Shared publicly  - 
The Hobby Lobby Case Is Here

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a closely-watched lawsuit brought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. When it rules on these cases this summer, the Supreme Court will decide whether the religious beliefs of the owners of for-profit corporations can be used as a justification to deny the company’s employees the contraceptive health coverage they are entitled to under the Affordable Care Act. While these cases are specifically about the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit, the High Court could open the floodgates to discrimination in the name of religious belief.

Why Should You Care? Consider the potentially slippery slope of Hobby Lobby. A poorly decided Hobby Lobby decision has the potential to go beyond “corporations are people, my friend.” It has the ability to dramatically transform religious liberty from a fundamental value that protects religious beliefs into a loopholes that can be used to discrimination, dictate women’s health choices, evade federal protections, and promote unfair advantages in the corporate world.

The infographic below details the potential consequences that a poorly decided Hobby Lobby ruling could have on our nation.

Are You In D.C.? If so, join Generation Progress to rally at the Supreme Court in support of the birth control benefit provided by the ACA. RSVP here:
Alexandra Brown's profile photoRon Page's profile photoWill Burns's profile photoBOBBIE bell robert bell's profile photo
I'm completely astounded that the term 'religious freedom' could possibly have morphed into something so obviously opposite to what it really means. Liberty is the right to PERSONAL choices, and in no way gives anyone the right to dictate the lives of others. 
+James Wright the business owner is not forced to do or take anything they don't want. Their business must adhere to certain laws.

Please remember that the owner is not the same as the business. 
+James Wright the business owner's personal beliefs are only relevant when the owners are actually the ones working at the business, I. E. mom and pop stores. Once they have employees, however, they have a duty to provide them with necessary compensation for their work, whether they like it or not. What their employees do with their personal lives is none of their concern; the only thing that concerns them is how well they do their job, and that their compensation reflects that.

The fact is, however, that in a corporate economy like ours, owners are so far away from their employees that they are completely unaffected by their personal lives. The concern about having to pay for employees' medical procedures is all about money, with "religious freedom" being a pathetic shroud to hide their true motivation. 
+Cory McCusker and yet government intervention is the only reason we ever abolished child labor, deadly working conditions, poverty wages, firing due to injury and pregnancy, slavery, racial discrimination, monopolies, price fixing, unsafe products like poisonous food and medicine, false advertising, and toxic waste dumping. In fact, the only reason any of these still happen is because, for one reason or another (mostly corporate lobbying, bribery, or obstructive bureaucracy within the government) the government is not doing enough.

It really helps when an organization's sole reason for existing is to serve and protect individual people, not to provide profit to its highest members. 
+Cory McCusker
1. I'm showing that government intervention is the only way lower classes have ever gotten any rights or benefits.

2. you talk about government as if all governments, everywhere, in all parts of history, are the same organization. Government was not responsible for the genocide of the Native Americans, or the Jews, or Soviet dissenters, or elder citizens in Maoist China, or any other act of mass murder. Government is merely a tool, used by whoever controls it for their own purposes; White Protestant Americans wanted the Native Americans off of the land. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party wanted the Jews dead. Joseph Stalin wanted dissenters Dead. And so, with their control of government, they tried to accomplish what they wanted to do.
On the other side of that argument, there are people like Abraham Lincoln, who used government to free the slaves and attempted to heal the nation after a bloody civil war; FDR, who used the government to intervene in the economy during the depression, putting people back to work and massively improving the country's infrastructure; the government of Iceland, in 2009, which got its economy back on track after the recession hit by listening to the will of its citizens and punishing those responsible for the crash, rather than bailing them out. Government power goes not have to be limited, it only has to be controlled by the right people, meaning putting power fully in the hands of it's citizens. 
I wonder if +Cory McCusker would like if this country continued its blatant racism against blacks and women. Or, Congress had not passed legislation to stop children from being forced to work; allowing psychopath companies to not be concerned with worker safety or the destruction of the environment; or if Congress had not passed laws mandating worker hours stay realistic. 

You can't choose and pick. That's known as cognitive dissonance. The fact is, and has always been, there are psychopaths who could not care any less about anybody else, on themselves. I think you might be one of them.
And that's right +Cory McCusker because I understand history. The gilded age has again emerged its ugly head and there is nothing good about that. You're out of here, say your good-byes. People such as yourself sicken me.
Strange how trolls are always blue heads.
The court arguments lasted for an hour and a half with the usual and anticipated justice positions. Again, it's up to Kennedy who seemed to side with both competing parties; however, at one point he questioned the U.S. Solicitor Verrilli: “Under your view, for-profit corporations can be forced to pay for abortion.  Your reasoning would permit that"….

And that is the point...the intentional misconception that has been propagated. Birth control is not abortion. Furthermore, it is out of the scope of the argument, which is religious beliefs of an employer trumping individual rights.
Just for the benefit of ignorant trolls, these cases are concerning 4 out of 20 contraception options - not about contraception and ridiculous religious overreach within society at large. For those who are so ignorant to suggest if somebody doesn't want to work for a company who engages in unconstitutional activities, then work somewhere else - that's not the point. When we let businesses dictate civil rights, we open the door to a litany of discrimination in ways normal people would not even consider.
The ultimate sign of a won argurment: your opponent deletes their comments out of spite. 
Add a comment...