Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Neally]

You can repeat this all you want, but it is, in practice, a lie.

Do explain why it's a lie in practice. I'm all ears.

 

[stevea]

Would you say then it's the corporations right to interfere in other people's access to medication just because of their religious beliefs?

No - I don't think as a matter of principle that employers (whether corporations or individuals) have any place at all in your health care or insurance. It's a stupid situation created by economically ignorant politicians.

Further, Federal government has no business forcing employers to provide insurance of any sort. Read the Constitution sometime; there is no such power ceded to the US Gov. Further it's just plain stupid; it's like requiring your electric company to provide you with lunch meat. There is no necessary relationship between exchanging your labor for wages and requiring your employer to provide insurance.

Further - you are NOT required to get your insurance from your employer. I and a lot of others buy our insurance. (and did so even when employer insurance was available).

The employer has no rational obligation to provide either insurance or bologna sandwiches. By not providing these things the employer is not interfering with your ability to obtain insurance or sandwiches. It's a cost that should be part of the wage negotiation.

 

[Neally]

Corporations vote with dollars and get far more of what they want than the suckers who just use the voting booth.

People with more money get far more of everything they want than others. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. And they get the same constitutional guarantees as everyone else.

 

[The_Animus]

You are distorting the issue - it's not a "special privilege" to practice your religious views in the US. Instead the state needs a compelling reason and no less restrictive alternative to interfere.

Can I refuse birth control to my employees because of a non religious moral objection to them?

If not, why can HL just because their moral objection comes from an invisible sky daddy?

Can I refuse to have my employees pay the portion of their taxes that goes to military spending because of religious moral objection to war and violence?

If not, why is religious moral objection to killing unborn fetuses exempt but religious moral objection to killing in conflicts not?

Oh right, the courts will pick and choose. This ruling brings contradiction and privilege.

 

[stevea]

Now that they've gotten this much, perhaps Hobby Lobby should consider having religious beliefs that paying taxes is immoral.

That would fail the 2 criteria of the RFRA, but thanks for announcing that you haven't considered even the first paragraph of the court's opinion. Why do you think your completely uninformed opinion is of interest ?

 

[Neally]

Did the Supreme Court just decide that corporate profits are more important than the rights of women and the costs to the individual? Yep.

Nope. No women's rights have been lost by the decision.

 

[stevea]

Can I refuse birth control to my employees because of a non religious moral objection to them?

Your question includes a fallacy. Does your employer "refuse" Porches and porn to his employees ? You are presuming the employer owes the employee insurance and that this is the employees only means of obtaining insurance. Begging the question fallacy.

An employer & employee should be free to negotiate whatever contractual terms they mutually agree to (or else none). As a POTENTIAL employer you should have every right to offer whatever terms of employment you choose; and the potential employee should have every right to accept or reject the terms, or try to negotiate others.

If not, why can HL just because their moral objection comes from an invisible sky daddy?

Your precedent fails. Employers should be free to offer whatever terms they choose.

HL is free to exercise their sky-daddy objection b/c the US constitution ensures that government cannot interfere with such beliefs. The HL objection to the religious practice interference is just as valid as a newspaper objecting to a federal law that mandates news content on free speech grounds. The government exceeded it's powers.

Maybe you missed this bit - but we are trying to have a culture that preserves individual liberty (within some light bounds), and promotes free speech and diversity of opinion. So squashing religion unnecessarily is contrary to the interests of even an atheist like me.

Some individuals (not me) sincerely believe that killing an early stage fetus is murder of an innocent. If we can't as a society accommodate people with this not unreasonable belief, then we are far closer to a totalitarian state that only permits one POV than I ever hoped to be.

In practice the US republic does allow infringement but only when there is a compelling need and the implementation is organized to cause minimal infringement. The court ruled the interference to religious practice was not demonstrated to be minimal.

HL employees can work elsewhere, buy other insurance or buy birth control. Framing the argument as "HL is imposing it's will on others" is exactly the opposite of the truth - a massive distortion. HL wants to practice it's corporate culture and is being interfered with by government. The only coercion here is the government coercing HL.

Can I refuse to have my employees pay the portion of their taxes that goes to military spending because of religious moral objection to war and violence?

What exactly is your distorted POV here ? How could YOU as employer refuse to have your EMPLOYEES pay their tax ? The employees are free agents, not slaves that do as the employer wills.

If not, why is religious moral objection to killing unborn fetuses exempt but religious moral objection to killing in conflicts not?

It's not. Many religious groups and ppl with moral objections are exempt from the military (and formerly the draft). Amish and Mennonites are exempt from Social Security. There are lots of exemptions to accommodate differing religious beliefs without massive infringement. Of course fewer exemptions are needed when we have a government that is less overbearing and intrusive.

Oh right, the courts will pick and choose. This ruling brings contradiction and privlege.

If you bothered to read the opinion - even the first 10 pages, you'd see that you are dead-wrong. They are not picking an choosing; they are trying to apply the RFRA criteria carefully. Thanks for playing the "everyone who disagrees with me is awful and stupid" card.

 

[gregthehammer]

I have a tangential question regarding all of this birth control controversy. Is religious objection to birth control a specifically Catholic thing? I grew up in a fairly conservative protestant sect (WELS Lutheran- I believe Michelle Bachman started out as such, fwiw). I had 8 years of church schooling and as far as I remember, there was no prohibition from using birth control. (Of course sex outside of marriage was highly frowned upon, but married couples could do family planning with the various methods of BC.) Doe Catholics believe life starts *before* conception?

As a side question, is there *official* Catholicism and then *actual practice* Catholicism? Based on my own anecdotal evidence, the Catholics I knew were somewhat loose and carefree with their moral code (other than on the days they went to confession). That's why I can't quite make out if the objection to Birth Control is legit, or some cynical game for what end I can't begin to fathom.

 

[Manopolus]

I have a tangential question regarding all of this birth control controversy. Is religious objection to birth control a specifically Catholic thing? I grew up in a fairly conservative protestant sect (WELS Lutheran- I believe Michelle Bachman started out as such, fwiw). I had 8 years of church schooling and as far as I remember, there was no prohibition from using birth control. (Of course sex outside of marriage was highly frowned upon, but married couples could do family planning with the various methods of BC.) Doe Catholics believe life starts *before* conception?

As a side question, is there *official* Catholicism and then *actual practice* Catholicism? Based on my own anecdotal evidence, the Catholics I knew were somewhat loose and carefree with their moral code (other than on the days they went to confession). That's why I can't quite make out if the objection to Birth Control is legit, or some cynical game for what end I can't begin to fathom.

The way I see it, it's nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to maintain majority status by asking their adherents to have more babies (due to no birth control).

I'm not Catholic, however... so I may have a different POV than they do.

 

[gregthehammer]

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I believe birth control should be available cheaply and readily to all that seek it. Instead of burying our heads and the sand and telling women to keep their legs closed, we as a society should face the reality that many people enjoy having sex for other than procreation. It's been that way since, well hell, science has proven even various species other than humans seek out recreational sex, so who knows how long it has been our family line.

So, in my perfect pragmatic world, we would start with comprehensive Sex ed, so that hormone infused teens know what to expect with their new-found desires. Let them know that sex, although pleasurable, can lead to pregnancy, unless a form of birth control is used. But don't stop their, let them know where and what forms of birth control to use. Get rid of the stigma of a boy or girl going to the store to buy some rubbers. Or if other forms of BC are preferable (for medical reasons or otherwise) point them in that direction also.

Maybe then we can cut down on oops! pregnant! which leads us to, abortions. But I am pragmatic and realize there are reasons that an abortion might be preferrable to carrying the baby to term. So we allow abortions at least until the baby is viable and then maybe between abortions and birth control we cut down the amount of unwanted babies born into poverty which then becomes a drain on society. Then maybe we'll have less of those unloved unwanted babies growing up to be self loathing drug addicted criminals clogging up the court and jail system.

Or we can go with the religious right plan of no sex ed, no birth control and *hell* no abortions. But then don't we as a society owe those unwanted unloved babies some sort of monetary support? But maybe this hasn't been thought through quite so far, or maybe the nefarious plot is that the religious right secretly want a permanent underclass of felons and ne'er do-wells, whether to give the RR's a feeling of superiority, or (and I admit this is off the wall conspiracy theory here) more felons for the private prison system!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

People with more money get far more of everything they want than others.

I, for the life of me, can't see how this is any different than the forms of corruption we scoff at in some other nations' governments.

 

[Neally]

I, for the life of me, can't see how this is any different than the forms of corruption we scoff at in some other nations' governments.

So you're saying that having money/getting more stuff = corruption?

 

[Neally]

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I believe birth control should be available cheaply and readily to all that seek it.

Good thing it is.

So, in my perfect pragmatic world, we would start with comprehensive Sex ed, so that hormone infused teens know what to expect with their new-found desires.

Good thing this is in place also.

But then don't we as a society owe those unwanted unloved babies some sort of monetary support?

Nope, but it's there anyway.

But maybe this hasn't been thought through quite so far, or maybe the nefarious plot is that the religious right secretly want a permanent underclass of felons and ne'er do-wells, whether to give the RR's a feeling of superiority, or (and I admit this is off the wall conspiracy theory here) more felons for the private prison system!

If anything the Dems want a lower class since they are all about an ever expanding social support system which pulls the votes from them. Of course though, they support birth control, so these conspiracy theories are bogus.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I've been seeing an article floating around the Internet claiming that Hobby Lobby invests in companies which manufacture abortifactants. What's up with THAT?!

ETA: here's the link... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you're saying that having money/getting more stuff = corruption?

Materially and financially? Not really. Politically? Absolutely.

<sarcasm>Hell, why don't the richer states get more representatives in the Senate? What's up with that equal voice BS, huh?</sarcasm>

Also, reducing influence of elected officials to mere "stuff" is pretty appalling.

 

[Neally]

Materially and financially? Not really. Politically? Absolutely.

Yep. Wealthy people can get more political favors. Again, that doesn't justify limiting their constitutional guaranteed rights though. Thankfully the SCOTUS agreed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yep. Wealthy people can get more political favors. Again, that doesn't justify limiting their constitutional guaranteed rights though.

That's shameful...

 

[ABC10]

I'll admit, I'm disappointed by this.


eta: The ruling, FWIW.

I am delighted, out of 55 plus means of birth control, this decision affects 4.

 

[SezMe]

I'm disgusted too, but primarily by ppl who can't even consider the other side of an issue rationally, nor tolerate differing points of view without slinging massive mud.

Careful, don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back too hard.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Further the individuals who form corporations are not required to drop their religious beliefs, or political views at the door.

True, but that does not mean that the corporation automatically adopts those religious. Corporations exist to shield owners/shareholders from the financial consequences of the corporation. They're a financial shield. In my opinion, that concept of a shield also should apply to the corporation. Just because the owner believes in unicorns should not in any way that the corporation does.

Ultimately Corps are just a group of ppl who get together to pursue an end, and preventing a Corp from pursing political ends or considering religious or social issues in selecting methods to their end is nonsense. I believe the DNC, RNC and certainly the state and local party organizations are privately held corporations - do we expect these or PACs to not promote their issues ?

PACs are not the same as profit making corporations. False analogy.

I think the main flaw in American politics is not money and organizations, but the partisan, manipulated, dumb and lazy press.

Off topic.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think the main flaw in American politics is not money and organizations, but the partisan, manipulated, dumb and lazy press.

Let me get this straight: the problem with American politics isn't money and organizations; it's money and organizations?