it's not near what you claim (corruption not withstanding). Otherwise nobody would provide that type of Insurance.

If you know of such government program, let me know the program name so I can be better versed on the subject.

[Usagi_yo]

It’s difficult to understand that this is a very tenuous claim of freedom of religion. After all, what about a Jehova Witness or Church of Scientology or Christian Scientists ... they have particulare things that are not acceptable, like blood infusions, transplants, types of drugs.

What if we have a ‘transgendered’ religion that demanded companies offer transgender services ... oh wait ..... we do.