The Sky is Falling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(03-07-2014 07:23 AM)natachan Wrote:  When you open a business that is open to the public use you give up certain rights. You are not allowed, for example, to discriminate against black people. It might be against your religious preference to serve black people but we as a society say tough shit.

Why is this any different? They can still believe whatever the hell they want but as a business they should not be allowed to discriminate due to their religion.

And barring a woman from getting an IUD because of religious preference is misogynistic. A persons religion does not give them the right to act like a sexist prick.
Agreed. And, if it's really going to cause them great personal turmoil, then they can find a personal alternative - like selling their business and working for someone else so they don't have to offer any insurance. Or moving to another country.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(03-07-2014 09:43 AM)avalon Wrote:  Congratulations everyone!
What started out as a thread using the same faulty arguments and tactics of fundamentalists (slippery slope, misinformation, misrepresentation, etc...) has evolved into a discussion worthy of thinking atheists; one which addresses the facts, brings up valid questions (what should be the 'rights' and protections for businesses?), and most importantly, uses logic and reason.
My job is done here.
Not buying it. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
http://http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/pol...?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like a bit of that slippery slope fallacy I'm so fond of.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 06:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2014 08:10 AM by avalon.)
RE: The Sky is Falling
(03-07-2014 10:43 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(03-07-2014 10:06 AM)avalon Wrote:  I'm not sure how you got that impression.

Let me quote the first post of the thread, the actual topic:

Quote:Supreme Court sides with Christian-owned companies that don't want to pay for some types of contraceptives for workers.

Here's my first response to this thread:

Quote:I think the whole birth-control topic has drawn a lot of attention away from what I feel is the core issue: A corporation can now receive special exemption based on the religious beliefs of its upper management.

You have consistently stated that the corporation Hobby Lobby has rights. The corporation. Not the owners. They are, legally and constitutionally, not the same thing. Your posts (emphasis mine):

Quote:#46 - Because the expanded mandate for insurance companies means the employees get the contraceptives if they want them and HL retains it's rights.
#56 - Likewise, Hobby Lobby will have a clear conscience if the insurance company buys the contraceptives for their employees.
#59 But Hobby Lobby cannot limit what the insurance company offers it's employees. It just has the right to not buy the 4 drugs them self.
#66 Buying insurance that provides these contraceptives is providing them indirectly against their conscience

You then falsely equivocate individual rights with corporate 'rights,' as if your religion is somehow allowed to carry over to business law:

Quote:#63 - I think it's a good thing that individuals don't forfeit their rights just because they start a business.

You then claim the constitution supports special laws for religious organizations (not individuals... organizations):

Quote:#60 - Why does the government need to bend over and write special laws for these religious organizations in the first place?
Uh, the constitution?

You correctly state that the Supreme Court deals in constitutional issues, while ignoring the grounds for the issue itself as if it's somehow a separate and irrelevant topic whos merit shouldn't hold weight in the case:

Quote:#79 - Last time I checked the purpose of the Supreme Court was to decide cases based on constitutional grounds; not to wade into the science vs. religion debate.

I then ask you to support your assertions:
Quote:#62 The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. Please cite the passage of the constitution supports your argument.
#67 What constitutional rights do business have?

You were unable to. You then arrogantly claim that you've somehow done your 'job'. WTF does that mean? You avoid the core issue, can't backup your claims with any sort of constitutional reference and refuse, or are unable, to distinguish the very clear difference between an individual, who's rights are protected by the constitution, and a business, which operates based on parameters set forth by secular law. BUSINESSES MUST OPERATE ACCORDING TO LAW, REGARDLESS OF THE OWNER'S PERSONAL BELIEFS.

Hi Guitar nut,
To understand the SC decision it is helpful to think about it from their point of view. We agree that the SC deals with constitutional issues. So we have one party (HL) claiming their rights under a law (the RFRA) that has been ruled constitutional vs another party (Gov) claiming their right under another law (ACA) that has been ruled constitutional. Two constitutional laws in conflict. (Not parties, LAWS).
Now, the SC can strike down laws if necessary, but they're main job is not to legislate (make a law or un-make it), it's to see if the laws can work together. In this case BOTH laws individually are constitutional. The judges noted the one law, the ACA, has already made accommodation to retain a constitutional right (freedom of religion), which is the same right being claimed by the RFRA. Therefore, they judged it to be a minor adjustment to ask the government to expand that exemption.
Their other option (the one I assume you prefer) was to say that the RFRA only applies to individuals and religious organizations (not to secular businesses). There are two reasons they did not do this:
1. the Gov. has already recognized the secular businesses (schools, hospitals) owned by religion as being "religious". The Gov. did this when it wrote the exemptions to the ACA. Since the Gov. made accommodation for a business owned by a religious organization, the SC said, 'Why not make accommodation for a business owned by a religious individual? If a religious organization has religious liberty even when it runs a school or hospital, why wouldn't a religious individual?". The church (as an organization) only has religious liberty because of the individual liberties of it's members.
2. As a general principle, the constitution is a guide to the rights and liberties of "the People" and the limits placed on Government. So if a law asks individuals to potentially give up something, the greater burden of proof is on the Government to show it cannot achieve it's goal any other way. The ACA has already achieved it's goal (providing full coverage and choice of birth control) in the case of secular businesses (schools, hospitals) owned by religious organizations. Since those religious organizations (churches) only have religious liberty because of the individual liberty of it's members, it is a short bridge to cross to say that individuals who run secular business should be accommodated. Just like the secular businesses of schools and hospitals owned by a collective of religious individuals (ie a church) has been accommodated.
Ginsburg was right when she defined the purpose of a religious organization. But she was wrong to assume the organization was granted rights under the constitution. She got it backwards. You don't get your religious liberty when you join a church, the church has liberty because of the collective rights of individuals.

I hope that clarifies my position.

You say a secular business should not have religious rights. That is a valid point of discussion. But the Government already granted religious rights to secular businesses with the accommodations made for church-run schools and hospitals. The court simply agreed and pointed out that the rights didn't pertain to the church as an organization, instead; the church had rights because it was made up of individuals with individual rights. Therefore, the individual rights of the members acting collectively as a church were recognized by the ACA as being retained even when that collective group engaged in secular business like schools or hospitals. To rule against HL and the RFRA would have been saying that churches that run secular businesses have religious liberty, but individuals don't.

The logic goes like this:
Churches are granted religious liberty only because they are a collective of individuals with individual liberties.
The ACA recognized that liberty when a collective of individuals (church) runs a business (school, hospital, etc.).
Therefore, the ACA recognized the individual's religious liberty (used collectively as a "church") when running a business when it granted exemptions.
To be consistent and logical the ACA should grant liberty to a single individual just as it does to a collective of individuals when running a business.

You keep claiming that the SC granted religious rights in the arena of secular business. They did NOT, Obama did. His executive order recognized the collective individual rights of individuals (as a church) when running a business (school, university). The SC is recognizing a sitting President's right to do that via EO. To rule against HL would be to rule against Obama's EO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Now it's ALL forms of birth control.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Irritating and misogynistic. Because women are brood mares who should be at home pumping out babies for god.

Although I can't get too upset. I have no insurance and the pills I take (a generic hormone pill) is $31 a pack. Not a huge financial burden in any sense. However if I had the choice via health insurance I might choose another option.

Btw, what about women who take the pills for reasons other than contraception? It evens out mood and helps with periodic depression. Some women report that the hormones help with their complexion. Can they claim that this should be covered under their insurance?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(04-07-2014 11:43 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  Now it's ALL forms of birth control.

It has been "ALL forms of birth control" for nearly 3 years now.

"In light of the religious concerns of certain religious organizations, the Guidelines exempt the health plans of certain religious employers from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. The administration also has established accommodations for certain other non-profit religious organizations (including non-profit religious institutions of higher education) so they will not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds."

Aug. 1, 2011

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/fact...2011a.html

Note: "The (Obama) administration also has established accommodations..." So take it up with Obama.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Even if you oppose abortion it should still be legal because women will always want it, and it's better they have a safer way to do it. Your moral system is a failed system if the police must enforce morality itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 04:38 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(04-07-2014 03:30 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Even if you oppose abortion it should still be legal because women will always want it, and it's better they have a safer way to do it. Your moral system is a failed system if the police must enforce morality itself.

[Image: JonStewart_zps2a9c146c.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 05:37 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(04-07-2014 04:38 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(04-07-2014 03:30 PM)Rinpoche Wrote:  Even if you oppose abortion it should still be legal because women will always want it, and it's better they have a safer way to do it. Your moral system is a failed system if the police must enforce morality itself.
[Image: JonStewart_zps2a9c146c.gif]

The argument runs roughly like this:
1. The rate of abortion cannot be reduced past a definable minimum value by means of the force of law.
2. Applying the force of law to abortion significantly and negatively impacts the safety of abortion.
3. The product of the minimum abortion rate due to force of law and the additional harm due to unsafe abortion under such a system is greater than the harm of unrestricted abortion.

Moreover, there are effective ways to reduce rates of abortion that do not rely on the force of law to do so. These mechanisms such as legitimate sex education should be greatly preferred in reducing abortion-related harm when compared to criminalisation or other forms of legal censure.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: