Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Ziggurat]

Yes, and I also believe reality has a liberal bias

The acceptably secular version of "God is on our side".

 

[thaiboxerken]

The acceptably secular version of "God is on our side".

However, reality is what our laws should be based on, not mythology.

 

[SezMe]

BTW, the entirety of your objection applies to the RFRA itself, a law passed with overwhelming Democratic congressional support and signed into law by Clinton. You're just upset that the SCOTUS applied the law rather than overturn it in its entirety. Damn Democrats, shoving religion down our throats!

"Overwhelming" Democratic support and unanimous Republican support. So who's really doing the shoving, Zig.

You keep bringing up this point but in this case it is not a left/right issue. Religion Christianity has a stranglehold on BOTH parties which manifests in countless ways, as you well know. The RFRA is just one such example.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Overwhelming" Democratic support and unanimous Republican support. So who's really doing the shoving, Zig.

You keep bringing up this point but in this case it is not a left/right issue. Religion Christianity has a stranglehold on BOTH parties which manifests in countless ways, as you well know. The RFRA is just one such example.

Small problem: the instigating event which led to the passage of the RFRA was popular outrage at the infringement of the religious rights of Native Americans, not Christians. And as Wikipedia points out, "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to all religions, but is most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land."

But go on, don't let the facts get in the way of your outrage.

 

[Upchurch]

The acceptably secular version of "God is on our side".

Which is the conservative/GOP motto, right? I'm just going off of their political agendas.

 

[Kestrel]

However, reality is what our laws should be based on, not mythology.

The reason contraception is provided free under the ACA is that the decision was outsourced to medical experts. Congress asked the Institute of Medicine (the medical arm of the National Acadamy of Sciences), for a list of cost effective preventive care proceedures that should be covered with zero additional cost to the patient. The IOM recomendations include standard vaccinations, colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50, and every FDA approved contraception method.

 

[Neally]

The reason contraception is provided free under the ACA is that the decision was outsourced to medical experts. Congress asked the Institute of Medicine (the medical arm of the National Acadamy of Sciences), for a list of cost effective preventive care proceedures that should be covered with zero additional cost to the patient. The IOM recomendations include standard vaccinations, colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50, and every FDA approved contraception method.

Fortunately we have a bill of rights that puts limits on what government thinks it might want to do for our own good when that conflicts with other personal rights. Plenty of examples for the other rights: The NSA wanting to snoop into private electronic communications in order to protect us, FEC censoring free speech in order to make things fair, various jurisdictions limiting the right to bear arms to protect us, etc.

In this case, the government stepped on the religious rights and freedoms by forcing people to pay for something they find religiously objectionable. That the objectionable belief is irrational or unscientific is irrelevant. A good decision for our rights.

 

[Frank Newgent]

The reason contraception is provided free under the ACA is that the decision was outsourced to medical experts. Congress asked the Institute of Medicine (the medical arm of the National Acadamy of Sciences), for a list of cost effective preventive care proceedures that should be covered with zero additional cost to the patient. The IOM recomendations include standard vaccinations, colorectal cancer screening for adults over 50, and every FDA approved contraception method.

Fortunately we have a bill of rights that puts limits on what government thinks it might want to do for our own good when that conflicts with other personal rights. Plenty of examples for the other rights: The NSA wanting to snoop into private electronic communications in order to protect us, FEC censoring free speech in order to make things fair, various jurisdictions limiting the right to bear arms to protect us, etc.

In this case, the government stepped on the religious rights and freedoms by forcing people to pay for something they find religiously objectionable. That the objectionable belief is irrational or unscientific is irrelevant. A good decision for our rights.

A good decision for your right to be wrong

This being equated to freedom of religion will drive religious academics up a wall.

 

[jj]

The usual definition of a right "ends at the other guy's nose".

What this ruling formally states is that corporations' rights extend beyond individuals' noses, but not vice versa.

 

[Neally]

The usual definition of a right "ends at the other guy's nose".

Or more clearly, "where someone else's rights begin." Fortunately no one elses rights are affected by the ruling.

What this ruling formally states is that corporations' rights extend beyond individuals' noses, but not vice versa.

Nope, no one else's rights are impacted.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

A good decision for your right to be wrong

This being equated to freedom of religion will drive religious academics up a wall.

Well, you do have a right to be wrong as far as opinions go, as do you or I have the right to point out that someone is wrong, in our own opinion. Religions are essentially opinions when you boil it down to the basics. That's why it's protected speech and it's given special protections because that particular type of speech can become inflammatory when government becomes involved.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Yes, and I also believe reality has a liberal bias, and there is a real reality out there.

However, certain SCOTUS judges are much more ideologues than others and Scalia and Thomas are two of those more extreme ideologues.

If you want to go into complaining about ideologues then lets do that. Ginsburg is about as much of a political ideologue that you can get to. Why don't you ever complain about her? It's not because she's an ideologue but because her ideology meets yours. That's fine as far as opinions go but don't condemn ideologues as the worst thing ever just because they disagree with you. Put on your big girl pants.

 

[jj]

Or more clearly, "where someone else's rights begin." Fortunately no one elses rights are affected by the ruling.

Nope, no one else's rights are impacted.

Mere distraction and meaningless controversion rather make it clear that you have no real argument to present.

Your entire reply could be more cleanly stated as "nuh uh!".

Not dialog, that.

 

[jj]

Put on your big girl pants.

Well, that sexist atrocity about sums it up, now, doesn't it? I guess I'm not surprised that the author of such a statement appears to support the SCOTUS view that women are lesser citizens.

 

[Frank Newgent]

A good decision for your right to be wrong

This being equated to freedom of religion will drive religious academics up a wall.

Well, you do have a right to be wrong as far as opinions go, as do you or I have the right to point out that someone is wrong, in our own opinion. Religions are essentially opinions when you boil it down to the basics. That's why it's protected speech and it's given special protections because that particular type of speech can become inflammatory when government becomes involved.

You define religion using language any serious religious thinker would find abhorrent.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You define religion using language any serious religious thinker would find abhorrent.

Is it incorrect? Truly religious people base their entire line of thought on what their religion tells them is right or wrong. You and I may disagree with them irregardless of the religion involved but entire wars have been fought because the opinions don't match each other.

At the end of the day a religion is just many people joining together because they share an opinion. It's not unlike a political party. That may be a bit too cynical but there it is.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well, that sexist atrocity about sums it up, now, doesn't it? I guess I'm not surprised that the author of such a statement appears to support the SCOTUS view that women are lesser citizens.

Fine. Put on your big boy pants. Is that better? It's just a way of telling someone to be an adult and not act like a child. On the other hand if I tell a woman to put on big boy pants that may be construed as calling her a butch lesbian. But you made the call so I guess Skeptic Ginger is a lesbian in your eyes...

And for the record I don't, and never have, thought that women are lesser citizens. I've even (and here's where you can show your shocked face) voted for them and even have stood up for them when I thought that they were getting a raw deal just because they didn't have a penis.

I was raised by women, the "Man" who helped make me was long gone. I have a great respect for women. The opinion I hold about Hobby Lobby actually has nothing to do with women or men, it has to do with not limiting people in general from exercising their rights as defined in our laws. If Hobby Lobby wanted to not provide condoms via insurance I'd hold the exact same position.

 

[Magyar]

I don't see the 52% number in the link you offered. Do you have a source for that?

Well, if you are really interested, you could do your own homework! I lost the original limk i meant to post. But a quick google search turned up
http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html
Now i have to take this stories claim of 90% with some skepticism, but

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/cargill-publix-hobby-lobby-ruling-birth-control
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5857084/heres-what-a-closely-held-corporation-is/in/5621013


http://www.newsweek.com/hobby-lobby-decision-likely-open-legal-floodgate-256990
It does show up in several places.

And by the way, the second article addresses the whole meme the righties are pushing about
"Oh narrow" ruling. It will at least generate a whole slew of lawsuits by the religious right that will be nothing but a waist of time, or sadly, a faster degeneration of separation of church
and state that is the wet dream of the likes of palin and company.

 

[Magyar]

religious thinker.

Sort of off topic, but not really as this scotus decision is nothing but outright pandering to a special group of people who suffer from a particular form of delusion.

But those 2 words in your quote do not go together by the the definition of the very people you claim would be offended.

Religion demands faith which is the very antithesis of thinking. Unfortunately those with faith also tend to be violent and so we try to appease them. Sadly that does nothing make them more deeply set in their "faith" and you end up with people like isis and the inquisition which is where we are heading at an every increasing speed, maybe still baby steps but every growing speed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, if you are really interested, you could do your own homework! I lost the original limk i meant to post. But a quick google search turned up
http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html
Now i have to take this stories claim of 90% with some skepticism, but

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/07/cargill-publix-hobby-lobby-ruling-birth-control
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5857084/heres-what-a-closely-held-corporation-is/in/5621013


http://www.newsweek.com/hobby-lobby-decision-likely-open-legal-floodgate-256990
It does show up in several places.

And by the way, the second article addresses the whole meme the righties are pushing about
"Oh narrow" ruling. It will at least generate a whole slew of lawsuits by the religious right that will be nothing but a waist of time, or sadly, a faster degeneration of separation of church
and state that is the wet dream of the likes of palin and company.

The claim that I'm trying to track down is this: 52% of the American workforce work for closely held companies.

This Vanity Fair article links to a WaPo article which links to a NYU paper and a Columbia University paper. The Columbia University paper then cites a US Census paper. The US Census paper is about small businesses and doesn't mention anything about "closely held" corporations at all. The NYU paper linked by the WaPo states, in its abstract, that 52% of employment is by closely held businesses, according to the Chamber of Commerce, but provides no cite for that claim.