Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[fishbob]

Hobby Lobby should not be able to get out of directly providing health care to employees because of religious beliefs. They should be able to get out of directly providing health care to employees because that's not really their responsibility.

That is not what Hobby Lobby asked for. They could easily get out of providing any health care at all. But how would they hold onto employees if they didn't offer health care benefits? Higher wages - which I am betting they don't want.

So you are lobbying for single payer? Which has a snowballs chance in hell of getting through Congress? Which Obamacare is the stop-gap, plan B fall-back for?

 

[Corsair 115]

Incompetent? They're not doctors, nor insurance professionals, nor even religious experts.

Nor, it seems, are they competent at hiring employees who can manage the expenses associated with their company in a manner befitting these high religious morals they supposedly hold. If these morals are that important, a reasonable person would expect them to carefully consider where the money is going.

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.

It very much does matter, because the reasons these specific contraceptives were opposed whereas others were not was because of their erroneous belief these specific contraceptives were abortifacients. Since these contraceptives are not abortifacients they do not run afoul of the 'life begins at conception' belief and thus they are no more problematic than any other contraceptive that works by preventing conception which they were and still are paying for.

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.

It's not about compromise, it's about consistency. If someone goes around claiming they are an ardent anti-Communist and it turns out they happily do business with a Communist government, it is entirely fair to ask how that person squares that circle because on its face the position is in direct opposition to the action. It's a similar matter in this case. The objection to a select number of contraceptives is due to the (erroneous) belief they are abortifacients and thus the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners require them not to pay for them. But then how can the company make investments in other companies which produce abortifacients? How is that not a glaring contradiction?

If you know of any statements by Hobby Lobby's owners which explain away the apparent contradiction between objecting to paying for abortifacients in its employee health care plan yet investing in companies which produce abortifacients, feel free to post them. If you know of any any statements by Hobby Lobby's owners which explain away the apparent contradiction between objecting to not paying for abortifacients in its employee health care plan and yet doing business with a country whose official government policy results in huge number of abortions, feel free to post them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nor, it seems, are they competent at hiring employees who can manage the expenses associated with their company in a manner befitting these high religious morals they supposedly hold. If these morals are that important, a reasonable person would expect them to carefully consider where the money is going.

Except that this would run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, which the court made pretty clear it had no intention of shielding religious for-profit corporations from (see if you can figure out why).

It very much does matter, because the reasons these specific contraceptives were opposed whereas others were not was because of their erroneous belief these specific contraceptives were abortifacients. Since these contraceptives are not abortifacients they do not run afoul of the 'life begins at conception' belief and thus they are no more problematic than any other contraceptive that works by preventing conception which they were and still are paying for.

No. sunmaster14 is right and you are wrong. The factual basis (or lack thereof) of a religious belief is irrelevant. The RFRA does not take that into consideration, and so neither should the court. Nor could you, on matters of religion.

It's not about compromise, it's about consistency.

Also not a requirement of the RFRA. People hold inconsistent beliefs all the time, and do so sincerely. It's impossible to demand consistency in beliefs. In fact, it's impossible to even form an objective standard for evaluating inconsistency of beliefs, especially with something like religion. Opposing sides on an issue frequently conclude that the other side is inconsistent, because they make different fundamental assumptions. Change those assumptions and the inconsistency can appear or disappear.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just because Hobby Lobby funds abortion in China doesn't mean that their anti abortion believe are insincere......

 

[Ziggurat]

Just because Hobby Lobby funds abortion in China doesn't mean that their anti abortion believe are insincere......

They don't "fund abortion". They buy nick-knacks. Are nick-knacks sinful?

 

[thaiboxerken]

They don't "fund abortion". They buy nick-knacks. Are nick-knacks sinful?

They buy large amounts of Chinese goods that they could source from other countries that do not mandate abortion. But I'm sure you won't let that fact bother you.

I'm glad that the SCOTUS has decided to start doing based on Catholicism, by the way.

 

[Ziggurat]

They buy large amounts of Chinese goods that they could source from other countries that do not mandate abortion. But I'm sure you won't let that fact bother you.

The Supreme Court did not consider what bothers me. They considered what bothers Hobby Lobby's owners.

I'm glad that the SCOTUS has decided to start doing based on Catholicism, by the way.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense, by the way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is pretty obvious that the SCOTUS only ruled how they did because the hold to the same religious belief as hobby lobby owners.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They don't "fund abortion". They buy nick-knacks. Are nick-knacks sinful?

They don't buy birth control for their employees they pay for health insurance. Is health insurance sinful?




It's all about how you frame it.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Are nick-knacks sinful?

Yes sir, as long as somebody sincerely believes nick-knacks are sinful.

As the Court observed: “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes sir, as long as somebody sincerely believes nick-knacks are sinful.

As the Court observed: “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

Of course they didn't address if said beliefs appeared to be dishonest claims.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But how would they hold onto employees if they didn't offer health care benefits?

I never said they should. They should lose employees over this. If what you employer doesn't offer you isn't go enough you find another one.

This should hurt Hobby Lobby.

So you are lobbying for single payer? Which has a snowballs chance in hell of getting through Congress? Which Obamacare is the stop-gap, plan B fall-back for?

And that's my whole point. Do liberals not fully grasp that they didn't win that battle as much as they seem they want to think they did?

The idea seems to be "We didn't get the health care plan we want, therefore we should be able to cheat the system we do have."

You didn't get single payer health care. Therefore you don't get to act as if you did. You got "Other people pay for my health care" health care which brings the other people into your health care. Accept that.

You're not acting as if Obamacare is a stop-gap. You're acting as if Obamacare is backdoor to the plan you originally wanted.

Basically the argument I'm hearing is "Health care is so important that the fact that we lost the battle shouldn't matter, we should be able to act as if we won."

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes sir, as long as somebody sincerely believes nick-knacks are sinful.

Quite so. I think, however, that it's safe to conclude that Hobby Lobby does not so believe, given the business they are in.

As the Court observed: “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

Again, quite so.

 

[Ziggurat]

They don't buy birth control for their employees they pay for health insurance.

Which includes the offending forms of birth control.

Is health insurance sinful?

If it includes sinful procedures, yes.

It's all about how you frame it.

Yes, it is. And they get to frame it how they want to when it comes to how they spend their money, you don't get to dictate how they frame it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course they didn't address if said beliefs appeared to be dishonest claims.

Why would they? The government never contested that. Blame the Obama administration if you think Hobby Lobby should have lost on those grounds.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never said they should. They should lose employees over this. If what you employer doesn't offer you isn't go enough you find another one.

This should hurt Hobby Lobby. ...

I would think it would hurt sales more than trouble finding employees in the current labor market.

 

[Magyar]

Which includes the offending forms of birth control.



If it includes sinful procedures, yes.

Can you explain then why they specifically excluded blood transfusions which JW specifically find sinful?

Or is this just a bunch of catholics picking their pet myths? How is this not govt picking and choosing religion?

 

[theprestige]

Can you explain then why they specifically excluded blood transfusions which JW specifically find sinful?

I haven't read the entire decision in detail; can you cite the passage in the decision where they specifically excluded blood transfusions. It's my hope that the passage will give us at least a starting point for understanding and explaining why the court made the exclusion.

If there is no such passage in the decision, then I think we can safely say your question doesn't need to be answered (or even asked, now that I think about it).

 

[Neally]

Can you explain then why they specifically excluded blood transfusions which JW specifically find sinful?

Or is this just a bunch of catholics picking their pet myths? How is this not govt picking and choosing religion?

Answered multiple times already.

"If the compelling-interest and least-restrictive-means tests yield different outcomes in different cases, ignorant people might well look at the result and think that the government was favoring one religion over others."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381656/justice-ginsburgs-eight-worst-lines-hobby-lobby-ramesh-ponnuru

 

[Ziggurat]

I haven't read the entire decision in detail; can you cite the passage in the decision where they specifically excluded blood transfusions. It's my hope that the passage will give us at least a starting point for understanding and explaining why the court made the exclusion.

You can find the text of the decision here:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...y_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20

The relevant passage is this:

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

Magyar is wrong: blood transfusions are not specifically excluded. All non-contraceptive mandates are excluded from this decision, that is listed as only one example, and it would need to be evaluated separately if challenged. Maybe they would be invalidated too, maybe not, the point is only that this ruling doesn't apply to them.