Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Ziggurat]

Well, given that the SCOTUS questioning made it pretty clear that they intend to vote in favor of Hobby Lobby, how long do you think it will be before CEO's turn Christian Scientist and object to any medical care whatsoever?

Employers used to have the option of not offering any health insurance. And yet, most large employers did. Why?

When you figure that out, you'll know why your scenario is nonsense.

 

[Travis]

Worker safety of this sort falls under the heading of a compelling state interest. As such, religious exemptions do not apply.

But it's hard to argue that employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage is a compelling state interest, and not simply a state interest. If it were a compelling interest, there shouldn't be any exceptions, but there are tons of them. Furthermore, if it were a compelling interest, then the question of whether or not Hobby Lobby qualified for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (under which the suit was brought) would be completely moot, since (again) there is no religious exemption from compelling state interests. And I don't think the government is trying to argue it's a compelling interest either.

In other words, the slippery slope you're trying to depict simply doesn't exist.

I think it is a compelling state interest.

Okay, but about this. What if an employer decides that paying for Chicken Pox vaccinations is against their religion? Since employers are now codified by law as the primary means that people get things like vaccinations paid for what is a parent to do in that situation?

Why should someone be punished with inadequate health care just because the person that owns the company they work for is a religious nut?

 

[jj]

Employers used to have the option of not offering any health insurance. And yet, most large employers did. Why?

When you figure that out, you'll know why your scenario is nonsense.

Wrong, and you and I both know it. "Most large employers did". Walmart is a large employer. Have a nice day.

What's the excuse for this false attack, anyhow?

 

[jj]

I'll say it again, this is the way around all of the ACA.

Just get the CEO to convert to Christian Science, and use the excuse of religion to take prejudicial actions against some or all employees.

Apparently religious freedom only goes for taking away, not for protecting employees who are having things taken away from them.

 

[ABC10]

I can only hope the Supremes are siding with Hobby Lobby.

 

[jj]

I can only hope the Supremes are siding with Hobby Lobby.

So, you wish corporate citizens to have more rights than real citizens?

That's what you're hoping for.

Why?

 

[Upchurch]

So, you wish corporate citizens to have more rights than real citizens?

"Corporations are people, my friend."

 

[ABC10]

So, you wish corporate citizens to have more rights than real citizens?

That's what you're hoping for.

Why?

I don't see the difference, but it is about a family firm with religious beliefs.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it is a compelling state interest.

Okay, but about this. What if an employer decides that paying for Chicken Pox vaccinations is against their religion? Since employers are now codified by law as the primary means that people get things like vaccinations paid for what is a parent to do in that situation?

Why should someone be punished with inadequate health care just because the person that owns the company they work for is a religious nut?

The government is not claiming that it is a compelling state interest in contraceptive coverage. Your belief is irelevant, and the courts don't seem to agree with you. Whether or not vaccines are a compelling interest is a different question.

 

[RussDill]

The government is not claiming that it is a compelling state interest in contraceptive coverage. Your belief is irelevant, and the courts don't seem to agree with you. Whether or not vaccines are a compelling interest is a different question.

I think you are ending up conflating two things (Oops, see Last edited at bottom of post). Through ACA, the state is compelling Hobby Lobby to provide a specific form of compensation to their employees. Tons of things that are part of that coverage will not have a compelling state interest. If instead the compensation went directly to the employee and the employee could choose what kind of healthcare they want, this would be a non-issue.

However, this isn't how things are setup, how things are setup the employee doesn't get any say in how this part of their compensation is spent. Instead, employers are trying claim control over the manner in which employees utilize their compensation, and not in order to save money, or to steer their employees to preventive medicine, etc, but to grind the personal moral axe of the company owners.

And its not even an axe based on accurate science.

How about this, Hobby Lobby sets up a intermediate company that provides the health care and gives two options, the Green family option, or the option where the employee is left with all their choices intact. The employee makes the decision of which kind of care they want, and Hobby Lobby never has to know. Not removed enough? Ok, the employee is given the money to send to this 3rd part company, but is required to do so. Is that removed enough? Do you not see how ridiculous Hobby Lobby's position is? This is wages and compensation that the employee has earned.

 

[Travis]

I don't see the difference, but it is about a family firm with religious beliefs.

So their employees should be punished because the family has their wacko, insane religious beliefs?

The government is not claiming that it is a compelling state interest in contraceptive coverage. Your belief is irelevant, and the courts don't seem to agree with you. Whether or not vaccines are a compelling interest is a different question.

Strange then that nations where contraception is easily available are always the best ones to live in. I guess some people just want America to become an unlivable hellhole.

 

[ABC10]

So their employees should be punished because the family has their wacko, insane religious beliefs?



Strange then that nations where contraception is easily available are always the best ones to live in. I guess some people just want America to become an unlivable hellhole.

Religious beliefs are not wacko or insane. Prayer and the Ten Commandments is a good thing. What, these employees can't figure out how to not get pregnant without their employers brains?
I am putting my money on the Supremes upholding the right of the people to practice the religion or lack thereof their choice.

 

[RussDill]

So their employees should be punished because the family has their wacko, insane religious beliefs?

I wouldn't even get started with ABC10.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Religious beliefs are not wacko or insane. Prayer and the Ten Commandments is a good thing. What, these employees can't figure out how to not get pregnant without their employers brains?
I am putting my money on the Supremes upholding the right of the people to practice the religion or lack thereof their choice.

The employees are not permitted to exercise their rights of religion (or health), so long as the company owners wish to impose theirs.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you are ending up conflating two things (Oops, see Last edited at bottom of post). Through ACA, the state is compelling Hobby Lobby to provide a specific form of compensation to their employees. Tons of things that are part of that coverage will not have a compelling state interest. If instead the compensation went directly to the employee and the employee could choose what kind of healthcare they want, this would be a non-issue.

Quite so. But 1) tax laws punish such direct compensation, since employee-purchased health care does not have the favorable tax treatment that employer-purchased health care does (you can thank FDR's wage freezes for that), and 2) more importantly for our purposes, the ACA does not permit this arrangement.

I'd love for health care to be completely disconnected from employment. One of the benefits is precisely this issue: the coverage choices of employees is no longer any concern of the employer. But the ACA doesn't do that.

However, this isn't how things are setup, how things are setup the employee doesn't get any say in how this part of their compensation is spent. Instead, employers are trying claim control over the manner in which employees utilize their compensation, and not in order to save money, or to steer their employees to preventive medicine, etc, but to grind the personal moral axe of the company owners.

First off, it's a little bit rich to say that employers are trying to claim control. The GOVERNMENT is claiming control. Employees themselves can have no choice in the matter either, according to the ACA. Second, the constitution privileges religion, it does not privilege thrift, so while it may bug you that they do this for a motivation that you don't like, from a legal perspective you have the strong case and the weak case reversed.

How about this, Hobby Lobby sets up a intermediate company that provides the health care and gives two options, the Green family option, or the option where the employee is left with all their choices intact. The employee makes the decision of which kind of care they want, and Hobby Lobby never has to know.

That's great.

Too bad the ACA doesn't permit such arrangements. So stop blaming Hobby Lobby for not doing what the ACA prohibits them from doing.

 

[Ziggurat]

So their employees should be punished because the family has their wacko, insane religious beliefs?

Not getting the benefit you want is not punishment, Travis. I need glasses, but my employer isn't punishing me if it doesn't provide a vision plan.

And once again, your personal irritation is irrelevant. "wacko, insane religious beliefs" are still privileged by the constitution.

Strange then that nations where contraception is easily available are always the best ones to live in. I guess some people just want America to become an unlivable hellhole.

Contraception IS easily available, Travis. Hobby Lobby not paying for certain forms of it won't make contraception unavailable to its employees. They can still obtain it pretty easily on their own.

 

[Ziggurat]

The employees are not permitted to exercise their rights of religion (or health), so long as the company owners wish to impose theirs.

Employees are permitted to do whatever they want to in regards to their contraception, in accordance with whatever religious or health preferences they have. They just have to pay for it themselves, if they want certain forms of contraception. Just like I have to pay for my own glasses because my employer doesn't have a vision plan.

Oh, the HORROR!

 

[The Greater Fool]

Doesn't current labor law require employers such as Hobby Lobby to hire employees irrespective of religion? Thus, employers such as Hobby Lobby have had to hire people of different religious beliefs and has been required to accommodate them those different beliefs to some extent, so wouldn't providing the offensive birth control methods be a similar accommodation to differing religious views of employees?

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's an excellent analysis of the Hobby Lobby case from a constitutional law professor which argues in favor of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...onnell-stanford-on-the-hobby-lobby-arguments/
Note that this analysis does not make any judgment about the merits of Hobby Lobby's beliefs. One can be completely in favor of all forms of contraception, and think that it is preferable for employers to provide insurance coverage for it, and still believe Hobby Lobby should win the case.

 

[Ziggurat]

Doesn't current labor law require employers such as Hobby Lobby to hire employees irrespective of religion?

Yes.

Thus, employers such as Hobby Lobby have had to hire people of different religious beliefs and has been required to accommodate them those different beliefs to some extent

Do you have any examples of the extent to which Hobby Lobby must accommodate their religious beliefs? And how are those examples relevant in this case?

so wouldn't providing the offensive birth control methods be a similar accommodation to differing religious views of employees?

Whose religious beliefs require that the employer pay for their contraception of choice?

You've stretched the concept of religious accommodation past the breaking point. You've also made an argument that bears no resemblance to the government's actual position.