Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Neally]

The difference is in making that moral decision for oneself and making it for others. This court decision opened the door to making the decision on other's behalf.

A laws make moral decisions for others.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yet we come to yet another discussion where it seems I'm agreeing and disagreeing with both sides.

The religious freedom angle. Total B.S. My bathmat means more to me then people's religious freedoms. The fact that we have to kowtow to people's mythology to a degree we don't to just normal opinions is just silly in America.

The corporations as people angle. Total B.S. A collection of people, be it a company, a union, a political party, a bowling league or a Star Trek fan club should have no more or less rights then the individual people within it. The Citizens United ruling was one of the stupidest in American history.

But...

The "You're restricting my access to something but not giving it to me" angle, equally B.S. You don't get to demand someone else provide you with something and then complain about the manner in which they provide it.

You only get total freedom if you have total independence. If you depend on other people those other people get a say in your life. If their opinion on your reproductive freedom isn't good enough for you, their money better be too good for you as well. You can't have it both ways.

You can't force other people, being an individual or a group, to be somehow supportive either directly or indirectly in something you want and then get huffy when they dare have an opinion on it. And after fighting so hard to get employers to in someway provide healthcare you can't then turn around and pretend that the insurance that the companies are legally required to provide isn't about them just because it's underwritten by a separate insurance company.

 

[Upchurch]

A laws make moral decisions for others.

There is a vast difference in society placing moral restrictions on itself and granting an employer the power to make moral decisions on the behalf of an employee outside the scope and capacity to perform on the job.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the employees arranged their own insurance, it would be exaclty the same if Hobby Lobby didn't like what the employees insurance covers, and chose to reduce the employees compensation so as "not to pay for treatment that violates our principles."

No, it would not be exactly the same. First, if employees arranged their own insurance, Hobby Lobby would never even know what coverage they bought.

Second, even if they knew, you seem to be ignorant of the nature of these religious objections. Everyone sins. You can't operate in this world without interacting with sinners. There is nothing wrong with doing so, in part because there is no alternative, and in part because of the belief that you should still love sinners, and only hate the sin. So there's nothing wrong with paying a sinner a salary. What you are supposed to avoid doing something that specifically enables sin. But salary doesn't do that: the money can be used for sinful purposes, but it doesn't have to be, and the decision of whether or not it is is not Hobby Lobby's to make. Cutting their salary in response to a sinful act makes no sense religiously, because it doesn't prevent the sinful actions (they may simply cut back on some non-sinful expenditure), it merely punishes someone for that sin. But that's not Hobby Lobby's role: they want to refrain from specifically enabling sin, but it's not their place, and they don't believe it's their place, to actually police their employees. If an employee chooses to sin on their own, that's between them and God.

And lastly, even from a legal perspective it's not even remotely similar.

 

[Neally]

The corporations as people angle. Total B.S. A collection of people, be it a company, a union, a political party, a bowling league or a Star Trek fan club should have no more or less rights then the individual people within it. The Citizens United ruling was one of the stupidest in American history.

Citizens United actually fixed the very thing you complain about. The Supreme Court struckdown those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications", bringing the law that discriminated against groups of people (corps) in line with the rights of individuals.

There is a vast difference in society placing moral restrictions on itself and granting an employer the power to make moral decisions on the behalf of an employee outside the scope and capacity to perform on the job.

There certainly is. Good thing this decision didn't do that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Next up refusing to pay for abortion for things like ectopic pregnancies. Remember as the church says abortion is always wrong. That is why you need to cut out some of the evil female reproductive organs to make it not an abortion but a life saving operation that happens to kill the baby.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This makes no sense.

So why exactly, if they aren't paying for it, is Hobby Lobby (or any hypothetical individual or group but we'll stick) even involved in the process?

If you they aren't allowed to have an opinion why are they even an agent of the process? Why any connection at all?

If you don't want to hear your employer's opinion about your health care choices then why the bloody hell was it so vitally important to force them into them?

 

[theprestige]

So Hobby Lobby doesn't actually object to paying indirectly for contraceptives; they only object to knowing that they pay indirectly for contraceptives.

To me, I see it as being the same as an employer objecting to being compelled to offer subsidized firearms purchases, as part of employee compensation; but being properly agnostic about what their employee does with their paycheck after they've earned it.

Or an employer objecting to being compelled to offer subsidized political speech that advocates a specific policy position as part of employee compensation; but being properly agnostic about what an employee does with with their paycheck they've earned it.

I mean, you seem to be arguing that because an employee might choose to do any lawful thing with their paycheck after they've earned it, therefore it is morally just to compel all employers to do any lawful thing they otherwise lawfully choose not to do.

And your argument seems to have implications for civil and criminal liability, too. You're compelling me to buy something for an employee because they might choose to buy it themselves with the money I give them. Doesn't that effectively make me an accessory to every business transaction of everybody I've ever transacted business with, and burden me with all the liabilities that attend those transactions?

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a vast difference in society placing moral restrictions on itself and granting an employer the power to make moral decisions on the behalf of an employee outside the scope and capacity to perform on the job.

There is also a vast difference between using the threat of violence to force someone to do something or prevent them from doing it, and refusing to pay for someone to do something.

Hobby Lobby is not preventing anyone from using the birth control of their choice.

 

[tyr_13]

Wrong of course for several reasons.

How so? Please cite in the decision.

An employer can compensate an employee with money. The government decides a minimum rate, breaks, and most importantly what constitutes 'money'. Company script doesn't count. They can't fire you for using it to buy alcohol, or anime, or contraceptives even if they think those things are sinful. An employer can (must) compensate employees with an insurance program. The government decides what constitutes health insurance. But for some reason (religious belief on behalf of a non-human entity) this company can get around what the government has decided constitutes health insurance. They're deciding what the compensation can do in one case, so why not with their other compensation?

 

[Upchurch]

There is also a vast difference between using the threat of violence to force someone to do something or prevent them from doing it, and refusing to pay for someone to do something.

They aren't paying for contraception. They are paying for health insurance.

Hobby Lobby is not preventing anyone from using the birth control of their choice.

I hope that's true. I hope Hobby Lobby's employees have the financial means to cover the medical costs that Hobby Lobby is deferring to them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Alright let's look at some numbers here.

Federal Minimum wage right now is set at 7.25 per hour, and varies widely

Costs of various popular birth control methods.

$9
Monthly cost of some generic versions of the birth control pill ($108 a year)

$90
Monthly cost of some brand-name versions of the pill ($1,080 a year)

$55
Monthly cost of vaginal ring or birth-control patch ($660 a year)

$60
Annual cost of using a diaphragm and spermicide, including mandatory doctor's exam

$150
Annual cost of using condoms, twice a week

$220-$460
Annual cost of getting a birth control shot (Depo-Provera)

$600-$1,000
One-time cost of getting an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted (effective for up to 12 years)

So it seems that non-steralization methods of birth control top out at about at just a hair below 1,100 a year.

That's roughly equivalent to a 50 cent an hour raise, worse case scenario. Is birth control really a major financial burden on anyone?

This isn't about the money is it? This is an ideological battle on both sides.

*http://theweek.com/article/index/225451/the-cost-of-birth-control-by-the-numbers

 

[The_Animus]

response cut for space

Thanks for responding but it seems you missed the point I was making and subsequently didn't actually answer the questions i posed. I know this because parts of your response imply you think we disagree when in fact we don't.

 

[Neally]

They aren't paying for contraception. They are paying for health insurance.

Which includes contraception methods utilizing abortifacients. Therefore they are paying for something they object to on religious grounds.

I hope that's true. I hope Hobby Lobby's employees have the financial means to cover the medical costs that Hobby Lobby is deferring to them.

Do you realize that there are still 16 contraceptives available in the HL insurance policy? They only removed the abortifacients. Regardless, not buying something for someone <> preventing someone from getting it. You're denying my right to it if you don't buy it for me!

 

[Neally]

Alright let's look at some numbers here.

Federal Minimum wage right now is set at 7.25 per hour, and varies widely

Note also that HL pays a minimum of $14/hour for FT employees and has provided heath insurance including contraceptives before Obamacare. They objected to the abortifacients in Obamacare. What evil, woman hating, Christian nuts!

 

[ehcks]

The "You're restricting my access to something but not giving it to me" angle, equally B.S. You don't get to demand someone else provide you with something and then complain about the manner in which they provide it.

That's not it. They aren't "not giving it to you," they are taking away something you were already getting. Contraceptives were determined to be necessary medications by a panel of doctors and put in all insurance plans nationwide.

Let's say that aspirin, tylenol, ibuprofen, and all their generic varieties were written into the ACA as free medication you could get from any doctor at any time. Your employer is a large corporation that happens to be owned by a neo-Mother Theresa "Suffering is Godly" fundamentalist. You can now no longer use your insurance plan for headache medicine.

Sure, the cost is incredibly minor, but they've taken something away from you. They did not "not give you" something. You already had it. Now you lost it.

And then other people come along and extend that to include all pain-killers. Good luck guy in a car accident. Your employer decided to remove all anesthesia of any kind from your plan.

 

[nelsondogg]

Which includes contraception methods utilizing abortifacients. Therefore they are paying for something they object to on religious grounds.


Do you realize that there are still 16 contraceptives available in the HL insurance policy? They only removed the abortifacients. Regardless, not buying something for someone <> preventing someone from getting it. You're denying my right to it if you don't buy it for me!

According to the FDA & medical experts, those contraception methods do not utilize abortifacients.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said during the oral arguments in the case on behalf of the Obama administration, "Federal law and State law — which do preclude funding for abortions — don't consider these particular forms of contraception to be abortion."

A brief filed by 10 medical groups led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted "there is a scientific distinction between a contraceptive and an abortifacient and the scientific record demonstrates that none of the FDA-approved contraceptives covered by the Mandate are abortifacients."

 

[Beerina]

Yeah, that's what I currently find so nonsensical about this ruling. It's not like Hobby Lobby was forced to directly buy these contraceptives and distribute them to their employees.

Hobby Lobby was giving money to a third party which in turn may have given money to yet another party to provide these contraceptives to Hobby Lobby's employees. Now, Hobby Lobby gives money to their employees who themselves must pay a third party to provide the contraceptives.

They're still paying indirectly for contraceptives. Nothing's actually changed except that Hobby Lobby is now one step closer to the contraceptives they claim to dislike and their bottom line potentially gets a little fatter at the expense of their female employees.

Golly, is it really 1947 again, where it's illegal to buy contraceptives with your own money? Come off the silly rhetoric please. Sorry, the rhetoric bouncing around well-known echo chambers.

Volokhdiscusses the propriety of a secular court making the dividing line on what counts as sinning for a religion. The SC's opinion: It's not for secular government to decide.

They, and the court yesterday, reference a case called Thomas that hinged off a guy who was fired from a foundry. He was fine in the foundry but refused a transfer to the unit that made tank turrets, which were weapons of war, which his religion forbade.

People questioned, of course, how he could make metal in the foundry knowing some went to weapons of war and some didn't, but his religion was fine with that. The court ruled it was the religious person who gets to split that hair, not the government.

 

[Beerina]

Yeah, that's what I currently find so nonsensical about this ruling. It's not like Hobby Lobby was forced to directly buy these contraceptives and distribute them to their employees.

Hobby Lobby was giving money to a third party which in turn may have given money to yet another party to provide these contraceptives to Hobby Lobby's employees. Now, Hobby Lobby gives money to their employees who themselves must pay a third party to provide the contraceptives.

They're still paying indirectly for contraceptives. Nothing's actually changed except that Hobby Lobby is now one step closer to the contraceptives they claim to dislike and their bottom line potentially gets a little fatter at the expense of their female employees.

Golly, is it really 1947 again, where it's illegal to buy contraceptives with your own money? Come off the silly rhetoric the rhetoric bouncing around certain well-known echo chambers.

Volokhdiscusses the propriety of a secular court making the dividing line on what counts as sinning for a religion. The SC's opinion: It's not for secular government to decide.

They, and the court yesterday, reference a case called Thomas that hinged off a guy who was fired from a foundry. He was fine in the foundry but refused a transfer to the unit that made tank turrets, which were weapons of war, which his religion forbade.

People questioned, of course, how he could make metal in the foundry knowing some went to weapons of war and some didn't, but his religion was fine with that. The court ruled it was the religious person who gets to split that hair, not the government.

 

[Ziggurat]

They aren't paying for contraception. They are paying for health insurance.

... which pays for contraception.

Your distinction is mere sophistry.

I hope that's true. I hope Hobby Lobby's employees have the financial means to cover the medical costs that Hobby Lobby is deferring to them.

I have every reason to expect that it is.