Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Upchurch]

Whose religious beliefs require that the employer pay for their contraception of choice medical treatment as determined between the patient and their doctor?

FIFY

Moreover, employers are not paying for the medical treatment. The employers are paying for the insurance. It is none of the employer's business what the doctor and patient decides is appropriate nor what the insurance company decides should be paid for by the insurance.

 

[ABC10]

I wouldn't even get started with ABC10.

Fear of actually having a discussion? Most of us are here to have a debate.

 

[Ziggurat]

FIFY

Your edit doesn't get any closer to providing an answer for the question other than "no one".

Moreover, employers are not paying for the medical treatment. The employers are paying for the insurance.

And the insurance will then pay for the treatment. Therefore the employer is still paying for the treatment, despite the intermediary.

It is none of the employer's business what the doctor and patient decides is appropriate nor what the insurance company decides should be paid for by the insurance.

When you pay for coverage for something, you can be sure that the money will actually pay for treatment of someone. Who that person is doesn't matter to Hobby Lobby, they might not even end up being an employee, but it's going to be someone. And Hobby Lobby doesn't want to do that.

You're trying to argue that Hobby Lobby should not hold the religious beliefs that it holds, but that argument has nothing to do with the legal case before the courts.

 

[Kestrel]

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?

If the SCOTUS finds in favor of Hobby Lobby, they may feel that any such anti discrimination law is trumped when a corporation or family held business plays the God card.

The precedent has already been set the other way, that by going into business you have to abide by the rules of the broader society. But that may not stop the conservative wing of the court from ruling that religious beliefs override all other concerns.

 

[RussDill]

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.

I think his examples are a bit contrived and he has had to bend over backwards to ignore actual pertinent case law. Its difficult to understand how he could not even mention the 2000 EEOC decision and the subsequent court cases. The lower courts have deemed that this issue has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with sex discrimination, Title VII. The only way this could be avoided in the past is by not paying for prescriptions.

He also says that there's no specific Federal mandate for contraception, which is a red herring, it doesn't matter. ACA is not written so that congress gets together every term and votes on which care should and should not be provided to individuals.

It seems pretty clear that the must provide contraceptive services and they do. The question is, can they decide which forms of birth control to provide and not provide. Especially since they have decided to avoid providing the easiest, most effective option for women.

I realize it all comes down to the court interpreting law and that is what the justices will do. I'd like to at least look ahead to what precedent the decision would set. Could other companies decide that any and all hormonal birth control methods are against their religion and not offer them, "here, have a go at it with the barrier method". Or could a company just offer literature on the rhythm method, or abstinence? I realize that these are much less effective than hormonal birth control, but then again, going from barrier methods to the pill takes you from 15% to 8%. Jumping down to IUD gets you down to 0.2%.

 

[Magyar]

Religious beliefs are not wacko or insane. Prayer and the Ten Commandments is a good thing. .

Yes, YES they are! Unless you believe that the delusional imaginings of some people trump reality and those delusions not only trump the rights of others but give the delusional the power and authority to alienate, discriminate, segregate, torture and kill others because of your delusions.

Prove otherwise - and don't give me the meme about how you've talked to god.

 

[pgwenthold]

I realize it all comes down to the court interpreting law

Unfortunately, it doesn't come down to that. Not with this court.

You actually think Scalia is going to "interpret the law"? Or does he want to allow companies to impose their catholic views? Thomas has made no bones about thinking that we could impose a friggin theocracy, for all he cares.

 

[RussDill]

Unfortunately, it doesn't come down to that. Not with this court.

You actually think Scalia is going to "interpret the law"? Or does he want to allow companies to impose their catholic views? Thomas has made no bones about thinking that we could impose a friggin theocracy, for all he cares.

Oi, first I concede that it will come down to law and case law instead of any form of logic, and now you have me descending further. Thanks.

Heh, I just noticed that Ziggurat's article does mention Title VII religious accommodations, which specifically provide protections for *employees* from *employers*.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unfortunately, it doesn't come down to that. Not with this court.

You actually think Scalia is going to "interpret the law"? Or does he want to allow companies to impose their catholic views? Thomas has made no bones about thinking that we could impose a friggin theocracy, for all he cares.

I don't think you really understand what you're talking about. The RFRA (which is the law Hobby Lobby is using as the basis for their suit) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support precisely because Scalia sided with the government against religious exemptions in Employment Division v. Smith.

Oh, and Hobby Lobby isn't Catholic, and their position regarding contraception doesn't match Catholic doctrine either.

 

[RussDill]

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:

For the individual, the court must determine
whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

So I don't think we are at the compelling state interest stage. I don't think Hobby Lobby can claim that it is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on their belief. They are not the one making the decision whether or not to use certain contraceptives. Additionally, no individuals at Hobby Lobby are required to assist in the dispensing of contraceptives.

 

[Upchurch]

And the insurance will then pay for the treatment. Therefore the employer is still paying for the treatment, despite the intermediary.

That isn't how insurance works. Individual policies don't pay for that individual's treatments. They go into an insurance pool and claims are paid out of that pool. Unless Hobby Lobby has set up an entirely self-insured system, it is not a 1-to-1 dollars in vs. dollars out.

You're trying to argue that Hobby Lobby should not hold the religious beliefs that it holds, but that argument has nothing to do with the legal case before the courts.

I'm actually arguing that Hobby Lobby doesn't hold religious beliefs. Individuals within the Hobby Lobby corporate structure hold religious beliefs and, aside from the legality of it all, I personally feel it is morally wrong for those individuals to force their religious beliefs on employees who are dependent on Hobby Lobby for their jobs.

Legally, despite your opinions to the contrary, I do think it sets up preferential treatment for those with similar religious beliefs and, as others have pointed out, males. That's work-place discrimination.

 

[Magyar]

Heh, I just noticed that Ziggurat's article does mention Title VII religious accommodations, which specifically provide protections for *employees* from *employers*.

Yes, but hasnt this traditionally applied only to non profit religiuos based prganizations - for no logical reason other then special treat,ent of the delusional - like tax exempt status.

Hobby lobby is a for profit entity and is seperate from the corporate officers.
If you really tuink about it this is like hearsay evidence

Whats happening is a private person who happens to work for the corporation is forcing their religious nuttery on the coproration that is then forced to do that to the employees.


Even if you declare, in some retarded twist of logic that corps have the same status and rights as human beings (wonder whats next. Declairing personhood for my yacht so it can avoid paying luxury tax?)

How is it ok for person a to force person b (the corp) to force person c to follow persons a's religious beliefs? Because even if you accept that a corporation is a person, that is what this case comes down to! And still. Ot a single person has explained how this corporation person thing experesses its agreement or dissagreement of the religious beliefs of person a.

 

[Kestrel]

So I don't think we are at the compelling state interest stage. I don't think Hobby Lobby can claim that it is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on their belief. They are not the one making the decision whether or not to use certain contraceptives. Additionally, no individuals at Hobby Lobby are required to assist in the dispensing of contraceptives.

If I understand medical privacy laws correctly, Hobby Lobby doesn't have the right to know what if any contraceptive methods are being used by employees.

 

[RussDill]

Yes, but hasnt this traditionally applied only to non profit religiuos based prganizations - for no logical reason other then special treat,ent of the delusional - like tax exempt status.

Hobby lobby is a for profit entity and is seperate from the corporate officers.
If you really tuink about it this is like hearsay evidence

Whats happening is a private person who happens to work for the corporation is forcing their religious nuttery on the coproration that is then forced to do that to the employees.


Even if you declare, in some retarded twist of logic that corps have the same status and rights as human beings (wonder whats next. Declairing personhood for my yacht so it can avoid paying luxury tax?)

How is it ok for person a to force person b (the corp) to force person c to follow persons a's religious beliefs? Because even if you accept that a corporation is a person, that is what this case comes down to! And still. Ot a single person has explained how this corporation person thing experesses its agreement or dissagreement of the religious beliefs of person a.

BTW, are you doing ok? If you aren't inebriated you might want to do a stroke test or something. The degree of typing errors is really high compared to your other posts.

Anyway, you'd really enjoy reading the American Jewish Committee brief.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co...f-Amicus-Curiae-American-Jewish-Committee.pdf

 

[Ziggurat]

That isn't how insurance works. Individual policies don't pay for that individual's treatments. They go into an insurance pool and claims are paid out of that pool. Unless Hobby Lobby has set up an entirely self-insured system, it is not a 1-to-1 dollars in vs. dollars out.

Again, you're arguing that they should not hold the beliefs that they hold. But that is not the question before the court.

I'm actually arguing that Hobby Lobby doesn't hold religious beliefs. Individuals within the Hobby Lobby corporate structure hold religious beliefs and, aside from the legality of it all, I personally feel it is morally wrong for those individuals to force their religious beliefs on employees who are dependent on Hobby Lobby for their jobs.

Read the link I gave above. The fact that third parties may be burdened because of the exercise of someone's religious beliefs is not grounds to prevent that exercise of beliefs, it happens all the time. And saying that it's the owners and executives who have the beliefs doesn't resolve the issue in favor of the government either. Furthermore, the government's suggested remedy for how Hobby Lobby can abide by their beliefs (don't provide any health insurance, and just pay the fine) undermines your own position. The government is claiming that if Hobby Lobby provides no one with anything, that is superior to providing employees with almost everything the government is asking for. How are employees any better off under such an arrangement?

Legally, despite your opinions to the contrary, I do think it sets up preferential treatment for those with similar religious beliefs and, as others have pointed out, males. That's work-place discrimination.

The sexual discrimination angle won't work here. Male and female biology is different, so "discrimination" of some sort is inevitable. Is it discrimination against men if a company doesn't offer Viagra? You haven't (and probably cannot) established an objective standard for equivalent treatment when men and women have inequivalent needs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whats happening is a private person who happens to work for the corporation is forcing their religious nuttery on the coproration that is then forced to do that to the employees.

These aren't people who *happen* to work for the corporation. They are the owners of the corporation.

Even if you declare, in some retarded twist of logic that corps have the same status and rights as human beings

Nobody is arguing that position. This is a total straw man.

How is it ok for person a to force person b (the corp) to force person c to follow persons a's religious beliefs?

That's a ridiculous claim. Employees are free to use whatever contraception they want to. For certain forms, they have to pay for it themselves, but having to pay for something is nowhere near equivalent to being forced to not do that thing. Furthermore, since Hobby Lobby can legally refrain from offering any health insurance, they could "force" employees to pay for it themselves even under the law as it is now. So they can already do what you're so upset about, and nobody is contesting their ability to do so.

Why is it that you prefer Hobby Lobby to offer no plan at all than to offer a plan that doesn't fully satisfy you? Do you actually think such a position benefits employees?

 

[Upchurch]

Again, you're arguing that they should not hold the beliefs that they hold. But that is not the question before the court.

In no way does that relate to what I wrote in that quote or what I was responding to.

I am not arguing that individuals the Hobby Lobby corporate structure can not, or can not be allowed to, hold the beliefs that they hold. So, get that concept out of your head. It's a straw man.

"Should not", however, is a different question entirely.

Read the link I gave above.

First, you need to read what I wrote in the lines you quoted. Except for distinguishing the difference between Hobby Lobby, which is not anthropomorphic and does not have beliefs, and the individuals in Hobby Lobby, I specifically said that I was not addressing the legality of it, but the moral aspect, which was really more of an aside than an actual argument.

*whew* let's hear it for run-on sentences!

The sexual discrimination angle won't work here. Male and female biology is different, so "discrimination" of some sort is inevitable. Is it discrimination against men if a company doesn't offer Viagra? You haven't (and probably cannot) established an objective standard for equivalent treatment when men and women have inequivalent needs.

Companies don't offer medical treatments, they offer medical insurance.

However, let's pretend for a moment that they did. Yes, it would be discriminatory for a company that didn't want to "offer" a valid medical treatment just because the men might get an erection from it.

It is none of the employer's business.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

If corporations are people then why would their sincere religious beliefs be limited to the beliefs of the owners? For that matter, why would they be limited to previously held beliefs of humans? Why should the exception be limited to known religions? Or religion at all?

Corporations exist to make money. That is its very reason for existing, much less a sincerely held core belief. A corporation can sincerely state that its sincere belief is that all healthcare for fungible employees that is against its financial interest is against its sincerely held core beliefs.

This is the slippery slope. This is why we should not couple healthcare to employment.

 

[Aepervius]

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

If they had firm christian belief, they would give their firm profit money off, as IIRC money profiting is actually seen negatively by Christ / NT. But they don't, which means at some point they split their belief, from the reality of today society where money profitering is seen as OK, and decide that enrichment is fine. So they decided more or less what they do - taking profit money, is fine, but what their employee might do with money they give them, is bad.

in other word like all many they have a double standard of "do i tell, not what I do".

 

[Aepervius]

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.

At *what* cost ? 15 to 50 $ per month is a lot for some people.

By the way , as far as I can tell in france it is covered. I am not sure for other country like germany or sweden, but i would bet it is. As enabling poor family to not be burdened by unwanting pregancy is actually a compelling state interrest.