Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Newtons Bit]

Well i dont know if sherman understands closely held, but its OBVIOUS. That you're CLUELESS!

Here is how the IRS. Definines closely held.
http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources...-Employed,-Other-Business/Entities/Entities-5

This means 52% of all US employees work for a closely held company and just slightly more than half of all economic output in the US is generated by companies that are closely held! That means this decision can effect as many as 80 million people! And lets not forget that while hobby lobby was espacially selected as the poster child for this lawsuit there were 80 other companies part of the lawsuit. So pretening that this jsut about hobby lobby is straight up lying.


Further your pretense, along with scotus and the religious loons that something that could effect a majority of the us employed is narrow is well - laughably stupid!

I don't see the 52% number in the link you offered. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the law was interpreted so absolutely correctly as you claim, Ziggurat, explain why the decisions were not unanimous?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think anyone should have to pay for procedures they find objectionable. If a company wants, they should be able to offer compensation with no health benefits. Comparing birth control to medical procedures is unfair though, since birth control is cheap, and medical expenses can be huge.

So at what dollar amount do employers lose their religious freedom?

And it makes Job interviews more interesting, as you need to find out what your bosses religion is to make decisions about how that will effect your employment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Or the first amendment. There are two parts to the clause on religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

MontagK505 has confused protecting the free exercise of religion (the highlighted portion) for establishing a religion (the non-highlighted portion). That is, of course, complete nonsense. Nobody who wants to buy any form of birth control they choose is in any way limited by Hobby Lobby's right to not do so.

Again this rules was not made on constitutional grounds, but based on conflicting federal laws. The supreme court did not find that corporations have religious rights from the constitution. Yet anyway.

I am wondering when they will get the rest of the amendments applied to them. Keep OSHA out because of their protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are two separate issues.

1) The evidence suggests Hobby Lobby is making a disingenuous claim about their motives and religious beliefs. That is the issue I was addressing.

2) The SCOTUS ruling, which Ziggy believes confirmed the government could not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The problem with that is it would seem to be a very selective ruling confirming protection for some Catholics and some other Christian sects, while the court has not had a precedent of protecting other religious practices such as allowing Native Americans to use peyote which had been part of their religious ceremonies.

Because it only protects the beliefs of the true church not all these false ones. Our founders didn't intend free religion to apply to false religions, like Catholicism.

 

[Kaepora Gaebora]

Because it only protects the beliefs of the true church not all these false ones. Our founders didn't intend free religion to apply to false religions, like Catholicism.

What would be considered a false religion? Where would you draw the line for that?

 

[MontagK505]

You have no fundamental right to have your birth control of choice paid for by your employer. To the extent that this is a statutory right, well, it's a statutory right which just lost to another statutory right, but one of them had to, so the logic of your argument was going to fail one way or another.

If this is true then why does the exclusion, in this case, rest on the religious ideology of the employer? If SCOTUS were to decide some provisions of the ACA were unconstitutional then everyone would have the option of exclusion not just those who pass some court approved religious test. Suppose the corporation were "tightly held" by the Church of Scientology, do you think it would be proper for the church to withhold coverage based on their disapproval of certain drugs?

 

[petrov2500]

So at what dollar amount do employers lose their religious freedom?

And it makes Job interviews more interesting, as you need to find out what your bosses religion is to make decisions about how that will effect your employment.

Can you clarify this question? Why does your employers religious beliefs matter? When you go to apply for a job the employer tells you what you compensation should be. If they want, they should be allowed to offer no benefits--if you don't like this don't accept the job. I would rather have most of my pay to be in cash, so I could do what I want with it rather then in benefits the government thinks I should have.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Court strikes a blow to religious freedom
That says it all doesn't it? Their religion vs Scalia's own beliefs: not the same. The man's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You'll have to restate your position given you had that underlying fact about peyote wrong.

That decision was made in 1990. In 1991 the laws were changed to say peyote use is specifically allowed in Naive American religious ceremonies. It's regulated so that only members of the Native American Church can use it legally and the sellers have to be licensed. So in fact you are the one who has the underlying facts wrong because you are working off of old information.

The Hobby Lobby decision relies heavily upon the RFRA law to justify it. It's not hypocritical to say no before a law is passed and then say yes after a law is passed when that law directly influences how things are done. What you posted was pre-RFRA. It's like saying you cant have a beer because there once was a prohibition amendment and then ignore that that amendment was repealed. Laws change and the courts have to take that into account.

It's arbitrary to say a payment in cash the employee then spends vs a payment as an insurance premium the employee then spends are qualitatively different.[/QUOTE

Again. The company didn't want to directly facilitate paying for some very specific medicines and devices. Once the employee has the money in their pocket they don't have a say in how they spend it. They can buy a bible or an IUD or a big bottle of booze. What they didn't want to do was buy those items for them. It's a small but important distinction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can rationalize all you want, this is different, that is different. The bottom line is Scalia isn't making decisions based on the Constitution, he's making decisions that fit his world view and finding the rationale in the Constitution the same way Christians find rationale for their beliefs in the Bible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet another case with overlapping implications:

Birth control injunction for religious college draws dissent from female justices

The U.S. Supreme Court late on Thursday temporarily exempted a religious college from the contraception coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The decision provoked a sharp rebuke from the court’s three female justices....

First, she said the court was retreating from what it said in Hobby Lobby, the Monday decision. In that decision, the majority again said that the accommodation itself achieved all of the government’s objectives here, as well as provided greater respect for religious liberty. And Justice Kennedy even reemphasized that in a separate concurring opinion. He said that treated undermined confidence in the court.

The second thing she said was, Wheaton College had not made out the case for getting an emergency injunction, which is an extraordinary remedy, and that one of the requirements is that your legal rights be indisputably clear. And that wasn’t the case here, because the lower courts had yet to rule on the merits of Wheaton’s claim.

And, finally, [Sotomayor] argued, the court by telling Wheaton College all it had to do was submit to the government in writing its objections, not sign the form, the court itself was rewriting federal regulations, and it could not do that....

There are dozens of lawsuits right now in the lower courts by nonprofit religious organizations claiming that the accommodation violates that federal law.

 

[Ziggurat]

If this is true then why does the exclusion, in this case, rest on the religious ideology of the employer? If SCOTUS were to decide some provisions of the ACA were unconstitutional then everyone would have the option of exclusion not just those who pass some court approved religious test. Suppose the corporation were "tightly held" by the Church of Scientology, do you think it would be proper for the church to withhold coverage based on their disapproval of certain drugs?

Your failures in understanding continue. The court did not rule that the mandate as applied to Hobby Lobby was unconstitutional. Rather, it violated the RFRA. Furthermore, the ruling applies to employers because it was the employer mandate which was challenged. I believe individual religious exemptions to the individual mandate already exist, but if they don't, I see no reason to believe that an individual challenging it would not get similar success in court.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the law was interpreted so absolutely correctly as you claim, Ziggurat, explain why the decisions were not unanimous?

Really, SG? After being proven factually wrong on so much of what you wrote, this is the best response you can give? You're no longer even trying to argue the merits of the case.

And I never claimed it was "so absolutely correct", whatever that even means. You're creating a straw man. I think the court decided correctly, yes. But if it had gone 5-4 the other way, you would have thought it was decided correctly too. The narrowness of a decision in your favor would not have caused you to doubt that you were right. Hell, you lost and you still think you're right, don't you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, really Zig, given you believe everyone is wrong but you when the court decision was divided, why should anyone bother arguing with you? Why should I argue with dogma and ideology sans evidence just because you believe your logic is correct?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You can rationalize all you want, this is different, that is different. The bottom line is Scalia isn't making decisions based on the Constitution, he's making decisions that fit his world view and finding the rationale in the Constitution the same way Christians find rationale for their beliefs in the Bible.

You are failing to understand so I'll make it simple.

An intersection used to have no stop sign so you can't be ticketed for not stopping as you went through it. Once the intersection has a stop sign you can be ticketed for not stopping. If it gets a stop light you can be ticketed for even more.

The rules change everyday in all sorts of ways. Most minor, some major. It's not rationalization to recognize that the intersection rules have changed, if anything it's a form of rationalization to say that the intersection wasn't changed the way that I wanted it to be changed (lets say that you wanted a roundabout) therefore the new intersection rules are invalid. They aren't

 

[ehcks]

You have no fundamental right to have your birth control of choice paid for by your employer. To the extent that this is a statutory right, well, it's a statutory right which just lost to another statutory right, but one of them had to, so the logic of your argument was going to fail one way or another.

It's not paid for by the employer, it's paid for by the insurance company. You could say the employer pays the insurance company, but then the customers pay the employer, and people pay them, and it goes back and back to more indirect payers. Do any of them get to determine what the employee does with the results of their labor?

The real point, though, is that insurance is part of the paycheck. The company is using insurance benefits instead of wages. Why? Because they're more effective. From an efficiency standpoint, they are cheaper than simply paying the employees that much. So the company is not paying for it, it's being paid for it, by the employees.

 

[MontagK505]

Your failures in understanding continue. The court did not rule that the mandate as applied to Hobby Lobby was unconstitutional. Rather, it violated the RFRA. Furthermore, the ruling applies to employers because it was the employer mandate which was challenged. I believe individual religious exemptions to the individual mandate already exist, but if they don't, I see no reason to believe that an individual challenging it would not get similar success in court.

Can an individual who is the sole owner of a business challenge it if they are a non-believer?

 

[MontagK505]

You are failing to understand so I'll make it simple.

An intersection used to have no stop sign so you can't be ticketed for not stopping as you went through it. Once the intersection has a stop sign you can be ticketed for not stopping. If it gets a stop light you can be ticketed for even more.

The rules change everyday in all sorts of ways. Most minor, some major. It's not rationalization to recognize that the intersection rules have changed, if anything it's a form of rationalization to say that the intersection wasn't changed the way that I wanted it to be changed (lets say that you wanted a roundabout) therefore the new intersection rules are invalid. They aren't

Would this apply if the rules were different based on the religious ideology of the drivers?

 

[Corsair 115]

They claim they did care about Plan B. They just didn't know it was in their health plan's formulary until it was pointed out to them.

In which case this would tend to indicate that the company's management is pretty damned incompetent. They have supposedly firm religious ideals which must not be violated, but apparently these ideals weren't so firm that they carefully examined what they were spending their money on. (Then we can add to the fact the reasons for opposing the certain contraceptives was based on inaccurate information—yet more incompetence it would seem.)

As for whether their investments are proscribed by their beliefs, that's really up to them, don't you think?

It goes to the question of whether their religious beliefs are in fact truly deeply held, in that other actions appear to contradict those same beliefs. A cynic would suggest their religious concerns appear to only extend to money they spend directly on their employees; money spent on purchasing products from China (a Communist country with a one-child policy that has resulted in huge numbers of abortions) and investments made to earn money are, it would seem, exempt from their moral restrictions.

If one is not exercising consistent application of one's claimed morals, it calls into question the validity of their position.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Would this apply if the rules were different based on the religious ideology of the drivers?

You would first have to show that a different religious ideology gets different treatment under the law. I hear a lot of "What if this were (insert religion other than christian here)" but no real life examples showing where the law has treated them differently. So show me.