Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Neally]

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.

The ball is in your court. I've asked multiple times what person's rights religious or otherwise were violated by this decision. All I get are crickets...

"uh, but rights!"
"um, corporations are religions now, or people, or something!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Post your evidence example and I'll look at it.

There are many examples of Scalia's ideology trumping the facts. He contradicts his own rulings when it fits his ideology (I posted an example). And Thomas's ideology is extreme and only mainstream in extreme Libertarian crowds.

 

[Kestrel]

The balance here is between an employee's right to comprehensive medical insurance against an employer's right to interfere with an employee's medical care on religious grounds.

As we have come to expect, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court upheld the Golden Rule. The people with the gold get to make the rules.

 

[Neally]

The balance here is between an employee's right to comprehensive medical insurance against an employer's right to interfere with an employee's medical care on religious grounds.

Yet again no substance since the right of an employee to buy whatever drug they want is unaffected by the ruling.

As we have come to expect, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court upheld the Golden Rule. The people with the gold get to make the rules.

And the same people that profess to be all about protecting fundamental rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights do a quick about face with the outcome isn't to their liking. The idea behind the old "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is long gone.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I'm thinking the 'right' I lose is equal protection.

1) While Hobby Lobby is able to opt out of specific contraception insurance, I am unable to opt out (even though my wife nor I would use any contraceptive services). This seems unfair and unequal.

2) While Hobby Lobby is able to opt out of specific contraception insurance, other comparable companies can not. Thus, by law Hobby Lobby is given a competitive advantage. Granted, in this case it is probably insignificant, but it is nonetheless true.

Before ACA, all companies had the same insurance rules, they provided what they felt was in their best interest (both from a cost standpoint and motivating prospective employees to join). With ACA, all companies had a minimum standard, but could still offer more to entice employees. Now, with this accommodation, based on religious doctrine, certain companies get to offer less than legal minimum standards.

 

[Neally]

I'm thinking the 'right' I lose is equal protection.

1) While Hobby Lobby is able to opt out of specific contraception insurance, I am unable to opt out (even though my wife nor I would use any contraceptive services).

Sure you are. Don't sign up for the insurance offered.

2) While Hobby Lobby is able to opt out of specific contraception insurance, other comparable companies can not. Thus, by law Hobby Lobby is given a competitive advantage. Granted, in this case it is probably insignificant, but it is nonetheless true.

Sure they can if they hold similar religious objections.

You've lost no "equal protection" rights.

Before ACA, all companies had the same insurance rules, they provided what they felt was in their best interest (both from a cost standpoint and motivating prospective employees to join). With ACA, all companies had a minimum standard, but could still offer more to entice employees. Now, with this accommodation, based on religious doctrine, certain companies get to offer less than legal minimum standards.

Yep, and no one elses rights are impacted.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Sure you are. Don't sign up for the insurance offered.

No, I cannot opt out. The ACA requires that I have the insurance that meets minimum standards. Failure to comply results in a fine that increases over the next few years.

Sure they can if they hold similar religious objections.

Not true.
1) Only closely held companies have the right to this accommodation;
2) Only available to those companies that claim a particular religious doctrine, a company arriving at the same belief independently cannot claim the accommodation;

You've lost no "equal protection" rights.

Mere assertion.

Yep, and no one elses rights are impacted.

Again, mere assertion.

You are simply nay-saying. Again.

 

[MontagK505]

Sure you are. Don't sign up for the insurance offered.

Sure they can if they hold similar religious objections.

You've lost no "equal protection" rights.

Yep, and no one elses rights are impacted.

If you don't share the same religious ideology then your rights under the law are effected.

 

[MontagK505]

Yet again no substance since the right of an employee to buy whatever drug they want is unaffected by the ruling.

And the same people that profess to be all about protecting fundamental rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights do a quick about face with the outcome isn't to their liking. The idea behind the old "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is long gone.

Wrong! This ruling has nothing to do with anything Hobby Lobby is saying. Hobby Lobby is getting an exemption from a provision of a federal law based on their religious ideology. This is the effect of the SCOTUS ruling.

Other "closely held" company's that cannot pass a court approved religious test will not get the exemption.

 

[Neally]

No, I cannot opt out. The ACA requires that I have the insurance that meets minimum standards. Failure to comply results in a fine that increases over the next few years.

So you can opt out. Further you can opt out with no fine: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/ which includes, a religious exemption. GASP!

1) Only closely held companies have the right to this accommodation;
2) Only available to those companies that claim a particular religious doctrine, a company arriving at the same belief independently cannot claim the accommodation;

Which other items in the bill of rights besides religious freedom do you have a problem with when you disagree with the outcomes?

If you don't share the same religious ideology then your rights under the law are effected.

Yet again with "RIGHTS!" Which exactly rights are affected?

Wrong! This ruling has nothing to do with anything Hobby Lobby is saying. Hobby Lobby is getting an exemption from a provision of a federal law based on their religious ideology. This is the effect of the SCOTUS ruling.

The owners of Hobby Lobby say they have a religious objection to 4 out of 20 drugs provided. Isn't it just horrible that some people have religious beliefs and the constitution respects that!

Other "closely held" company's that cannot pass a court approved religious test will not get the exemption.

Imagine that, the law accommodates a persons religious beliefs. How terrible!

 

[The Greater Fool]

So you can opt out. Further you can opt out with no fine: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/ which includes, a religious exemption. GASP!

Again, I can not opt out. None of those exemptions apply to me. I am a law abiding citizen, thus choosing not to be insured is illegal. The fine/fee is a punishment for breaking the law.

The religious exemption you applaud applies only if I were a member of an organized religion. I can hold the exact beliefs, the exact moral stance, but because I arrive at it on my own, I cannot be granted the exemption. Exactly how is that equal treatment before the law?

The exemption Hobby Lobby received is not available to the exact same company with the exact same beliefs, the exact same moral stance, but if not part of an organized religion, the exemption is not available. How is that equal treatment before the law?

Which other items in the bill of rights besides religious freedom do you have a problem with when you disagree with the outcomes?

When did you stop beating your spouse?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and that government would not establish a religion. The establishment has long since come to include supporting or opposing religion. By giving organized religion an exemption that is not available to individuals having the same beliefs, then the government is supporting a religion over another.

Yet again with "RIGHTS!" Which exactly rights are affected?

Those have been enumerated in the posts you've replied to, though you have failed to respond with any more than simple nay-saying. Address the points.

The owners of Hobby Lobby say they have a religious objection to 4 out of 20 drugs provided. Isn't it just horrible that some people have religious beliefs and the constitution respects that!

Imagine that, the law accommodates a persons religious beliefs. How terrible!

Yet, if I not being a member of an organized religion make the exact same claim for the exact same reasons, I cannot get the accommodation.

Imagine that, the law accommodates ORGANIZED religion, but not individual religion. Yes, it is horrible!

 

[SezMe]

Small problem:

Actually, no problem. Your reply has nothing to do with the point I made.

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."

Well, that's no longer true, is it?

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

Tell me, Zig, how you discern outage from an ordinary post. And try not to dodge the question this time.

 

[Kestrel]

No, I cannot opt out. The ACA requires that I have the insurance that meets minimum standards. Failure to comply results in a fine that increases over the next few years.

If medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs is covered by your insurance, you still have the right to refuse that treatment.

 

[Neally]

Again, I can not opt out. None of those exemptions apply to me. I am a law abiding citizen, thus choosing not to be insured is illegal. The fine/fee is a punishment for breaking the law.

Call it whatever you want. You can opt out and pay a fee to do so.

The religious exemption you applaud applies only if I were a member of an organized religion. I can hold the exact beliefs, the exact moral stance, but because I arrive at it on my own, I cannot be granted the exemption. Exactly how is that equal treatment before the law?

Duh. I'm different so how can I be the same? Smokers pay more for insurance than non-smokers. Oh noes! They don't have equal treatment before the law! Old people pay more than young people. Age discrimination!

The exemption Hobby Lobby received is not available to the exact same company with the exact same beliefs, the exact same moral stance, but if not part of an organized religion, the exemption is not available. How is that equal treatment before the law?

Because the constitution was written give special protections based on religious beliefs. Which of the other bill of rights do you want to get rid of?

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and that government would not establish a religion. The establishment has long since come to include supporting or opposing religion. By giving organized religion an exemption that is not available to individuals having the same beliefs, then the government is supporting a religion over another.

See the above.

Those have been enumerated in the posts you've replied to, though you have failed to respond with any more than simple nay-saying. Address the points.

Yours is the very first to actually try to name the rights. Unfortunately you failed to make the case for the right of "equal protection".

Yet, if I not being a member of an organized religion make the exact same claim for the exact same reasons, I cannot get the accommodation.

The ruling said nothing about a specific "organized religion". It ruled on religious beliefs held and applies to any other closely held company.

Imagine that, the law accommodates ORGANIZED religion, but not individual religion. Yes, it is horrible!

See they above.

 

[The Greater Fool]

If medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs is covered by your insurance, you still have the right to refuse that treatment.

Aye, that is true. In real life, this is how I would approach the issue personally, if it existed. However, Hobby Lobby's argument, and choice, is not to pay for the coverage to which it objects, while an individual believing the exact same as Hobby Lobby has no choice not to pay for the objectionable service coverage.

Hobby Lobby's argument is they don't want their money supporting a service they find morally objectionable. Why, then, must my money (which, like HL is pooled with many other people's money) be used to support services I find equally and exactly as morally objectionable, because I don't belong to an organized religion?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Call it whatever you want. You can opt out and pay a fee to do so.

Again, nonsensical nay-saying.

Duh. I'm different so how can I be the same? Smokers pay more for insurance than non-smokers. Oh noes! They don't have equal treatment before the law! Old people pay more than young people. Age discrimination!

Now it is obvious you are just nay-saying.
It is demonstrable that smokers cost more than non-smokers, hence the difference.
It is demonstrable that old people cost more than young people, hence the difference.
What is the demonstrable difference between Hobby Lobby's belief and another's identical belief, but arrived at differently?

Because the constitution was written give special protections based on religious beliefs. Which of the other bill of rights do you want to get rid of?

Again, when did you stop beating your spouse?
The constitution provides protections of religious beliefs, not religions. To the government there should be no difference between organized religious doctrine and personal religious doctrine. This ruling accepts one and rejects the other. That is supporting a religion, not protecting religious belief.

Yours is the very first to actually try to name the rights. Unfortunately you failed to make the case for the right of "equal protection".

Again, nonsensical assertion, not any sort of rebuttal.

The ruling said nothing about a specific "organized religion". It ruled on religious beliefs held and applies to any other closely held company.

You need to read the ruling again. You also need to read the link you posted on the exceptions. Both require organized religious doctrine, mere belief is not adequate.

ETA: From your link: •You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Ziggurat]

The balance here is between an employee's right to comprehensive medical insurance against an employer's right to interfere with an employee's medical care on religious grounds.

You make two serious errors here. The first is conflating insurance coverage with medical care. They are not the same. The second is the slight-of-hand replacement of a refusal to pay with interference. I am not interfering with your acquisition of a Porsche, but I sure as hell won't pay for it.

 

[Neally]

It is demonstrable that smokers cost more than non-smokers, hence the difference.
It is demonstrable that old people cost more than young people, hence the difference.

And It is demonstrable that people with preexisting conditions cost more than those without. And It is demonstrable that women cost more than men. Neither of which are allowed to have different premiums. Another example of the governments special and inconsistent treatment. Seems you're the only one thinking that equal treatment under the law is a significant issue here.

What is the demonstrable difference between Hobby Lobby's belief and another's identical belief, but arrived at differently?

This is nothing new. The peyote ruling previously given is another example. Common sense: I can't suddenly make up a "religious" belief to skirt the law.

The constitution provides protections of religious beliefs, not religions. To the government there should be no difference between organized religious doctrine and personal religious doctrine. This ruling accepts one and rejects the other. That is supporting a religion, not protecting religious belief.

See the above. Bottom line is that your continued insistence that the problem is that the ruling violates some sort of equal protection rights because it allows an exemption for 4 out of 20 drugs that are widely held as religiously objectionable has fallen flat. Your rights are not infringed by the ruling. You want to organize a business and have the same religious objection, you too can opt out. No employee rights are affected.

 

[Frank Newgent]

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.

I'll fix this for you then.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of what are are essentially opinions when you boil it down to the basics., or prohibiting the idle talk thereof.

 

[The Greater Fool]

And It is demonstrable that people with preexisting conditions cost more than those without. And It is demonstrable that women cost more than men. Neither of which are allowed to have different premiums. Another example of the governments special and inconsistent treatment. Seems you're the only one thinking that equal treatment under the law is a significant issue here.

:sigh: Each of your examples are lacking, and not to point, being examples of equal treatment for unequal situations.
Give an example where two people believe the same thing, but because of different sources, one is exceptional, one not.

This is nothing new. The peyote ruling previously given is another example. Common sense: I can't suddenly make up a "religious" belief to skirt the law.

1) Suddenly? Even if the individual has held the belief for years, and acted consistent with that belief for years, it is still not worthy of exception;
2) Right, no one ever joined a sect to skirt the law;
3) So a person in a recognized sect is more believable than an individual with the same beliefs? Do tell.

See the above. Bottom line is that your continued insistence that the problem is that the ruling violates some sort of equal protection rights because it allows an exemption for 4 out of 20 drugs that are widely held as religiously objectionable has fallen flat. Your rights are not infringed by the ruling.

Your bald assertions have not caused the argument to fall flat. Your lack of substantive rebuttal reveals your vapid argument.

You want to organize a business and have the same religious objection, you too can opt out. No employee rights are affected.

1) If I organize the exact business as Hobby Lobby, and hold the exact belief for the exact same reasons, but do not belong to a recognized sect, I cannot receive the same exemption;
2) Moving the goal posts to 'employees rights'. My arguments have not be an Employer vs Employee, they have been Employer vs Employer, and Individual vs Individual. Equal protection. Stick to the point.