The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[jclalor 12]

There's a lot of other religious nutters who own corporations Is the healthcare you now receive going to be dictated by the religious beliefs of your employer?



http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/politics/obamacare-court/index.html

[Boogers 0]

Nobody forces anyone to work for an employer whose beliefs they disagree with.

And government should not force people to do things against their protected religious beliefs.

[funjumper101 15]

Boogers

Nobody forces anyone to work for an employer whose beliefs they disagree with.

And government should not force people to do things against their protected religious beliefs.

Those who believe that their religious beliefs trump individual personal freedom and liberty because they own a SECULAR business and don't like certain aspects of the laws that apply to their SECULAR business are free to sell their company to those that aren't all messed up on religion.

Running one's life and business based on a 2000 year old book of fables is pretty twisted, the way I see it.

"Protected Religious Beliefs" extend to you and those that believe like you do. That kind of superstitious nonsense cannot and should not be forced upon employees of a secular business.

Hobby Lobby doesn't sell bibles and other religious paraphernalia. It is not, in any way shape or form, a religious organization. They can play be the rules as established by the government, or get out of the business. The same should hold true far ALL of the secular businesses, like hospitals and schools, that are operated by religious organizations. If they don't like it, they can sell or close the organizations.

My religious beliefs include the concept that premeditated invasions and occupations of countries that never attack and threatened the USA should not happen. How do I go about having MY beliefs enforced on other citizens?

[747tech 0]

Quote

Running one's life and business based on a 2000 year old book of fables is pretty twisted

It really is sad to see anyone insult someone's faith just because they don't happen to share those beliefs.

And they say the faithful and the conservatives are close minded.
I never begrudge someone their faith short of killing innocent people or blowing up children.
Just sad

[kelpdiver 2]

747tech

Quote

Running one's life and business based on a 2000 year old book of fables is pretty twisted

It really is sad to see anyone insult someone's faith just because they don't happen to share those beliefs.

but not as bad as requiring all of your employees to share your beliefs.

[747tech 0]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

Running one's life and business based on a 2000 year old book of fables is pretty twisted

It really is sad to see anyone insult someone's faith just because they don't happen to share those beliefs.

but not as bad as requiring all of your employees to share your beliefs.

I don't see that as the case. I see a company who is providing their employees who are free to seek employment elsewhere a health plan that corresponds to their beliefs.
Up until the ACA came into existence no employer was required to provide health care
In reality business would be better off giving the employers share of health care to the employee and they can go buy their own.
Birth control is not expensive the liberal community is just using it as a way to divide.
This whole thing is a mess.
Should employers be required to provide health care that covers elective surgery like cosmetic procedures or sex changes if they don't agree?
The only way I see someone forcing something on someone is if they are not free to leave (kind of like the business who can't just walk away) now that is having something forced on someone.
During my entire carrier I moved on if I worked somewhere that did things I objected to. Nobody forces something on me if I find it objectionable.
These business's obviously want to provide health care to employees, if they are forced to I fact cover something that violates their ethics and they stop providing and drop coverage all together I couldn't say I blamed them.

[DanG 1]

I find it funny that the same people who argue that the separation of church and state is limited when it comes to posting the Ten Commendments at government buildings, and requiring prayers at public schools and meetings, argue that it is absolute when it comes to taxes and insurance requirements.

- Dan G

[747tech 0]

DanG

I find it funny that the same people who argue that the separation of church and state is limited when it comes to posting the Ten Commendments at government buildings, and requiring prayers at public schools and meetings, argue that it is absolute when it comes to taxes and insurance requirements.

Isn't irony ironic!

[rushmc 23]

DanG

I find it funny that the same people who argue that the separation of church and state is limited when it comes to posting the Ten Commendments at government buildings, and requiring prayers at public schools and meetings, argue that it is absolute when it comes to taxes and insurance requirements.

And then there are those who say if you dont want to belong to a union, find someplace else to work
go figure

But an employer can force religion on you?

Priceless

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

I need to start a new religion that forbits me to pay taxes. Would you support me?

- Dan G

[chutem 0]

If you only "charge" a standard tithing you could make a tax free fortune.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Birth control is not expensive the liberal community is just using it as a way to divide.

Really? My birth control is $80/month!!! Luckily my insurance pays for half of it, but I have friends who aren't so lucky!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Those who believe that their religious beliefs trump individual personal freedom and liberty

Um - individual personal freedom and liberty entail being able to say "No" to a government. It's like the government ordering you to tithe a Catholic church to pay for healthcare for the church teachers. I take it you'd disagree with such a thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

While I don't really agree with the whole religion / birth control thing, I respect other people's opinions on it.

I don't see the company as trying to control the employees. I think that is an attempt to reverse the situation. The company simply does not want to pay for something it does not agree with. That is not forcing their employees to do or believe anything.

The OP here, wants to force the company to pay for something that does not comport with the owner's beliefs. That is completely wrong.

The key is to look at who is being forced to do something. The OP wants to force the company to do something. The company doesn't want to force anyone to do anything.

Which is trying to impose their beliefs on another?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

The key is to look at who is being forced to do something. The OP wants to force the company to do something. The company doesn't want to force anyone to do anything.

Which is trying to impose their beliefs on another?

The company.

Let's play out this game. A prospective job seeker now will have to ask the interviewer questions about the religious beliefs of the management before they accept an offer, lest they find out on day 1 that they're basically fucked, and have to quit.

And god help (literally) the employees of Christian Scientists.

[davjohns 1]

That does not logically follow.

Companies have published policies. The health insurance provisisions are in writing. You can review these things before accepting employment. Religious beliefs need never come up. It's just a matter of whether you can live with the policies and the benefit package offered. Complaining that the company should offer you more because you want it and don't like the reason they don't offer it is silly. It effectively demands that the owners run their company according to your beliefs. It is the same evil they are being accused of, except they are not forcing anyone to do anything.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[747tech 0]

LyraM45

Quote

Birth control is not expensive the liberal community is just using it as a way to divide.

Really? My birth control is $80/month!!! Luckily my insurance pays for half of it, but I have friends who aren't so lucky!

If that's the case and I have no reason to doubt you then what makes it someone else's responsibility to pay for you to have the sex life you desire to have? Since pregnancy is not a sickness or Disease then why should the prevention thereof be paid for by the rest of us?

I guess along the same lines so as not to discriminate should employers be required to subsidize condoms?

I still like the statement "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money".

[tkhayes 348]

Hobby Lobby, Notre Dame and many others that are now suing the govt because they are being forced to include birth control as part of the employee health plans are ALREADY providing birth control through their health plans. They were before and they are today, and that is a fact.

It is the most ridiculous asinine hypocritical argument I have ever heard. Too bad the Supreme Court is not allowed to tell them to SHADDUP!

[DanG 1]

Quote

It's like the government ordering you to tithe a Catholic church to pay for healthcare for the church teachers.

It's nothing like that, and you know it.

The government has the right to set certain standards regarding employment. You may disagree with where the line should be drawn, but the government has decided that one of the standards is that employer provided health insurance must meet certain minimums. If the employer doesn't want to meet those minimums, then they pay a fine. It's really no different than the government saying that employers must provide safety equiment in mines or construction sites. If the employer's religion doesn't let them wear hats, do they have the right to refuse to pay for hard hats for their mine workers?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

It's like the government ordering you to tithe a Catholic church to pay for healthcare for the church teachers.

It's nothing like that, and you know it.

The government has the right to set certain standards regarding employment. You may disagree with where the line should be drawn, but the government has decided that one of the standards is that employer provided health insurance must meet certain minimums. If the employer doesn't want to meet those minimums, then they pay a fine. It's really no different than the government saying that employers must provide safety equiment in mines or construction sites. If the employer's religion doesn't let them wear hats, do they have the right to refuse to pay for hard hats for their mine workers?

Again
I have been told repeatedly here that if a place of work has a union you are required to join if you chose to work there you must live with that

No different for HC
If an employer choses NOT to provide abortion inducing drugs and other contraceptives YOU have the choice wether to work there or not
You cant have it both ways

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

Well, there's that pesky 1st amendment thing. But nobody pays attention to it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I have been told repeatedly here that if a place of work has a union you are required to join if you chose to work there you must live with that

I've never told you that. I think that's a bullshit rule.

Quote

You cant have it both ways

I don't want it both ways.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,439]

That pesky 1st amendment thing also doesn't allow a boss to verbally abuse their workers. I think DanG had a pretty good analysis, frankly. We're working on where the line belongs. This isn't as far over as not allowing hard hats.

To me, the whole Constitution is a human construct by which we try to build our laws. Since there aren't rigorous proofs (as is the case in math and physics), we have to guess and test. Laws are guesses, and court cases are tests.

Unions are a contract between union management and company and management. I don't believe in closed shops, but somehow holding something else hostage to closed shops is a little silly, kind of like holding your breath until you get the candy

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DanG 1]

Quote

Well, there's that pesky 1st amendment thing.

Can you explain how this is a 1st Amendment issue? I don't see how Congress is making any laws regarding the establishment of religion in the ACA.

- Dan G

[weekender 0]

rushmc

***

Quote

It's like the government ordering you to tithe a Catholic church to pay for healthcare for the church teachers.

It's nothing like that, and you know it.

The government has the right to set certain standards regarding employment. You may disagree with where the line should be drawn, but the government has decided that one of the standards is that employer provided health insurance must meet certain minimums. If the employer doesn't want to meet those minimums, then they pay a fine. It's really no different than the government saying that employers must provide safety equiment in mines or construction sites. If the employer's religion doesn't let them wear hats, do they have the right to refuse to pay for hard hats for their mine workers?

Again
I have been told repeatedly here that if a place of work has a union you are required to join if you chose to work there you must live with that

No different for HC
If an employer choses NOT to provide abortion inducing drugs and other contraceptives YOU have the choice wether to work there or not
You cant have it both ways

that is an interesting point. besides the obvious that those people like unions and dislike christians mostly, it really comes down to how the law is written. arguing whats right and whats wrong seems silly to me. life is not fair and i do not believe the courts are non political.

IMO, as long as the USA wants religious freedom then they should allow people to practice their beliefs unless it hurts someone else. You do not HAVE to work at Hobby Lobby or for anyone any more than you have to work for a union shop. In all fairness though, if you work there when the law was changed you should be grandfathered in. the employer can exclude what they want going forward. new employees should be told when an offer is made of the exclusion. that seems reasonable and fair to me.

a little of how my opinion is formed. I'm an atheist, 100%. i am not offended by Christmas decorations, menorahs or head scarves. just dont make me play your games. i love my halal butcher even though he really prefers my wife does not speak to him. Im ok with the mgt of the Hobby Lobby for the same reason. id probably quit if i worked there though. they seem TOO christian for me. i have a high tolerance to religious beliefs. except global warming, duh. those people are wack.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante