Susan's Place Transgender Resources

30th June 2014, 5:21 PM
Nick Duffy

The US Supreme Court has ruled that businesses can use religious freedom laws to avoid providing some medical coverage, in a ruling which could impact future LGBT court cases.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of owners of retail chain Hobby Lobby, who objected on religious grounds to a portion of the Affordable Care Act that mandates they provide medical coverage including contraceptives to employees.

The majority opinion to reject the birth control mandate could have far-reaching consequences, as it applies the First Amendment to businesses for the first time.

More: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/06/30/us-supreme-court-rules-that-religious-freedom-applies-to-businesses/

What a friend said on the topic:

Quotenew proposal:
1. begin company that is statedly "Muslim".
2. Have them challenge the court on the right to force employees to wear burqas.
3. ???
4. Watch "religious freedom" claims suddenly disappear...

Yeah that'd do it.

What a backwards health system.  Most religions see women as second class.  Maybe they should claim they shouldn't have to provide health care to them at all.  In fact the Bible says it's OK to use them as slaves,  so perhaps they should claim to be able to do that on religious grounds.  That would make for a cheap workforce. 

I have a couple issues with this article.

First, this decision is not applying the First Amendment to businesses.  The majority opinion makes it clear that this case involves RFRA, not the First Amendment.  RFRA was created because it had been established by the Supreme Court that the First Amendment did not prevent the free exercise of religion in all cases.

Second, the author feels the way the majority opinion was written leaves the LGBT community safe.  The opinion tries to narrow the effect of this decision to only birth control; however, in stating what discrimination based on religion is not protected, sexual orientation is left out.  The dissenting opinion mentions how this could lead to expanded discrimination based on religion legal.  Certainly, this could have turned out much worse for the LGBT community, but to try and paint this as anything other than bad news is foolish.

I just stumbled upon this regarding this ruling:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrHQ1DaH.png&hash=19d0caf8e6786df6bd0accb68826aea27d20e152)

I have a positive view of this ruling. The simple fact is, America was established on a certain set of freedoms, and prior to this ruling, those freedoms stopped existing at the door of your personal small business.
Now, "closely held" businesses (EG family stores, bakeries, etc.) have a conscience exception. Which means that, just like you don't have to work for a company that won't support your identity, you also can be an entrepreneur without providing goods and services you consider morally wrong.

This ruling essentially creates two Americas where business is concerned - and preserves the rights and freedoms of both on their own terms. This is the only fair way this could have happened, and I'm really happy it happened as it did. Cultural hegemony is never a good thing!

Quote from: ZoeM on July 01, 2014, 05:54:19 AM
Now, "closely held" businesses (EG family stores, bakeries, etc.) have a conscience exception. Which means that, just like you don't have to work for a company that won't support your identity, you also can be an entrepreneur without providing goods and services you consider morally wrong.

Closely held does not mean small.  It means that there are one or two owners and no public shareholders.  There are a handful of closely held corporations that are multi-billion-dollar companies.

Quote from: skin on July 01, 2014, 08:19:13 AM
Closely held does not mean small.  It means that there are one or two owners and no public shareholders.  There are a handful of closely held corporations that are multi-billion-dollar companies.

Which is a problem how? Because they employ more people?

"While the court has recognized First Amendment protections for churches and other nonprofit religion-based organizations, Ginsberg noted that no previous court decisions had ever recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for religious exemption from any laws."


["Suppose an employer's sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?" Ginsberg asked.]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/06/read-justice-ginsburgs-passionate-35-page-dissent-in-the-hobby-lobby-decision/373703/

How about this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/religious-companies-opt-out-of-laws_n_5544582.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 04:39:59 AM
I just stumbled upon this regarding this ruling:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrHQ1DaH.png&hash=19d0caf8e6786df6bd0accb68826aea27d20e152)

Sadly, it kinda seems that way at times.  :(

Quote from: Olivia P on July 01, 2014, 04:39:59 AM
I just stumbled upon this regarding this ruling:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrHQ1DaH.png&hash=19d0caf8e6786df6bd0accb68826aea27d20e152)

Sadly, so true.  Supreme Court impartiality disappeared a long time ago.  Now it's just a ideological rubber stamp on whatever nutso fiction it chooses to hear from politically-funded lawyers.  A total waste of time, and the epitome of why the Constitution is as irrelevant as the Bible when it comes to governing a modern society.  Washington, Jefferson, Franklin: no more relevant to how we live today than Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah.  Different god, same problems.

Everyone knows life ends at birth especially if you're a girl.

Quote from: __________ on July 01, 2014, 02:47:23 PM
Sadly, so true.  Supreme Court impartiality disappeared a long time ago.  Now it's just a ideological rubber stamp on whatever nutso fiction it chooses to hear from politically-funded lawyers.  A total waste of time, and the epitome of why the Constitution is as irrelevant as the Bible when it comes to governing a modern society.  Washington, Jefferson, Franklin: no more relevant to how we live today than Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah.  Different god, same problems.

The problem is not that the Constitution is irrelevant. It is that Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court choose to ignore it inorder to achieve their own personal agendas.

you may find this relevant :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQCH1qyIDo

Quote from: ZoeM on July 01, 2014, 08:23:41 AM
Which is a problem how? Because they employ more people?

It is a problem that they can project their religious beliefs onto their tens of thousands of employees.  It's not that big of a stretch from this decision to being able to fire someone when they come out as trans, even if it is in a state where that is illegal as long as religious reasons are cited.

Lobby Hobby is not against birth control. They provide for several kinds of birth control. Their limitations are for medications that can kill fertilized eggs. However, those items are still available to anybody who wants to purchase them.

What is wrong with paying for your own preventive care? Why should it be somebody else's responsibility? When I was young everybody had to pay for all of their own medical and dental care. There was no such thing as medical insurance. You can also purchase coverage in addition to that which your employer provides.

It should be an employers option as to what they are willing to provide. You can always work for another employer. There is nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that limited the availability of the medication or your right to take such medication.

Quote from: mac1 on July 02, 2014, 07:00:05 AM
What is wrong with paying for your own preventive care?

I don't know. Nothing. Except that preventive medical care tends to keep people healthier longer, lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone, and because preventive medical care for many medical reasons (not just pregnancy) is often not covered or not covered enough for americans under health insurance which is why we have a health system in the U.S. that doesn't actually keep people healthy and there's a movement in the medical field to re-name the U.S. health system as the U.S. sick system.

But let's be honest. This is nothing more than Hobby Lobby looking for any reason they can to be exempt from the ACA, and men who run a corporation targeting women specifically on religious grounds, and that is what people are upset about.

This is the same reason why Viagra and vasectomies are still covered under hobby lobby's health insurance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-viagra_n_5543916.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-viagra_n_5543916.html). It's a double standard, and what bothers me more is, if health insurance companies start covering us (Which is slowly starting to happen), will Hobby Lobby and other companies be able to now say that they can deny us coverage as well for treatment for transition (A group of procedures often ok with insurance companies for non transition reasons) for religious reasons? Will a business that has Jehova's Witness as the CEO suddenly be able to deny blood transfusions to their employees and their families under their health insurance?

And that's assuming we can even get or hold a job in such a company at all due to discrimination for religious reasons. Does this make it so they can openly avoid hiring transgender people all together due to religious reasons even in states that have laws that attempt to prevent that?

The implications from this ruling from what I understand of it are simply staggering. They are saying that the religious rights of a corporation trump the rights of all of their employees. This effectively makes it so that freedom of religion in the united states now means "Freedom of religion for white cisgender rich christian men" because they now have the legal authority to impose their will on their employees.

If I'm wrong about what this means and the ruling ONLY applies to a specific limited number of treatments for preventative pregnancy targeting 'morning after' pills ... then isn't this ruling specifically targeting people capable of becoming pregnant and their choices only? What's an equivalent for people not able to get pregnant to this? This ruling targets a specific group of the population to limit their choices in favor of the whims of a company's religious views (...It's strange that a non organic, soulless, non life form can even be said to HAVE religious views in the first place) no matter how one cuts it and that is wrong.

Another thing Hobby Lobby has I think seriously misjudged, is that a lot of their shoppers are artists who tend to be progressive and frown on companies trying to remove liberties of individuals in favor of companies. And this artist will not set foot in Hobby Lobby again.

Quote from: mac1 on July 02, 2014, 07:00:05 AM
When I was young everybody had to pay for all of their own medical and dental care. There was no such thing as medical insurance. You can also purchase coverage in addition to that which your employer provides.

Yeah, but now the cost of medical treatment has skyrocketed. Even with the ACA many people don't have dental insurance and can't afford it because the insurance is too expensive as well. Medical treatment costs a lot more than it did when you were younger, which is probably why health insurance exists now to begin with. As for purchasing additional health insurance, yeah you have that choice ... but how many people can realistically afford to do that when we live in a world where many working people can barely afford the health insurance through their job as it is because of the cost of insurance alone? Even WITH insurance, medical procedures, even unarguably necessary ones for things like heart issue and respiratory problems that no one could argue against not being necessary (except of course, for religious reasons), are extremely expensive.

I would argue that the cost of medical care in the US is the result of health insurance rather than the cause, but otherwise spot on, Amy.

Also, for some reason, Americans seem to pay a large proportion of the costs for developing new medications. I'm imagine Europeans do as well.