Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 151

Thread: Hobby Lobby

  1. #1 Hobby Lobby 
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    HL wouldn't have been able to restrict coverage without playing the religion card. Thy shouldn't have been able to even with it.


    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I think this ruling is bogus as it plays fast and loose with the idea of a corporation (such as Hobby Lobby) as a "separate legal entity" from its owners. If someone sues a corporation, they sue it as an entity separate from its owners. But if the owners don't want this separate legal entity to support birth control, it's okay? Bogus!

    This reminds me of various courts finding Merck and other pharmaceuticals guilty of criminal fraud several times, but no one within the corporation is guilty? A corporation can commit a crime, but everyone in it is innocent? Really? A corporation all by itself can commit a crime? Bogus!
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Many insurance companies have what are known as "riders" which can be added to the regular policy so the birth control was an item which wasn't included in the regular policy so a rider had to be purchased for it.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    The point of the Hobby Lobby ruling had to do with the fact that Obamacare mandated requirements that the insurance company had to follow. The rquirement controversy was employees could get free coverage for contraceptives as part of the plan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.

    Once upon a time health insurance was an extra benefit that companies provided at their own discretion, and people decided to take a job or not based on the side benefits. Now, its a government controlled entitlement, and when the nanny state government controls more and more of our lives, it leaves less and less room for us to decide how to live our own lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    Hmm. So a hospital who does not like blacks should be able to deny them care?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?

    Do you believe in private property, or should everything belong to the state, or be controlled by the state?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Hmm. So a hospital who does not like blacks should be able to deny them care?
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    Since you didn't say 'No', you must mean 'Yes' but don't have the balls to say so.
    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  
     

  11. #10  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    way to avoid the point Harold. It doesn't have to be the race card <insert group here>

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you believe in private property, or should everything belong to the state, or be controlled by the state?

    Not the topic!!! don't change the subject
    "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  
     

  12. #11  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    There needs to be a way to impeach the Supreme court. They just set a horrible legal precedent.
    The supreme court just recognized Christianity, but shit all over the other religions. So, Christian's rights are recognized by the government but not Jehova Witness's right to not have cover blood transfusions or Scientologists that don't want to carry psychiatric meds??? What about the "Christian Scientists" having the right not to carry insurance at all. As you know Christian Scientists are against Doctors and medicine. If God wants you to live he will heal you! What about their religious "rights"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Christian Scientists...believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion. This includes the view that disease is a spiritual rather than physical disorder, that there is no death, and that the sick should be treated, not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health


    The fact is, is that HL is just cheap. They hid behind religion to do it. If they were really this big Christian company they wouldn't buy all their crap from China where they force abortions and kill actual live birthed baby girls. They wouldn't invest 401Ks in the drug companies that make the pills they don't want to include in health.
    Hobby Lobby can Suck it!
    Horrible day!
    "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  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The fact is, is that HL is just cheap.
    This isn't about being cheap, it's about being stupid. For a policy to qualify under the ACA, it has to cover all 20 of the standard FDA approved contraceptive products. Hobby Lobby is excluding 4 of the 20, 2 kinds of IUD and 2 kinds of morning after pill, because they believe they're forms of abortion rather than contraception.

    I sort of understand the morning after pill, but I couldn't get my head around the IUD notion. Turns out they're just daft. Nobody "uses" an IUD like that. There are heaps and heaps of medications and procedures that possibly/ probably/ certainly will endanger or terminate pregnancy if used at critical times (think about cancer drugs just for starters). Nobody decides that whoops, have to get an IUD inserted. People get IUDs inserted because they want long term contraception.

    This is a reasonable article. Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Contraception Ruling: What Women Should Know - TIME
    "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. #13  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The fact is, is that HL is just cheap.
    This isn't about being cheap, it's about being stupid. For a policy to qualify under the ACA, it has to cover all 20 of the standard FDA approved contraceptive products. Hobby Lobby is excluding 4 of the 20, 2 kinds of IUD and 2 kinds of morning after pill, because they believe they're forms of abortion rather than contraception.

    I sort of understand the morning after pill, but I couldn't get my head around the IUD notion. Turns out they're just daft. Nobody "uses" an IUD like that. There are heaps and heaps of medications and procedures that possibly/ probably/ certainly will endanger or terminate pregnancy if used at critical times (think about cancer drugs just for starters). Nobody decides that whoops, have to get an IUD inserted. People get IUDs inserted because they want long term contraception.

    This is a reasonable article. Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Contraception Ruling: What Women Should Know - TIME
    So hobby lobby decided 4 of the 20 don't work for them because they're "Christian," how about the next "Christian" company that decides all 20 don't work?
    One thing of note. How come vasectomies are covered? What other reason is there for a vasectomy aside from long term birth control?
    "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  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    way to avoid the point Harold. It doesn't have to be the race card <insert group here>

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you believe in private property, or should everything belong to the state, or be controlled by the state?

    Not the topic!!! don't change the subject
    Hardly. It is extremely on topic. We in the US and those elsewhere in "First World" locales have the creeping Nanny State. The US was built on people doing what they want, with in reason.

    Statists (those wanting the government to have great amounts of control), which BillVon is claimed to be (not reading more than one of his posts, I have no clear idea), want the state to control people. Unfortunately, this historically backfires, especially with a society like America's. Switzerland and Japan have many silly, intrusive laws, but a great part of that is the culture in either country.

    While I personally have no religion, I genuinely respect the abilities and impressive accomplishments of many who do, even as those same persons often disrespect my beliefs. Also of importance is the degree those beliefs help those accomplishments in becoming reality. My thoughts are putting the Hobby Lobby type religion in the same box as how hard people work for their children. I mean, often those same children are spoiled and could use less rather than more. One childhood neighbor went to a school that had a fellow who would actually say 'Shut up, I could buy you.' Wonder how he ever grew up. But facts are facts, people will work very hard to 'help' their children, including a very difficult thing such as forming your own business and keeping it. Frankly, to me it does not matter why a person accomplishes, rather that he/she does. Apparently there is a wide gulf between others and I on this issue. For whatever reason, America legally has given wider rights to religious groups, in a way like you as an apparent US citizen have a right to greater free speech if you are being humorous, rights for guns for a well regulated militia [never personally owned one], or freedom against self incrimination.

    Forcing companies to conform to a given belief does work in some cases, but can easily get out of hand. The most famous state intervention at this level is the Civil Rights Act. My personal belief is it put an end to widespread segregation but was in a way a hollowing out of rights a person has in forming a business. My guess it made rather little difference in who wants to go into or stay in business, though. Eventually with the government tinkering it will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, the slippery slope. Packing the Supreme Court, or impeaching them as you suggest doing, would likely kill American innovation and industriousness, no matter who was doing the packing/impeaching and what direction it morphed towards, liberalism included. And apparently liberalism is also a distinctly minority viewpoint, about 20% of the population of the US, a rate holding steady for the last 30 years. So in a sense, a minority forcing the majority to do as they please.

    Link: Liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to y[ie]ld,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS




    WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned
    pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah.

    Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.
    The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote:
    while it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires
    A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!”
    Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.”
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Thought I should just refer back to the OP for a moment.

    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.
    I know a lot of Americans regard the government setting standards for insurance policies to be an infringement on their "freedom" but I really don't understand this. To a nonUSAnian, the idea that a clerk in a remote insurance office or an accountant in a hospital's administration could interfere in the provision of health care - either specific treatments or whether any treatment is given or must be terminated - seems much, much more intrusive than what governments do. Governments basically draw up a map of what is and isn't available or acceptable and doctors and their patients are free to navigate their own paths within those boundaries to whatever objective they set for themselves. That's much less intrusive than doctors offering the best medical option/s and then a non-professional person interferes and saying no, that's too expensive, you have to go home and die, or points out that you had cancer therapy/ heart surgery/ childbirth complications 15 years ago so you've used up your lifetime allocation.

    To us on the outside, that's just weird.
    "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  
     

  18. #17  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Thought I should just refer back to the OP for a moment.

    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.
    I know a lot of Americans regard the government setting standards for insurance policies to be an infringement on their "freedom" but I really don't understand this. To a nonUSAnian, the idea that a clerk in a remote insurance office or an accountant in a hospital's administration could interfere in the provision of health care - either specific treatments or whether any treatment is given or must be terminated - seems much, much more intrusive than what governments do. Governments basically draw up a map of what is and isn't available or acceptable and doctors and their patients are free to navigate their own paths within those boundaries to whatever objective they set for themselves. That's much less intrusive than doctors offering the best medical option/s and then a non-professional person interferes and saying no, that's too expensive, you have to go home and die, or points out that you had cancer therapy/ heart surgery/ childbirth complications 15 years ago so you've used up your lifetime allocation.

    To us on the outside, that's just weird.
    Well said and addresses the point I was about to make to our jjmckane friend. It's not about a "nanny state" as your conservative handlers would have you believe. It's about letting the private sector exploit the populace. People are not kleenex you can't throw them away when they get sick and can't work for you any longer, even though you have an endless supply of them. I realize ethics mean nothing to those on the right but then again so do they and that's their appeal to that group I guess.
    "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  
     

  19. #18  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    way to avoid the point Harold. It doesn't have to be the race card <insert group here>

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you believe in private property, or should everything belong to the state, or be controlled by the state?

    Not the topic!!! don't change the subject
    Hardly. It is extremely on topic. We in the US and those elsewhere in "First World" locales have the creeping Nanny State. The US was built on people doing what they want, with in reason.

    Statists (those wanting the government to have great amounts of control), which BillVon is claimed to be (not reading more than one of his posts, I have no clear idea), want the state to control people. Unfortunately, this historically backfires, especially with a society like America's. Switzerland and Japan have many silly, intrusive laws, but a great part of that is the culture in either country.

    While I personally have no religion, I genuinely respect the abilities and impressive accomplishments of many who do, even as those same persons often disrespect my beliefs. Also of importance is the degree those beliefs help those accomplishments in becoming reality. My thoughts are putting the Hobby Lobby type religion in the same box as how hard people work for their children. I mean, often those same children are spoiled and could use less rather than more. One childhood neighbor went to a school that had a fellow who would actually say 'Shut up, I could buy you.' Wonder how he ever grew up. But facts are facts, people will work very hard to 'help' their children, including a very difficult thing such as forming your own business and keeping it. Frankly, to me it does not matter why a person accomplishes, rather that he/she does. Apparently there is a wide gulf between others and I on this issue. For whatever reason, America legally has given wider rights to religious groups, in a way like you as an apparent US citizen have a right to greater free speech if you are being humorous, rights for guns for a well regulated militia [never personally owned one], or freedom against self incrimination.

    Forcing companies to conform to a given belief does work in some cases, but can easily get out of hand. The most famous state intervention at this level is the Civil Rights Act. My personal belief is it put an end to widespread segregation but was in a way a hollowing out of rights a person has in forming a business. My guess it made rather little difference in who wants to go into or stay in business, though. Eventually with the government tinkering it will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, the slippery slope. Packing the Supreme Court, or impeaching them as you suggest doing, would likely kill American innovation and industriousness, no matter who was doing the packing/impeaching and what direction it morphed towards, liberalism included. And apparently liberalism is also a distinctly minority viewpoint, about 20% of the population of the US, a rate holding steady for the last 30 years. So in a sense, a minority forcing the majority to do as they please.

    Link: Liberalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to y[ie]ld,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788
    DO you have any idea what you've written?I pretty much got your first line and then after than you went off on some world class word salad tangent that made no sense... You think the civil rights act was misguided? You clearly don't have enough history or education in your catalog of brain cells.
    "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  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post

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

    That's what they should have said, because it would be the truth. They should have been required to increase some other aspect of the employees' coverage by an equal amount to what they saved by forgoing the contraception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    The problem is that people can lie and say that any expense "goes against their personal beliefs".

    And in this case it is a lie also. Paying to give someone else an option does not go against anyone's religious beliefs, even if you are giving them the option to do something you consider to be a sin.

    What they are really arguing for is not the right to practice their own religion, but rather the right to impede someone else from refusing to practice that religion.

    They want to be able to deny pregnant employees the option to abort a baby, rather than carry it to term.

    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post

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

    That's what they should have said, because it would be the truth. They should have been required to increase some other aspect of the employees' coverage by an equal amount to what they saved by forgoing the contraception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    The problem is that people can lie and say that any expense "goes against their personal beliefs".

    And in this case it is a lie also. Paying to give someone else an option does not go against anyone's religious beliefs, even if you are giving them the option to do something you consider to be a sin.

    What they are really arguing for is not the right to practice their own religion, but rather the right to impede someone else from refusing to practice that religion.

    They want to be able to deny pregnant employees the option to abort a baby, rather than carry it to term.

    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    Beautiful, all of 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  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    way to avoid the point Harold. It doesn't have to be the race card <insert group here>
    There's no comparison between what Hobby Lobby does and turning blacks away from a hospital. It's insulting and not worth even answering this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you believe in private property, or should everything belong to the state, or be controlled by the state?

    Not the topic!!! don't change the subject
    Nope. It is the subject. It's Hobby Lobby's money and they should be able to spend it for what they believe in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post

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

    That's what they should have said, because it would be the truth. They should have been required to increase some other aspect of the employees' coverage by an equal amount to what they saved by forgoing the contraception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    The problem is that people can lie and say that any expense "goes against their personal beliefs".
    So what? Who cares why they believe what they believe?
    And in this case it is a lie also. Paying to give someone else an option does not go against anyone's religious beliefs, even if you are giving them the option to do something you consider to be a sin.

    What they are really arguing for is not the right to practice their own religion, but rather the right to impede someone else from refusing to practice that religion.
    How are they impeding anybody? People can pay for their own contraceptives, or find a different job.
    They want to be able to deny pregnant employees the option to abort a baby, rather than carry it to term.

    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    They are not imposing their beliefs on anybody. They just want to be left alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post


    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    Exactly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    The problem is as soon as they formed a for-profit corporation the presumption until now is they forfeited that aspect--it now asserts a for-profit corporation has more rights to assert some previously impossible religious belief than an individual--if anything is a dangerous precedent that is. To make it worse, the ruling asserts that the corporation doesn't even need any scientific facts related to its beliefs about contraception (the broad decision includes those that have nothing to do with abortion) to object to them. It's a rather amazing decision that I'm afraid we'll be stuck with for a decade or so; or at least until another Chief Justice is appointed and willing to hear another challenge to this narrowly decided ruling.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 2nd, 2014 at 05:24 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's insulting and not worth even answering this.
    Not worth answering because you don't want people to know what your answer is.

    It's ok - we know how you feel about black people.
    You can stop trying to hide it.
    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  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    So what? Who cares why they believe what they believe?
    The whole issue is that corporations don't believe anything.

    Originally they were just a legal device for protecting investors from losses beyond their "limited" stock holdings. That structure is now used for a variety of taxation and legal purposes. The fact that the laws giving effect to those provisions often use the word "person" to describe any and all people and organisations doesn't make corporations an actual "person".

    Let's face it. These people claim that this is all based on their individual personal specific religious beliefs. Until they can demonstrate that the corporation, rather than the people who own it, has an existence, a soul, beyond its formal, paper-based legal structure that could in any way be susceptible to the benefits and consequences - heaven or hell - of the supernatural being in question, they're pushing the boundaries way too far. When has a corporation ever prayed or worshiped or sinned or been "saved" ? The whole idea is nonsense.
    "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  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Hah! Found this. The first part is about the corporation-as-a-person issue, then there are a couple of NSFW moments, and then it gets into other issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQCH1qyIDo#t=55
    "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  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to y[ie]ld,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788

    DO you have any idea what you've written?I pretty much got your first line and then after than you went off on some world class word salad tangent that made no sense... You think the civil rights act was misguided? You clearly don't have enough history or education in your catalog of brain cells.
    I do and did have clear idea of what was written.

    Read and pay attention. Anyone reading it carefully would not agree to your assessment of the passage. I called the Civil Rights Act was _not_ misguided (IMO) but did infer it has pretty much served its purpose already (and a likely becoming a negative worth crutch to those it was supposed to help). The cost was an erosion of rights to form one's own larger business, IMO. And in case you never realized this, in its natural state business salaries are a kind of willful feudalism. You owe that time to another, as if a contract deed. If you do not like the conditions, go some where that better accommodates in a gilded cage. That is what we call the free market. From these post and many others, you obviously do not believe in this ideal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's insulting and not worth even answering this.
    Not worth answering because you don't want people to know what your answer is.

    It's ok - we know how you feel about black people.
    You can stop trying to hide it.
    Go to hell, idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Go to hell, idiot.
    Hell doesn't exist, idiot.
    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  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    So what? Who cares why they believe what they believe?
    The whole issue is that corporations don't believe anything.

    Originally they were just a legal device for protecting investors from losses beyond their "limited" stock holdings. That structure is now used for a variety of taxation and legal purposes. The fact that the laws giving effect to those provisions often use the word "person" to describe any and all people and organizations doesn't make corporations an actual "person".

    Let's face it. These people claim that this is all based on their individual personal specific religious beliefs. Until they can demonstrate that the corporation, rather than the people who own it, has an existence, a soul, beyond its formal, paper-based legal structure that could in any way be susceptible to the benefits and consequences - heaven or hell - of the supernatural being in question, they're pushing the boundaries way too far. When has a corporation ever prayed or worshiped or sinned or been "saved" ? The whole idea is nonsense.
    Yes but mostly no. AFAIK, the original idea was as you write, for limited liability. From there to about 130 years ago, the idea gets murky. We have not gotten so far as satires portraying a corporation adopting a baby (The Truman Show, 1998) or corporations becoming countries (Rollerball, 1975), but the process has advanced to having a corporation as a 'person'. And this advance has been matched by legal statutes and precedence, both critical to judicial review. I have worked in courthouses both federal and county with statutes and know of the issues, though usually from a state level. Most people are ill informed to understand how the process works (and doesn't work) or how one county's legal system can be radically different than another system.

    For instance, it is critical to understand that the UK has no single document for a constitution, rather a raft of them. Or Western Europe having the Napoleonic Code, which outside Louisiana is alien to the USA. Or the difference of adversarial system. Understanding these issues make for how other countries do not understand the US one. No other country provides so much lee way for a corporation, for instance. I have even heard (from a newsletter of the subject) that a corporation is legal slavery. You can do pretty much anything you want to that poor corporation. It has no rights.

    The reality is more complex, especially how many board of directors have hijacked the larger companies from the legal share owners and intend to keep it that way. In theory, it is true current corporations provide incredible latitudes of direction. Not sure if that information will help you any to understand the complex subject. I could say that regular, generalist historians researching the subject of how the West has maintained 500 years of nearly steady economic upsurge put 1/3 of the cause as business practices and business laws. Something is being done right.

    I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is as it is. My guess is that there are pluses and minuses to any system and that the advantages/disadvantages show through after being around for a while. For the many who have opposite opinions, apparently the system is in wholesale complete disregard for them (you). Which is the law, a body of rules that can not be changed easily and slowly progresses. The opposite, rule by whim or popularity contest, is explosive and historically counter productive. No one knows all the laws nowadays. But one word of advice, comedy and satire are not the final word, at best a lead in or mere entertainment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Go to hell*, idiot.
    Hell doesn't exist, idiot.
    *Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The whole issue is that corporations don't believe anything.
    Exactly. That's like real estate where the owner can put deed restrictions on the property, such as, the new owner cannot build on it, remove trees, etc. I have never heard of another kind of sales transaction where the previous owner can impose on the new owner's freedoms. You can buy my car, but you can't paint it a different color or drive it more than 20K miles a year.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Go to hell*, idiot.
    Hell doesn't exist, idiot.
    *Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
    Knowing him, he probably meant Harlem.
    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  
     

  36. #35  
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    way to avoid the point Harold. It doesn't have to be the race card <insert group here>
    There's no comparison between what Hobby Lobby does and turning blacks away from a hospital. It's insulting and not worth even answering this.
    Really? Cause I'm pretty sure you're the "slippery Slope" fella.
    It's completely an appropriate comparison, especially given their own inconsistencies with the application of their "faith."


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you believe in private property, or should everything belong to the state, or be controlled by the state?

    Not the topic!!! don't change the subject
    Nope. It is the subject. It's Hobby Lobby's money and they should be able to spend it for what they believe in.
    That is such a ridiculous response. I'm sure even you don't believe it you just posted it to try and save face.
    "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  
     

  37. #36  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    They are not imposing their beliefs on anybody. They just want to be left alone.
    They completely are completely imposing their beliefs on their employees. The government Set forth the rules and they think the rules don't apply to them because of some fairy tale and they are imposing those fairy tale beliefs on their workers with the help of the 5 morons on the bench.
    "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  
     

  38. #37  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post

    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to y[ie]ld,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788

    DO you have any idea what you've written?I pretty much got your first line and then after than you went off on some world class word salad tangent that made no sense... You think the civil rights act was misguided? You clearly don't have enough history or education in your catalog of brain cells.
    I do and did have clear idea of what was written.
    Well, I guess that makes at least one that has an idea of what you wrote

    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Read and pay attention.
    I did


    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    Anyone reading it carefully would not agree to your assessment of the passage.
    Anyone with no problems with their reading comprehension skills would not agree with this.


    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    I called the Civil Rights Act was _not_ misguided (IMO) but did infer it has pretty much served its purpose already (and a likely becoming a negative worth crutch to those it was supposed to help).
    And I said you don't have enough brain cells to understand why you're wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    The cost was an erosion of rights to form one's own larger business, IMO.
    That was/is not the cost

    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    And in case you never realized this, in its natural state business salaries are a kind of willful feudalism.
    No kidding? How profound What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    You owe that time to another, as if a contract deed. If you do not like the conditions, go some where that better accommodates in a gilded cage.
    If hobby Lobby doesn't like the rules set forth they don't have to have a business!

    As far as working some where else, easier said than done. Nobody "chooses" to work for hobby lobby, Wal* Mart, McDonalds, etc. They do so because that's what they can get. Nobody grows up saying "I'm going to work for Hobby Lobby." People surrender into those jobs.


    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post
    That is what we call the free market. From these post and many others, you obviously do not believe in this ideal.
    You just called it feudalism and now you wanna call it free market! even you don't believe the crap you're posting. You have competing markets and calling them the same.
    You know as well as I do, the market isn't free. It's corrupted and lopsided and you're shooting your mouth off to keep it that way.
    "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  
     

  39. #38  
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It didn't take long to play the race card, did it Bill?
    way to avoid the point Harold. It doesn't have to be the race card <insert group here>
    There's no comparison between what Hobby Lobby does and turning blacks away from a hospital. It's insulting and not worth even answering this.
    A group of religious contractors are already asking to be excused from hiring gay people because it's against their religion... you were saying??

    "we don't treat faggots at this hospital. They're an abomination and we don't support sin. Go die on the front steps."
    "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  
     

  40. #39  
    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 RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's insulting and not worth even answering this.
    Not worth answering because you don't want people to know what your answer is.

    It's ok - we know how you feel about black people.
    You can stop trying to hide it.
    Go to hell, idiot.
    Wonderful retort. way to convince us all.
    "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  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I have never heard of another kind of sales transaction where the previous owner can impose on the new owner's freedoms. You can buy my car, but you can't paint it a different color or drive it more than 20K miles a year.
    You've never heard of sales of performance rights, patents, copyrights? Or sales of partnerships, businesses, companies or rights to produce certain items or provide professional or other services where the sale and purchase agreement can stipulate quite a few restrictions on the freedoms the purchaser might have enjoyed had they been the originator of the business/ product/ process/ service.
    "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  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    So do you really mean this?

    Interesting, days after the ruling "a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people." The executive order says that groups receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender.

    Religious conservatives are always saying that they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone, they just don't want "their" taxes to subsidize behavior they consider immoral. But evidently, it doesn't work both ways.

    Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    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
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    So do you really mean this?

    Interesting, days after the ruling "a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people." The executive order says that groups receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender.

    Religious conservatives are always saying that they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone, they just don't want "their" taxes to subsidize behavior they consider immoral. But evidently, it doesn't work both ways.

    Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order
    That's what I was referencing in post #38!!
    "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  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ I am having some issues just understanding what is being said here..
    Understanding you is a leap of faith or stupidity. I do not have or want to see it from your view..
    I am now seeing 'Flaming intolerance's' and see this becoming some sort of name calling banquette
    ( NOTE to moderation team.) maybe a close of thread, before war is declared..
    Some are not able to discuss without loosing perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ I am having some issues just understanding what is being said here..
    Understanding you is a leap of faith or stupidity. I do not have or want to see it from your view..
    I am now seeing 'Flaming intolerance's' and see this becoming some sort of name calling banquette
    ( NOTE to moderation team.) maybe a close of thread, before war is declared..
    Some are not able to discuss without loosing perspective.
    To whom are you referring to?
    "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  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Religious conservatives are always saying that they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone, they just don't want "their" taxes to subsidize behavior they consider immoral. But evidently, it doesn't work both ways.
    Their approach for many decades has been to continuously erode Federal protections of individual right so that States, and now corporations can impose their religious beliefs on individuals.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Religious conservatives are always saying that they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone, they just don't want "their" taxes to subsidize behavior they consider immoral. But evidently, it doesn't work both ways.
    Their approach for many decades has been to continuously erode Federal protections of individual right so that States, and now corporations can impose their religious beliefs on individuals.
    Like
    "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  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I have never heard of another kind of sales transaction where the previous owner can impose on the new owner's freedoms. You can buy my car, but you can't paint it a different color or drive it more than 20K miles a year.
    You've never heard of sales of performance rights, patents, copyrights? Or sales of partnerships, businesses, companies or rights to produce certain items or provide professional or other services where the sale and purchase agreement can stipulate quite a few restrictions on the freedoms the purchaser might have enjoyed had they been the originator of the business/ product/ process/ service.
    Oops! Thanks adelady. I was thinking that people buy land/domiciles because people must live somewhere — the same as in breathing oxygen to survive.

    ###

    Toward the religious side of HL's argument, HL should read the Bible. It seems God provided the forbidden fruit ripe and ready for the taking — no need for an extension ladder or cherry picker.

    I also agree with whoever said the IUD argument was pretty far-fetched.

    In the end it's all far-fetched. How can a corporation have a religion? And how can it press its religion on its employees?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    So do you really mean this?
    Yes.
    Interesting, days after the ruling "a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people." The executive order says that groups receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender.

    Religious conservatives are always saying that they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone, they just don't want "their" taxes to subsidize behavior they consider immoral. But evidently, it doesn't work both ways.

    Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order
    How do you mean "it doesn't work both ways?" Are they asking for subsidies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post

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

    That's what they should have said, because it would be the truth. They should have been required to increase some other aspect of the employees' coverage by an equal amount to what they saved by forgoing the contraception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    The problem is that people can lie and say that any expense "goes against their personal beliefs".
    So what? Who cares why they believe what they believe?
    The question isn't "why do they believe it?". It is "do they really believe it, or are they just claiming to believe it to get out of an expense?"

    I don't care "why". I care "if".

    Think about this. Where are we going to set the boundaries? Shall I form a church that doesn't believe in paying taxes?

    Maybe my church is a group of devout pacifists who refuse to give any money to a government while it is at war, because they don't believe they should be forced to subsidize a war. Perhaps their view of pacifism is such that even paying for a war makes them guilty of murder.

    How would that be different from a chain of stores that doesn't believe in paying for insurance coverage to allow its employees to have an abortion if the employee so chooses.

    Indeed I would have to say the two situations are exactly identical.




    And in this case it is a lie also. Paying to give someone else an option does not go against anyone's religious beliefs, even if you are giving them the option to do something you consider to be a sin.

    What they are really arguing for is not the right to practice their own religion, but rather the right to impede someone else from refusing to practice that religion.
    How are they impeding anybody? People can pay for their own contraceptives, or find a different job.
    Maybe Hobby Lobby should take the money they *would* have spent on the health coverage, then, and pay it to the employees directly as a bonus?

    Finding a different job probably isn't an overly realistic expectation. Nobody works an unskilled minimum wage job if they can do better.

    They want to be able to deny pregnant employees the option to abort a baby, rather than carry it to term.

    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    They are not imposing their beliefs on anybody. They just want to be left alone.
    You mean they just want to not pay their employees.

    And their real concern appears to be a perception that the government is intruding any time it sets any standards on how employees are to be paid at all. Really the religion part is just a red herring. Totally irrelevant to conservatives' real reasons for being upset, but a good way to (rather dishonestly) stir up peoples' emotions.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post

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

    That's what they should have said, because it would be the truth. They should have been required to increase some other aspect of the employees' coverage by an equal amount to what they saved by forgoing the contraception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    The problem is that people can lie and say that any expense "goes against their personal beliefs".
    So what? Who cares why they believe what they believe?
    The question isn't "why do they believe it?". It is "do they really believe it, or are they just claiming to believe it to get out of an expense?"

    I don't care "why". I care "if".
    What are you, the thought police?
    Think about this. Where are we going to set the boundaries? Shall I form a church that doesn't believe in paying taxes?

    Maybe my church is a group of devout pacifists who refuse to give any money to a government while it is at war, because they don't believe they should be forced to subsidize a war. Perhaps their view of pacifism is such that even paying for a war makes them guilty of murder.

    How would that be different from a chain of stores that doesn't believe in paying for insurance coverage to allow its employees to have an abortion if the employee so chooses.

    Indeed I would have to say the two situations are exactly identical.

    This is the problem when the government gets its fingers into things they don't belong in. Everybody is forced into the same box and has to conform. The government does have to get involved in wars, so it's a necessary evil to force people to subsidize wars.

    And in this case it is a lie also. Paying to give someone else an option does not go against anyone's religious beliefs, even if you are giving them the option to do something you consider to be a sin.

    What they are really arguing for is not the right to practice their own religion, but rather the right to impede someone else from refusing to practice that religion.
    How are they impeding anybody? People can pay for their own contraceptives, or find a different job.
    Maybe Hobby Lobby should take the money they *would* have spent on the health coverage, then, and pay it to the employees directly as a bonus?

    Finding a different job probably isn't an overly realistic expectation. Nobody works an unskilled minimum wage job if they can do better.

    They want to be able to deny pregnant employees the option to abort a baby, rather than carry it to term.

    What they're really saying is not "My religious beliefs are being imposed upon".

    What they are saying is "I feel that my religious beliefs are being imposed upon if I am not allowed to impose my religious beliefs on someone else."
    They are not imposing their beliefs on anybody. They just want to be left alone.
    You mean they just want to not pay their employees.

    And their real concern appears to be a perception that the government is intruding any time it sets any standards on how employees are to be paid at all. Really the religion part is just a red herring. Totally irrelevant to conservatives' real reasons for being upset, but a good way to (rather dishonestly) stir up peoples' emotions.
    The difference is there is actually an amendment to the constitution that allows people to freely exercise their religion. The other stuff is covered by the 10th amendment, but nobody pays any attention to that any more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The difference is there is actually an amendment to the constitution that allows people to freely exercise their religion.
    It will be interesting to see what happens when a company decides to implement Sharia Law in their employee healthcare program.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The difference is there is actually an amendment to the constitution that allows people to freely exercise their religion.
    It will be interesting to see what happens when a company decides to implement Sharia Law in their employee healthcare program.
    Give me an example of how they would implement Sharia law in their health care program.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    They won't cover birth control, but will cover stoning to death.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Give me an example of how they would implement Sharia law in their health care program.
    Easy. There is no guaranteed return and therefore is considered a form of gambling which is strictly forbidden by Sharia law. The same reasoning also applied to all forms of State mandatory insurance such as used by many states for driving, owning a business etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Give me an example of how they would implement Sharia law in their health care program.
    Easy. There is no guaranteed return and therefore is considered a form of gambling which is strictly forbidden by Sharia law. The same reasoning also applied to all forms of State mandatory insurance such as used by many states for driving, owning a business etc.
    I'd be fine with that, as long as they used the money saved on employee health insurance to increase salary. Then if the salary increase was enough to buy my own health insurance policy, I'd do that, and if not, I'd look for another job. Freedom - it works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Give me an example of how they would implement Sharia law in their health care program.
    No healthcare for women unless they wear a hijab. No healthcare for any homosexual-related diseases (AIDS, HIV, syphilis etc.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The question isn't "why do they believe it?". It is "do they really believe it, or are they just claiming to believe it to get out of an expense?"

    I don't care "why". I care "if".
    What are you, the thought police?
    They're committing fraud if their belief system doesn't explicitly forbid them from paying into a health insurance plan that includes the option to abort a child. If it's not a sin, but merely distasteful to them, then they've got no case. Fraud is lying for financial gain. It doesn't really matter what you're lying about.

    If determining whether someone is lying requires "thought police" then I suppose all the people who have ever been convicted of fraud must be let go. How are we to know they didn't sincerely believe the things they said?


    Think about this. Where are we going to set the boundaries? Shall I form a church that doesn't believe in paying taxes?

    Maybe my church is a group of devout pacifists who refuse to give any money to a government while it is at war, because they don't believe they should be forced to subsidize a war. Perhaps their view of pacifism is such that even paying for a war makes them guilty of murder.

    How would that be different from a chain of stores that doesn't believe in paying for insurance coverage to allow its employees to have an abortion if the employee so chooses.

    Indeed I would have to say the two situations are exactly identical.

    This is the problem when the government gets its fingers into things they don't belong in. Everybody is forced into the same box and has to conform. The government does have to get involved in wars, so it's a necessary evil to force people to subsidize wars.
    You think the government never gets involved in a war if it doesn't have to?

    And their real concern appears to be a perception that the government is intruding any time it sets any standards on how employees are to be paid at all. Really the religion part is just a red herring. Totally irrelevant to conservatives' real reasons for being upset, but a good way to (rather dishonestly) stir up peoples' emotions.
    The difference is there is actually an amendment to the constitution that allows people to freely exercise their religion. The other stuff is covered by the 10th amendment, but nobody pays any attention to that any more.
    Free exercise of religion has already been tested many times by more severe tests.

    Think about all the "conscientious objectors" in the various wars of the 20th century who claimed that their religious views exempted from being drafted into military service. In extreme cases, like Amish people, the government was willing to acquiesce. Their belief system very clearly forbade them to do anything along the lines of holding a gun and shooting someone else. But mainstream Christians who merely argued on the basis of their own interpretation of the Bible - they didn't get exempted.

    On what basis would you change the standard in this case? Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?

    If you want to invoke the constitution, then fine. But keep your application of it consistent with what has been done in the past. A claim of belief has never been a free license to just plain flaunt the law, or ignore obligations placed by the state.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    So do you really mean this?
    Yes.
    Interesting, days after the ruling "a group of religious leaders sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that he exempt them from a forthcoming executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people." The executive order says that groups receiving federal funding cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender.

    Religious conservatives are always saying that they aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone, they just don't want "their" taxes to subsidize behavior they consider immoral. But evidently, it doesn't work both ways.

    Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order
    How do you mean "it doesn't work both ways?" Are they asking for subsidies?
    They are asking that anyone who contracts with the government or receives funding to be exempt from anti discrimination laws if the discrimination is based on a religious conviction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman jjmckane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The 5-4 ruling and narrow scope indicates how much our individual freedoms have eroded. They are hanging by a thread. No one should be forced to support something that goes against their personal convictions, whether they are based on religion or anything else.
    So do you really mean this?
    Probably he does, because so do I. Wonder how long this thread will last without being locked. We are discussing some pretty contentious issues.


    Actually, it is more like myself being amused by the scenery. For example, pornography that would land you in years of prison [especially if mailed] is now available at the 7-11 24/7. But then lighting up a cigarette was normally the sociable thing, and sissy to not do for a guy. Now it is ostracism if not punishable by law. Contraception was legally banned in the US and many other Western countries within the lifetimes of quite a few people alive as we discuss this issue. Margaret Sanger got a jail term.

    Times change, people change, but, most importantly in the half century, technology allows us to change. Those who do not believe technology (and the scientific method behind it) allows us such luxuries are pretty much ignoring reality, IMO.

    Getting back to Hobby Lobby:

    snopes.com: Hobby Lobby Lawsuit Against Emergency Contraceptives Mandate

    They believe what they believe. I believe in having a wide assortment of people in business, to have them compete. The interesting thing is they have already spent far more in legal bills than would be spent for dozens if not hundreds of years in the future.


    As the above article states, they believe certain ones of the birth control are abortion, which is understandable because they probably are. No, I do not believe against abortion, in part because of the Freakonomics type research and that people have been engaging in infanticide for thousands of years. But I understand what is happening to society and wonder at forcing people to bow to the will of the government, especially religious people. Now companies are being forced to provide it whether or not it violates their strong religious beliefs. For all my enjoyment of the Spaghetti Monster Religion, extremely few if any really believe in the lampoon. Not so on established religion. They have been tested many times and will do so again in the future, despite the penalties against doing so. I find religion not to be the threat it is made out to be in the present day western countries. In fact, it is in retreat. UK now imports its priests from Western Africa and has done so for some time.

    And despite direct talk to the contrary, these types of laws, regulations, presidential orders, and judicial activism would not have happened 60 years ago. Instead we had different powers that were, some useful, others harsh. Each era has its own illogical stance as promise of advancement for our humanity. I am not a fan of judicial activism or presidential decrees (executive orders) in most cases, however.

    Again, the issue is forcing people to support murder, for a maximum of a few dollars of birth control. Biologically, it is a fact that life begins at contraception. It is understandable that some religions and religious people feel so strongly as to take steps to prevent supporting it directly. The question is where do people draw the line. I researched revolutionary families two years ago that lost everything because of not willing to pay taxes for any war circa 1779. It happened, and I do not have any answers. However, for reasons of numbers of adherents, conviction, and guilt of state excesses, we have become more lenient until the pendulum has started to move the other way in the last 40 years. You are not going to tell most of these people 'get with the program' to achieve results. It has happened time and time in history of religion and religious people that they persist. So what? They are far more important than you think, maybe mostly in the past but also in the future. IIRC, most of the oldest surviving universities and hospitals in Asia were founded by missionaries, for example.

    If the recipients want the birth control so badly, have them or their friends buy it. We are talking about a dozen dollars a month, IIRC. Few companies will follow Hobby Lobby for the obvious reasons to risk being ostracized, bad publicity, and little reward. It was not easy for most guys to avoid military conscription by religious conviction in the 1950's, unless your congregation followed strict guidelines. I mention because we are likely to see that level of oversight in the case exeption, if any allowed.

    And in the case of Georgetown University, a Catholic church founded and run organization, the oldest Jesuit one in the US actually, was being asked by Fluke in the speech to Congressional Democrats to support birth control. Interesting. Why not pass a law to have them to tattoo 666 on all priest's necks? And the media made Fluke look like pure Joan of Arc, as well as giving her fame and a base of favorable spin. Asking Hobby Lobby to finance abortion is getting directly into the gray area, pure and simple.

    With all due respect, Diane, it certainly seems that way to me, of Harold having a point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Biologically, it is a fact that life begins at con-ception.
    Wrong. Life is continuous. The gametes that can combine in fertilisation are themselves alive.

    If you really meant to say that a life begins at conception, you're also wrong.

    Fertilisation is one step in the process that can lead to one , or two, or three or even more individual foetuses if the original zygote or embryo splits. Or if there are two or more individual zygotes produced, they can absorb or combine with each other resulting in foetuses that are mosaics - and there's more than one way for that to happen/ show up as well.

    The best way to put it is that fertilisation is a necessary process in beginning a pregnancy, but it's not sufficient to determine the nature or number of the foetuses that result nor that any foetus is viable.

    Nor does fertilisation determine that the pregnancy itself is viable. About half of all zygotes disappear as miscarriages and most of those occur before the woman even realises that the pregnancy has begun. A perfectly healthy normal zygote that becomes an ectopic pregnancy is never going to produce a live birth, but it will produce a dead woman if no medical or surgical treatment intervenes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Biologically, it is a fact that life begins at con-ception.
    Wrong. Life is continuous. The gametes that can combine in fertilisation are themselves alive.

    If you really meant to say that a life begins at conception, you're also wrong.

    Fertilisation is one step in the process that can lead to one , or two, or three or even more individual foetuses if the original zygote or embryo splits. Or if there are two or more individual zygotes produced, they can absorb or combine with each other resulting in foetuses that are mosaics - and there's more than one way for that to happen/ show up as well.

    The best way to put it is that fertilisation is a necessary process in beginning a pregnancy, but it's not sufficient to determine the nature or number of the foetuses that result nor that any foetus is viable.

    Nor does fertilisation determine that the pregnancy itself is viable. About half of all zygotes disappear as miscarriages and most of those occur before the woman even realises that the pregnancy has begun. A perfectly healthy normal zygote that becomes an ectopic pregnancy is never going to produce a live birth, but it will produce a dead woman if no medical or surgical treatment intervenes.
    Beat me to it. And much more eloquently responded than I would have, I might add.
    If you follow their "rational" they're barely on topic.
    "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  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post

    Getting back to Hobby Lobby:

    snopes.com: Hobby Lobby Lawsuit Against Emergency Contraceptives Mandate

    They believe what they believe. I believe in having a wide assortment of people in business, to have them compete. The interesting thing is they have already spent far more in legal bills than would be spent for dozens if not hundreds of years in the future.
    They'll make it back in publicity.





    Again, the issue is forcing people to support murder, for a maximum of a few dollars of birth control.
    But.... paying taxes when your nation is an apparently unnecessary war isn't supporting murder?


    If the recipients want the birth control so badly, have them or their friends buy it. We are talking about a dozen dollars a month, IIRC. Few companies will follow Hobby Lobby for the obvious reasons to risk being ostracized, bad publicity, and little reward. It was not easy for most guys to avoid military conscription by religious conviction in the 1950's, unless your congregation followed strict guidelines. I mention because we are likely to see that level of oversight in the case exeption, if any allowed.
    When you consider who their customer base is, there is virtually zero chance that they caused them self any negative social repercussions. It's a store that sells primarily to Christian clients - most of whom will whole heartedly agree with what they've done.

    It's just a big circus, and it should be obvious what Hobby Lobby is trying to achieve.



    And in the case of Georgetown University, a Catholic church founded and run organization, the oldest Jesuit one in the US actually, was being asked by Fluke in the speech to Congressional Democrats to support birth control. Interesting. Why not pass a law to have them to tattoo 666 on all priest's necks? And the media made Fluke look like pure Joan of Arc, as well as giving her fame and a base of favorable spin. Asking Hobby Lobby to finance abortion is getting directly into the gray area, pure and simple.

    With all due respect, Diane, it certainly seems that way to me, of Harold having a point.
    You know what is even more of a gray area? Letting businesses owned by religious people decide what level of health care coverage is or is not acceptable for their employees. That's really gray.

    What will you do if these guys decide to open a business?

    Followers of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Here is a Christian sect, members of which have been put on trial multiple times for refusing to allow their children to receive medical treatment of any kind, because of a belief that only faith healing is righteous. In a few cases they've actually allowed their own children to die.

    If one of them owned a business, they might argue that the entirety of health insurance is an abomination to them, and that it infringes on their beliefs to provide health insurance to their employees in any way, shape, or form.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The gametes that can combine in fertilisation are themselves alive.
    ...but not exactly human, otherwise masturbation would be murder on the scale of genocide, right?

    It impresses me that half the genome results in something 15½ magnitudes smaller than an adult.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    ...but not exactly human, otherwise masturbation would be murder on the scale of genocide, right?
    Well, they're living human cells. (Especially when compared with hair or the part of a toe or finger nail that extends beyond the digit it grows from.)
    "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  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmckane View Post

    Probably he does, because so do I. Wonder how long this thread will last without being locked. We are discussing some pretty contentious issues.


    Actually, it is more like myself being amused by the scenery. For example, pornography that would land you in years of prison [especially if mailed] is now available at the 7-11 24/7. But then lighting up a cigarette was normally the sociable thing, and sissy to not do for a guy. Now it is ostracism if not punishable by law. Contraception was legally banned in the US and many other Western countries within the lifetimes of quite a few people alive as we discuss this issue. Margaret Sanger got a jail term.

    Times change, people change, but, most importantly in the half century, technology allows us to change. Those who do not believe technology (and the scientific method behind it) allows us such luxuries are pretty much ignoring reality, IMO.

    Getting back to Hobby Lobby:

    snopes.com: Hobby Lobby Lawsuit Against Emergency Contraceptives Mandate

    They believe what they believe. I believe in having a wide assortment of people in business, to have them compete. The interesting thing is they have already spent far more in legal bills than would be spent for dozens if not hundreds of years in the future.


    As the above article states, they believe certain ones of the birth control are abortion, which is understandable because they probably are. No, I do not believe against abortion, in part because of the Freakonomics type research and that people have been engaging in infanticide for thousands of years. But I understand what is happening to society and wonder at forcing people to bow to the will of the government, especially religious people. Now companies are being forced to provide it whether or not it violates their strong religious beliefs. For all my enjoyment of the Spaghetti Monster Religion, extremely few if any really believe in the lampoon. Not so on established religion. They have been tested many times and will do so again in the future, despite the penalties against doing so. I find religion not to be the threat it is made out to be in the present day western countries. In fact, it is in retreat. UK now imports its priests from Western Africa and has done so for some time.

    And despite direct talk to the contrary, these types of laws, regulations, presidential orders, and judicial activism would not have happened 60 years ago. Instead we had different powers that were, some useful, others harsh. Each era has its own illogical stance as promise of advancement for our humanity. I am not a fan of judicial activism or presidential decrees (executive orders) in most cases, however.

    Again, the issue is forcing people to support murder, for a maximum of a few dollars of birth control. Biologically, it is a fact that life begins at contraception. It is understandable that some religions and religious people feel so strongly as to take steps to prevent supporting it directly. The question is where do people draw the line. I researched revolutionary families two years ago that lost everything because of not willing to pay taxes for any war circa 1779. It happened, and I do not have any answers. However, for reasons of numbers of adherents, conviction, and guilt of state excesses, we have become more lenient until the pendulum has started to move the other way in the last 40 years. You are not going to tell most of these people 'get with the program' to achieve results. It has happened time and time in history of religion and religious people that they persist. So what? They are far more important than you think, maybe mostly in the past but also in the future. IIRC, most of the oldest surviving universities and hospitals in Asia were founded by missionaries, for example.

    If the recipients want the birth control so badly, have them or their friends buy it. We are talking about a dozen dollars a month, IIRC. Few companies will follow Hobby Lobby for the obvious reasons to risk being ostracized, bad publicity, and little reward. It was not easy for most guys to avoid military conscription by religious conviction in the 1950's, unless your congregation followed strict guidelines. I mention because we are likely to see that level of oversight in the case exeption, if any allowed.

    And in the case of Georgetown University, a Catholic church founded and run organization, the oldest Jesuit one in the US actually, was being asked by Fluke in the speech to Congressional Democrats to support birth control. Interesting. Why not pass a law to have them to tattoo 666 on all priest's necks? And the media made Fluke look like pure Joan of Arc, as well as giving her fame and a base of favorable spin. Asking Hobby Lobby to finance abortion is getting directly into the gray area, pure and simple.

    With all due respect, Diane, it certainly seems that way to me, of Harold having a point.
    I actually agree with a lot of what you've said, and I don't think you can strong arm a business into providing a benefit it doesn't want to, whether it's for a religious reason, or as I mentioned earlier, they are just really cheap. But to me the devil is in the details and it does matter if they actively prevented the health insurance company from including a benefit that otherwise would have been available to payers at that rate. You either provide the package as is, or you don't, and they shouldn't be able to interfere with that transaction, anymore than they can tell employees that they can't spend their wages in Vegas. And the health care package you provide one employee has to be comparable to another's.

    I must admit, I'm more inclined to sympathize with the conservative position when those objections are described in the manner you have above. But then I turn on FOX news, and immediately become cynical, as the Fox propaganda machine equates birth control entirely with young, single, spoiled, female, liberal, promiscuous and otherwise debauched "Beyonce voters" and then this issue strikes me as simply snarky ammunition for an attack on certain "kinds" of people. Despite the fact that almost all married women rely on birth control! Do you see many families any more with 8 or 12 children? Gosh, why not??? Not even politically conservative or religious ones! It's wildy hypocritical, legal or not.
    Last edited by DianeG; July 4th, 2014 at 09:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Hobby Lobby starts its full time employees at 14.00 per hour, that's about the best I've ever seen.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Well, it does raise another interesting philosophical debate - how many links can the chain of moral responsibility have before it's unreasonable or just plain silly?

    If someone gives me a gift certificate to a restaurant that uses Chinese garlic in the pasta, and China has violated human rights, am I complicit, or condoning, human rights abuses if I use it? What if I order fish? (As ridiculous as this sounds, when I waitressed, someone ask me where our garlic came from for exactly that reason.) Is my friend who gave it to me guilty as well?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Well, it does raise another interesting philosophical debate - how many links can the chain of moral responsibility have before it's unreasonable or just plain silly?

    If someone gives me a gift certificate to a restaurant that uses Chinese garlic in the pasta, and China has violated human rights, am I complicit, or condoning, human rights abuses if I use it? What if I order fish? (As ridiculous as this sounds, when I waitressed, someone ask me where our garlic came from for exactly that reason.) Is my friend who gave it to me guilty as well?
    If you want to feel guilty about it, then feel guilty. I don't care. What point are you trying to make? Does everybody have to think the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    I don't think you can strong arm a business into providing a benefit it doesn't want to,
    Of course you can, or rather "We the People" can and do through numerous standards for everything from work place safety, pay, safety of its products, environmental regulations, how it does legal business and contracts, benefits--in this case including basic health care.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What point are you trying to make?
    I wouldn't worry your little head about it.
    It's a tiny bit technical - so it will take ages to explain it to you.
    Best if you go back to your colouring books.
    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  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What point are you trying to make?
    I wouldn't worry your little head about it.
    It's a tiny bit technical - so it will take ages to explain it to you.
    Best if you go back to your colouring books.
    Get lost. No one asked for your opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What point are you trying to make?
    I wouldn't worry your little head about it.
    It's a tiny bit technical - so it will take ages to explain it to you.
    Best if you go back to your colouring books.
    I like you Panda, but that's too far.

    Edit: Nevermind, he deserved it. Though you are both way out of line.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    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 jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Nothing happened to freedom of religion, but you don't get to impose your ideals from that religion onto others.
    "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  
     

  77. #76  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What point are you trying to make?
    It would appear, one about consistency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Does everybody have to think the same?
    No, but finding a compromise where everyone is satisfied or dissatisfied would be great.
    "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  
     

  78. #77  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What point are you trying to make?
    I wouldn't worry your little head about it.
    It's a tiny bit technical - so it will take ages to explain it to you.
    Best if you go back to your colouring books.
    I like you Panda, but that's too far.

    Edit: Nevermind, he deserved it. Though you are both way out of line.
    Some times the truth hurts, therefore Panda is not out of line.
    "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  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Well, it does raise another interesting philosophical debate - how many links can the chain of moral responsibility have before it's unreasonable or just plain silly?

    If someone gives me a gift certificate to a restaurant that uses Chinese garlic in the pasta, and China has violated human rights, am I complicit, or condoning, human rights abuses if I use it? What if I order fish? (As ridiculous as this sounds, when I waitressed, someone ask me where our garlic came from for exactly that reason.) Is my friend who gave it to me guilty as well?
    If you want to feel guilty about it, then feel guilty. I don't care. What point are you trying to make? Does everybody have to think the same?
    Well, maybe you don't care, but the point was, these issues are not black and white, either/or. Eventually the concept of "reasonableness" comes into play when responsibility or culpability is diluted or shared. Can Hobby Lobby say they do not want to be morally responsible for the non-implantation of a fertilized egg, or prevention of fertilization, if they offer a insurance plan that, among many other things, includes contraception, which their employees or their spouses or their dependent children may or may not decide to take advantage of. How many links in the chain is reasonable to claim that I, or Hobby Lobby, caused some particular event? Even though government taxes support everything from the Smithsonian to highways, how reasonable is it for some one to say "I'm not paying them, or I should be able to deduct a certain percentage, because I disagree with the government's policy in Iraq or welfare or stem cell research or fracking."
    Last edited by DianeG; July 4th, 2014 at 03:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Get lost. No one asked for your opinion.
    I didn't ask for your opinion either, so why don't you follow your own advice.
    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  
     

  81. #80  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Considering Harold stated "Go to hell, idiot." Prior to Redpanda's comment, I don't see proper reason to only suspend one of them.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Considering Harold stated "Go to hell, idiot." Prior to Redpanda's comment, I don't see proper reason to only suspend one of them.
    Harold might be an uninformed jerk, but he does wield some power around here as an admin/mod Which is probably why only one person was suspended in their exchange.
    Rules only apply to other people when you're conservative.
    "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  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    The burden of evidence is on them to prove that their religion has zero flexibility on the issue. That's a burden that has always been applied to similar cases in the past.

    Just like the "conscientious objectors" who attempted to use religion to dodge the draft. A person's personal belief is not an adequate basis. They must be able to show that their religion formally holds the belief, and that it is a very strong position.

    An Amish person would certainly be willing to choose prison over military combat. How likely do you think Hobby Lobby's owners would be to choose prison over paying into a health plan that covers abortions?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    The burden of evidence is on them to prove that their religion has zero flexibility on the issue. That's a burden that has always been applied to similar cases in the past.

    Just like the "conscientious objectors" who attempted to use religion to dodge the draft. A person's personal belief is not an adequate basis. They must be able to show that their religion formally holds the belief, and that it is a very strong position.

    An Amish person would certainly be willing to choose prison over military combat. How likely do you think Hobby Lobby's owners would be to choose prison over paying into a health plan that covers abortions?
    You are comparing the need for a military draft to the need to provide women free contraception pills, which to me is preposterous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    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 kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    The burden of evidence is on them to prove that their religion has zero flexibility on the issue. That's a burden that has always been applied to similar cases in the past.

    Just like the "conscientious objectors" who attempted to use religion to dodge the draft. A person's personal belief is not an adequate basis. They must be able to show that their religion formally holds the belief, and that it is a very strong position.

    An Amish person would certainly be willing to choose prison over military combat. How likely do you think Hobby Lobby's owners would be to choose prison over paying into a health plan that covers abortions?
    You are comparing the need for a military draft to the need to provide women free contraception pills, which to me is preposterous.
    The points are the same
    "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  
     

  86. #85  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    The burden of evidence is on them to prove that their religion has zero flexibility on the issue. That's a burden that has always been applied to similar cases in the past.

    Just like the "conscientious objectors" who attempted to use religion to dodge the draft. A person's personal belief is not an adequate basis. They must be able to show that their religion formally holds the belief, and that it is a very strong position.

    An Amish person would certainly be willing to choose prison over military combat. How likely do you think Hobby Lobby's owners would be to choose prison over paying into a health plan that covers abortions?
    You are comparing the need for a military draft to the need to provide women free contraception pills, which to me is preposterous.

    I'm comparing respect for the law with respect for the law.

    However "need" is a matter of perspective. Perhaps the employee mightview contraception as a "need", because it helps them plan their family effectively.

    On the other hand perhaps the employer's faith says that contraception is not a "need". But who made them the authority? Is it their job to decide what is best for their employees? Is it their place to decide what is and is not a "need"?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I also don't see how Hobby Lobby feels that "their money" is being used to pay for contraception. It seems to me that, if I'm an employee, and my employer is paying for my health insurance, the money going to my health insurance is part of my pay package. And..... that makes it my money. Not their money.

    What are they complaining about?

    The moment I earned it, it became my money and my employer ceased to have any business saying where it goes or what it does.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    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.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 6th, 2014 at 11:24 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm comparing respect for the law with respect for the law.

    However "need" is a matter of perspective. Perhaps the employee mightview contraception as a "need", because it helps them plan their family effectively.

    On the other hand perhaps the employer's faith says that contraception is not a "need". But who made them the authority? Is it their job to decide what is best for their employees? Is it their place to decide what is and is not a "need"?
    I think this is a good point.

    My wife's company tells her she can't utilize the birth control aspect of her insurance plan. That's apparently fine.

    If they were a Jewish company and told us we could only buy kosher hot dogs with our earnings, is that fine?
    "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  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm comparing respect for the law with respect for the law.

    However "need" is a matter of perspective. Perhaps the employee mightview contraception as a "need", because it helps them plan their family effectively.

    On the other hand perhaps the employer's faith says that contraception is not a "need". But who made them the authority? Is it their job to decide what is best for their employees? Is it their place to decide what is and is not a "need"?
    I think this is a good point.

    My wife's company tells her she can't utilize the birth control aspect of her insurance plan. That's apparently fine.

    If they were a Jewish company and told us we could only buy kosher hot dogs with our earnings, is that fine?
    If they were paying you in hot dogs, they'd probably pay you in kosher hot dogs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    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 Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm comparing respect for the law with respect for the law.

    However "need" is a matter of perspective. Perhaps the employee mightview contraception as a "need", because it helps them plan their family effectively.

    On the other hand perhaps the employer's faith says that contraception is not a "need". But who made them the authority? Is it their job to decide what is best for their employees? Is it their place to decide what is and is not a "need"?
    I think this is a good point.

    My wife's company tells her she can't utilize the birth control aspect of her insurance plan. That's apparently fine.

    If they were a Jewish company and told us we could only buy kosher hot dogs with our earnings, is that fine?
    If they were paying you in hot dogs, they'd probably pay you in kosher hot dogs.
    Non sequitur.
    "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  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Indeed.. A very good question. What happened to freedom of religion in a ruling that forces employees to adhere to the dictates of the religious beliefs of the company's owners. There is a reason why there is no State sanctioned religion. Not only would it force everyone into a particular religious belief or force them to adhere to its rules, but it would also curtail the freedoms of the populace, it would infringe on the religious freedoms of the people. So I cannot understand how and why a company is now allowed to force the religious doctrines of its owners down the throats of its female employees.

    Gays are next.

    Fourteen faith leaders, including many who have been allies of the administration, are urging the president to include a religious exemption in his upcoming executive order that will ban federal contractors from employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

    It is not known whether or not the executive order will include such an exemption, but the faith leaders did not wait to find out. Michael Wear, who organized the letter and worked in the Obama White House, told Molly Ball of The Atlantic that it was “not an antagonistic letter by any means,” but that the Hobby Lobby decision means the administration has “a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues.”

    Hobby Lobby likely has no immediate policy implication on Obama’s forthcoming executive order, as it concerned closely held for-profit corporations with religious owners. The authors of the letter pointed to a broad religious exemption in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act pending in Congress, which would apply to all employers, not just federal contractors, and exempt groups such as churches, religious-service groups, and religious newspapers. LGBT advocates fear that such an exemption could provide a license to discriminate.

    Citing 'Hobby Lobby,' Religious Groups Ask Obama for LGBT Exemptions

    Do you think this is acceptable?

    Or is "freedom" now classified as companies being free to discriminate against people because of their gender and/or sexuality on religious grounds?

    It's funny really. The stance of the Catholic Church on contraception has always been joked about, because it belongs in the dark ages. It's a shame that your Supreme Court voting along party lines supports a policy that also belongs in the dark ages. The ruling discriminates against women because it creates a special and different class for them, based solely on the religious doctrines and beliefs of the company's owners. Party lines dictates that if women want to have sex, then they should be paying the price themselves (especially after the display put on by Republicans at the all male dominated panel for the contraception hearings), and the Supreme Court ruled along party lines. If men want to have sex, that is fine. And Hobby Lobby has no qualms about paying for them to be able to do so, as a result, drugs like Viagra are still covered. But women who are sexually active? Special class. After all, allowing them to be able to make decisions about when they reproduce goes against the Conservative view of women and she becomes the "slut and whore" if she is sexually active, so why should good religious men have to pay for women to be sluts and whores?

    You shouldn't be cheering about this ruling Harold. It's an international embarrassment. You'd expect it in Sudan or Yemen. Not in the US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    So, if somebody does not buy you your birth control pills, that infringes on your freedom? How so? And how does it discriminate against women? Men are part of the reproduction process aren't they.

    Like I said before, if people bought their own health insurance, there wouldn't be any problem whatsoever. Nobody would have their freedoms or religious beliefs infringed upon at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, if somebody does not buy you your birth control pills, that infringes on your freedom? How so? And how does it discriminate against women? Men are part of the reproduction process aren't they.
    The simple answer is yes, only about half take it for reproduction; many others for medical reasons like my wife and I did for decades (she is a carrier of a muscular dystrophy--something we learned after having our first child; my son dodged the bullet thankfully). For impoverished families its quite expensive between the medical appointment and the method--enough the many put themselves at further risk by not getting appropriate checkups.

    Like I said before, if people bought their own health insurance, there wouldn't be any problem whatsoever. Nobody would have their freedoms or religious beliefs infringed upon at all.
    No one has been.... before this case the corporation was a "nobody" only a legal entity established for contracts and to protect owners from corporate liabilities. The Courts have washed aways centuries of law.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, if somebody does not buy you your birth control pills, that infringes on your freedom? How so? And how does it discriminate against women? Men are part of the reproduction process aren't they.

    Like I said before, if people bought their own health insurance, there wouldn't be any problem whatsoever. Nobody would have their freedoms or religious beliefs infringed upon at all.
    I always thought the reason why people got their insurance through employers in the States was that a larger group of people got a better rate because of pooled risk. But if not, why don't companies just do what you've suggested? "This is your medical spending account. It has x number of dollars sufficient to cover plan A from Blue Cross or Kaiser or whomever. If you want the more deluxe plan, the additional amount is out of pocket. If you want the cheaper plan with the higher deductible, keep what's left."

    (One might ask, why force anyone to use any part of their wages on health insurance? Well, for the same reasons we force people to have car liability insurance. Or force people to have taxes withheld from each pay check.)

    When you think about it, there's really no essential difference between providing group health insurance, or paying wages to be used for health insurance - Hobby Lobby just wants to make a political and religious statement.
    Last edited by DianeG; July 6th, 2014 at 09:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    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
    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.
    Employees are paid in money. Money is not earmarked as religious.
    "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  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So, if somebody does not buy you your birth control pills, that infringes on your freedom?
    The female workers are working for their health insurance. It is a part of their salary package. Why should the religious beliefs of the owners of the company infringe upon the rights of their female employees?

    The other ridiculous part of your argument stems from the fact that you support a decision that finds it perfectly acceptable to provide male employees with the medication that allows them to have sex, but not for women. And I am not even touching on the fact that for many many women, the use of birth control is not to allow them to have sex, but also for a variety of medical reasons. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court threw science out the window and misrepresented and misinterpreted what many of the birth control measures they allowed Hobby Lobby and now all such organisations to deny women access through their insurance. No, an IUD does not cause abortions. Yet they held that it did. It was astoundingly stupid and sexist in the extreme. Your very argument mirrors that of Limbaugh. Those women are working and should be given the exact same rights as others. Their constitutional rights of religious freedoms have been flung to the far horizon because conservative men have issues with women having sex for non-procreational reasons. And that is at the heart of this very political ruling.

    How so? And how does it discriminate against women? Men are part of the reproduction process aren't they.
    Wait a minute. You think that birth control is solely used for reproduction?

    How does denying women access to contraception via their insurance, the insurance that is a part of their salary package, discriminate against women? You actually asked that question? I actually sort of feel sorry and embarrassed for you. And just so you know, men's access to medications that allow them to have sex remains covered.

    Like I said before, if people bought their own health insurance, there wouldn't be any problem whatsoever. Nobody would have their freedoms or religious beliefs infringed upon at all.
    Are you so naive that you think if people bought their own health insurance, then there wouldn't be a problem?

    This ruling is so broad that it will also allow insurance companies to do the same.. If it goes against the religious beliefs of the owners, they can withhold it.. This ruling has now allowed companies, including insurance providers, to impose their religious beliefs on others. And next will be gays. Because a court ruling on religious party lines has just ensured that discrimination is now legal and acceptable because their religion dictates it is so. It should be a comfort to you that Iranian women in Iran, have better access to birth control than women in the US will now have. Welcome to the dark ages. Might as well just set fire to your Constitution while you're at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly providing the option to abort a child to an employee doesn't make the employer culpable before god should the employee later choose to make use of the coverage. So in what manner are the owners of Hobby Lobby being made to commit a "sin"?
    Exactly, the "sin" complaint is completely bogus.
    Now you are going to interpret their religion for them, and tell them what to believe? What happened to freedom of religion?
    Employers are free to practice their religion, I just don't see where it's a sin for a Christian employer to provide their employees with the means by which they could sin, and I don't see where HL proved that it's a sin against the employer.

    Probably the most important doctrine of Christianity is that everyone is responsible for their own sins and no one else's sins. So, if I am an employer, then I'm responsible for only my sins, and each of my employees is responsible for only their individual sins.

    Otherwise, if I pay an employee enough money to buy a fifth of vodka and to get hammered, then I supposedly go to hell for their drunkenness. So, I supposedly should have the right, for example, to pay employees with credit cards that don't allow them, for example, to buy a fifth of vodka. The list of prohibitions is virtually endless, and the idea of being paid wages would be virtually meaningless.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. It is my hobby
    By Gaintor in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2013, 02:09 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, 05:07 PM
  3. Is "Not Stamp Collecting" a Hobby?
    By inow in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2011, 09:35 PM
  4. Hey! Get an Intellectual Hobby
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 13th, 2009, 08:44 AM
  5. A HOBBY FREAK NAMED scientia
    By scientia in forum Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 19th, 2009, 09:55 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
  •