The Sky is Falling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 09:31 AM)avalon Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 09:17 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

Do you understand this decision at all? I don't think you do. This decision is based on the false belief that these drugs are abortive when they are not. So despite them being wrong about it they can still make a decision that affects their employees forcing them to buy out of pocket additional waivers. How is this not forcing the religion of the owners on the employees?

As to corporate personhood I think you will find most people of both parties are against it and there is a significant movement to reverse the trend.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/washington

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
02-07-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
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. These beliefs do not have to be rational, consistent with the rest of their doctrine, proven by science, or agreed upon by the employees. To my knowledge, Hobby Lobby was not required to show a deep understanding of their religion, demonstrate consistency by following all biblical doctrine, or demonstrate that they were adhering to an agreed-upon viewpoint shared by some central Christian authority. By setting this legal precedent, all religious beliefs should be fair game for corporate exemptions, including (gasp) religions other than Christianity. We have yet another mixing of governmental policy and religion. Religious text has become legitimate leverage for legal arguments.

It also astounds me that those claiming people can work somewhere else or get their own healthcare forget the flip side of the coin. Employers who don't like US policy can take their corporation elsewhere as well. But they don't. Instead they influence the law with religious beliefs and stay right here, while the rest of us are told "If you don't like it, leave."

Could an employee get a religious exemption to receive full birth control coverage regardless of his/her employer's policy?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
02-07-2014, 10:07 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.
Yes, it is amazing how misinformed you are.

1. This was a clear violation of the US Constitution which grants religious freedom. By singling out a primarily Christian cause for protection while giving no equal protection to other religious causes (for example, exempting employers who follow the JW faith from being required to offer insurance that supports blood transfusions), it amounts to government support of a specific religion - exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to protect against!

2. Offering insurance that covers the specific contraceptives in question is completely different from using the contraceptives. Employers would not be required to use them so they wouldn't being required to violate their faith.

3. By denying coverage to employees under those employers solely on religious grounds while other people have access to that coverage in other businesses is discriminatory. This ruling means government sanctioned employer discrimination against employees who have different views about the use of those contraceptives.

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
02-07-2014, 10:12 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 09:49 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  By setting this legal precedent, all religious beliefs should be fair game for corporate exemptions, including (gasp) religions other than Christianity.
And this.

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
02-07-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 10:12 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 09:49 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  By setting this legal precedent, all religious beliefs should be fair game for corporate exemptions, including (gasp) religions other than Christianity.
And this.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014...y-decision

Quote:Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
02-07-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 09:49 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 09:31 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.

Do you understand this decision at all? I don't think you do. This decision is based on the false belief that these drugs are abortive when they are not. So despite them being wrong about it they can still make a decision that affects their employees forcing them to buy out of pocket additional waivers. How is this not forcing the religion of the owners on the employees?

As to corporate personhood I think you will find most people of both parties are against it and there is a significant movement to reverse the trend.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/washington

Are you saying those 4 contraceptives don't do their job post-fertilization? Do you have a reference?

"affects their employees forcing them to buy out of pocket additional waivers" No one has to buy anything. Government expands the executive order and the insurance covers it.

"How is this not forcing the religion of the owners on the employees?" Because the expanded mandate for insurance companies means the employees get the contraceptives if they want them and HL retains it's rights. Everyone gets to follow their own religious conscience with very little burden on the government (a mere tweak to an executive order). Is that so hard to understand?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 10:41 AM)avalon Wrote:  Because the expanded mandate for insurance companies means the employees get the contraceptives if they want them and HL retains it's rights. Everyone gets to follow their own religious conscience with very little burden on the government (a mere tweak to an executive order). Is that so hard to understand?
How are the employers not following their religious conscience by offering insurance that covers those contraceptives? The insurance merely gives the employees access to paying for those contraceptives. When the employers give their employees a check, it also gives access for those employees to paying for those contraceptives. In both cases, the employer hasn't done anything regarding the contraceptives and in both cases it allows the employee to obtain the contraceptives. Why are the employers not complaining about handing their employees a check? It's no different to the employer than offering the insurance. The only difference is with the employee and whether they pay by their check or by their insurance.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
02-07-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 10:07 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 06:37 AM)avalon Wrote:  It's amazing how much misinformation I've seen in these replies.
Yes, it is amazing how misinformed you are.

1. This was a clear violation of the US Constitution which grants religious freedom. By singling out a primarily Christian cause for protection while giving no equal protection to other religious causes (for example, exempting employers who follow the JW faith from being required to offer insurance that supports blood transfusions), it amounts to government support of a specific religion - exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to protect against!

2. Offering insurance that covers the specific contraceptives in question is completely different from using the contraceptives. Employers would not be required to use them so they wouldn't being required to violate their faith.

3. By denying coverage to employees under those employers solely on religious grounds while other people have access to that coverage in other businesses is discriminatory. This ruling means government sanctioned employer discrimination against employees who have different views about the use of those contraceptives.

First, thank you for the logical reply.

1. This ruling may indeed apply to other religions besides christianity. For example, if a state decided it needed additional revenue and mandated that all businesses sell lottery tickets, Muslims would have a case.
Your example (JWs and blood transfusions) would be harder to decide. The questin for the court would be, 'Does the government has an easy remedy?'. It would seem they do not.

2. If you were an atheist business owner would you be ok with the government mandating that you offer your employees prayer time? Offering prayer time is completely different from praying yourself. You wouldn't be required to pray, so your freedom to not believe in god wouldn't be violated.

3. The only entity that currently denies access to that coverage is the government. Currently, employees at religious institutions have all the same coverage as everyone else thanks to an executive order requiring insurance companies to provide it free in that situation. That order can easily be expanded to this company and any other with a religious objection.
This is about the third time I've said this, so let me repeat it: THE GOVERNMENT WROTE A LAW THAT PROVIDES CONTRACEPTIVES TO EMPLOYEES OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS (WHICH INCLUDES UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS, SOUP KITCHENS, ETC.). THEY CAN EXPAND THAT TO INCLUDE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 10:55 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 10:41 AM)avalon Wrote:  Because the expanded mandate for insurance companies means the employees get the contraceptives if they want them and HL retains it's rights. Everyone gets to follow their own religious conscience with very little burden on the government (a mere tweak to an executive order). Is that so hard to understand?
How are the employers not following their religious conscience by offering insurance that covers those contraceptives? The insurance merely gives the employees access to paying for those contraceptives. When the employers give their employees a check, it also gives access for those employees to paying for those contraceptives. In both cases, the employer hasn't done anything regarding the contraceptives and in both cases it allows the employee to obtain the contraceptives. Why are the employers not complaining about handing their employees a check? It's no different to the employer than offering the insurance. The only difference is with the employee and whether they pay by their check or by their insurance.

You are mistaken. The remedy the court considered is not for the employees to buy the contraceptives with their own money, it's for the government to expand the mandate that insurance companies provide it for free to religious organizations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 10:41 AM)avalon Wrote:  "How is this not forcing the religion of the owners on the employees?" Because the expanded mandate for insurance companies means the employees get the contraceptives if they want them and HL retains it's rights. Everyone gets to follow their own religious conscience with very little burden on the government (a mere tweak to an executive order). Is that so hard to understand?

How can a business have religious rights? It has nothing to do with the damn contraceptives. It's the overarching principle of "I believe X, and because of X, my business now has the right to be exempt from Z." Never mind that X does not have to be real, proven, or even rational. If you believe X, you may use your personal belief to receive legal exemption for your business, a business that supposedly operates on a level playing field run by secular law. I'm not sure why that's such a great thing.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: