Quantcast


De Fratus’s Hobby Lobby Comments Cause Controversy on Twitter

Posted by R.C. Cowie, Wed, July 02, 2014 11:26 AM | Comments: 9
Posts, Social Media

Phillies relief pitcher Justin De Fratus took to Twitter to share his opinion on the ground breaking Burwell v. Hobby-Lobby ruling on Tuesday.

 

 

De Fratus continues his discourse in the exchange below and received some spirited feedback from some of his 14,500 followers.

One such follower points out that De Fratus doesn’t have a grasp on what he perceives to be a dangerous legal precedent:

In their 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act violates some employers’ religious freedom.

De Fratus’s comments flew under the radar for the most part after the ruling. When he gave up the winning run in last nights 5-4, 11-inning loss in Miami, business definitely picked up:

Add this to the seemingly never-ending examples of an athlete voicing their political opinion, informed or otherwise, on social media and catching flack for it. Coupling his comments with being on the losing side of the pitching decision of last nights’ ball game, for some fans, it only compounded the disappointment of the 2014 Phillies season thus far.

Avatar of R.C. Cowie

About R.C. Cowie

R.C. Cowie has written 49 articles on Phillies Nation.

 
 
  • Posts: 0 Bob D

    Obviously the Judges agree with the ruling. DeFratus is allowed to have a political view its his right.

     
    • Posts: 0 George

      Not so obviously. Four of the judges disagreed, which is one stinking judge fewer than the idiots who thought corporations should have freedom of religion (that is, if that religion happened to be Christianity-not sure what will happen if a Muslim-run corporation decides it can make all it’s female employees wear veils and not be allowed to drive their own cars to work).

      DeFratus does have a right to his views, but other people certainly also have the right to call him an uninformed fool. I hope for his sake that Phils’ ownership doesn’t decide to become Jehovah’s witnesses if DeFratus needs them to pay for an MRI.

       
  • Posts: 0 joe

    Hobby Lobby is owned by a christian family who happens to find 4 baby killing drugs (some people call contraceptions) distasteful. How could the federal govt in good faith with the constitution mandate that they have to pay for those drugs. Meanwhile Hobby Lobby pays for 16 other birth control pills/ devices. If an employee wants those pills she can pay for them herself.

     
    • Posts: 3636 Tracey

      Avatar of Tracey

      So if your employer is a Christian Scientist, they can require you to pray instead of going to the doctor? Or does this ruling only work when the owner of the company agrees with your religion and imposes it on other people?

       
  • Posts: 0 joe

    since when does every employer have to provide healthcare? my wife and I run a business and some of our employees decided to sign up for the company health insurance and some didnt. those who didnt got more take home pay. The premise that the employer has to provide the employee with insurance is old and outdated. Do the have to provide them with housing and food as well?

     
    • Posts: 0 George

      Actually, you’ve got it backwards. It has only been in the past recently that employers have been required to pay for health care. Before that, insurance was something employers offered so they could lure better employees; it wasn’t mandatory.

      You’re missing the point here. It’s not that companies should be required to provide insurance. The point is that if insurance IS offered (and under the current law, it must be), it should be REAL insurance and not some crap with religious restrictions attached. The Supreme Court decided that Hobby Lobby can force their radical religious views onto their workers; that a corporate board has more religious freedom than an individual. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in doctors, and leave medical matters to prayer; should they be allowed to circumvent their employee’s access to health care? Should a Mormon corporation be allowed to deny an insurance claim because the worker had coffee in his system? These are all dangerous potential results of five judge’s poorly conceived decision.

       
  • Posts: 0 joe

    what about the individual who owns the business? Do you lose your first amendment rights when you start your business? The pilgrims came to this country because they could not worship they way they wanted in England. Now on this week of the fourth of July we have people who ridicule business owners because they dont want to pay for the killing of babies.

     
    • Posts: 192 loupossehl

      Avatar of loupossehl

      The Pilgrims … yes, what lessons to learn from them: they came here and a portion of them found the “morality” and “freedom” to burn witches at the stake, while other descendants went on to massacre the Indians.. We don’t believe in witches any more … do we? – these days, I’m not so sure. But a form of modern-day witchcraft finds babies in unfertilized eggs, and “baby killers” in women who in some way (e.g., Plan B, Next Choice, Ella), prevent their ovaries from releasing an egg – an egg that, therefore, has absolutely no chance of becoming fertilized after unprotected sex.

      If a business person opts for the sundry legal, accounting and tax-related advantages of establishing his/her enterprise as a Corp. or LLC … so be it. But along with those advantages – if so chosen – come various responsibilities when providing such benefits as healthcare coverage and retirement plans. And that business entity it not a “he” or “she” or “they” – it is an “IT”: while adhering as it must to local/state/federal law, it does not have a religion or religion-based ethic. (That differentiates businesses from religion-based institutions, which do not exist to make a profit and have been granted opt-outs regarding ACA and contraception.)

      When you go to work for a for-profit business entity, it is none of that entity’s damn business WHAT healthcare options you choose. Otherwise, that entity is free to intrude itself between you and your physician. (That was supposed to be the big scary thing about the ACA, with its purported “death panels”.) All of this makes eminent sense and was the law … that is, until five activist judges stood common sense on its head and decided that a business entity (of all things) has the right to come between you and your physician, inflict its “morality” on you, and cause you to look elsewhere and pay from your own pocket for benefits that have been duly legislated, paid for by your taxes, and should be available to everyone – not just to those lucky enough to work for firms that know to mind their business, and not yours.

      Perhaps it’s time for the Pilgrims to think about going back to England?

       
  • Posts: 0 joe

    “paid for by your taxes” ? if that was the case we wouldnt have an argument. I want freedom for everybody. And just because you worked hard, started a business and were able to hire employees does not mean you lose your first amendment rights? Sorry. And were they activist judges when they backed up the ridiculously flawed ACA (OBAMACARE) law? Or did they get that right. Just wonderin.

     
 
Leave a Comment

>> Create a new Phillies Nation account.
>> Already registered with Phillies Nation? Log in here.
>> Comment without logging in:






Please ensure your comments comply with our Comment Policy.