Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[maxpower1227]

From my FB feed:

I called my local Hobby Lobby and asked how much it would be if I need surgery on my knee.

"I don't know, we're not a health care provider."

I then asked if I could come down to their store for confession.

"No! We're not a church."

Exactly!!

My favorite response so far:

"Dear Justice Alito,

I am a Charismatic Christian. Instead of health insurance, I would like to provide my employees with snakes. May I purchase them all gift cards to Reptile World and call it a day?"

 

[Upchurch]

Stepping back from the issue a tad I think this is why I'm not comfortable with form of compensation other then cash.

Cash is neutral. Other forms of compensations are by definition earmarked for specific purposes and carry more... moral weight to them if that makes any sense.

This pay people in money which can be used for anything and then the employers can't act like they are directly supporting something they don't like.

I generally agree with this. Having one's health insurance tied to their employer is a bad idea for anyone, imho.

However, to get away from that system would require one of two things conservatives tend to balk at. It would either require raising wages (including, perhaps, minimum wage) to compensate for the loss of benefits OR it would require finally starting a UHC system.

The latter, again in my opinion, is inevitable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Stepping back from the issue a tad I think this is why I'm not comfortable with form of compensation other then cash.

Cash is neutral. Other forms of compensations are by definition earmarked for specific purposes and carry more... moral weight to them if that makes any sense.

Just pay people in money which can be used for anything and then the employers can't act like they are directly supporting something they don't like.

Mind this isn't a legal opinion, just a... feeling I personally have.

I agree that a simple cash-only reimbursement system makes sense. Health insurance never should have been tied to employers. It only was in the first place as a way to work around stupid wage controls during WW2. Take the employer out of the picture, and this problem never would have existed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hobby Lobby hypocrisy:

Lying - claiming this was about religious views when it was really about the political view that the government shouldn't them what to do.

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

How can the arts and crafts chain espouse Christian values when it imports products from China?

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. [...] We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. [...] But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.

Guess they don't recognize that Commandment about not bearing false witness.

 

[IXP]

I think I will join a religion that is anti-war, start a company, and then assert that I, and all my employees are exempt from the percentage of their income tax that goes to war.

IXP

 

[ehcks]

I guess it's time for a version of UHC where your employer has nothing to do with your health insurance or care.

And increasing wages to compensate, of course.

 

[LTC8K6]

Our friend Mark Arnold, a distinguished appellate attorney, writes that the decision in Hobby Lobby is “all smoke and mirrors” because “the less restrictive alternative that the majority settled on is a certification by Hobby Lobby that it opposes contraceptive coverage, after which the insurance company must provide that coverage for free.” Accordingly, “the premium charged to Hobby Lobby will necessarily include the cost of the free contraception.”

Sounds like much ado about a very narrow decision and some semantics...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/supreme-misery-for-the-left.php

 

[theprestige]

Yea like if you don't want to promote women for religious reasons you don't have to. The bible is clear on women in authority and Damon them for trying to force them to violate their religious beliefs with this BS anti discrimination scrap.

Who's Damon?

Anyway, the ruling and the dissent are both online. Have you read it? I just quoted a small part of the conclusion. There's pages and pages of legal reasoning leading up to that conclusion. There's even more pages of reasoning in support of the dissent. Do you have any particular legal argument in mind, that you would like to discuss or refute?

 

[theprestige]

Anymore, that goes pretty much without saying.

Except for all the 9-0 decisions the court has handed down in the last few years, of course.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What are we debating?

I think it is worth noting all the points that each of us has an opinion on, and have differing opinions on the points.

Should the RFRA apply to a corporation?
Should a strict scrutiny standard apply?
Can a group of people that incorporate have that entity reflect their values?
Do workers have rights in this area when they interact with their employer?

We could probably keep adding to this list. But I think its important to always keep in mind that who you debate with could have a very different opinion on all the elements than you perceive.

 

[The_Animus]

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to give its employees birth control but they are fine with investing in birth control manufacturers because..... values and morals and something...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sounds like much ado about a very narrow decision and some semantics...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/supreme-misery-for-the-left.php

The five center-right Justices

Center right? Puhleese! Alito, Scalia and Thomas are very-far-right justices, calling them center-right is crap and tells you something about the slant of your link.

Ginsburg: SCOTUS Has 'Ventured Into A Minefield' In Birth Control Ruling

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," she wrote. "The Court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."

 

[Neally]

An excellent well reasoned decision IMO.

And the general principle that rights are for employers and not employees.

And what right would that be? The right to demand that an employer pay for something the employee wants?

 

[Cain]

Sotomayer should be ashamed. She's a terrible Catholic.

 

[Upchurch]

Except for all the 9-0 decisions the court has handed down in the last few years, of course.

Those are the ones that need to be pointed out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Employees and Employers are just... people. We can't really have different rights for each of them.

 

[Manopolus]

The worst of it is that it is just a continuation of the "corporations are people" ruling in Citizens United. If it weren't for that obviously completely and unambiguously wrong ruling, then this one wouldn't have had a chance.

Now we just need to figure out some way to put corporations in jail when fines aren't enough. You can't have all the perks of being a "person" while ignoring the penalties. Perhaps a situation where the corporation is run directly by the Federal Government for a period of time under strict non-profit based rules and no shares can be bought or sold or bonuses paid? We'd have to figure out a way to make sure that the "criminal record" hurts them as well, of course.

 

[daredelvis]

Well, you're only denying yourself access to aisles upon aisles of cheap Chinese crap.

The proceeds of which are used to fund abortions in China.

Daredelvis

 

[Upchurch]

Now we just need to figure out some way to put corporations in jail when fines aren't enough. You can't have all the perks of being a "person" while ignoring the penalties. Perhaps a situation where the corporation is run directly by the Federal Government for a period of time under strict non-profit based rules and no shares can be bought or sold or bonuses paid? We'd have to figure out a way to make sure that the "criminal record" hurts them as well, of course.

Or, at the very least, jury duty.

 

[Unabogie]

The worst of it is that it is just a continuation of the "corporations are people" ruling in Citizens United. If it weren't for that obviously completely and unambiguously wrong ruling, then this one wouldn't have had a chance.

Now we just need to figure out some way to put corporations in jail when fines aren't enough. You can't have all the perks of being a "person" while ignoring the penalties. Perhaps a situation where the corporation is run directly by the Federal Government for a period of time under strict non-profit based rules and no shares can be bought or sold or bonuses paid? We'd have to figure out a way to make sure that the "criminal record" hurts them as well, of course.

I'd say that if a corporation is found to be ripping off its customers, say like Bank of America did, then you take the CEO out into the public square and chop his hand off. You know, just to kick start the whole "religious theocracy" thing.