The Sky is Falling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 06:37 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
It's amazing how much misinformation I've seen in these replies. For starters:
1. Hobby Lobby is not anti-contraceptive. They provide, and will continue to provide, 16 out of 20 birth control pills. (The 4 not provided being post-fertilization).
2. The Court decision upheld a 1993 law signed by and unanimously supported by Democrats.
3. Let's be clear on who is denying coverage. There is already an executive order mandating insurance companies pay for contraceptives when providing coverage to religious organizations. A simple modification by Obama would expand that to companies such as Hobby Lobby. Obama chose not to do that (provide coverage for these women) in order to gain a political topic. Clearly he cares more about the politics than he does the women.

Perhaps the bigger problem is 'thinking' atheists who supposedly quit religion for logical, rational reasons; but in reality have made politics their new religion. They've simply transferred their blind faith, irrational, knee-jerk emotional reactions to a new authority: the Party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes avalon's post
02-07-2014, 06:55 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 06:37 AM)avalon Wrote:  It's amazing how much misinformation I've seen in these replies. For starters:
1. Hobby Lobby is not anti-contraceptive. They provide, and will continue to provide, 16 out of 20 birth control pills. (The 4 not provided being post-fertilization).
2. The Court decision upheld a 1993 law signed by and unanimously supported by Democrats.
3. Let's be clear on who is denying coverage. There is already an executive order mandating insurance companies pay for contraceptives when providing coverage to religious organizations. A simple modification by Obama would expand that to companies such as Hobby Lobby. Obama chose not to do that (provide coverage for these women) in order to gain a political topic. Clearly he cares more about the politics than he does the women.

Perhaps the bigger problem is 'thinking' atheists who supposedly quit religion for logical, rational reasons; but in reality have made politics their new religion. They've simply transferred their blind faith, irrational, knee-jerk emotional reactions to a new authority: the Party.

I don't give a rip about who did what when as far as Republicans/Democrats/POTUS. This decision forces a family's religious beliefs on its women employees, and that is just wrong.

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
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
02-07-2014, 07:52 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(01-07-2014 08:04 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 03:37 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  Add sex discrimination to the list as well.

Are you kidding? That's #1 on the list.

Not kidding, would there be any sex discrimination in this case if the religious discrimination didn't happen first?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Quote: This decision forces a family's religious beliefs on its women employees, and that is just wrong.

You are sadly misinformed.
There were two issues in this case:
1. Does an individual give up his/her rights when they incorporate? The court said, "No". (Note: I wondered if Hobby Lobby was just a secular corp. run by a religious dude, so I researched the company. By their business practices and donation policies it seems they are not. If any company can claim to be 'religious', this one qualifies. I doubt that a secular-acting corporation that just happens to be owned by a religious person would have a valid case.)

If you have a logical argument why the court was wrong in this case, please state it.


2. The court weighed the burdens on each party. HL was burdened with violating their religious rights, the Government was burdened with providing for the common good some other way. The Gov. has a right to burden the public for the common good (collecting taxes, for example).
Since there was no way for HL to comply without giving up their rights, and since the Government had already made accommodation for religious organizations (an executive order instructing insurance companies to pay for contraceptives when providing coverage to religious organizations); the court felt that the lesser burden was for the government to expand that executive order. That is, since a constitutional right could be upheld with only a minor burden on the government, the government must accommodate.

If you have any logical argument why you think the government expanding a single executive order (to cover companies with religious exemptions) is a greater burden than a company being asked to give up a constitutional right, then please state it.

I also have a question for you: Why hasn't Obama expanded his executive order concerning religious organizations to include HL (and every other comany)? A few pen strokes and the insurance company for Hobby Lobby would be providing all 20 contraceptives.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 07:52 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 08:04 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  Are you kidding? That's #1 on the list.

Not kidding, would there be any sex discrimination in this case if the religious discrimination didn't happen first?

Specifically in this case, you're probably correct. In general, the pervasive atmosphere of sex discrimination is #1 and allowed something like this to occur.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Thinkerbelle's post
02-07-2014, 09:08 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Thinkerbelle,

Consider the general principles in this case. As an atheists I have a right to believe in no religion at all (under the religious liberty clause). Suppose at some point in the future the government claims that a society that believes in God is happier than one that doesn't (some scientific studies state this). Could the government require atheists to start believing in God in order to provide for the greater good? Or would that violate your religious freedom to believe in no god? Would you give up your right when you start a company? Could the government require your employees to pray?

This ruling reaffirms the rights of all individuals, atheists included.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 08:45 AM)avalon Wrote:  
Quote: This decision forces a family's religious beliefs on its women employees, and that is just wrong.

You are sadly misinformed.
There were two issues in this case:
1. Does an individual give up his/her rights when they incorporate? The court said, "No". (Note: I wondered if Hobby Lobby was just a secular corp. run by a religious dude, so I researched the company. By their business practices and donation policies it seems they are not. If any company can claim to be 'religious', this one qualifies. I doubt that a secular-acting corporation that just happens to be owned by a religious person would have a valid case.)

If you have a logical argument why the court was wrong in this case, please state it.


2. The court weighed the burdens on each party. HL was burdened with violating their religious rights, the Government was burdened with providing for the common good some other way. The Gov. has a right to burden the public for the common good (collecting taxes, for example).
Since there was no way for HL to comply without giving up their rights, and since the Government had already made accommodation for religious organizations (an executive order instructing insurance companies to pay for contraceptives when providing coverage to religious organizations); the court felt that the lesser burden was for the government to expand that executive order. That is, since a constitutional right could be upheld with only a minor burden on the government, the government must accommodate.

If you have any logical argument why you think the government expanding a single executive order (to cover companies with religious exemptions) is a greater burden than a company being asked to give up a constitutional right, then please state it.

I also have a question for you: Why hasn't Obama expanded his executive order concerning religious organizations to include HL (and every other comany)? A few pen strokes and the insurance company for Hobby Lobby would be providing all 20 contraceptives.

Nobody asked the HL individuals to use the contraceptives. They are not being forced to use them. How does this violate their rights? It may violate their religious views, or their sense of morality, but it doesn't violate their rights. They have the right not to use the contraceptives, and that remains intact.

The employees have the right to resign and refuse to work for HL. But in reality, there are women who have no other option than to maintain the job they have. Does this violate their right to full medical as given to everyone else? I feel it does. At minimum, it creates a "special" condition for a few, with consequences paid for by others.

I know nothing of Obama and his pen strokes, so I'm not even going there. I find the decision appalling on its own merits.

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
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
02-07-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 09:08 AM)avalon Wrote:  Thinkerbelle,

Consider the general principles in this case. As an atheists I have a right to believe in no religion at all (under the religious liberty clause). Suppose at some point in the future the government claims that a society that believes in God is happier than one that doesn't (some scientific studies state this). Could the government require atheists to start believing in God in order to provide for the greater good? Or would that violate your religious freedom to believe in no god? Would you give up your right when you start a company? Could the government require your employees to pray?

This ruling reaffirms the rights of all individuals, atheists included.

No this ruling forced the religious views of the company onto all of their employees. It was a decision not based on the constitution but rather on an agenda of creating Corporate Personhood that this rogue court has pursued.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
02-07-2014, 09:24 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 09:14 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 08:45 AM)avalon Wrote:  You are sadly misinformed.
There were two issues in this case:
1. Does an individual give up his/her rights when they incorporate? The court said, "No". (Note: I wondered if Hobby Lobby was just a secular corp. run by a religious dude, so I researched the company. By their business practices and donation policies it seems they are not. If any company can claim to be 'religious', this one qualifies. I doubt that a secular-acting corporation that just happens to be owned by a religious person would have a valid case.)

If you have a logical argument why the court was wrong in this case, please state it.


2. The court weighed the burdens on each party. HL was burdened with violating their religious rights, the Government was burdened with providing for the common good some other way. The Gov. has a right to burden the public for the common good (collecting taxes, for example).
Since there was no way for HL to comply without giving up their rights, and since the Government had already made accommodation for religious organizations (an executive order instructing insurance companies to pay for contraceptives when providing coverage to religious organizations); the court felt that the lesser burden was for the government to expand that executive order. That is, since a constitutional right could be upheld with only a minor burden on the government, the government must accommodate.

If you have any logical argument why you think the government expanding a single executive order (to cover companies with religious exemptions) is a greater burden than a company being asked to give up a constitutional right, then please state it.

I also have a question for you: Why hasn't Obama expanded his executive order concerning religious organizations to include HL (and every other comany)? A few pen strokes and the insurance company for Hobby Lobby would be providing all 20 contraceptives.

Nobody asked the HL individuals to use the contraceptives. They are not being forced to use them. How does this violate their rights? It may violate their religious views, or their sense of morality, but it doesn't violate their rights. They have the right not to use the contraceptives, and that remains intact.

The employees have the right to resign and refuse to work for HL. But in reality, there are women who have no other option than to maintain the job they have. Does this violate their right to full medical as given to everyone else? I feel it does. At minimum, it creates a "special" condition for a few, with consequences paid for by others.

I know nothing of Obama and his pen strokes, so I'm not even going there. I find the decision appalling on its own merits.

I asked for logic. Can you provide it?

What I sense from you is the same as I get from fundie christians: a lot of emotional reaction, incorrect facts, and blind faith in your position.
Whether you're "appalled" or not it has no bearing on the case.

You ask, "Nobody asked the HL individuals to use the contraceptives. They are not being forced to use them. How does this violate their rights?" as if the employees brought the case to court. They didn't, the owner did.
Do you even know what this case is about? Can you provide a logical answer? Or do you prefer same the emotional vitriol used by fundies to make your case?
As your signature says, " How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 09:17 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 09:08 AM)avalon Wrote:  Thinkerbelle,

Consider the general principles in this case. As an atheists I have a right to believe in no religion at all (under the religious liberty clause). Suppose at some point in the future the government claims that a society that believes in God is happier than one that doesn't (some scientific studies state this). Could the government require atheists to start believing in God in order to provide for the greater good? Or would that violate your religious freedom to believe in no god? Would you give up your right when you start a company? Could the government require your employees to pray?

This ruling reaffirms the rights of all individuals, atheists included.

No this ruling forced the religious views of the company onto all of their employees. It was a decision not based on the constitution but rather on an agenda of creating Corporate Personhood that this rogue court has pursued.

Since there is an easy remedy for the government to provide those employees with all the contraceptives they may want, I fail to see how they are being forced to accept religious views. Can you explain?
As for corporate personhood, you may have a point there. But denying that will undo a great many previous decisions about said personhood, not just this case. Even democrats don't want to go there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: