Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Yea they might even support abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy. But at least they don't have to pay for it. You never have to pay for someone else's abortion.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

So? this is Scalia you are talking about.

He would twist every rule of law into a gordian knot the size of the goodyear blimp if he thought that it would harm Obama.

 

[Freddy]

24 years ago Scalia would have voted against Hobby-Lobby.

but today, because this is an issue of the ACA, he will vote for them.

He is the consummate rectum of the Supreme Court

24 years ago (or thereabouts) it would have been a question of Constitutional interpretation. Since the early 90's it has become a question of statutory interpretation. The language of the statute is favorable to granting religious exemptions liberally. The ACA has nothing to do with interpreting the Religious Freedom Restotration Act (with which those who rely on Jeffrey Toobin for information may not be familiar). In fact, in passing the RFRA Congress was expressing disapproval of Scalia's narrow reading of the free exercise clause. Blame Congress if you don't like it.

 

[marplots]

24 years ago (or thereabouts) it would have been a question of Constitutional interpretation. Since the early 90's it has become a question of statutory interpretation. The language of the statute is favorable to granting religious exemptions liberally. The ACA has nothing to do with interpreting the Religious Freedom Restotration Act (with which those who rely on Jeffrey Toobin for information may not be familiar). In fact, in passing the RFRA Congress was expressing disapproval of Scalia's narrow reading of the free exercise clause. Blame Congress if you don't like it.

This is my preferred method for pretty much everything I don't like.

 

[KatieG]

So wonderful that the Constitution affords folk the right to follow the religion of their choice or not to follow one at all. G-d Bless America.

The United States is not a Christian nation. It is a nation that allows equal protection to all and no special treatment to any one group. That is a fact that can't be argued.

 

[ABC10]

The United States is not a Christian nation. It is a nation that allows equal protection to all and no special treatment to any one group. That is a fact that can't be argued.

So who's arguing?

 

[Polaris]

So who's arguing?

Hobby Lobby.

 

[ABC10]

Hobby Lobby.

That is not the issue at all.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm confused. Why aren't they fully in favor of the insurance companies selling the products they've invested in to everyone, including employees?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3&pLid=460128

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm confused. Why aren't they fully in favor of the insurance companies selling the products they've invested in to everyone, including employees?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3&pLid=460128

You are missing the finer point of morality: any given action is sinful or not depending on whether you are spending money on it or making money on it. The prostitute's customers are sinners, but the pimps aren't.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm confused. Why aren't they fully in favor of the insurance companies selling the products they've invested in to everyone, including employees?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec1_lnk3&pLid=460128

This is only confusing if you think the Hobby Lobby case has anything to do with birth control, as opposed to being solely about getting pissy about Obamacare.

 

[Polaris]

That is not the issue at all.

Hobby Lobby is attempting to enshrine particular Christian beliefs of business owners into an exemption from the law of the land while in order to deny their employees their due for the same Christian reasons.

That's entirely the issue. It's not about religious freedom, it's about Evangelical fascism.

 

[RussDill]

You are missing the finer point of morality: any given action is sinful or not depending on whether you are spending money on it or making money on it. The prostitute's customers are sinners, but the pimps aren't.

Putting the 'E' in JREF, ^ This, this is why I'm on these forums. Thank you for making a complex topic like religious morality simple and understandable.

 

[DragonLady]

You are missing the finer point of morality: any given action is sinful or not depending on whether you are spending money on it or making money on it. The prostitute's customers are sinners, but the pimps aren't.

Sadly, it seems you're exactly right.

 

[ABC10]

Hobby Lobby is attempting to enshrine particular Christian beliefs of business owners into an exemption from the law of the land while in order to deny their employees their due for the same Christian reasons.

That's entirely the issue. It's not about religious freedom, it's about Evangelical fascism.

I don't believe in Christian fascism, Evangelical or not, however, I think Hobby should cut out their health care benefit (which is not a right) and have the employees sign up with Obamacare and pay for their own insurance.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't believe in Christian fascism, Evangelical or not, however, I think Hobby should cut out their health care benefit (which is not a right) and have the employees sign up with Obamacare and pay for their own insurance.

Interesting. I would have assumed you would be on Hobby Lobby's side in this, not the government's.

 

[ABC10]

Interesting. I would have assumed you would be on Hobby Lobby's side in this, not the government's.

I do support Hobby in this issue. In the end, Hobby has the trump care. They can play hard ball by just canceling their connection to providing health care insurance to their employees and pay the fine. The employees can go to Obama's Market Place to seek and pay for their own insurance. In todays work climate, I think Hobby's 15,000 employees are easily replaced as are the other's in the suit.

 

[Polaris]

I do support Hobby in this issue. In the end, Hobby has the trump care. They can play hard ball by just canceling their connection to providing health care insurance to their employees and pay the fine. The employees can go to Obama's Market Place to seek and pay for their own insurance. In todays work climate, I think Hobby's 15,000 employees are easily replaced as are the other's in the suit.

Hobby Lobby: "You'll bend over and take our good Christian values and like it, or you can find another job!"

That's more 2010's work climate. It's a little different now.

 

[RussDill]

I do support Hobby in this issue. In the end, Hobby has the trump care. They can play hard ball by just canceling their connection to providing health care insurance to their employees and pay the fine. The employees can go to Obama's Market Place to seek and pay for their own insurance. In todays work climate, I think Hobby's 15,000 employees are easily replaced as are the other's in the suit.

The part time employees, the ones that are easy to replace, don't receive health benefits.

More likely, the fraction of their employees that do receive health benefits, the highly skilled and qualified fraction, will go somewhere else. Hobby Lobby will find it harder to find highly skilled and qualified people. They'll either have to pay their employees above market rates and end up charging customers more, or settle for less qualified employees and let their quality of service suffer.

 

[ABC10]

The part time employees, the ones that are easy to replace, don't receive health benefits.

More likely, the fraction of their employees that do receive health benefits, the highly skilled and qualified fraction, will go somewhere else. Hobby Lobby will find it harder to find highly skilled and qualified people. They'll either have to pay their employees above market rates and end up charging customers more, or settle for less qualified employees and let their quality of service suffer.

Not in this economy they won't. No one is irreplaceable at the work place.