Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Neally]

No, insurance premiums go into a pool and the insurance company pays claims out of that pool. With the fungibility of money, they don't know the money they paid went something they find objectionable. It's very possible, but it's also possible that any particular monthly premium never does. It is not a foregone conclusion.

I understand quite well how insurance works. Again a distinction without a difference. The premiums paid into the pool can end up paying for the medical procedure. The owners find that to be religiously objectionable.

Their money goes into a large fungible pool. Where it goes after that is none of their business and none of their concern. Or it shouldn't be.

It is their concern. It can and probably will go into something they find objectionable based on their religion. Why do you presume to tell people what their religious beliefs should be? It's no business or yours or the governments.

Why are you so determined to twist things around? Why exactly are you against the first amendment?

 

[Upchurch]

But unlike Hobby Lobby, you have no statutory protection against making such payments, on any grounds.

Does that seem right to you?

 

[maxpower1227]

Does that seem right to you?

Being forced to pay for an illegal war is totally different. Hobby Lobby was being forced to pay for something that costs innocent lives!

 

[Upchurch]

It is their concern. It can and probably will go into something they find objectionable based on their religion. Why do you presume to tell people what their religious beliefs should be? It's no business or yours or the governments.

Why are you so determined to twist things around? Why exactly are you against the first amendment?

The funny thing is, I think you've got it twisted around.

I'm not telling people what their beliefs should be. I'm saying that their beliefs end where someone else's business (in this case, their medical history) begins. It is none of an employer's business how an employee uses their medical insurance anymore than it is the employer's business how an employee spends their paycheck.

For example, I play in a gay community band. Part of my paycheck goes to paying dues to that band. Let's say my employer has a moral problem with homosexuality and has a moral objection to my band. Should they be able to refuse to pay me the amount of money I use to pay those dues because it contrary to their religious beliefs? If not, why not? I see the two situations to be analogous.

I'd actually say that my position far more supports the First Amendment than yours does.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does that seem right to you?

Yes, it does. The government has a much larger interest in making you pay taxes than it does in making Hobby Lobby pay for every form of birth control. Do you honestly not understand why it has a much larger interest in the former than in the latter? Because it really should be obvious.

 

[Neally]

I'm not telling people what their beliefs should be.

Forgot that you said this?:

Or it shouldn't be.

I'm saying that their beliefs end where someone else's business (in this case, their medical history) begins. It is none of an employer's business how an employee uses their medical insurance anymore than it is the employer's business how an employee spends their paycheck.

What part of "I object to my money paying for something that is against my religious beliefs," do you not understand?

For example, I play in a gay community band. Part of my paycheck goes to paying dues to that band. Let's say my employer has a moral problem with homosexuality and has a moral objection to my band. Should they be able to refuse to pay me the amount of money I use to pay those dues because it contrary to their religious beliefs? If not, why not? I see the two situations to be analogous.

This thread is full of anti-first amendment posters like yourself trying to create analogies as to why they hate this decision. If you read the actual majority decision and the various answers here, you know why they don't hold water.

I'd actually say that my position far more supports the First Amendment than yours does.

That's because you're desperate to twist the facts around because you don't like the religious beliefs that are held, while the rest of us support the first amendment even when the speech or religious beliefs are disagreeable.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it does. The government has a much larger interest in making you pay taxes than it does in making Hobby Lobby pay for every form of birth control. Do you honestly not understand why it has a much larger interest in the former than in the latter? Because it really should be obvious.

I didn't ask if it made more sense for the government. I asked if it seems right to you that a corporation has more "statutory protection" than individual citizens.

 

[Upchurch]

Forgot that you said this?:

That wasn't in reference to anyone's belief. It was in reference to what was (or was not) any of their business.

What part of "I object to my money paying for something that is against my religious beliefs," do you not understand?

The part where Hobby Lobby was actually paying for anything against their religious beliefs. All they were actually paying for is insurance, not how that insurance was used. What part of that do you not understand?

This thread is full of anti-first amendment posters like yourself [...]

Quite the contrary. I am very pro-First Amendment, but I also recognize that one person's (or company's) First Amendment rights are not unlimited and do not allow them to trump someone else's rights.

How about you tell me why I'm wrong?

That's because you're desperate to twist the facts around because you don't like the religious beliefs that are held, while the rest of us support the first amendment even when the speech or religious beliefs are disagreeable.

If we are speaking of desperation, which one of us is lobbing ad homs?

I'm not twisting anything. I'm presenting an argument and the basis of my argument is that one entity's First Amendment rights does not allow them to trample any other entity's rights.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't ask if it made more sense for the government. I asked if it seems right to you that a corporation has more "statutory protection" than individual citizens.

Oh, I see, your question was even dumber than I thought. Not only was the answer obvious, the very premise of your question was wrong. You don't have fewer statutory protections, you have just as much if not more, and nothing I wrote suggests otherwise.

The relevant difference is not that Hobby Lobby is a corporation and you are an individual, the relevant difference is that nobody (not you or Hobby Lobby) has statutory protection against paying taxes for government uses that you find objectionable, and both Hobby Lobby and yourself have protections against other infringements of your religious freedoms that the government has much less interest in. So as an example, if you, as an individual, don't want to pay for the contraceptive coverage of your employees, you have just as much of a right to refuse to do so as Hobby Lobby.

 

[tyr_13]

So why aren't they allowed to fire those who use such contraceptives using the pay that Hobby Lobby provides? It's still 'Hobby Lobby' paying for it. It's the same level of abstraction. Why can't Hobby Lobby say, put a term in employee contracts that they not use their pay to buy contraceptives like these, or alcohol, or donate to a rival church?

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, I see, your question was even dumber than I thought.

 

[Neally]

That wasn't in reference to anyone's belief. It was in reference to what was (or was not) any of their business.

And if their money pays for something objectionable, which it does, it IS their business.

The part where Hobby Lobby was actually paying for anything against their religious beliefs. All they were actually paying for is insurance, not how that insurance was used. What part of that do you not understand?

Still clinging to the sophistry difference without a distinction?

Quite the contrary. I am very pro-First Amendment, but I also recognize that one person's (or company's) First Amendment rights are not unlimited and do not allow them to trump someone else's rights.

Yep. Now tell me what employee religious rights have been trumped by this decision.

How about you tell me why I'm wrong?

I'll be happy to after you read the majority decision which explains why your simple analogies all fail.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm presenting an argument and the basis of my argument is that one entity's First Amendment rights does not allow them to trample any other entity's rights.

Tell me what employee religious rights have been trampled by this decision.

So why aren't they allowed to fire those who use such contraceptives using the pay that Hobby Lobby provides? It's still 'Hobby Lobby' paying for it. It's the same level of abstraction.

Perhaps they could, absent any other laws preventing it. So?

Why can't Hobby Lobby say, put a term in employee contracts that they not use their pay to buy contraceptives like these, or alcohol, or donate to a rival church?

Since HL isn't a church, there is no "rival church". That aside, perhaps they could, absent any other laws preventing it. So?

 

[Ziggurat]

So why aren't they allowed to fire those who use such contraceptives using the pay that Hobby Lobby provides? It's still 'Hobby Lobby' paying for it. It's the same level of abstraction. Why can't Hobby Lobby say, put a term in employee contracts that they not use their pay to buy contraceptives like these, or alcohol, or donate to a rival church?

The level of abstraction is not the only issue here. There's also the matter of how much interest the government has in the issue. And the government honestly doesn't have all that much interest in making Hobby Lobby pay for every form of birth control. It has much more interest in prohibiting discrimination of the sort you suggest.

But even if they were allowed to do this, Hobby Lobby has no interest in doing so. I already explained why.

 

[Upchurch]

And if their money pays for something objectionable, which it does, it IS their business.

Seems to me, you are agreeing that my analogy has merit, then.

Still clinging to the sophistry difference without a distinction?

That doesn't actually refute or argue against anything. It's merely repeating a claim without support.

Yep. Now tell me what employee religious rights have been trumped by this decision.

[...]

Tell me what employee religious rights have been trampled by this decision.

I never said the employee's religious rights have been trumped. I said Hobby Lobby was using it's religious rights to trample employees' rights. Namely their right to privacy concerning medical issues and potentially their ability to make medical decisions with their doctor.

I'll be happy to after you read the majority decision which explains why your simple analogies all fail.

But what we're discussing is whether or not the majority decision was correct.

 

[jj]

So, this decision means that now I have to pay for emergency contraceptives after a woman is raped, rather than her medical insurance.

And the reason is still "recognizing an establishment of religion". This requires impeaching the justices who deliberately chose to ignore the law they are supposed to uphold.

Furthermore, it provides Hobby Lobby an advantage over all of its competitors, and the taxpayer pays for the government respecting their establishment of religion.

This is exactly what the Constitution was amended to prevent.

Impeach now!

 

[tyr_13]

Perhaps they could, absent any other laws preventing it. So?

So they just took a suit to the Supreme Court in order to not have to pay for that type of compensation for religious reasons, even though through that same reasoning they should be just as interested in prevented their other type of compensation for the same purpose. Yet they don't take measures for that. Why? What is the difference to them? Is it the same reason they still invest in companies that produce these products that they have a religious objection to? How about employing gay people? People of other religions? Atheists? Why not for the exact same reason?

Since HL isn't a church, there is no "rival church". That aside, perhaps they could, absent any other laws preventing it. So?

You're starting to get it.

 

[tyr_13]

The level of abstraction is not the only issue here. There's also the matter of how much interest the government has in the issue. And the government honestly doesn't have all that much interest in making Hobby Lobby pay for every form of birth control. It has much more interest in prohibiting discrimination of the sort you suggest.

But even if they were allowed to do this, Hobby Lobby has no interest in doing so. I already explained why.

I missed that post.

It's wrong. Health insurance doesn't have to be used for contraception either. It can be (or rather could be), but that's no difference at all from money compensation. Yes it is about the level of abstraction, as your post you linked to tried to say. Health Insurance is a compensation that already has a more limited use than money, yet both can be used for the same exact behavior that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to support. Yet they limit one even further and the other not at all. Hobby Lobby's interest in limiting access to these contraception methods seems limited only by what they are legally allowed to do, and won't cost them lost profits. Neither more specifically enables sin than the other. Actually, the money enables more, broader, (and better!) sin.

Further, the government already proved it's interest in defining what constitutes health insurance, and it's compelling interest in making sure as much of the population as possible has it.

 

[Kestrel]

The Government, the employee and the insurance company all have a compelling interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies. The interest of the employee is obvious. If she wanted another child, she would not use birth control. For the insurance company, it's purely financial. Caring for an expectant mother is much more expensive that paying for contraception. For the government, it's both financial and social. Unwanted children are more likely to be a drain on society than those that are wanted.

These interests are apparently secondary to God's need for more and more humans to praise him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, it does. The government has a much larger interest in making you pay taxes than it does in making Hobby Lobby pay for every form of birth control. Do you honestly not understand why it has a much larger interest in the former than in the latter? Because it really should be obvious.

That's very short sighted.

The government (aka the public) being responsible for the medical care of many citizens has an interest in preventative care that keeps the total cost of medical care down. The preventative care that would benefit everyone was determined by experts and evidence. Birth control was one of those cost saving items.

Apparently Hobby Lobby does plan to only selectively ban some forms of birth control, so one can argue the methods banned except for plan B may have little impact. And Alito has hinted he might rule against the nuns who not only don't want to pay for insurance for birth control coverage, they don't want it included if anyone else pays for it either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Government, the employee and the insurance company all have a compelling interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies. The interest of the employee is obvious. If she wanted another child, she would not use birth control. For the insurance company, it's purely financial. Caring for an expectant mother is much more expensive that paying for contraception. For the government, it's both financial and social. Unwanted children are more likely to be a drain on society than those that are wanted.

These interests are apparently secondary to God's need for more and more humans to praise him.