The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[LyraM45 0]

747tech

***

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".


What does that have to do with my sex life? I've been on birth control since a very young age to regulate awful periods that would force me to stay home sick and miss school for a few days a month every single month. So excuse me, but that IS a sickness. I wasn't having sex when I was 13, but I was on birth control.

ETA: So, if you're sick and need antibiotics, is it OK that it's somebody elses responsibility to pay for something to heal your sickness? I bet for you it is, so why not for me? No offense, but you sound really thick!

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

[Boogers 0]

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.

The government accomodates conscientious objectors by allowing them to abstain from taking up arms in war, out of respect for their religious beliefs.

So why should that same government tell that conscientious objector as a businessman that he MUST pay for his employees abortions?

It's up to the free market to decide the consequences of the decisions of such individuals. If you don't like their beliefs, don't work there, and don't shop there. But we shouldn't be forcing them to do things contrary to their beliefs.

[champu 1]

Boogers

So why should that same government tell that conscientious objector as a businessman that he MUST pay for his employees abortions?

I'll rephrase my reply to davjohns a bit, but my point is the same. What is the material difference between paying for health insurance for your employees which may or may not provide particular services and paying them directly with dollars which they may or may not spend on those same services?

Does the employer have a right to decide what they want their employees to use their compensation for in one case but not in the other?

[quade 4]

Boogers

So why should that same government tell that conscientious objector as a businessman that he MUST pay for his employees abortions?

He's not.

Healthcare is part of the compensation package being traded for employment. As such, he has NO say whatsoever in how any part of it is spent.

Think about it. What would be next; that his employees can only eat at McDonalds, shop at Target and buy Chevys?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

weekender

but my example was of a store that IS open but will not sell you a product solely based on their religious beliefs. that is imposing on you. Nor will they let their employees eat with meat and cheese together, thats imposing their religion on their employees. the sole reason is their religion.

I missed this nuance earlier. Not selling the two together is a different matter than not letting their employees eat them on the premise. I'd agree that qualifies as an intrusion.

[davjohns 1]

champu

***So why should that same government tell that conscientious objector as a businessman that he MUST pay for his employees abortions?

I'll rephrase my reply to davjohns a bit, but my point is the same. What is the material difference between paying for health insurance for your employees which may or may not provide particular services and paying them directly with dollars which they may or may not spend on those same services?

Does the employer have a right to decide what they want their employees to use their compensation for in one case but not in the other?

This is a really good argument. So, you are drawing an analogy between how an employee spends his/her pay in dollars and how he/she spends his/her pay in healthcare. At that point, it only becomes one degree of separation. The bill for the health insurance goes directly to the employer, where the bill for the Wiccan Orgy Seance goes directly to the employee (am I the only one into that sort of thing?).

Now, the question is whether that missing layer of separation makes it reasonable that the employer's religious beliefs are offended. I would say 'no'. The problem is that they payment by the employer for the offending service is being mandated by the government. The US Constitution says the US Government is supposed to stay out away from that sort of thing. So, it still goes to SCOTUS for a ruling.

But I really like the argument. It makes it a very tough call in my mind.

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.

[rushmc 23]

quade

***So why should that same government tell that conscientious objector as a businessman that he MUST pay for his employees abortions?

He's not.

Healthcare is part of the compensation package being traded for employment. As such, he has NO say whatsoever in how any part of it is spent.

Think about it. What would be next; that his employees can only eat at McDonalds, shop at Target and buy Chevys?

Ok
So lets take your point a bit further
It is part of the compensation
So this company can decide to drop all HC insurance because of this
Force the employees to the exchanges (which is the goal BTW)

Do you think most employees will get better coverage fromt he exchanges?

I dont

Do you think the company would raise the pay if HC insurance is no longer part of the package?

I don't

"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]

Quote

So this company can decide to drop all HC insurance because of this

This is not an argument in your favor. The employer has the option of avoiding this religious offense entirely. Of course, they would have to pay a fee to do so, but if their religion is so important, what's a litle fee?

And in response to the argument that if employees don't like the rules set up by the employer they should work somewhere else, the opposite is also true. If the employer doesn't like the rules set up by society, they can change their business model so the rules don't apply to them.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

I stopped reading your offensive post at "religios offense"

I do not tolerate intolerance

"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]

Dan: You blew it when you suggested a little fee (tax) for holding your religious beliefs. 1st amendment fail there.

Rush: I once read about a group that was supposed to be in Australia. Their name was 'Tolerance'. Their charter started out with two pages of things they were against. I guess they did not tolerate intollerance either?

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.

[rushmc 23]

When it comes to the level of anti-Christian bigotry that is seen here often, I have no patience. Spell check be dammed at that point

"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]

Quote

I stopped reading your offensive post at "religios offense"

You really need to bone up on your English vocabulary. Hobby Lobby has claimed that their religious sensibilities have been offended. That's the offense I was refering to.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Dan: You blew it when you suggested a little fee (tax) for holding your religious beliefs. 1st amendment fail there.

Well, then my new religion states that I must not pay income taxes. Will you support me against the government when they try to collect?

It's not a fee for practicing your religion. It's a fee for not offering health insurance to your employees. The Bible does not prohibit large companies from providing health insurance.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

Actually, if you really had such religious beliefs, I think there are exceptions. I know the Amish have issues with insurance, so they are exempt from some things. I think I heard that Obamacare gave them an out. Not sure.

But good luck with your new religion Mr. Hubbard.

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

Actually, if you really had such religious beliefs, I think there are exceptions.

Yes, which is one thing that makes this lawsuit more complicated. I suspect that the owners of Hobby Lobby are extending their actual religious beliefs considerably.

- Dan G

[weekender 0]

kelpdiver

*** but my example was of a store that IS open but will not sell you a product solely based on their religious beliefs. that is imposing on you. Nor will they let their employees eat with meat and cheese together, thats imposing their religion on their employees. the sole reason is their religion.

I missed this nuance earlier. Not selling the two together is a different matter than not letting their employees eat them on the premise. I'd agree that qualifies as an intrusion.

i didnt mention it because my example was meant to be quick and only touch the surface. it was purposefully lighthearted and i mistakenly assumed people would get that. i could have given more serious examples using non christian faiths imposing their beliefs on others but it would have increased intolerance. which is the exact opposite of what i was trying to point out. anyone who has lived in a very diverse area has to know all religions tend to impose their beliefs as much as they can get away with. it is not solely christians.

well, except Zoroastrianism which considers it a crime. also might explain why we dont celebrate any of their holidays or why they have no good deli's.

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

[normiss 800]

A company that wants to offer quality employees will offer a plan or compensation.
Andrea and I were publicly attacked and insulted recently due to my employer's domestic partner coverage.
I'm sorry the rude cunt disliked my companies' plan, but I LOVE it.
Part of the draw to get good employees.


Just pass more laws, that always works.

TK allows laws to be broken on his DZ every Sunday.
Chik Fil A is closed every Sunday.
Same religious reasons - opposite outcomes.

It's just fucking stoopid.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I cannot order a sandwich in many deli's with cheese AND meat. the sole reason is it goes against their dietary religious beliefs.

Not exactly. It's because it's a kosher deli. The stock in trade of kosher or halal food retailers is the fact that they're kosher or halal. That's the real niche reason they exist: to service observant Jews or Muslims who won't buy or eat there if they feel the place is not strictly adhering to dietary laws. To that kind of retailer, reputation - trust - for being kosher or halal is absolutely everything. If you combine meat and cheese in a kosher restaurant, then in the minds of the kosher clientele, it stops being reliably kosher, and they will never go there again, and will spread the word to everyone else they know to never go there again either. Depending on what percentage of their business depends on that, that kind of damage to their reputation could effectively put them out of business, and prevent them from ever working locally in the kosher food sub-industry again.

.

[DanG 1]

Quote

TK allows laws to be broken on his DZ every Sunday.

If you're refering to the "law" that prevents women from skydiving in Florida on Sunday, you should be aware that it's an urban legend.

- Dan G

[normiss 800]

No, it's not.

Like a lot of foolish laws, it is simply not enforced.

[DanG 1]

Quote

No, it's not.

Like a lot of foolish laws, it is simply not enforced.

I've seen a lot of references to this, but can't find the actual text of the law. Do you know where I might read it?

- Dan G

[normiss 800]

I have the same perspective, but a criminal defense attorney friend of mine swears it is still a valid law on the books.

I'm putting more faith in him than internet arguments.
I've seen him work.

[weekender 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

I cannot order a sandwich in many deli's with cheese AND meat. the sole reason is it goes against their dietary religious beliefs.

Not exactly. It's because it's a kosher deli. The stock in trade of kosher or halal food retailers is the fact that they're kosher or halal. That's the real niche reason they exist: to service observant Jews or Muslims who won't buy or eat there if they feel the place is not strictly adhering to dietary laws. To that kind of retailer, reputation - trust - for being kosher or halal is absolutely everything. If you combine meat and cheese in a kosher restaurant, then in the minds of the kosher clientele, it stops being reliably kosher, and they will never go there again, and will spread the word to everyone else they know to never go there again either. Depending on what percentage of their business depends on that, that kind of damage to their reputation could effectively put them out of business, and prevent them from ever working locally in the kosher food sub-industry again.

.

Ok, i cannot argue with your reasoning or understanding of the law. i understand this is the internet and your a lawyer. it is easy to use my words against me and completely miss the point. I was not trying to win an argument but make a rather obvious point. what i tell my boss all the time is that there is more to an honest discussion than the exact translation of words. my point has been all along that christians are NOT the only ones who impose their beliefs on others. i do not think you disproved that and am not even sure if you were trying.

do you understand the broader point i was trying to make and do you disagree with it? do you think orthodox jews do not attempt to impose beliefs on others and only christians do? that is all i was trying to say.

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

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Ok, i cannot argue with your reasoning or understanding of the law. i understand this is the internet and your a lawyer

I didn't intend to make any legal point at all. Keying on your presumption "the sole reason", I was explaining that the kosher deli's "no meat & cheese on the sandwich" policy was as much, if not more, about business than it was about the owner's personal beliefs.

Quote

my point has been all along that christians are NOT the only ones who impose their beliefs on others.

I agree completely.

[weekender 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

Ok, i cannot argue with your reasoning or understanding of the law. i understand this is the internet and your a lawyer

I didn't intend to make any legal point at all. Keying on your presumption "the sole reason", I was explaining that the kosher deli's "no meat & cheese on the sandwich" policy was as much, if not more, about business than it was about the owner's personal beliefs.

Quote

my point has been all along that christians are NOT the only ones who impose their beliefs on others.

I agree completely.

i dont disagree with your point at all. just to be clear. as i stated earlier i only chose the deli because i thought it was a non offensive example. i didnt want to increase religious intolerance by siting more offensive examples.

i realize now that my deli example was poor. perhaps not being able to use an elevator in a building is a better example. But i dont want to get in a whole fight over people can use the stairs, its only odd floors, private building, public building, co ops etc....hah.

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