The Sky is Falling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 12:02 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014 12:06 PM by pablo.)
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 12:00 PM)avalon Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:13 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  Why does the government need to bend over and write special laws for these religious organizations in the first place?

Uh, the constitution?

It says we need to make special laws to make religions happy?
You can drop the condescending attitude.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
02-07-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 12:00 PM)avalon Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:13 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  Why does the government need to bend over and write special laws for these religious organizations in the first place?

Uh, the constitution?

The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. Please cite the passage of the constitution supports your argument.

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
02-07-2014, 12:16 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:48 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:21 AM)avalon Wrote:  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?

You misunderstood me. I think it's a good thing that individuals don't forfeit their rights just because they start a business.
The government will NOT "now pick up the cost because that business has a religious belief", the insurance company will. (Note: the expense to the insurance company for contraceptives has been shown to be more than offset by the saving in other areas such as prenatal care, births, and well-baby care. So there is no actual cost to the insurance company.)

"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?"
If it involves a constitutional right you will.

"Will the government pick up the bill for you?"
The government isn't picking up the bill now, nor will it in the future. And the insurance company which is technically "picking up the bill" is actually saving money. What's not to like?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  1. 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.
So then you agree with me. Tongue What other religions may do in the future is beside the point. This ruling favored a specific religion which is unconstitutional.

(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  2. No, the objection is not about "being required to offer", it's about being required to buy them.
You're wrong. Read it.
Here's the ruling. From page 7: "We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488,42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. " (bold emphasis by me)

(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  3. 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.
Offering insurance is not buying the contraceptives. And it doesn't matter if the contraceptives can be offered another way. Why should those employees have to jump through extra hoops just because of someone else's religious beliefs? Moreover, the ruling is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Period. That's the real point.

(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  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).
It's beside the point because it doesn't change the fact of religious imposition on people of other faiths. Plus, HL is NOT a religious organization. It's an arts and crafts business owned by a religious person.

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, 12:21 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 12:02 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 12:00 PM)avalon Wrote:  Uh, the constitution?

It says we need to make special laws to make religions happy?
You can drop the condescending attitude.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as condescending. You asked a short question, so I gave a short answer.
I care about our constitutional rights and like to see them protected, even when I don't agree with the beliefs of the people being protected. I could point out that the courts have upheld the rights of atheists (like me) who would be happy to see the ten commandments removed from public buildings. But you already know that...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 12:41 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 12:20 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  1. 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.
So then you agree with me. Tongue What other religions may do in the future is beside the point. This ruling favored a specific religion which is unconstitutional.

(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  2. No, the objection is not about "being required to offer", it's about being required to buy them.
You're wrong. Read it.
Here's the ruling. From page 7: "We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488,42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. " (bold emphasis by me)

(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  3. 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.
Offering insurance is not buying the contraceptives. And it doesn't matter if the contraceptives can be offered another way. Why should those employees have to jump through extra hoops just because of someone else's religious beliefs? Moreover, the ruling is unconstitutional and discriminatory. Period. That's the real point.

(02-07-2014 11:59 AM)avalon Wrote:  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).
It's beside the point because it doesn't change the fact of religious imposition on people of other faiths. Plus, HL is NOT a religious organization. It's an arts and crafts business owned by a religious person.

Hi Impulse,

This will be my last attempt to communicate this, since you seem to refuse to listen.

1. Yes, I agree. Because THIS case was brought by one group.
2. Hobby Lobby "provide(s) health-insurance coverage" by paying for it.
3. Buying insurance that provides these contraceptives is providing them indirectly against their conscience.
No employee will have to jump thru anything to get birth control. The party which lost the case, the government, will be required to make a minor adjustment to one executive order if it wants to provide access to all forms of birth control.

I'm sorry if that upsets you. The government lost the case, so the government needs to tweak it's law. The employees you are worried about have become mere pawns in a political pissing contest. If Obama wants them covered completely he could do it today and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime and it wouldn't cost the insurance companies anything either since they save more on other areas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 12:16 PM)avalon Wrote:  You misunderstood me. I think it's a good thing that individuals don't forfeit their rights just because they start a business.
The government will NOT "now pick up the cost because that business has a religious belief", the insurance company will. (Note: the expense to the insurance company for contraceptives has been shown to be more than offset by the saving in other areas such as prenatal care, births, and well-baby care. So there is no actual cost to the insurance company.)

It's not important to me who picks up the bill, but I appreciate the correction. It's also not important to me that the end result may be beneficial to all parties, financially-speaking. That is not the core issue.

(02-07-2014 12:16 PM)avalon Wrote:  "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?"
If it involves a constitutional right you will.

What constitutional rights do business have? Not individuals, mind you. Businesses. Nobody told the owner he had to personally pay for anything. As a business owner, he enjoys an amount of legal protection from the actions of Hobby Lobby. He is not Hobby Lobby; they are two separate entities.

(02-07-2014 12:16 PM)avalon Wrote:  "Will the government pick up the bill for you?"
The government isn't picking up the bill now, nor will it in the future. And the insurance company which is technically "picking up the bill" is actually saving money. What's not to like?

What's not to like is the government mixing personal religious belief with secular business law. What's not to like is what is arguably a violation of the first amendment. "The Bible" should never be an argument in a secular court. "The Bible" should never dictate secular business law. You should research the claims that the contraceptives in question cause abortion. You should also research whether the supreme court did their own research to substantiate the claim that the contraceptives cause abortion, or whether they simply looked at the sincerity of the belief.

On its website, here is how ACOG replies to a question about whether emergency contraception like Plan B and Ella, the “morning-after” pills to which Hobby Lobby so strenuously objects, can cause an abortion:

"Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking their pills."

No facts required in our highest court, apparently.

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, 01:09 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  This will be my last attempt to communicate this, since you seem to refuse to listen.
I see. Disagreeing with you is "refusing to listen". Drinking Beverage

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  1. Yes, I agree. Because THIS case was brought by one group.
It could have been brought by 50 groups and if they were all Christian it would have been the same result. The point isn't how many brought the case, but what the case was addressing. It didn't address religion or all religions, it addressed one specifically Christian complaint.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  2. Hobby Lobby "provide(s) health-insurance coverage" by paying for it.
Yes. HL pays for the insurance which covers many health needs, not just the contraceptives.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  3. Buying insurance that provides these contraceptives is providing them indirectly against their conscience.
No it isn't. That logic means that giving them a check also indirectly provides anything "sinful" that an employee might purchase. And, of course, that's ridiculous.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  No employee will have to jump thru anything to get birth control. The party which lost the case, the government, will be required to make a minor adjustment to one executive order if it wants to provide access to all forms of birth control.
It's not about getting birth control. It's about who is paying for it. I'm not even arguing that insurance companies should pay for contraception, but if insurance coverage for it is available, religion should not be grounds for an employer to refuse that coverage for its employees. If the employer doesn't want that coverage for him/herself, that's the employer's own business.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  I'm sorry if that upsets you. The government lost the case, so the government needs to tweak it's law. The employees you are worried about have become mere pawns in a political pissing contest. If Obama wants them covered completely he could do it today and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime and it wouldn't cost the insurance companies anything either since they save more on other areas.
Yes, violations of the Constitution are upsetting. Yes, discrimination is upsetting. If you were refused a job at company A based upon pure discrimination, would it make you feel better that company B would hire you? Would it remove the wrong by company A? Would it mean you should do nothing about company A? Your arguments that there are other ways are irrelevant.

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
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
02-07-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
Hi Guitar nut,
Thank you for the thoughtful replies and the link to the info.

Quote:It's not important to me who picks up the bill...
But it does seem to be important to Hobby Lobby , which is why they brought suit.

If it's really unimportant to you than why not accept the proposed solution of having the insurance companies foot the bill just as they do for employees of Catholic Universities, for example?

Quote:What constitutional rights do business have? Not individuals, mind you. Businesses. Nobody told the owner he had to personally pay for anything. As a business owner, he enjoys an amount of legal protection from the actions of Hobby Lobby. He is not Hobby Lobby; they are two separate entities.
You may have a point there about treating businesses as persons. I don't know the history well enough to say when businesses became separate entities from their owners and how they got the same rights. Or whether you can deny the business rights and still retain legal protections.
As for not asking the owner to personally pay for it, that's not as clear. The man makes his living with his business, so it does seem personal. And as I said, in this case there seems to be no incongruity between the man's actions and the corporations. If he claimed to be religious while running a business called Hooker Lobby, I don't think he'd have a case.

Quote:You should research the claims that the contraceptives in question cause abortion.
I did. Thanks again for the links. If I understand their beliefs correctly (BTW, JSYK I'm pro-abortion) they believe life starts at fertilization. So the following quotes from the link would apply since they affect a fertilized egg:

"within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse"

"within 5 days of unprotected intercourse"

"prevention of implantation may be a secondary mechanism of action"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: The Sky is Falling
(02-07-2014 01:09 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  This will be my last attempt to communicate this, since you seem to refuse to listen.
I see. Disagreeing with you is "refusing to listen". Drinking Beverage

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  1. Yes, I agree. Because THIS case was brought by one group.
It could have been brought by 50 groups and if they were all Christian it would have been the same result. The point isn't how many brought the case, but what the case was addressing. It didn't address religion or all religions, it addressed one specifically Christian complaint.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  2. Hobby Lobby "provide(s) health-insurance coverage" by paying for it.
Yes. HL pays for the insurance which covers many health needs, not just the contraceptives.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  3. Buying insurance that provides these contraceptives is providing them indirectly against their conscience.
No it isn't. That logic means that giving them a check also indirectly provides anything "sinful" that an employee might purchase. And, of course, that's ridiculous.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  No employee will have to jump thru anything to get birth control. The party which lost the case, the government, will be required to make a minor adjustment to one executive order if it wants to provide access to all forms of birth control.
It's not about getting birth control. It's about who is paying for it. I'm not even arguing that insurance companies should pay for contraception, but if insurance coverage for it is available, religion should not be grounds for an employer to refuse that coverage for its employees. If the employer doesn't want that coverage for him/herself, that's the employer's own business.

(02-07-2014 12:41 PM)avalon Wrote:  I'm sorry if that upsets you. The government lost the case, so the government needs to tweak it's law. The employees you are worried about have become mere pawns in a political pissing contest. If Obama wants them covered completely he could do it today and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime and it wouldn't cost the insurance companies anything either since they save more on other areas.
Yes, violations of the Constitution are upsetting. Yes, discrimination is upsetting. If you were refused a job at company A based upon pure discrimination, would it make you feel better that company B would hire you? Would it remove the wrong by company A? Would it mean you should do nothing about company A? Your arguments that there are other ways are irrelevant.

Hi Impulse,
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me and I'm sorry we couldn't come to an agreement.
At this point perhaps it's best if we just 'agree to disagree' as the saying goes.

Take care,
avalon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: