Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 151 of 151

Thread: Hobby Lobby

  1. #101  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Employees are paid in money. Money is not earmarked as religious.
    Isn't the health care insurance policy a benefit provided by the company in return for work done by the employee? Are you splitting hairs or what?
    No. Health insurance has monetary value. It's money. Ok, maybe one or two hairs in this particular instance...
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The Constitution says:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    Free exercise is present so long as a law does not force someone to do anything that is a "sin" under their religion's rules. But I don't see how merely providing the means to commit a sin is a "sin". That's a very tenuous claim. It's only one step away from claiming that failing to forcibly prevent someone from committing a sin is a "sin".


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Non sequitur.
    I thought it was a pretty good analogy. If the government required that employers pay employees in hot dogs that contain pork, as it requires employers to provide health insurance, that would irritate Muslim or Jewish employers, wouldn't it? And rightfully so.
    I have to agree it was a good analogy.

    However the problem I see with it is the same as before. It's clearly not a sin under Jewish law to provide an employee with pork. It's a sin to consume pork, but not a sin to provide someone else with pork. As a non-Jewish employee, I might prefer pork hotdogs.

    If it's not a "sin", then obeying the law does not conflict with or prevent them from being able to make "free exercise" of their religion. The law is therefore not an infringement on their right to "free exercise" because they can both obey the law and freely exercise their religion without any difficulty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Notice many of the major business groups are silent on this. The reason is simple. The Courts just punched a hole in individual/corporate protections that will allow employees to reach past the corporation to sue individual owners--a mess that effectively is going to reverse 200 years of history and erode some of the most basic reasons to have a corporation.
    Wow. Now I'm almost happy Hobby Lobby is doing what they're doing!!

    Maybe I should shut up about the "religions ramming their beliefs down others' throats" issue, and hope the courts continue to uphold the decision just in case it will change things for corporate accountability.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's the tax laws. Your health insurance benefits are not taxed as income, so that's why most people wanted employer provided health insurance instead of the additional income. All you would have to do is let people deduct their health insurance from their income tax.
    That seems fair.

    And to me it isn't so much about "who" pays for it. Unless you're independently wealthy and just enjoy spending 8 hours in a cubicle, chances are are your health insurance is paid for by your employer one way or the other, so the distinction between salary and benefit is kind of meaningless. The only reason to have employers involved at all is that payroll has first crack at the money before the paycheck is out the door. In order to drive a car, I have to have a million in liability insurance whether I think I need it or not. No proof of insurance, no license plates. But people are can walk around in uninsured bodies and gamble that nothing bad is going to happen. So you either need health insurance premiums automatically withheld from paychecks, like unemployment insurance, or paid for by taxes. The Supreme Court ruling was a ridiculous solution to the problem, regardless of how one feels about birth control or religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's the tax laws. Your health insurance benefits are not taxed as income, so that's why most people wanted employer provided health insurance instead of the additional income. All you would have to do is let people deduct their health insurance from their income tax.
    That seems fair.
    But not entirely true. Par for the course for Our friend Harold. Some Health insurance is tax deductible. Google it.
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If you really meant to say that a life begins at conception, you're also wrong.
    No, 'life of humans begin at conception' is the connotation. How could anyone think otherwise?

    AFAIK, the idea of the human egg subdividing after fertilization is limited only to identical twins. Identical twins are the closest we have come to clones yet, so can be forgiven as an exception since life could easily be still thought as beginning at fertilization and just multiplying in exact copy (I've once read identical twins are different in some ways, including sworls of hair CW in one and CCW in the other, yet since they share the same birth time, in many ways more identical than a clone).


    >>Nor does fertilization determine that the pregnancy itself is viable.



    As far as the casualties, that happens due to diseases or other issues and could hardly be thought of as an issue of life in any reasonable discussion, don't you think?


    >>The best way to put it is that fertilization is a necessary process in beginning a pregnancy


    A very odd way to put it in any non partisan discussion, IMO. Consider, before that meeting of sperm and egg (gametes) the dna is all part of two other life forms, as much as a hair follicle pulled out. Then at that instant the combination makes a unique combination of the two. Effectively, IIRC no other blueprint changes come up after conception except mere toggles switches only such as epigenetics. MMM?

    If you are serious with this conviction of yours, please continue the discussion, and better yet include outside sources. Like everyone else, there are gaps in knowledge and will learn even if I am 100% correct in the contention. This thread is not much about where life starts, but in effect the side issue sheds life on where arguments surrounding the discussion really pop up from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If you really meant to say that a life begins at conception, you're also wrong.
    No, 'life of humans begin at conception' is the connotation. How could anyone think otherwise?
    Human gametes are still human. It's never not life, or not-human.

    But you are right...the courts never addressed that question, or whether any contraception even leads to abortion of diploid humans, it was willing to just go with the belief of such by the owners.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Human gametes are still human. It's never not life, or not-human.
    Of course.

    But the issue is when the sort of silly discussion focus of chicken or egg being first. Original life begins with the combination of the two gametes. There 30,000 or so genes in our species dna. Each one has incredible variation. Therefore, each combination (in equal measures) of two sources will have a unique form never existing or likely to exist in the future, far beyond mere trillions of possibilities, even when said sources are cousins or siblings. (I am not a biologist nor pretend to be one, yet can see that much.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Sure...and a quarter of that amazing original combinations happens in meiosis and applies to each haploid human, a remarkable and unique combination of grandparent's genes that is extremely lucky might result in a diploid human.

    And as an aside, I honestly think that most folks that throw the "life begins at" don't even had the most basic knowledge of biology and havent' even considered how special the rest of the human lifecycle is--an unbroken line older than many believe is the age of the planet.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 8th, 2014 at 09:06 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Sure...and a quarter of that amazing original combinations happens in meiosis and applies to each haploid human, a remarkable and unique combination of grandparent's genes that is extremely lucky might result in a diploid human.

    Meiosis, people could ask, 'Which meiosis'?

    Diploid = fertilized egg, with full component? No need to use fancy technical jargon here, plain English is preferred. Your taste buds on tongue are diploid as well, I think. Few people here are biologists. Many more poseurs pretending to be are are around, which helps no one.

    Sure ... and we know little of the unfolding of protein molecule, though getting better. Which can be though similar, albeit much faster -- compared to some as if aluminum ingots and petrol can and all the other raw materials get transformed when thrown together mid air into a 747 jet airplane in the tiniest of an instant mili second (a Biotech hand book description). It may take longer in the original combinations of a fertilize to fully "fold" by splitting, so to speak, but absolutely none beyond the episodic take place before the fertilization. It all hinges upon and is predicated/determined by the act of conception. What happens before does change the end result, but by any stretch is not separate life and has only half the code. The rate of attrition is irrelevant, just as only one of of thousands salmon hatched make it to reproduce, more so unhatched. What happens after meiosis (in the splitting of cell with fertilization) is likely set in motion by the same programming as, say, both deciduous/primary and adult teeth are.

    So what? Obviously no one believes unique life after our teething troubles. My prima facie guess had the chances are everything being pre-programmed at the act of fertilization, and so far over the years has not deviated. Even if US or world's courts were good at deciding scientific conceptual viability -- and they are most certainly not -- at the extreme least Hobby Lobby Mr. Green would be given an honorable mention in his belief by American Law, regardless of rights to any belief.

    All the elements exist at that point, and while there are origami foldings, so to speak, in effect life could be extremely easily said to begin at the point of fertilization and extremely difficult at any other point, except IMO by shrill and partisan persons or sheepish followers thereof. That 'life' is a gradual issue, with shades of gray, _is_ possible, but my guess is such a notion is also misguided. It is possible that there is in a way more than one beginning, a multiple process, yet no other point of demarcation is either so profound or clear cut. To hold religions to task on this issue seems to me mercenary and over the top. Their gifts offered, such as they are, can be said to be placed in other areas anyway. The PC crowd does not much like the scene, so resorts to name calling, misdirection (including baffle gab and professional jargon), or such fallacious ilk. You seem much better than that, worth writing for and learning from.



    >>And as an aside, I honestly think that most folks that throw the "life begins at" don't even had the most basic knowledge of biology and havent' even considered how special the rest of the human lifecycle is--an unbroken line older than many believe is the age of the planet.

    True, most folks who throw the 'life begins at' don't have the basics. (Can not say I am perfect either.) It is an article of faith, which is amply allowed for in the US Constitution and US judicial precedence. Having the basics doesn't seem to help most who say otherwise much, though.

    Also, I still feel different from you, and partially think (in rationality left brain) as well. I mean, yes, there are those detracting aspects of many, most, maybe all religions. Dalai Lama is pretty astute in most science respects and rather open minded, though only an individual. But not only do religions seem to on the whole pay results to society (and have large voting blocks), they also apparently have some considerably logical discourse (e.g. physics numbers that I keep seeing over the years in mainline, non religious science magazines state that indicate the universe could not exist except either there are multiple universes in every combination to allow for what is known -- or was formed by a creator, by plan. Further, the last article seen, Science Digest I think, stated it blows away graduate students of mainline university physics, as they are not taught it in official studies until post grad level.)

    I state this religious 'logical discourse' as digression, and not part of topic except that there is massive arrogance in many people who are not even researching the topic and who really only have a layman's ability. My personal abilities are limited with respect to biology, but have in the past directly and personally significantly touched professionally regarding biotech upon more than one mover and shaker inside the past community, including Dr. Malcolm Simons, meaning my impact upon. I fairly well know what I do not know and what others do not know, at least in comparison most posters to sites like this. AFAIK lots and lots of people on forums are merely science speak pots calling religious kettles black, all unwashed and heavily used on a wood fire open hearth.)

    Finally, as far as the dig of unbroken cycle far older than believed by many, sure. And so what? It massively helps those who are professional biologists, like my father was until retirement, but is at best useful for limited general reference for the public. How many people directly use algebra in their day to day life? How many people know how to make a pencil they use that day (not one person on the planet; _I Pencil_ states it takes millions to make a pencil, in fact)? It may even be primitive life is often transferred from planet to planet or even solar system to solar system via ejecta materials in "transpermia". I find it unimportant whether a normal individual of society knows or cares.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Er, that should have been 'folding of protein'.

    On other matters, this site looked apparently pretty good for the Lynx Fox's side of the discussion of above. Any experts here who can say if it is a good rundown for a lay person's education?

    URL Link:DNA and Genealogy - Meiosis and Crossover
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The PC crowd does not much like the scene, so resorts to name calling, misdirection (including baffle gab and professional jargon), or such fallacious ilk.


    Horse pucky.
    This is high school biology...the whole "life begins at" is reveals a deep failure in peoples education, (or willful ignorance) about the very subject they feel comfortable about making ideological declarations and enforcing their ignorance on women--up to and including medical instrument rape. The fact that the courts think it's ok to deny basic medical coverage based on those ignorant views only makes it worse.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 9th, 2014 at 12:19 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's the tax laws. Your health insurance benefits are not taxed as income, so that's why most people wanted employer provided health insurance instead of the additional income. All you would have to do is let people deduct their health insurance from their income tax.
    That seems fair.

    And to me it isn't so much about "who" pays for it. Unless you're independently wealthy and just enjoy spending 8 hours in a cubicle, chances are are your health insurance is paid for by your employer one way or the other, so the distinction between salary and benefit is kind of meaningless. The only reason to have employers involved at all is that payroll has first crack at the money before the paycheck is out the door. In order to drive a car, I have to have a million in liability insurance whether I think I need it or not. No proof of insurance, no license plates. But people are can walk around in uninsured bodies and gamble that nothing bad is going to happen. So you either need health insurance premiums automatically withheld from paychecks, like unemployment insurance, or paid for by taxes. The Supreme Court ruling was a ridiculous solution to the problem, regardless of how one feels about birth control or religion.

    The other advantage of employer provided health insurance is that you often get a better rate. Partly due to economy of scale (bringing the insurance company a bigger group at once.) And also partly because the risk gets evaluated differently.

    If for example, you have a serious health condition - you have just about zero hope of getting admitted to a private policy. But if you get a job working for someone, the laws are different about how your risk gets evaluated.

    In Oregon, for example, all the insurance company can ask about an employee is their age and gender. That still works, because the group absorbs any additional risk caused by an individual employee's existing conditions.

    If that seems less than ideal to you, then consider the alternative. The alternative is medicare covering those people - which means growing big government. The third alternative of just letting people die isn't a very likely outcome politically. (And I hope it never becomes one.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Human gametes are still human. It's never not life, or not-human.
    Of course.

    But the issue is when the sort of silly discussion focus of chicken or egg being first. Original life begins with the combination of the two gametes. There 30,000 or so genes in our species dna. Each one has incredible variation. Therefore, each combination (in equal measures) of two sources will have a unique form never existing or likely to exist in the future, far beyond mere trillions of possibilities, even when said sources are cousins or siblings. (I am not a biologist nor pretend to be one, yet can see that much.)

    Who cares when "life" begins? A sperm is alive. An egg is alive.

    I only care when the life of "a person" begins. And for me, a thing is only a "person" if it has a brain. It must be capable of at least rudimentary emotions, or forming rudimentary desires.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If that seems less than ideal to you, then consider the alternative. The alternative is medicare covering those people - which means growing big government.
    I don't understand this. All a government funding process does is set the rules for what will and won't be paid for what and who's eligible and who's not, then send out payments when they're claimed. Nowadays here with online processing, everything happens pretty well automatically at the doctor's office. The "claim" is part of the payment process. Sometimes that means no payment required. Sometimes it means that you pay on the day and the rebate arrives in your

    The amount of money going through the government portion of the system might be more, but it doesn't require any more people to run the government payment system. Government systems require far, far fewer staff for routine operation than private insurers do.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Adelady,
    It's messy in the US because each state has it's own laws which tremendously complicates both individuals, group policies, and competitive markets, even for federally backed programs.

    It's also a common misnomer in the US that federal employees are expanding when in fact the number of government workers is much less per capita than at any time in our nation's past century largely due to automation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    I was just trying to make sense of the Hobby Lobby ruling in the states, but since I no longer live there, I don't remember how private insurance works. Since Hobby Lobby is not the actual health care provider, how did they manage to tailor their employees' health insurance program to suit their religious views? I thought insurance plans were standardized - ie "this is what we cover at this price." If they did actually remove a benefit that other payers would automatically have received, that seems less like simply "not providing" and more like actual interference.

    Or are company drug plans totally separate from the rest of the health insurance and overseen by the employer themselves?

    What if Hobby Lobby had said, religion has nothing to do with, we're just really cheap?

    What if they had chosen not to cover antidepressants or drugs used primarily by older people, or for sickle cell anemia, or all HIV medications? Would "weeding out" or discouraging applicants via medical or any other kind of benefits be discrimination?

    What if the issue had not been related to medicine or sex. What if, as a friend of mine wondered, the employer religiously opposed war, and would therefore fire anyone who took time off work for military deployments?
    When you get hired , you get a "Benefits" package. Amongst other things, the package tells you what the company insurance covers. Some cover mental health, other do not. Same with contraception. You can't force a company to cover a certain field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    horse pucky --(idiomatic) nonsense; feces. "That is just a bunch of horse pucky."

    You see, case in point. 'This is high school biology, deep failure of education', blah, blah. And from a moderator yet.

    I said name calling, you say excrement. I said misdirecting, you label 'ignorance on women -- up to and including medical instrument rape' despite really wide of the mark with Hobby Lobby AFIAK. Fallacious reasoning indeed.

    >>based on those ignorant views
    My, aren't we the intolerant one. I'm not saying it does not happen, just you are using a wide swath to paint all one color. I happen to be an atheist, which poor Harold probably did not like, but whatever you are gives your kind a bad name.

    'Deny basic medical coverage' has nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby's Mr. Green issue. The birth control at issue is, to my knowledge, rather cheaply obtained elsewhere, instead being a matter of planned control to force mass acceptance by fiat order. Planned parenthood may well give it out free. Only some of the free birth control, like the morning after abortion pill, were an official objection of Mr. Green anyway, again due to religious grounds. IIRC most were not objected to.

    Did I just smoke you out? 12 years ago I was involved in an area that had one former 1970's atheist, liberal Stanford medical student who told me of being so shocked three years into studies about the question where life began (in his eyes) that he subsequently ended up becoming a Catholic priest. He was not a toothless hick following from an established, poorly schooled position as you insist. Another fellow around, a former department head (of MIT or CalTech, withheld for ID) was extremely conservative to the point of being controversial for firings in yet another institution he, upon his own initiative, suggested him paving the way for me to work there as a liaison. (Only 6 Nobel Science winners working at that institution, so obviously a hillbilly hollow you write about.) He is world famed for work in proteomics, protein dna, a bit beyond high school biology.

    What kind of high schools did you attend anyway to think it was the norm? It has been a few decades, so maybe it is the norm in public schools (or private as well, though slight of hand it even could be at risk of losing tax exempt status)!

    Point is, you are rather clearly presenting a demonstratively false position that there are not any educated people who differ with your cutting assessment. It is true that in the life sciences greatly tends to be an older person viewpoint in favor of prolife and maybe fertilization as origin too -- or at least the younger ones are rather quiet about it for obvious reasons of peer vitriol.

    With your and one other poster's vehemence in this thread has provoke me to some doubt, even though no solid evidence has emerged here or when looking elsewhere. That is common in the nature of posturing, the tough guy approach works for those having not much time to waste on it. But to counter there are inconvenient research like this list posted at the official Princeton University site, oddly another arch liberal institution quite beyond high school, here post grad pretty much. You did advance beyond that questionable high school door, it is hoped:

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/a...yoquotes2.html

    Some arguments against listed in this thread by are really of very loose quality, which to an objective observer makes you all look real bad and cheapen those who apparently follow behind the vehemence. At best, two posters including Lynx Fox have a hardened opinion with vitriol, not a fact. It would appear my statement of a fact in life starting at fertilization appears at least much more correct. On the plus side, you and another did get me curious, despite all the mishmash hodgepodge. A pity not a single poster decided to answer my rebuttal of the suggested reasons why conception is not the start of life and we leave off on dismissive labeling of excrement. This subject seems to be done, anyone have a fork? I will leave it at that, since the whole thing is a sidebar to the original thread. If need be, we can move it off to start another thread for discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Who cares when "life" begins? A sperm is alive. An egg is alive.

    I only care when the life of "a person" begins. And for me, a thing is only a "person" if it has a brain. It must be capable of at least rudimentary emotions, or forming rudimentary desires.
    Because it becomes a distinct life form then, not a mere part of another whole, such as a hair follicle. I understand you do not care, so be it. My views are more complicated, as posted about issues of post abortion that 16 years later apparently the crime rate drops to less than a half since unwanted children are much more anti social. But a separate life is a separate life, and Mr. Green of Hobby Lobby has a very valid reason for believing what he does. Then if you add religion to it, we might ask why on earth are the bureaucrats pushing the issue so strongly.

    The issues is that religion has done really well handling adversity, taking a beating. It is almost a point of pride, and the US has normally been open to understanding in this area. (Same goes for Soviet Gulags, nearly everyone marveled at the priests, nuns, and such how they simply refused to die, despite often being given the worst. I would be willing to hand write passages from books I own upon request.) It comes closer to persecution -- at least in their eyes -- than you likely think.

    That is the relevant point, in my view for the umpteenth time. These petitioners do not think that a brain is where it should start, and their criteria are more strict than yours or mine. I believe society, in particular petty bureaucrats, should make allowances for this. Legal precedence has made ample religious allowance for quite some time, although this is changing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    But a separate life is a separate life, and Mr. Green of Hobby Lobby has a very valid reason for believing what he does.
    Wrong. Nothing valid about it.

    It's one thing to believe that abortion is wrong. It's another thing entirely to be so wrong-headed and/or ignorant that you're prepared to tell the world that you believe an IUD is an abortifacient rather than a contraceptive.

    What Mr Green did was play his odds on the knowledge that five members, a majority, of the justices on the Supreme Court bench were Catholics who were likely to suffer the same confusions and follow the teachings of the Vatican about contraception and abortion.

    And the argument that an IUD might be an abortifacient if used at certain times is fallacious. If that was the argument, then they'd have had to argue about exemptions for most chemotherapy drugs and dozens if not hundreds of other medications and devices. Do a search of a pharmacopeia for the terms Not suitable for pregnant women and/or Teratogenic and/or whatever else you think of.

    There are many, many drugs and other treatments that are unsuitable for early pregnancy or any stage of pregnancy. Either because of effects on the foetus or because of precipitating contractions and thereby expelling an undeveloped foetus.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Who cares when "life" begins? A sperm is alive. An egg is alive.

    I only care when the life of "a person" begins. And for me, a thing is only a "person" if it has a brain. It must be capable of at least rudimentary emotions, or forming rudimentary desires.
    Because it becomes a distinct life form then, not a mere part of another whole, such as a hair follicle. I understand you do not care, so be it. My views are more complicated, as posted about issues of post abortion that 16 years later apparently the crime rate drops to less than a half since unwanted children are much more anti social. But a separate life is a separate life, and Mr. Green of Hobby Lobby has a very valid reason for believing what he does. Then if you add religion to it, we might ask why on earth are the bureaucrats pushing the issue so strongly.
    So if a piece of skin gets severed from my body, and I put it in a petri dish and keep it alive by adding nutrients to the dish, the fact it is "no longer part of my body" makes it another human life?

    Suppose it were possible for me to incubate a clone of myself from that piece of skin. At what stage in the incubation process would it be an "abortion" for me to kill my clone?

    .... I really wish pro-lifers were willing to answer the hard questions. I'm sure it's fun to go around telling other people what to do, but it would be nice if you could at least nail down your definition of what you believe to be right and wrong, and why you believe it.



    The issues is that religion has done really well handling adversity, taking a beating. It is almost a point of pride, and the US has normally been open to understanding in this area. (Same goes for Soviet Gulags, nearly everyone marveled at the priests, nuns, and such how they simply refused to die, despite often being given the worst. I would be willing to hand write passages from books I own upon request.) It comes closer to persecution -- at least in their eyes -- than you likely think.

    That is the relevant point, in my view for the umpteenth time. These petitioners do not think that a brain is where it should start, and their criteria are more strict than yours or mine. I believe society, in particular petty bureaucrats, should make allowances for this. Legal precedence has made ample religious allowance for quite some time, although this is changing.
    Yes you are so persecuted.

    You consider it a "sin" to kill a single celled fetus, and yet you are forced to witness countless unbelievers commit this sin and are forbidden to forcibly prevent them from it. Poor you.

    You're not being allowed to force other people against their will to follow your religion.



    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's the tax laws. Your health insurance benefits are not taxed as income, so that's why most people wanted employer provided health insurance instead of the additional income. All you would have to do is let people deduct their health insurance from their income tax.
    That seems fair.
    But not entirely true. Par for the course for Our friend Harold. Some Health insurance is tax deductible. Google it.

    I don't see why the distinction matters to this discussion, though. Tax deductible or not, "salary" or "benefit", the fact remains that the employee is earning it by doing real work.

    If they earned it, then it is theirs. Their property. Not the employer's property. It is therefore not the employer's place to expect to have any say at all in what morally objectionable traits it may possess. People only have the right to determine matters that concern their own property. Not someone else's property.


    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    I was just trying to make sense of the Hobby Lobby ruling in the states, but since I no longer live there, I don't remember how private insurance works. Since Hobby Lobby is not the actual health care provider, how did they manage to tailor their employees' health insurance program to suit their religious views? I thought insurance plans were standardized - ie "this is what we cover at this price." If they did actually remove a benefit that other payers would automatically have received, that seems less like simply "not providing" and more like actual interference.

    Or are company drug plans totally separate from the rest of the health insurance and overseen by the employer themselves?

    What if Hobby Lobby had said, religion has nothing to do with, we're just really cheap?

    What if they had chosen not to cover antidepressants or drugs used primarily by older people, or for sickle cell anemia, or all HIV medications? Would "weeding out" or discouraging applicants via medical or any other kind of benefits be discrimination?

    What if the issue had not been related to medicine or sex. What if, as a friend of mine wondered, the employer religiously opposed war, and would therefore fire anyone who took time off work for military deployments?
    When you get hired , you get a "Benefits" package. Amongst other things, the package tells you what the company insurance covers. Some cover mental health, other do not. Same with contraception. You can't force a company to cover a certain field.
    Why not force them to cover a specific field?

    Labor laws are just an extension of other "minimum standard" laws, such as the building codes, or the FDA standards for consumable foods.

    They define "what counts as" a given product. In the USA you may only offer something as "a job" if it meets certain minimum criteria. This prevents certain kinds of fraud, such as offering someone a position that requires them to relocate and then paying them a salary that is too small to sustain them once they've completed the move.

    It also plays a role similar to the farm subsidies, by keeping industry alive because the work force always has enough money to buy a few discretionary products beyond the bare necessities. Otherwise things can easily end up like in the Great Depression, where workers began accepting continually lower salaries - which lead to deflation - which ruined investments. Inflation is generally better than deflation because investors more often get back an amount of money equal or greater than what they lent out.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    But a separate life is a separate life, and Mr. Green of Hobby Lobby has a very valid reason for believing what he does.
    He can believe whatever he wants. He does not have the right to force that belief on employees.

    Heck, he might believe very strongly that gays are evil and that God has commanded them to be killed. That does not give him the right to deny HIV coverage to his employees - even if he feels he is morally bound to not help them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    He can believe whatever he wants. He does not have the right to force that belief on employees.
    He is hardly forcing his opinions on to employees when there is not much cost in getting your supply on your own. Think of the issue as risk/reward. Should this goes through, very little if any birth control will be used that was not used before. But you are alienating a potentially viable force. For example, lots of companies are going through the route of divesting themselves of employees and outsourcing at all opportunity for ad hoc contracting.

    You can not force some one to start a company, but you can at best make it easier. The easiest thing in the world is for states statutes and policies to make it more difficult and to make people lazy. Lazy people almost never form a successful company.

    On policy likely ad hoc contractors are replaced far quicker and whole swathes get fired (company lost contract) at same time. Another issue is people not growing their companies, with the gradual stagnation. It is possible and in quite a few sectors likely. Another is people going into businesses that do not require regulation -- one man shows. Most wildly successful people do not set out to start a company, much less a large one, merely start something they enjoy and continue to much larger result. You and others probably think these ideas are over the top, but in reality they are not. Anyone who has started their own company or been around those which have started up understands the concept. It takes a very stubborn person to make it happen where no one has succeeded before, and those trailblazers often do come in religious convictions.

    For a rather token issue, the silly factor would look squarely in the lack of reward to do so, counter-productive it is suggested. There are of negative risk/reward parallels with the WWI we are all aboard conscription of going too far on the issue of faith (quite a few honest conscientious objectors landed deep in prison because their congregation did not have a firm issue against serving in a war). It solved nothing and was counterproductive. I, unlike seemly you, respect religion as one eyes the competition that you rely upon in a Ricardo comparative advantage way. It is not rational, non-linear, and needs some safety valves like the HL ruling to avoid the mire of Europe. I also respect the value of a deep belief/conviction of whatever stripe. Besides, if the state does it to them they will eventually do it to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    He can believe whatever he wants. He does not have the right to force that belief on employees.
    He is hardly forcing his opinions on to employees when there is not much cost in getting your supply on your own. Think of the issue as risk/reward. Should this goes through, very little if any birth control will be used that was not used before. But you are alienating a potentially viable force. For example, lots of companies are going through the route of divesting themselves of employees and outsourcing at all opportunity for ad hoc contracting.
    We can post studies later, but the irony here is only effective way to lower abortion rates is to provide free or affordable contraception with minimal strings attached. Conservative religious groups are working against themselves as they often do on issues of sex and reproduction.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    [/QUOTE]Kojax wrote:

    So if a piece of skin gets severed from my body, and I put it in a petri dish and keep it alive by adding nutrients to the dish, the fact it is "no longer part of my body" makes it another human life?

    Suppose it were possible for me to incubate a clone of myself from that piece of skin. At what stage in the incubation process would it be an "abortion" for me to kill my clone?

    .... --snip -- hard questions.


    [quote]


    Silly. Hard questions like warmed jello is more like it, religious slurs included for extra measure. You apparently advocate forcing Mr. Green to either go out of business or pay for what he believes is being an accomplice to murder. If you want to bring in futuristic ideas like the 1979 movie _Parts: The Clonus Horror_, ok, but it really is off topic. Cloning is coming as a real issue, but we will cross that bridge when stepping on to it. So are head transplants, which author Mary Roach says was done with monkeys about 1970 but no one wants to be the first (for quadriplegics, who only have about 30 years of life after limb loss). Like I said, off topic.
    Clones are direct copies. Fertilized eggs are original life, statistically never to come again on the Earth by mathematical odds, facts are facts and comparing the two is silly or worse.

    Yes you are so persecuted. You consider it a "sin" to kill a single celled fetus
    Nice try. Putting people on the defensive, are we? I do not believe myself to be persecuted, and am regrettably 'Pro-Death' in regards to abortion, though think an enforced waiting period of several days is civil except in cases like safety of the mother. About sin. What makes you think I care about sin? There is no belief in 'sin' within myself. I do believe consequences, in rule of law within reason, and the greatest amount of freedom for the most people.

    You consider it a "sin" to kill a single celled fetus, and yet you are forced to witness countless unbelievers commit this sin and are forbidden to forcibly prevent them from it. Poor you.

    You're not being allowed to force other people against their will to follow your religion.
    Use a template or do you write your own material?!? Let's see, poisoning the well, appeal to a possibility, and other clear cut fallacies all in a few sentences. I have to admit to enjoying a little cutting through the jungle with a machete from time to time, but this is Amazon level at the rivers edge, the densest foliage camouflage cover known to man IIRC. To me it is a mark of covering up something like weak arguments, or at very least an ambush.



    You're not being allowed to "force" other people against their will to follow your religion.
    (italiacs and quotes mine)


    That's a good troll, because for the umpteenth time I have no religion to push, believing in none since a young teenager. What makes you think so? Maybe you were confusing me with some one else and wish to retract the statement. I do want to push ideas, especially to make people think, so maybe that is what definition is meant: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, e.g."consumerism is the new religion."

    My religion would then be the pursuit of knowledge and to share with those who demonstrate the same, which is questionable on the HL thread. Just tell me you care not about thought or knowledge and I will stop posting on this thread since others may differ in wanting such 'religion'. Sorry to "force" you to think of opposing viewpoints. It is understood that some have delicate psyches and need more room, even when they have all the subtlety of a chainsaw massacre when airing their own views. And this thread is all about understanding and assessing Mr. Green's views and the Supreme Court verdict regarding the man of Hobby Lobby. I am here to learn as much as inform, with the former preferred. It is not about baseless (and completely wrong) accusations of the origination another person's opinion of Mr. Green. Please remember.

    A few words to the wise are adequate -- No one here has been elected thought marshal as of yet, so nobody should act like one here. Good luck to everyone in their personal journey, in the best possible sense.

    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    JJ how is it that you can point out everybody else's fallacies but are completely blind/ ignorant to the crap you write? Or do you just think no one will notice?
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    He is hardly forcing his opinions on to employees when there is not much cost in getting your supply on your own.
    He is attempting to impose his own system of morality on his employees by effectively controlling the costs of certain medications in his healthcare plan, in an attempt to change their behavior.

    Let's take a simple counterexample. An Islamic company operating in the US denies all healthcare to women unless they cover their faces and refrain from driving. And even then, they do not cover any treatments for STD's. (This is because they believe that women should not be immoral.) Would you support this?

    You can not force some one to start a company, but you can at best make it easier. The easiest thing in the world is for states statutes and policies to make it more difficult and to make people lazy. Lazy people almost never form a successful company.
    Sure you can. For example, you could remove child labor laws and safety requirements. You could let employers nail fire doors shut to prevent employees from leaving early or taking unauthorized breaks. IMO that would not be a good tradeoff even if it made it easier for shirtwaist companies to operate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    there is not much cost in getting your supply [of birth control] on your own.
    For what it's worth. We pay ~$100 a month for our prescription because the Catholic-owned hospital where my wife works won't let us access all of our plan and is fighting the workaround.

    I don't know what you make, but that is quite significant for us.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Kojax wrote:

    So if a piece of skin gets severed from my body, and I put it in a petri dish and keep it alive by adding nutrients to the dish, the fact it is "no longer part of my body" makes it another human life?

    Suppose it were possible for me to incubate a clone of myself from that piece of skin. At what stage in the incubation process would it be an "abortion" for me to kill my clone?

    .... --snip -- hard questions.




    Silly. Hard questions like warmed jello is more like it, religious slurs included for extra measure. You apparently advocate forcing Mr. Green to either go out of business or pay for what he believes is being an accomplice to murder.
    Quite a lot of liberals are forced to pay taxes, which they believe will go to wars which they believe to be pure, unadulterated murder.

    But yes. I'm saying he has no right to any say in where the funds go, because the moment an employee earns them, they are not this funds.

    If it were his money, then he might have something to say about it. But it's not his money. His employees may or may not use it to murder an innocent one celled child, but it's not for him to decide whether to give it to them on the basis of how he thinks they will be used.

    It's his job to pay his employees a fair wage for a fair day's work. And the government decides what that is under today's laws.

    Maybe he should take a little bit of advice from the man in the sky who he supposedly follows. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto god, that which is Gods". Mark 12:17. According to Jesus, you don't have to care where the money goes.


    If you want to bring in futuristic ideas like the 1979 movie _Parts: The Clonus Horror_, ok, but it really is off topic. Cloning is coming as a real issue, but we will cross that bridge when stepping on to it. So are head transplants, which author Mary Roach says was done with monkeys about 1970 but no one wants to be the first (for quadriplegics, who only have about 30 years of life after limb loss). Like I said, off topic.
    Clones are direct copies. Fertilized eggs are original life, statistically never to come again on the Earth by mathematical odds, facts are facts and comparing the two is silly or worse.
    Wow. So a pair of identical twins (which are clones in every meaningful sense of the word "clone"), only count as one instance of life?

    If I wanted to murder an adult identical twin, would that still be murder? Or would it be ok because so long as one of the two survives, that original combination is still alive?

    Just to be clear, this is relevant because if I cloned myself, my new clone would just be a younger identical twin of me. Not an exact copy. In every sense that identical twins are separate people, my clone would be a separate person.


    Yes you are so persecuted. You consider it a "sin" to kill a single celled fetus
    Nice try. Putting people on the defensive, are we? I do not believe myself to be persecuted, and am regrettably 'Pro-Death' in regards to abortion, though think an enforced waiting period of several days is civil except in cases like safety of the mother. About sin. What makes you think I care about sin? There is no belief in 'sin' within myself. I do believe consequences, in rule of law within reason, and the greatest amount of freedom for the most people.

    You consider it a "sin" to kill a single celled fetus, and yet you are forced to witness countless unbelievers commit this sin and are forbidden to forcibly prevent them from it. Poor you.

    You're not being allowed to force other people against their will to follow your religion.
    Use a template or do you write your own material?!? Let's see, poisoning the well, appeal to a possibility, and other clear cut fallacies all in a few sentences. I have to admit to enjoying a little cutting through the jungle with a machete from time to time, but this is Amazon level at the rivers edge, the densest foliage camouflage cover known to man IIRC. To me it is a mark of covering up something like weak arguments, or at very least an ambush.
    I'm not following your logic. I'll need you to try and clarify it for me if you have the patience to do so.


    My point is, that no matter how deplorable an act may be in your eyes, if the law doesn't force you specifically to commit the act, and nobody else is committing the act against you, then the law is not persecuting you or your religion.




    You're not being allowed to "force" other people against their will to follow your religion.
    (italiacs and quotes mine)


    That's a good troll, because for the umpteenth time I have no religion to push, believing in none since a young teenager. What makes you think so? Maybe you were confusing me with some one else and wish to retract the statement. I do want to push ideas, especially to make people think, so maybe that is what definition is meant: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, e.g."consumerism is the new religion."

    My religion would then be the pursuit of knowledge and to share with those who demonstrate the same, which is questionable on the HL thread. Just tell me you care not about thought or knowledge and I will stop posting on this thread since others may differ in wanting such 'religion'. Sorry to "force" you to think of opposing viewpoints. It is understood that some have delicate psyches and need more room, even when they have all the subtlety of a chainsaw massacre when airing their own views. And this thread is all about understanding and assessing Mr. Green's views and the Supreme Court verdict regarding the man of Hobby Lobby. I am here to learn as much as inform, with the former preferred. It is not about baseless (and completely wrong) accusations of the origination another person's opinion of Mr. Green. Please remember.

    A few words to the wise are adequate -- No one here has been elected thought marshal as of yet, so nobody should act like one here. Good luck to everyone in their personal journey, in the best possible sense.

    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain
    It would have been hard to know you weren't religious yourself based on your statements.

    I don't know why you consider religious people to be "taking a beating" then. Maybe you admire them in spite of not sharing their belief? That's not a bad ethic, but as one who has seen religion from the inside, I think perhaps your admiration is somewhat naive.

    I know the bible well enough to know that Mr. Green is almost certainly committing an act of unabashed hypocrisy. He's not standing for his beliefs. He's standing for his wallet.

    According to the bible, the "Scribes and Pharisees" in Jesus' day had a tradition where they would count it as a "fast" to go without supporting their elderly parents for a period of time. Mark 7:6-9. It was a devious way of getting out of an obligation. He called them on it, because he disliked them trying to manipulate the teachings of the religion for financial gain, rather than for its obvious intention.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quite a lot of liberals are forced to pay taxes, which they believe will go to wars which they believe to be pure, unadulterated murder.
    Yes, but here again it is where one crosses the line. For example, we in the US had a problem in being against mandatory quartering of troops inside one's own domicile (fancy word for house you live in -- but all your other property is fair game, as is eminent domain over a period of time) during the revolutionary period, which is the Third Amendment to the American Constitution. Here with present day HL, Mr. Green is forced to pay from his own till, a crossing of the line in his view. Certainly it is a lot closer to home. Sending a paycheck to the IRS (Inland Revenue for UK) separates responsibility in the eyes of many in regards to controversial participation. After all, responsible government is preserving the best for the most, not trying the impossible act IMO of being everything to everyone at all times.



    But yes. I'm saying he has no right to any say in where the funds go, because the moment an employee earns them, they are not this funds.
    True. But it gets into the questionable area when an employer is forced to make specific payment. It is also legally no issue of concern for an owner if an employee buys heroin or plastic explosives for a terror run with the salary, but do not be surprised if an employer ditches worker for suspected activity in the same. (Upon pretext, as in current law in many western nations including US is to force companies to give warnings on specific issues, like warning not to step into traffic). What happens due to this and other issues is that the unemployment rates go steadily upwards and companies are wary to hire. In many Western European countries it is 10 to 20 percent and has been about that in many cases for decades. It is increasingly hard to fire some one, especially a legal minded employee. I'm stretching the point here, but the larger HL issue is how capitalist you want your country to be. There were once many Pollyanna type company towns with very invasive and rather heavy handed paternalistic overtones in the past, and in the PRC China we have it go on today. And in PRC it has brought out capitalists out from a very primitive Cultural Revolution past to one apparently capable of financing the slothful 70% of the economy still in state hands.

    But it's not his money.
    True enough once it is in his employees hands. I put it into the category of what one Capitol Hill guy who said of John Kennedy a couple of years before becoming president. "Let him get his own women." was said when Senator JFK tried to have the official ("Fishbait") procure a steady supply of prostitutes, eager ladies, etc. But in a very real sense, though the actual details are handled by insurance companies and under the government tutelage, the employer is an accomplice. Not as much as being Guido's driver on the way to or from a liquidation hit job, but enough so to be distinctly uncomfortable to many religious and possibly not so religious persons. Again, the issue is where to draw the line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Well, just as many predicted the religious freedom argument is being used for other things. Federal Judge Uses Hobby Lobby To Excuse Testimony In Child Labor Case The possibilities seem endless. It was a bad ruling, regardless of how one feels about birth control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    What a gross and shameful violation of the separation of church and state. Not only must legal procedure bow to religious freedom, but now those legal processes are not even allowed to raise questions regarding the sincerity of said religious freedom? That opens some really scary doors.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Did you miss this part:
    Sam wrote in his ruling, arguing that the government did not use the "least-restrictive means" to get what it wanted. The judge said the government may instead acquire the information it seeks about FLDS and Paragon Contractors, which are implicated in a 2012 incident involving children working in a field, by speaking to others "who contracted to manage the pecan ranch."
    It doesn't mean that anybody can claim religious belief to do whatever they want. It means the government has to make reasonable accommodations to allow free exercise of religion, just like the Constitution says.

    So, let's not go too far down the road of a slippery slope fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    What is to prevent the "others" from claiming a religious exemption if:

    "It is not for the Court to 'inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question'," Sam wrote, citing Hobby Lobby.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What is to prevent the "others" from claiming a religious exemption if:

    "It is not for the Court to 'inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question'," Sam wrote, citing Hobby Lobby.
    I see nothing wrong with that. The courts should not be delving into the theological merits of someone's religion. Do you think they should? That would be ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What is to prevent the "others" from claiming a religious exemption if:

    "It is not for the Court to 'inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question'," Sam wrote, citing Hobby Lobby.
    I see nothing wrong with that. The courts should not be delving into the theological merits of someone's religion. Do you think they should? That would be ridiculous.
    If someone's religious beliefs are obstructing justice, I do. What prevents religion from being a shield against the law? There has to be a better balance between the right to practice a faith and the use of that faith to protect against a legal system to which we are all accountable.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What is to prevent the "others" from claiming a religious exemption if:

    "It is not for the Court to 'inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question'," Sam wrote, citing Hobby Lobby.
    I see nothing wrong with that. The courts should not be delving into the theological merits of someone's religion. Do you think they should? That would be ridiculous.
    If someone's religious beliefs are obstructing justice, I do. What prevents religion from being a shield against the law? There has to be a better balance between the right to practice a faith and the use of that faith to protect against a legal system to which we are all accountable.
    Again, read the article. If they didn't have another way of getting the information, they guy would have had to testify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What prevents religion from being a shield against the law?
    With their highly secretive doctrine, I am certain that Scientologists will find the Hobby Lobby very beneficial in court when it comes to avoiding prosecution for their aggressive actions.

    Lawyer: "Where were you on the 15th of March?"
    Scientologist: "I cannot discuss that - discussing that would be against my religious beliefs."
    Lawyer: "Well, what are your religious beliefs?"
    Scientologist: "I cannot discuss that - discussing that would be against my religious beliefs."
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    What is to prevent the "others" from claiming a religious exemption if:

    "It is not for the Court to 'inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question'," Sam wrote, citing Hobby Lobby.
    I see nothing wrong with that. The courts should not be delving into the theological merits of someone's religion. Do you think they should? That would be ridiculous.
    If someone's religious beliefs are obstructing justice, I do. What prevents religion from being a shield against the law? There has to be a better balance between the right to practice a faith and the use of that faith to protect against a legal system to which we are all accountable.
    Again, read the article. If they didn't have another way of getting the information, they guy would have had to testify.
    I did read the article. What I got from it was that someone was able to shrug off the legal system on the claim of religious freedom stemming from a case that only seems adjacently relevant in my understanding. I'm not claiming this is the end of our justice system as we know it, I'm saying it seems to hint at avenues of obstruction of which I was not previously aware.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    "It is not for the Court to 'inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question'," Sam wrote, citing Hobby Lobby.
    I see nothing wrong with that. The courts should not be delving into the theological merits of someone's religion. Do you think they should? That would be ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
    I agree; they should not. Nor should courts accept the theological fine points of someone's religion as an excuse to not participate in the justice system. "Yeah, I would testify, but I am Muslim, and I will not testify in support of a woman who was defiled." (or substitute whatever silly religious belief you like.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I agree; they should not. Nor should courts accept the theological fine points of someone's religion as an excuse to not participate in the justice system. "Yeah, I would testify, but I am Muslim, and I will not testify in support of a woman who was defiled." (or substitute whatever silly religious belief you like.)
    Is that not considered determining the merit of the belief? By rejecting the objection, is that not saying the legal system takes precedence?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Is that not considered determining the merit of the belief? By rejecting the objection, is that not saying the legal system takes precedence?
    Yes, if courts allowed people to not testify based on belief, then they would have to delve into the theological merits of the question, lest people use spurious and selfish reasons to refuse to support the justice system. In other words, they'd have to decide that Gaia (and thus a Wiccan's desire to not testify) is invalid, while Christ is valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Well, just as many predicted the religious freedom argument is being used for other things. Federal Judge Uses Hobby Lobby To Excuse Testimony In Child Labor Case The possibilities seem endless. It was a bad ruling, regardless of how one feels about birth control.
    True, and that is the nature of the judicial process with US law. Of course, this judge could be overturned, and quite possibly will be (or more likely later on when the court case merits the trouble, unless minions decide to get involved). It is not as bad as Japan, though, with the Supreme Court there coming up with all sorts of weird interpretations. Judicial activism is rife in the US, mostly on a liberal bent, as was Roe Vs. Wade apparently. It was a judicial interpretation fielded by abortion interests and worked like a charm, I have read but not thoroughly investigated. There has been quite a bit of this in the US during the last 60 years.

    "That opens some really scary doors." Yep. More so considering who these Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints really are. As recalled turned out to be correct, the Mr. Jeffs' polygamy organization. They have been famous in Hurricane City area (where the case was decided) for generations, starting out in Colorado City on the state line so Arizona or Utah deserts can be hid upon as needed. Also in the news of the last few years, Jeffs and company have been part of gross child sex rings and other serious issues. Runaways tell of the old guys maxing out on all the females, guys normally have to leave, which the old guys greatly encourage and badger, and never see their families again. Quite a few child brides (11/12 years of age) later managed to escape as well, leaving behind their babies but able to tell their story. Jeffs lived out of his limo for several months till caught near Las Vegas IIRC, but still rules his flock behind bars from the sex crimes convictions. Nice people in this sect, eh?

    Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "At one point, he reportedly forbade married couples in his flock from touching each other, whether sexually or otherwise. Instead, he appointed 15 men to father all future FLDS babies. When one of these men impregnated a woman, two other men were required to witness the act." All in a flock of 10,000 people, although there may have been half that then. Don't bet on not seeing a lot more of this, as same sex marriage can also potentially be widened to polygamous marriages. (or ERA had been worried as promoting unisex bathrooms, etc. with or without justification.)

    Getting back to legal precedent, unruly groups are normally those of whom controversial (or ground breaking) decisions have the initial decision with. And the man could have also claimed exemption on the grounds that it may incriminate himself by testifying, albeit with the possibility of difficulty without a smart lawyer at your side on how divulging church leaders could incriminate yourself. Lying has absolutely no chance of being discovered unless one confesses (probably due to religious conscience, but how often does that happen? That is the system. Of course, there is always a small chance anyone will incriminate themselves in anything, and the weasel thought makes all good in most people's thoughts.)

    We live in interesting times.
    Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. -- Winston Churchill

    Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
    A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time, there was…” A Marxist fairy tale begins, “Some day, there will be…”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Duplicate Posting Delete
    Last edited by jjmckane; September 20th, 2014 at 06:26 AM. Reason: Duplicate Posting Delete
    Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. -- Winston Churchill

    Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
    A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time, there was…” A Marxist fairy tale begins, “Some day, there will be…”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I did read the article. What I got from it was that someone was able to shrug off the legal system on the claim of religious freedom stemming from a case that only seems adjacently relevant in my understanding. I'm not claiming this is the end of our justice system as we know it, I'm saying it seems to hint at avenues of obstruction of which I was not previously aware.
    Suppose the prosecutor knew about their religious rules and decided to mess with the guy just because he doesn't like the religious sect. He's already the information he needs to prosecute the case, but he thinks polygamous practices, such as jjmckane described, are just plain obnoxious. So he issues the subpoena just as a way of punishing him for his religion. Would you agree with the ruling in that case?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I did read the article. What I got from it was that someone was able to shrug off the legal system on the claim of religious freedom stemming from a case that only seems adjacently relevant in my understanding. I'm not claiming this is the end of our justice system as we know it, I'm saying it seems to hint at avenues of obstruction of which I was not previously aware.
    Suppose the prosecutor knew about their religious rules and decided to mess with the guy just because he doesn't like the religious sect. He's already the information he needs to prosecute the case, but he thinks polygamous practices, such as jjmckane described, are just plain obnoxious. So he issues the subpoena just as a way of punishing him for his religion. Would you agree with the ruling in that case?
    Then where is the line between wrongfully using faith as protection against the law and the law violating religious freedom?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So he issues the subpoena just as a way of punishing him for his religion. Would you agree with the ruling in that case?
    Heck no. In that case, fire the prosecutor for unethical conduct. You don't change our legal standards because one prosecutor does something unethical.

    Let's take another case. A cardinal refuses to testify in a child rape case against a priest because he feels it his religious obligation to not testify against priests. He claims the prosecutor just doesn't like Catholics and is biased. Should they allow him to refuse? And if that makes the case impossible to prosecute, would you be OK with that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    [QUOTE=billvon;594075]
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post

    Let's take another case. A cardinal refuses to testify in a child rape case against a priest because he feels it his religious obligation to not testify against priests. He claims the prosecutor just doesn't like Catholics and is biased. Should they allow him to refuse? And if that makes the case impossible to prosecute, would you be OK with that?
    Hardly would that be ok, to me. But the entire idea of forcing some one to testify gets into the statute legal gray area. Of course, in the US one has the options of either not testifying (in court, not apparently with the House of Un-American Activities with McCarthy, et al) by not taking the oath, or by saying the issue would incriminate oneself. While I am _not_ a legal beagle, it would seem this judge has trod on new soil, and probably from someone who has ill personal feelings to the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (F. Mormons). You see, since 1890 or so these types have been a millstone around that church, along with the Mountain Meadows Masacre, and the feeling runs deep AFAIK (had a girlfriend years ago who grew up in the religion, though left). In that area of St.
    George/Hurricane, the judge is almost certainly regular Mormon, long standing community down there being 85% plus, maybe 5% of that being polywogs (polygamous breakaways).

    Anyway, it would be interesting to see how long this particular Clarence Earl Gideon type of ruling lasts in sterile ground of increasing liberal domination. There are enclaves, especially in the mountain states, like Wyoming or Utah. Knew briefly one old federal circuit guy out of Rawlins, a circuit judge, very crusty, though the word is from the more liberal legal profession that in his younger days he was really astute but at 90 has seen better days on the bench. Another former judge tended the library several years ago in the same district court building, thrown out in election for being too right wing extreme for Wyoming. But they are not the present national trend, meaning the issue will be almost certainly overturned I suggest.
    Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. -- Winston Churchill

    Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
    A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time, there was…” A Marxist fairy tale begins, “Some day, there will be…”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    Then where is the line between wrongfully using faith as protection against the law and the law violating religious freedom?
    That's why we have lawyers and judges. It isn't always a sharp line. In this case, it was the fact that the state did not have a need for the testimony.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post

    Then where is the line between wrongfully using faith as protection against the law and the law violating religious freedom?
    That's why we have lawyers and judges. It isn't always a sharp line. In this case, it was the fact that the state did not have a need for the testimony.
    A fishing expedition then? In that case the judge should have every right to deny, though it is sad that religious belief in a judicial precedent is necessary to protect oneself.
    Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened. -- Winston Churchill

    Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
    A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time, there was…” A Marxist fairy tale begins, “Some day, there will be…”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    You know, there is probably some religion out there that believes all man made governments are of the devil, and that is is morally wrong to abide by any rule laid down by a man made government.

    So... by joining that religion do I gain exemption from the entire US criminal code? Am I now free to double park my car outside a police station? Can I just show up in court with my "Church of Jesus Christ Anarchists" pendant and tear up the parking ticket?

    Perhaps I could set up a Marijuana store in a parking lot by the highway and start selling weed to all who pass by? If a police officer shows up I'll accuse him of religious oppression, and then offer him a hit on my bong.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    So... by joining that religion do I gain exemption from the entire US criminal code? Am I now free to double park my car outside a police station? Can I just show up in court with my "Church of Jesus Christ Anarchists" pendant and tear up the parking ticket?

    Perhaps I could set up a Marijuana store in a parking lot by the highway and start selling weed to all who pass by? If a police officer shows up I'll accuse him of religious oppression, and then offer him a hit on my bong.
    Speaking of pipe dreams, you try such inventive notions with the IRS and they are guaranteed to give you an all expense paid trip with 3 meals a day gratis, and an active social scene thrown in for grins. So I hear. But don't take anyone else's word for it, and experience by trial and error, just to be sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    And that leads me to wonder why did Hobby Lobby's pipe dream become reality? What are the courts smoking?

    Even if you are an employee who adamantly opposes abortion, you can't know for sure that you wont' want the coverage if you suddenly find yourself unexpectedly pregnant. I know at least in Mormonism there is an exception to the condemnation of abortions if the mother has conceived due to rape or incest. So a Mormon might want abortion coverage for that purpose.

    Maybe some of the other churches refuse to permit abortion even under those circumstances?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. It is my hobby
    By Gaintor in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2013, 01:09 AM
  2. does anybody else engineer stuff like this as a hobby?
    By GeNiYiOuwS89 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 14th, 2012, 04:07 PM
  3. Is "Not Stamp Collecting" a Hobby?
    By inow in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2011, 08:35 PM
  4. Hey! Get an Intellectual Hobby
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 13th, 2009, 07:44 AM
  5. A HOBBY FREAK NAMED scientia
    By scientia in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 19th, 2009, 08:55 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •