[QUOTE=Charades;45256159]Or you could just find another employer rather than forcing your employer to disregard their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]
In the employer/employee relationship the employer holds the power and should be the one with the duty to accommodate, not the other way around.
[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]
Those four types of contraceptives don't cause abortions, so the argument has no basis right off the starting line.
________ is expensive.
I don't want to pay for insurance that covers ________ for my employees.
My religion forbids ________.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45255498]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.[/QUOTE]
They have the right to their own beliefs. They should not have the right to force those beliefs on their employees through their corporation. The corporation is not a person, nor is it a religious entity. It does not and should never have religious beliefs.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45259137]The corporation is not a person, nor is it a religious entity. It does not and should never have religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't. Nobody said it does. The ruling specifically states that this does not apply to publicly held corporations, it applies to individual people. Those people have religious rights that they don't waive by owning a business.
The government does not have the right to force an individual to act against their own religious beliefs unless the government can demonstrate a clear public need to do so (see Sherbert Test). This was not an issue before when insurance plans were selected by the private corporation and had less government oversight, but as soon as the government mandated healthcare coverage through the ACA then the RFRA came into effect and the Sherbert Test became relevant. Even then, while the government readily acknowledges that there is a public need for employees to have healthcare coverage, the justices noted that not only are most forms of contraceptives still covered by the healthcare plan, but there is also another government program which could easily provide coverage for the remaining items.
And because there is already clearly a solution which provides employees to be covered without requiring the employer to act against their religion, the system used by religious non-profits, the court said to use that system instead. Hence the ruling. This is all spelled out, clear as crystal, in the ruling itself. The solution allows for business owners to avoid being forced to pay for things that violate their religion, while employees who want those things can still get healthcare coverage. What's wrong with that?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45259187]It doesn't. Nobody said it does. The ruling specifically states that this does not apply to publicly held corporations, it applies to individual people, who may happen to own businesses.
The government does not have the right to force an individual to act against their own religious beliefs unless the government can demonstrate a clear public need to do so (see Sherbert Test). This was not an issue before when insurance plans were selected by the private corporation and had less government oversight, but as soon as the government mandated healthcare coverage through the ACA then the RHRA came into effect and the Sherbert Test became relevant.
And because there is already clearly a solution which provides employees to be covered without requiring the employer to act against their religion, the system used by religious non-profits, the court said to use that system instead. Hence the ruling. This is all spelled out, clear as crystal, in the ruling itself.[/QUOTE]
But at what point do you say "suck it up"? Especially when it's a privately owned business that employees thousands?
Also the problem with that alternative methods of obtaining this ("go to Planned Parenthood!") is how on paper you'll be too rich on paper to receive assistance but too poor to actually afford it.
[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]
[QUOTE=Lightran;45254922]Too much, it seems. Did your father ever tell you that too much emotion is a turnoff for women? Or was he not in the picture? Once again you are being a true liberal by attempting to inflict emotional vampirism on people with self respect. Justice prevailed today, you degenerate.[/QUOTE]
[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]
Are you trying to look like a sterotypical buck tooth?
I'm like 99.99% sure he's trolling
[QUOTE=Korova;45259213]But at what point do you say "suck it up"? [/QUOTE]
When the benefits to public welfare outweigh the right to personal freedom and no better alternative exists. Every right guaranteed by the Constitution has limits based on public welfare, and in the case of religious expression we have the Sherbert Test and RFRA to determine whether or not the government is overstepping its bounds. But if a solution can be found which respects religious freedom, no matter how ridiculous or nutty that religion may seem, without causing an undue burden to the public, then the government is [I]obligated[/I] to pursue that option.
As a general rule, we only say 'suck it up' when absolutely necessary for the greater good and no less-invasive alternative exists. People paying their taxes is necessary. Preventing discrimination is necessary. Forcing a company to cover four out of eighteen specific types of contraception under a healthcare plan, though, when a government program already exists to cover it without infringing anyone's religious rights, is not absolutely necessary, and that program will be implemented instead.
[QUOTE=Korova;45259213]Also the problem with that alternative methods of obtaining this ("go to Planned Parenthood!") is how on paper you'll be too rich on paper to receive assistance but too poor to actually afford it.[/QUOTE]
That's not what was discussed. I suggest you read the ruling because the justices go into a lot of detail on it. Here's an excerpt:
[quote]Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.[/quote]
Since there is already a program for non-profit religious organizations under which the government provides healthcare coverage to contraceptives, the majority opinion argues that it would be less invasive to personal liberties to instead co-opt that system for for-profit companies than to force those companies to pay for the contraceptives. The RFRA mandates that if there is an alternative solution that is less invasive to religious freedom, that the government [B]must[/B] pursue that option, so that's what the justices ruled.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;45258988]________ is expensive.
I don't want to pay for insurance that covers ________ for my employees.
My religion forbids ________.[/QUOTE]
My religion forbids the hiring of women, homosexuals, and black people. It also forbids having to adhere to labour laws, as I follow the laws of god not of government.
Thanks for having my back scotus
The issue remains that because a man feels a pill causes abortions, despite the facts, his offence trumps the right to a valid and commonly prescribed health service for his female employees, who then have to seek alternative care.
And from the excerpt you posted, it seems that alternative isn't quite up to the task, yet the Supreme Court ruled this way anyway because "the government needs to fix this shit so it doesn't hurt people's feelings".
A business owner is successfully using a private legal commercial entity as a soapbox for his beliefs and that just got the OK. How long until everyone comes back saying "holy fuck this was a bad idea"?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45259519]My religion forbids the hiring of women, homosexuals, and black people. It also forbids having to adhere to labour laws, as I follow the laws of god not of government.
Thanks for having my back scotus[/QUOTE]
How's that reading comprehension working out for you?
[quote]The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, attempts to quell some of these concerns, limiting the ruling to only the contraceptive mandate, and specifically stating that it should not be understood to apply to other insurance mandates, like those for blood transfusions or vaccinations.
...
Alito also attempts to shoot down worries about illegal hiring practices being masked by RFRA claims, explaining that, “The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.”[/quote]
Pretty clear what this applies to and what it doesn't apply to.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45259545]And from the excerpt you posted, it seems that alternative isn't quite up to the task, yet the Supreme Court ruled this way anyway because "the government needs to fix this shit so it doesn't hurt people's feelings".[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is basically how religious liberty is handled by the government, by design. Maybe that needs to change, but I would rather we work towards a solution that makes everybody happy rather than one that tells some people to deal with it because the young, progressive population of America thinks they're unreasonable. I don't see why pursuing a solution that would make everyone happy is a bad thing, even if I personally think that their religious opinion is downright retarded and illogical.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45259805]How's that reading comprehension working out for you?
Pretty clear what this applies to and what it doesn't apply to.
Yes, that is basically how religious liberty is handled by the government, by design. Maybe that needs to change, but I would rather we work towards a solution that makes everybody happy rather than one that tells some people to deal with it because the young, progressive population of America thinks they're unreasonable. I don't see why pursuing a solution that would make everyone happy is a bad thing, even if I personally think that their religious opinion is downright retarded and illogical.[/QUOTE]
This ruling may be clear, but the precedence set forth is not.
[QUOTE=redsoxrock;45260140]This ruling may be clear, but the precedence set forth is not.[/QUOTE]
The ruling is both A. upholding the precedent of the RFRA, which has been on the books since 1993, and B. expressly stated by the justices to be limited to closely-held corporations and only on the issue of contraceptives and cannot be considered a precedent for other subjects. They addressed this in the article, did you even read it?
I did, and I don't like that they applied the RFRA to a [B]company[/B]
[QUOTE=catbarf;45260170]The ruling is both A. upholding the precedent of the RFRA, which has been on the books since 1993, and B. expressly stated by the justices to be limited to closely-held corporations and only on the issue of contraceptives and cannot be considered a precedent for other subjects. They addressed this in the article, did you even read it?[/QUOTE]
To be fair part B is even worse, they're not only saying that religion can trump law, they're saying what specific kinds of religion trumps law.
Thinking that women shouldn't have birth control is fine, but thinking that blood transfusions are bad apparently isn't.
[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]
I don't think you know what a liberal is.
Heck I don't even think a lot of US politicials know what a liberal is.
ok so apparently for all of you saying "but 16 other types are available"
no they aren't
[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
[/quote]
[url]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly[/url]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;45264699]ok so apparently for all of you saying "but 16 other types are available"
no they aren't
[url]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly[/url][/QUOTE]
Where is their source on that statement? I have been looking for this for a while since it was brought up, and nowhere is the official source.
I think it's pretty crazy that the Supreme Court defended a company who thinks the morning after pill is abortion. I mean even aside from the fact that corporations can now refuse benefits to their employees for arbitrary reasons like religious belief, that's just hilarious to me.
I do wonder how this ruling is going to affect their customer base. Maybe one of the three people who actually shop at Hobby Lobby regularly might boycott :v:
[QUOTE=toaster468;45254734]No I'm not. This is the right of the owners and their freedom of religion. If the workers don't like it, they also have the freedom to leave.[/QUOTE]
your sir are a complete idiot, first off hobby lobby is counted as a human being in law, secondly you can't just get up and say fuck you and leave without financially fucking yourself and i doubt anyone really wants to do that.
[QUOTE=confinedUser;45266727]first off hobby lobby is counted as a human being in law[/QUOTE]
This is a massive oversimplification and misunderstanding of things
[QUOTE=confinedUser;45266727]first off hobby lobby is counted as a human being in law[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no. They have the same rights as a human being, including the right to free speech and freedom of religion. They are not, however, considered a "human being".
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;45264699]ok so apparently for all of you saying "but 16 other types are available"
no they aren't
[url]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scotus-says-hobby-lobby-ruling-applies-broadly[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, hobby lobby is still going to offer 16 of the 20 FDA approved contraceptives through their plans:
[QUOTE]National Review has provided a list of all of the drugs and procedures that Hobby Lobby employees can still take advantage of free of charge — including oral birth control:
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
There were four types of birth control at the center of Hobby Lobby’s contentions, though: Plan B, which is also known as the “morning after pill,” Ella, another emergency contraceptive, Copper Intrauterine Device and IUD with progestin — forms of birth control that some believe can cause or are akin to abortion.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/01/is-hobby-lobby-really-banning-birth-control-and-preventing-its-workers-from-being-able-to-make-their-own-health-care-decisions/[/url]
[QUOTE]Is Hobby Lobby preventing its employees from buying contraceptives under its plan?
Not at all. The Greens and their family businesses respect the individual liberties of all their employees. The Greens and their family businesses have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved contraceptives required by the law that do not interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. They provide coverage for such contraceptives under their health care plan. Additionally, the four objectionable drugs and devices are widely available and affordable, and employees are free to obtain them.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/faq/[/url]
So hobby lobby is actually covering many types of contraception, even for the purpose of birth control.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.