Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[shuize]

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.

Yes, at this point those who continue throwing out such "what if it were (not christian religion)" are approaching willful ignorance. Not only has RFRA been explained, the fact that RFRA was specifically written in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) (where the Supreme Court refused to require an exemption for the use of peyote by native Americans in non-Christian religious rituals) has also been patiently explained. RFRA clearly states when the federal government must grant an exemption. Thus, it is not at all surprising that the Court might reach a different result in cases heard after that law was enacted.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

I proved you wrong with facts and evidence. Your facts and evidence were simply made up. You abandoned using evidence, not me. And now you just want to whine about it.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I've explained multiple times why Hobby Lobby objects, and your reasoning doesn't satisfy. But it doesn't matter: you're basically arguing that they should not believe what they believe. And that's not a legally relevant argument.

 

[sunmaster14]

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?

You know, if you were a conservative poster who had just confidently and arrogantly posted such incorrect claims as you did with respect to US law and peyote, a pack of liberal posters would have descended and tried to hound you out of the thread unless and until you posted a retraction.

The conservative posters here are generally too polite to engage in such bullying, but don't you feel any obligation to at least tone down the attitude even if you're not going to own up to your mistakes?

 

[sunmaster14]

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.)

Incompetent? They're not doctors, nor insurance professionals, nor even religious experts. They try their best to follow a moral code, and when an oversight is pointed out to them, they react to correct it. Their opponents are making far too much of this, in my opinion. Their day-to-day actions clearly demonstrate their devotion to their religious principles. I challenge you to read their legal complaint, or even read up on their company, and argue that the Greens are anything but sincere in their beliefs.

In any case, the argument about the details of Plan B and why the Greens object to it is not particularly relevant. Yes, the latest science tells us that neither Plan B nor the IUD (which, by the way, was specifically excluded from HL's health coverage) is an abortifacient. But it doesn't really matter, and the Greens' particularly beliefs don't really matter. There are age-old religions which regard any kind of birth control to be immoral. This wasn't just something ginned up for the purpose of attacking Obamacare. For example, was the Catholic Church's position on contraceptives really unknown to you?

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.

I have gone over this before, but inconsistency is a necessary feature of religion in a modern society. The only reason people of different faiths (or no faith) can even live together peacefully is because they are willing to compromise their religious principles or reinterpret them in ways which are illogical. The fact that people compromise doesn't mean they're not sincere. And Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decided to give a special preference to any and all kooky religious beliefs when it passed the RFRA over 20 years ago. I think your fundamental problem is with that law, and frankly, I have a problem with it too. But I care more about the rule of law, which includes following even bad ones, and I think the Supreme Court decision upholds the law.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I am pondering some questions and wonder how those pro and con this decision would respond.

1) Do employees pay a portion of the health insurance premium in the form of a payroll deduction? Would / could Hobby Lobby slightly increase the payroll deduction representing the employee paying for this benefit? Why or why not?

My answer: I expect this would not be acceptable to HL. HL is disingenuous about "not with HL money" and wants the benefit stopped, no matter what.

2) Presumably, the contraception HL objects to, would not reduce the insurance premium at all, as the cost would be a drop in the bucket. In fact, the insurance provider could claim that the special processing required for this accommodation will raise the cost of the insurance slightly. Would this be legal? Acceptable?

My answer: Like (1).

3) If the insurance company said "Look, it will cost us more to worry about excluding this benefit. We'll reduce the premium (by a few cents) so that HL is not paying for the items it objects to, but we'll keep the benefits whole for the employees." Would this be legal? Acceptable?

My answer: Like (1).

4) If HL sold health insurance rather than hobby supplies, all else being identical, would they be able to claim this same accommodation? After all, once a premium is paid to them, it is now "HL money" and they don't want HL money going toward certain contraceptives. Should they get the accommodation?

My answer: I don't see why this argument could not be made.

5) If I privately hold the same beliefs as HL, based on the same biblical reasoning, why am I not entitled to the same accommodation?

My answer: How is this not endorsing organized religion?

 

[Ziggurat]

4) If HL sold health insurance rather than hobby supplies, all else being identical, would they be able to claim this same accommodation? After all, once a premium is paid to them, it is now "HL money" and they don't want HL money going toward certain contraceptives. Should they get the accommodation?

I doubt that an insurer would be able to make a similar claim. The government has both more interest in and fewer alternatives to making sure insurers offer full contraceptive coverage.

5) If I privately hold the same beliefs as HL, based on the same biblical reasoning, why am I not entitled to the same accommodation?

I think you are.

My answer: How is this not endorsing organized religion?

Endorsing organized religion in general is not the same as establishing religion. The former allows for a full diversity of religions with equal treatment between them, the latter (which is what the 1st amendment prohibits) does not.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

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.

Basically an employee (HL) wants to tell its female employees how they can spend part of their paycheck. And the rightwing thinks that's just dandy!

 

[Frank Newgent]

5) If I privately hold the same beliefs as HL, based on the same biblical reasoning, why am I not entitled to the same accommodation?

I think you are.

I think not (if I understand all this correctly)... that is, if his objections were of a strictly moral nature, not of a "sincerely held" religious belief, though his reasoning may be congruent to reasoning the Catholics claim.

 

[tsig]

I can see the employment ads now. "Baptist truck driver wanted. Heretics not hired. Only Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 (amendment 13, Codicil 20) Baptists need apply."

(FTFY)

 

[Kestrel]

Basically an employee (HL) wants to tell its female employees how they can spend part of their paycheck. And the rightwing thinks that's just dandy!

My religion believes medical proceedure X is sinful.

Your insurance policy covers procedure X.

I demand that your policy be modified to accomidate my religion.

 

[The_Animus]

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.

It treats atheists differently. An atheist business owner can't be exempt like Hobby Lobby even if they also believe abortificeints are morally wrong. Whether it also treats various religions differently will become apparent soon enough.

 

[ehcks]

I've explained multiple times why Hobby Lobby objects, and your reasoning doesn't satisfy. But it doesn't matter: you're basically arguing that they should not believe what they believe. And that's not a legally relevant argument.

Hobby Lobby doesn't believe anything. David Green can believe whatever he wants, but actions are not beliefs. He is forcing an outcome of his beliefs onto other people in an obviously unconstitutional manner. The USSC is inconsistent and wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Basically an employee (HL) wants to tell its female employees how they can spend part of their paycheck. And the rightwing thinks that's just dandy!

If you objected on principle to being told how you spend your "paycheck", then you would be opposed to the entirety of the Obamacare mandate. I don't take your objection seriously.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hobby Lobby doesn't believe anything. David Green can believe whatever he wants, but actions are not beliefs. He is forcing an outcome of his beliefs onto other people in an obviously unconstitutional manner. The USSC is inconsistent and wrong.

The federal government doesn't believe anything. Obama can believe whatever he wants, but actions are not beliefs. He is forcing an outcome of his beliefs onto other people in an obviously unconstitutional manner. The ACA is inconsistent and wrong.

BTW, the entirety of your objection applies to the RFRA itself, a law passed with overwhelming Democratic congressional support and signed into law by Clinton. You're just upset that the SCOTUS applied the law rather than overturn it in its entirety. Damn Democrats, shoving religion down our throats!

 

[ehcks]

BTW, the entirety of your objection applies to the RFRA itself, a law passed with overwhelming Democratic congressional support and signed into law by Clinton. You're just upset that the SCOTUS applied the law rather than overturn it in its entirety. Damn Democrats, shoving religion down our throats!

Yes. Yes I am. And yes, damn those specific Democrats.

But the purpose of the supreme court is to overturn unconstitutional laws, not extend them into actually harming people.

 

[petrov2500]

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.

We don't know for sure what goes on in their heads, but you do realize that the same could be said of the liberal justices--they may vote not based on the constitution but on their liberal beliefs of how society should be run.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Yes I am. And yes, damn those specific Democrats.

But the purpose of the supreme court is to overturn unconstitutional laws, not extend them into actually harming people.

You have yet to outline a theory for why the RFRA is unconstitutional. Furthermore, none of the judges agree with you that the RFRA is unconstitutional.

I guess we get to damn all nine of them as well. You've sure got your work cut out for you, damning everyone in sight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This ^.

And this:

The system has its real roots in World War II, when the government imposed wage and price controls. Although there had been some health insurance plans sold through employers before, when companies couldn’t offer increased wages during the war, they began offering health benefits instead. When the IRS ruled that those benefits didn’t count as income and so were tax-free, the momentum toward employer-sponsored insurance was all but unstoppable (the deduction for employer-provided coverage is now the largest tax expenditure in the federal budget, dwarfing even the mortgage interest deduction).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We don't know for sure what goes on in their heads, but you do realize that the same could be said of the liberal justices--they may vote not based on the constitution but on their liberal beliefs of how society should be run.

Yes, and I also believe reality has a liberal bias, and there is a real reality out there.

However, certain SCOTUS judges are much more ideologues than others and Scalia and Thomas are two of those more extreme ideologues.