The Sky is Falling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 11:09 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:01 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
No THIS ruling doesn't apply to other religions (unless there are some who are against these specific contraceptives - of which I'm aware of none). It would take a different ruling to apply to other religions. This ruling favors Christianity specifically.

(02-07-2014 11:01 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
Incorrect analogy. You gave an analogy to employers being required to offer the contraceptives to employees. That's not what this is.

(02-07-2014 11:01 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
This is all completely beside the point which is why I ignored it before. This changes nothing about the religious imposition and discrimination imposed by the current ruling in the specific situation applicable to the ruling.

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, 11:13 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Quote: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.

Why does the government need to bend over and write special laws for these religious organizations in the first place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
02-07-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:06 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
That's not what I said. Go back and read. Obviously the ruling isn't about employees buying with their own money. It's about businesses being required to offer insurance that covers the contraceptives in question. The point about the money is it's really no different from insurance except for where the money comes from - the individual's pocket vs. insurance. So how about replying to my question. How are the employers not following their religious conscience by offering insurance that covers those contraceptives when money is ok?

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, 11:21 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:06 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(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.

I would say most businesses won't. But this isn't a secular business with a religious owner:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon...-movement/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:21 AM)avalon Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:06 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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.

I would say most businesses won't. But this isn't a secular business with a religious owner:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon...-movement/
A religious man owns a business that sells secular items to the general public and uses profits to pay for religious pursuits. In other words, a secular business with a religious owner. So yes, it is. Drinking Beverage

... not that it would matter to the point anyway.

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, 11:35 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:18 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:06 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
That's not what I said. Go back and read. Obviously the ruling isn't about employees buying with their own money. It's about businesses being required to offer insurance that covers the contraceptives in question. The point about the money is it's really no different from insurance except for where the money comes from - the individual's pocket vs. insurance. So how about replying to my question. How are the employers not following their religious conscience by offering insurance that covers those contraceptives when money is ok?

Because, as an employee, you may buy what ever you want with the money. It's no longer the business buying it (that makes money ok). Likewise, Hobby Lobby will have a clear conscience if the insurance company buys the contraceptives for their employees. It is not access to birth control that troubles them. They favor all employees having access and making their own choice about using it.
HL doesn't care that the contraceptives will be available IF PAYED FOR BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY under the religious executive order covering religious organizations.
It is forcing the company to buy the product that they object to, not their employees use of the product, nor even the availability of it under their insurance (if it's paid for by insurance companies).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:35 AM)avalon Wrote:  Because, as an employee, you may buy what ever you want with the money. It's no longer the business buying it (that makes money ok). Likewise, Hobby Lobby will have a clear conscience if the insurance company buys the contraceptives for their employees. It is not access to birth control that troubles them. They favor all employees having access and making their own choice about using it.
HL doesn't care that the contraceptives will be available IF PAYED FOR BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY under the religious executive order covering religious organizations.
It is forcing the company to buy the product that they object to, not their employees use of the product, nor even the availability of it under their insurance (if it's paid for by insurance companies).
You're off in left field. The issue is over HL not wanting to be required to offer insurance that covers the contraceptives - i.e., the insurance company would pay for the contraceptives. No one is trying to force HL to buy contraceptives for its employees.

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, 11:48 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:21 AM)avalon Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:06 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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.

I would say most businesses won't. But this isn't a secular business with a religious owner:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon...-movement/

We have no idea what most business will do, because up until now, personal religious beliefs did not offer owners the power to alter their legal obligations as a corporate entity.

I'd like to know your take on the core issue. Why is it a good thing (I'm assuming, here, that you think it is) that the government is recognizing the religious beliefs of a corporation as grounds for exemption? The government will now pick up the cost because that business has a religious belief. If you are not religious, but you hold a belief about something (I think blood transfusions are icky, I don't want to cover them), will you be given the same power when speaking before the high courts? Will the government pick up the bill for you?

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
02-07-2014, 11:59 AM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:09 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:01 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
No THIS ruling doesn't apply to other religions (unless there are some who are against these specific contraceptives - of which I'm aware of none). It would take a different ruling to apply to other religions. This ruling favors Christianity specifically.

(02-07-2014 11:01 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
Incorrect analogy. You gave an analogy to employers being required to offer the contraceptives to employees. That's not what this is.

(02-07-2014 11:01 AM)avalon Wrote:  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.
This is all completely beside the point which is why I ignored it before. This changes nothing about the religious imposition and discrimination imposed by the current ruling in the specific situation applicable to the ruling.

1. Of course THIS ruling doesn't apply to other religions. The party in question has only one religion. This was not a class action with all religions suing collectively.
That does not mean other religions cannot sue for rights in the future based on this case.

2. "You gave an analogy to employers being required to offer the contraceptives to employees." No, the objection is not about "being required to offer", it's about being required to buy them.

3. "religious imposition and discrimination imposed". If you think that there's no way for these contraceptives to be offered to the employees, then I understand your claim. 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.
Your claim that the executive order for religious belief is "completely beside the point" is ridiculous. The government has made sure that employees of religious organizations have access to birth control without the organization actually buying the drugs. And you say that's beside the point? How so? Change the word "organization" to "organizations and corporations" and the employees of Hobby Lobby have complete access to all birth control. (And Hobby Lobby has a clean conscience).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:13 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  
Quote: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.

Why does the government need to bend over and write special laws for these religious organizations in the first place?

Uh, the constitution?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: