Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Noztradamus]

The part where Hobby Lobby was actually paying for anything against their religious beliefs. All they were actually paying for is insurance, not how that insurance was used. What part of that do you not understand?

Still clinging to the sophistry difference without a distinction?

It's plausible deniability

 

[Kestrel]

I know the Mother Jones article has been cited before but I just wanted to point the hypocrisy out one more time in case anyone actually believes these lying executives.

Hobby Lobby was carefully chosen to provide a sympathetic face for this lawsuit. The company does treat low level workers well, providing a good benefits package and higher pay than the competition. The company also donates heavily to charity.

But we have to remember that this decision also applied to less honorable companies. Sweatshops that only pay minimum wage can now remove all contraceptive services from their insurance policies.

 

[BenBurch]

It's plausible deniability

That's quite charitable.

 

[BenBurch]

Hobby Lobby was carefully chosen to provide a sympathetic face for this lawsuit. The company does treat low level workers well, providing a good benefits package and higher pay than the competition. The company also donates heavily to charity.

But we have to remember that this decision also applied to less honorable companies. Sweatshops that only pay minimum wage can now remove all contraceptive services from their insurance policies.

We're going to hear of a case where a majority-Mulsim-owned company is going to assert it's new rights. And we will hear of this approximately 3 weeks from the election, and we will also find out that they contributed heavily to the GOP. Watch for it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Certainly. And liberals decrying it do so because it disagrees with their own religious beliefs, that is, massive, all-intrusive, secular government insinuating itself into every aspect of human existence, dragging it's jackbooted stomping power to grind religion under it's heal along with it.

Open thine eyes and see that politics and religion are not just similar phenomena, but are the exact same phenomenon. They both proffer worldviews that justify gathering together large masses of people to attempt detailed dominance of everyone's lives.

As with religion, the best defense against the quasi-religion of big government is...wait for it...freedom from religion/government.

Snort.

 

[fishbob]

Why should it trouble me if everyone gets to define sin for themselves? I see no preference here on the part of the SCOTUS for any particular conception of sin, but rather an allowance for private individuals and groups to have their own preferences.

Until the definition includes something that you do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Until the definition includes something that you do.

No. Someone else's definition of sin doesn't matter to me. I will do what I want to do, but I feel no need to make them a party to it, so it makes no difference to me if they feel it is sinful or not. If they are not a party to it, then their objection cannot stop me. Just like Hobby Lobby's objection to certain forms of birth control cannot stop their employees from using those forms of birth control that they pay for themselves.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hobby Lobby was carefully chosen to provide a sympathetic face for this lawsuit. The company does treat low level workers well, providing a good benefits package and higher pay than the competition. The company also donates heavily to charity.

But we have to remember that this decision also applied to less honorable companies. Sweatshops that only pay minimum wage can now remove all contraceptive services from their insurance policies.

The point is this is just more anti-Obama political propaganda and it's dishonest to claim it is about freedom of religious beliefs.

 

[MontagK505]

The point is this is just more anti-Obama political propaganda and it's dishonest to claim it is about freedom of religious beliefs.

I haven't read the entire thread. (late as usual) So if someone has already addressed this, my apologies. It would appear that SCOTUS has granted an exemption from portions of a major Federal law based on religious ideology. Is this not a First Amendment violation?

 

[Neally]

I haven't read the entire thread. (late as usual) So if someone has already addressed this, my apologies. It would appear that SCOTUS has granted an exemption from portions of a major Federal law based on religious ideology. Is this not a First Amendment violation?

No. It also appears you haven't read the decision.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. It also appear you haven't read the decision.

Or the first amendment. There are two parts to the clause on religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

MontagK505 has confused protecting the free exercise of religion (the highlighted portion) for establishing a religion (the non-highlighted portion). That is, of course, complete nonsense. Nobody who wants to buy any form of birth control they choose is in any way limited by Hobby Lobby's right to not do so.

 

[MontagK505]

Or the first amendment. There are two parts to the clause on religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

MontagK505 has confused protecting the free exercise of religion (the highlighted portion) for establishing a religion (the non-highlighted portion). That is, of course, complete nonsense. Nobody who wants to buy any form of birth control they choose is in any way limited by Hobby Lobby's right to not do so.

Yes, but isn't the effect of this SCOTUS decision is to allow some religious ideologues exemption from portions of the ACA that other employers have to follow? You are excluded from obeying laws that the rest of us have to follow because you embrace a specific religious ideology.

 

[Neally]

Yes, but isn't the effect of this SCOTUS decision is to allow some religious ideologues exemption from portions of the ACA that other employers have to follow? You are excluded from obeying laws that the rest of us have to follow because you embrace a specific religious ideology.

Other organizations don't have to follow it if they have similar religious objections. The ruling allows for people to follow their faith. It doesn't endorse the faith or establish a religion.

Allowing someone to spew vile words isn't the same as endorsing those words.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Allowing someone to spew vile words isn't the same as endorsing those words.

It is if you have to specifically exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a subset of "vile words" from restrictions that apply by default to all other "vile words".

 

[AlBell]

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

Where's the laughing dog, in response to that strawman?

Do you understand 'closely held'?

 

[Neally]

It is if you have to specifically exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a subset of "vile words" from restrictions that apply by default to all other "vile words".

A better analogy would the the recent
no free speech zone that was unanimously struck down by the court. It's about where you draw the line to not infringe upon the bill of rights.

In this case, the 4 birth control drugs were allowed to be removed for the greater good of respecting the freedom of religion rights.

 

[AlBell]

And in doing so they hasten the day when we will treat all religious belief as mental illness.

With big govt limited freedom progressives being top-of-the-list.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't read the entire thread. (late as usual) So if someone has already addressed this, my apologies. It would appear that SCOTUS has granted an exemption from portions of a major Federal law based on religious ideology. Is this not a First Amendment violation?

There are two separate issues.

1) The evidence suggests Hobby Lobby is making a disingenuous claim about their motives and religious beliefs. That is the issue I was addressing.

2) The SCOTUS ruling, which Ziggy believes confirmed the government could not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The problem with that is it would seem to be a very selective ruling confirming protection for some Catholics and some other Christian sects, while the court has not had a precedent of protecting other religious practices such as allowing Native Americans to use peyote which had been part of their religious ceremonies.

Do you expect Muslims to be granted the right to murder wayward children claiming it is within their religious beliefs?

It would appear not covering blood transfusions would not be allowed should some Jehovah's Witness employer/owner request that exemption.


The interpretation of just who is purchasing the birth control when money is paid into an insurance pool also needs to be considered. How does it differ if Hobby Lobby pays an employee who then buys birth control with the money (or let's say an abortion) and Hobby Lobby provides wages to the employee in the form of an insurance payment and subsequently the employee then has an abortion?

Clearly on these 5-4 decisions, things are not as clear cut as is usually claimed.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

There are two separate issues.

1) The evidence suggests Hobby Lobby is making a disingenuous claim about their motives and religious beliefs. That is the issue I was addressing.

All reports that I've seen is that Hobby Lobby starts off the day in every store with a prayer and has for a long time. To me that says that they do believe in their religion and apply it on a regular basis. As to motives, I don't know but the decision wasn't about any other motives so that's moot.

2) The SCOTUS ruling, which Ziggy believes confirmed the government could not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The problem with that is it would seem to be a very selective ruling confirming protection for some Catholics and some other Christian sects, while the court has not had a precedent of protecting other religious practices such as allowing Native Americans to use peyote which had been part of their religious ceremonies.

Except that Peyote is allowed for Native Americans so I'm not sure what exactly you're protesting here. It's regulated to make sure that only Native Americans get to get the legal pass but it's not denied for those who qualify under religious rules.

Selective rulings happen more often than you think. I cannot legally posses Peyote even for religious reasons but others can. Is that unfair? I don't think so.

Do you expect Muslims to be granted the right to murder wayward children claiming it is within their religious beliefs?

Strawman argument. Murder is not allowed no matter what (even if you consider the death penalty to be murder it is sanctioned and there is a vetting process in place that includes stopping it from happening). What you are saying is essentially random murder would be accepted under this ruling. Do you even listen to yourself?

It would appear not covering blood transfusions would not be allowed should some Jehovah's Witness employer/owner request that exemption.

Correct. The decision applies to contraceptives. It doesn't ban them but it apparently does allow for well known religious objections to pay for them to be allowed under certain restrictive conditions.

The interpretation of just who is purchasing the birth control when money is paid into an insurance pool also needs to be considered. How does it differ if Hobby Lobby pays an employee who then buys birth control with the money (or let's say an abortion) and Hobby Lobby provides wages to the employee in the form of an insurance payment and subsequently the employee then has an abortion?

The difference is that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to facilitate it en mass. They cannot stop any employee from buying a big bottle of booze every other day (and just like non-religious companies they probably don't want their employees showing up drunk) but the decision means that they don't have to go buy it by the pallet just to get it on the cheap either. The money an employee makes is theirs, the employer has no right to tell them how to spend it or use it. That is the difference, it's a buffer between what the employer wants and what the employee wants. It doesn't stop the employee from buying that bottle of booze on their own dime it just means that the employer doesn't have to blatantly facilitate it.

Clearly on these 5-4 decisions, things are not as clear cut as is usually claimed.

Indeed.

 

[ehcks]

Or the first amendment. There are two parts to the clause on religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;​

MontagK505 has confused protecting the free exercise of religion (the highlighted portion) for establishing a religion (the non-highlighted portion). That is, of course, complete nonsense. Nobody who wants to buy any form of birth control they choose is in any way limited by Hobby Lobby's right to not do so.

When a religion's exercise is trampling on other people's rights, it can no longer be free.