The Supremes Tackle Birth Control

So if I start my own cult I have to give my members birth control ?

Yes, else Obama and his Negro army will come in and tear you down.

I'm already a member of the cult of Obama but I'm thinking of starting a Biden off set.

What a Luddite, it's all about Hillary now yall.

Obama already chose Hilary to be his successor, so you should go in that direction.

But I love being in the kitchen my birth control pills are there.

501(c)(3) includes scientific and educational organizations as well. More importantly, the "non-profit" designation is only relevant for taxation purposes and has nothing to do with the corporate form itself. The 501(c)(6) designation is largely reserved for boards, chambers of commerce, and other groups that actually specifically exist to advocate for for-profit entities. Since RFRA does not iirc look at tax status, Hobby Lobby's status as a for-profit corporation may not be relevant to establishing whether they have rights under RFRA.

That question is actually the (really interesting) core of what this case is about.

A publicly traded company, driven as they are by the legal mandate to maximize shareholder value, could not plausibly make a claim for a sincerely-held religious belief under RFRA. Hobby Lobby, however, is a closely-held corporation, and (this is important) can actually make plausible claims about sincerely-held religious beliefs to the detriment of their revenue vis a vis their business practices (they close all their stores on Sundays, for example).

I think RFRA is a shitty law, mostly *because* granting Hobby Lobby their exemption might not be an inappropriate exercise of it. But hey.

Hobby Lobby is getting tons of free advertising mission accomplished.

Damn peyote.

Well you got to remember the context of it's passing. It was originally meant to protect the rights of Native American's and their religious practices. Yes the law was drafted to address all religions but in reality it specifically catered to Native American's dealings with government expansion onto tribal lands.

It's ironic that people will take a law such as the RFRA/AIRFA/NAGPRA and twist it in order to meet their own agenda in the capacity of an imagined war against Christianity with regard to government overreach.

But then again we're talking about "people".

The question was:


Where do you see Pleebo state "for profit" only?

Oh wait, he didn't.

I enjoy pedantry as much as the next person, but asking my original question in the context of this thread should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about such organizations. And Scaevola has pointed at that their tax status probably isn't relevant anyway.

If it pleases you, here:

Oh wait, you're the one who brought up 501(c)(3):

So it must be convenient for you now to try and say a specific classification of a type of corporation is representative of all corporations. Since you know you did say Churches are 501(c)(3), but you didn't say they are charitable organizations who also happen to be tax exempt.

Either you're playing the part of the disingenuous corporate stooge, or you simply don't understand how the classification of a corporation being, for profit and publicly shared vs.for profit and privately owned, comes into play with regard to the question.

Cause you know, you're the one that brought 501(c)(3) in the first place in an attempt to say a Church is 501(c)(3) therefore a church is a corporation, thus corporations can have a religion.

Which is falsely attributing government classifications to your agenda, which appears to be in line with Corporatism.

You could at least utilize the arguments from the 10th Circuit ruling (Hobby Lobby) on the matter and the 3rd Circuit's (Conestoga Wood) ruling as well. Both of which never bring up 501(C)(3) in any capacity.

TLDR: Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are both for profit and privately owned. They do not fall under 501(c)(3) they do not get the option to fill out the form to be exempted from providing those services.

Since I don't feel like looking up the actual court ruling


Source= Paragraph #13

I'd love to share in the fake outrage over this one organization not wanting to provide specifically just 4 types of birth control while having no issue with providing all others, but first I would like to know why all of you flipping out over Hobby Lobby wanting an exemption are not flipping with equal out enthusiasm over the hundreds of exemptions that President Obama has given other organizations with the stroke of a pen and the wipe of a butt?

Other than your religious intolerance of course.

It's not like Supreme Court decisions carry any weight outside of each specific case. This would obviously only affect Hobby Lobby and no one else.

you might need to put up sarcasm tags with this one Pleebo.

Cut them slack, the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare in order to make it legal in their opinion in the first place. I cannot believe you guys still fight for this disaster instead of trying to find solutions to actually help people afford health care. Obama changed the law again tonight by the way, he extended the signup deadline a couple weeks, again with the stroke of a pen and the wipe of his butt. Welcome to America, where the President changes any law any day and the radical left is somehow cool with it.


Edit: If Obama woke up tomorrow and decided to remove the birth control mandate, what would your reaction be? I assume you would suddenly be OK with it as you have been every other time. Please try to act like independent thinkers. It's fun to watch.

I got a sarcasm detector it blew up when I used it on the forums.

He pushed the sign up dead line back. BFD! You're seriously getting bent out of shape about that? He pushed it back which pushes the penalty implementation back, lets get upset over it. ◔_◔

With regard to your edit:
Opinion loaded questions like that make people sound like they're mad.


After all, you're attempting to insult people's intelligence and moral leanings with that question.

Care to cite a few examples?

He's allowing individuals who have started the enrollment process but were unable to complete it due to circumstances out of their control a few more weeks to actually finish the process. Truly history's greatest monster.

In response to your loaded question, I would think it was as dumb and short-sighted as when the administration extended the hardship exemption to those whose shitty policies got canned due to ACA regulations.

AKA if you don't like the answer, change the question.

also, generally, lets not forget that The President (more specifically, The Executive Branch [which means, it can include the VP]), Congress (as a whole, both parts,etc), and The Judicial Branch have the powers to revise any one piece of legislation which is a power granted by The Constitution.

Blaming specific parts of the government for using their legal powers that are integral to their position in the said government because you dont specifically like that person who runs that specific part of the government.

The same way a corporation can have any other set of beliefs/opinions that would give rise to constitutionally-protected speech: through the (perhaps necessary) legal fiction of corporate personhood.

Sorry I'm late to the party, Can someone sumarize the last 5 pages?

Why should employers be on the hook for emergency contraception when to be true to their religious beliefs, they desire to avoid such things? How does it harm the employee if they need to pay for that emergency contraception themselves?

Please tell me someone has a better response than "Because all forms of birth control should be free."


Because corporations are organizations of people (corporations are people). There is judicial precedent on this matter.

The original purpose of the law is not why I think it's shitty. I think it's shitty because it's constructed in the worst possible way for an American statute to be constructed, in that it:

-provides a really broad and powerful remedy (exemption from specific federal laws with no limit on the type)

-has a really ill-defined test for appropriate government curtailing ("compelling state interest", "least restrictive means", "lol")

-is set up to involve case-by-case disputes that prevent the U.S. regulatory structure from promulgating rules that would more clearly define what the government can and can't do, thus forcing everybody to cede all authority over what this law actually does to the judiciary

it is a bad law, which is to say it is a lazy law

There is precedent for corporate personhood.

The actual SCOTUS, ruling on this specific matter will be the precedent of whether or not corporations can have a religion.

Now there are privately owned companies like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, that have business standards that reflect their owners Christian beliefs.

For example not being open on Sundays.

However, that's not the really the issue being discussed either.

This particular issue has much potential for slippery slopes.

If you want to find out why it's come to the Supreme Court, look up:

10th Circuit ruling on Hobby Lobby. Then check out the 3rd Circuit ruling on Conestoga Wood.