• Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Hobby Lobby
    177 replies, posted
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255367]So what is the problem, the company doesn't have to do something they morally object to and women can still get abortions.[/QUOTE] Well the problem, in my eyes, is that the only people who have the right to deny their employees this healthcare insurance that they object to is religious groups, while others with just as vehement opinions do not. That's an arbitrary and outdated notion. The law is the law, and you should not be exempt from it because of your belief system.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255367]So what is the problem, the company doesn't have to do something they morally object to and women can still get abortions.[/QUOTE] Yea but their moral objections are bullshit.
[QUOTE=toaster468;45255121]I don't have a problem with it and nor do the leadership of Hobby Lobby. The problem comes in when they are forced to do something they feel is not right. Being a private company they should be allowed to do that and because they offer many other forms of birth control I see no real issue with their decision.[/QUOTE] A private [B]company[/B] is not a [B]human being[/B] and therefore does not have religious beliefs. It amazes me that so many of you can say "businesses are in it for profit" and then say that an owner's beliefs should affect the business as a whole. Why is the owner allowed to project his religious/moral beliefs onto a legal entity designed purely for economic purpose? What business do his personal beliefs have affecting the company's ability to profit? These two ideas are not compatible and yet many people think economic entities should be taking moral stances. At least those who think a corporation should be about more than profit have a leg to stand on. The rest of you clearly don't understand the message you're supporting. [QUOTE=toaster468;45254596]Also note how this only applies to contraceptive methods that could cause (in the opinion of the leadership of Hobby Lobby) an abortion. Those options were only 4 types of types of contraceptives that would have to be supplied, the other 16 were not objected to.[/QUOTE] When the big, bad, entire medical profession says "this is [I]not[/I] an abortion", and some grass roots, flag waving party shop owner says "this [I]is[/I] an abortion", I, a red blooded [del]American[/del] Canadian, know who I am going to side with. [QUOTE=toaster468;45254596]Also note how this only applies to contraceptive methods that could cause (in the opinion of the leadership of Hobby Lobby) an abortion. Those options were only 4 types of types of contraceptives that would have to be supplied, the other 16 were not objected to.[/QUOTE] This is a really good point that I hadn't thought of. If religious beliefs are protected by this law but nothing else is, you have automatically created a situation of discrimination.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45255390]Yea but their moral objections are bullshit.[/QUOTE] I can appreciate your position but that's not how the law works. You live in a country of over three hundred million people, from a myriad of ethnic backgrounds, participating in hundreds of organized and unorganized religions, coming from all walks of life, occupying an area the size of some continents. You and you alone do not get to decide what moral objections are acceptable and which are not, and if you do some research into how our government is set up, you will find that the government [I]only[/I] overrides personal religious belief when there is a compelling interest for the government to do so. This issue in question has never been considered a compelling interest. Intolerance starts with deciding that your opinion is the only valid one. I don't know why it is in these threads that so many people seem to have no sense of perspective or empathy. Not everybody thinks as you do and you can't blithely declare your opinion to be the right one and expect anything to get done. [QUOTE=FlakAttack;45255421]A private [B]company[/B] is not a [B]human being[/B] and therefore does not have religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] The [I]owners[/I] of that company, the ones signing the checks, can have religious beliefs. The article says as much: [quote]"The [b]owners[/b] of many [b]closely held[/b] corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome."[/quote] When you're talking about a publicly traded company with no clear owner, these concepts don't apply, but when there is one person at the top making decisions they have all the same rights to religious belief as anyone else.
A lot of people are claiming that the current "Roberts' Court" is partisan. While it is true that larger issues like this have been 5-4 splits, the Roberts Court has a 60% record of unanimous decisions, higher than most other previous courts.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45255498]I can appreciate your position but that's not how the law works. You live in a country of over three hundred million people, from a myriad of ethnic backgrounds, participating in hundreds of organized and unorganized religions, coming from all walks of life, occupying an area the size of some continents. You and you alone do not get to decide what moral objections are acceptable and which are not, and if you do some research into how our government is set up, you will find that the government [I]only[/I] overrides personal religious belief when there is a compelling interest for the government to do so. This issue in question has never been considered a compelling interest. Intolerance starts with deciding that your opinion is the only valid one. I don't know why it is in these threads that so many people seem to have no sense of perspective or empathy. Not everybody thinks as you do and you can't blithely declare your opinion to be the right one and expect anything to get done.[/QUOTE] I respect a person's religious beliefs, no matter how silly they are, up to the point when they start influencing government policy. When a person's religion denies people medical coverage that a lot of people need, thats when their moral objections become bullshit. I'm well aware I'm not at the top of the monarchy and don't make decisions and I'm well aware as to how my government works; that's why I'm complaining on the internet and not slamming my gavel down on the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45255576]When a person's religion denies people medical coverage that a lot of people need, thats when their moral objections become bullshit. [/QUOTE] There's already a compromise in place that allows religious non-profits to avoid providing certain forms of healthcare, and the government picks it up instead. This wasn't in the article, but Alito in the court's decision wrote: [quote]Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful. [/quote] The court argued that because there is a system in place that could allow religious business owners to not pay for something they oppose, but still provide coverage through the government, that that system could and should be used instead of forcing business owners to pay for it. People should still be able to get full healthcare coverage, that was the point of the ACA in the first place. But at the same time, the religious liberties of all people should be respected. The Supreme Court struck down the requirement because there is a better way to balance those two goals, not because religious freedom trumps the welfare of the people.
My friend sent me this on Steam [quote]The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Hobby Lobby, deciding that the Obamacare mandate cannot force closely held corporations to provide birth control to female employees if the businesses hold religious convictions against paying for a bunch of sinful junk for those sexed-up hussies. "It's about time the Supreme Court protected the rights of a small, billion dollar corporation from the tyranny of a 16 yr old girl." [/quote] And I thought it was a joke Onion thing because I have never heard of The Hobby Lobby before today. I was immediately saddened to hear this was an actual thing that happened.
[QUOTE=Lightran;45255177]I'm literally laughing out loud, Flak do yourself a favor and start undergoing gender reassignment therapy, you are no longer a man.[/QUOTE] Man, who the fuck are you an alt of. This posting style is mad familiar, and pretty fucking abhorrent.
WTF does contraception have to do with health care ? I must have misunderstood something here...
[QUOTE=Lightran;45254396]Sorry liberals, this isn't socialism. It is not a corporation's job to insure that a woman can hop from penis to penis.[/QUOTE] Yeah, sorry, no. It isn't about letting them 'hop from penis to penis', though if they wish to do so that is their right. No, the Pill does so much more than simply stave off fertility that it's a legitimate healthcare issue, not to mention taking the pill means women who aren't loaded don't get burdened with raising a child they cannot financially support. There's literally no logical argument against health insurance covering the Pill.
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;45254446]Contraceptives aren't just used for birth control. The pill is also used for: irregular periods, painful periods which can be debilitating enough to require sick days, periods that last longer than the usual 5-7 days, ovarian cysts, and a number of other health issues.[/QUOTE] This holy shit people are stupid. Why do you think some girls around 13-16 year olds take birth control. I wish there was a huge fucking psa about birth control and stop hearing idiots say "well im not paying you to be a slut".
Alright so what I want to know is if I'm part of a religion that doesn't support medical care of any sort, can I get out of paying for health insurance all together? After all, it is "part of my religion". Where is the line drawn?
Corporations should not have religious rights regardless of the size of the corporation.
Also, if I'm anti-vaccination by religious beliefs or due to "strong moral convictions", would I be able to get out of paying for vaccinations for my employees and their children?
Pretty much
[QUOTE=Korova;45256125]Alright so what I want to know is if I'm part of a religion that doesn't support medical care of any sort, can I get out of paying for health insurance all together? After all, it is "part of my religion". Where is the line drawn?[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith]Eh, wherever the State feels like it.[/url]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45256128]Corporations should not have religious rights regardless of the size of the corporation.[/QUOTE] Or you could just find another employer rather than forcing your employer to disregard their religious beliefs.
As a business person myself, this makes me want to pretend to be one of those batshit insane Jehova's Witness people that only pray for medical purposes and refuse to go to the hospital even in life or death situations. It'd save me a ton of money and I mean, what's really stopping me? Besides my personal viewpoint on the matter that anyone who does this is a piece of shit.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256159]Or you could just find another employer rather than forcing your employer to disregard their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] their religious beliefs are interferring with other peoples lives and potential health are you serious? why is a belief worth more than their safety or lives?
[QUOTE=Charades;45256159]Or you could just find another employer rather than forcing your employer to disregard their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] When you go into business in a country where you're expected to provide for your employees (due to a lack of national health services program), you do not get to pick and choose what you want to pay for and what you don't. Like I said before, where is the line drawn? I foresee a lot of companies pretending to be religious just to save money. This isn't a matter of religious freedom, this is a matter of businesses being considered people.
The 1800's called, they want their backwards ass rulings made by bribed zealots back.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45256184]their religious beliefs are interferring with other peoples lives and potential health are you serious? why is a belief worth more than their safety or lives?[/QUOTE] Facepunch has has had a disdain for the religious ever since I first registered, so this will probably come hard for many people to accept and arguing over it is going to lead nowhere due to the ideological split. I agree with the Supreme Court on this ruling, though I think there should be limits put in place on what they can and can not remove to avoid Korova's implications. I also think part of the responsibility falls on the employee and in the future we should look at what the employer offers before accepting the job and getting mad about it at a later date. That obviously wasn't possible up until this point because the new healthcare system was forced on businesses, so it'll be something we adjust to now that everything is as it should be.
[QUOTE=Korova;45256142]Also, if I'm anti-vaccination by religious beliefs or due to "strong moral convictions", would I be able to get out of paying for vaccinations for my employees and their children?[/QUOTE] Jehova's Witnesses do not allow blood transfusions. Should a company have a right to not pay for those?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45256284]Jehova's Witnesses do not allow blood transfusions. Should a company have a right to not pay for those?[/QUOTE] As a business person, you can see the dollar signs in my eyes right now. Medical care costs a ton.
Anyone who thinks birth control for women is [I]solely[/I] contraceptive should really do some middle-school level sex ed. research on [I]everything else[/I] important it does for the female body. Also: Justify viagra still being payed for, go!
[QUOTE=Charades;45256281]Facepunch has has had a disdain for the religious ever since I first registered, so this will probably come hard for many people to accept and arguing over it is going to lead nowhere due to the ideological split. I agree with the Supreme Court on this ruling, though I think there should be limits put in place on what they can and can not remove to avoid Korova's implications. I also think part of the responsibility falls on the employee and in the future we should look at what the employer offers before accepting the job and getting mad about it at a later date. That obviously wasn't possible up until this point because the new healthcare system was forced on businesses, so it'll be something we adjust to now that everything is as it should be.[/QUOTE] And I dont agree period. Birth control can prevent cycts forming on the ovaries or massive debilitating cramps. Both of those can be life threatening and should be covered. Its a lot common than it seems and there should be absolutely no excuse to get around paying for it or any kind of care.
[QUOTE=Charades;45256281]Facepunch has has had a disdain for the religious ever since I first registered, so this will probably come hard for many people to accept and arguing over it is going to lead nowhere due to the ideological split. I agree with the Supreme Court on this ruling, though I think there should be limits put in place on what they can and can not remove to avoid Korova's implications. I also think part of the responsibility falls on the employee and in the future we should look at what the employer offers before accepting the job and getting mad about it at a later date. That obviously wasn't possible up until this point because the new healthcare system was forced on businesses, so it'll be something we adjust to now that everything is as it should be.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter if people are against religion or not. Your religion should not be able to interfere with my right to live. Your religion doens't get to over extend it's bounds. My beliefs do not get to over extend themselves or interfere with you, why does yours get to with me? Why does a belief, any belief, deserve to hinder or interfere with anyone else?
[QUOTE=General J;45256329]Anyone who thinks birth control for women is [I]solely[/I] contraceptive should really do some middle-school level sex ed. research on [I]everything else[/I] important it does for the female body. Also: Justify viagra still being payed for, go![/QUOTE] Sex ed in the states is abysmal, they claim condoms rarely work and abstinance is the safest for most states. Hell at my last job we had condoms locked in boxes and only 18 year olds or older can purchase them.
[QUOTE=General J;45256329] Also: Justify viagra still being payed for, go![/QUOTE] It helps create life. Be fruitful and multiply!:v: Seriously though, Hobby Lobby was concerned about contraception that would inhibit an already fertilized egg from being able to attach itself and develop into a full baby. According to much of the Christian faith, which I am a member of, life begins in the zygote.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.