Page 1 of 4
#1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/30/1309058/-SCOTUS-Upholds-Hobby-Lobby-Fundamentalism

So corporations are religious people now. Hobby Lobby sure will be glad to deny birth control to its employees. The same birth control they invest in with their 401(k) plan. Not even mad. If they're going to be religious "people" now they've certainly got the unabashed hypocrisy down.
#DTWD
Last edited by primusfan at Jun 30, 2014,
#2
If they really believed in the bible they would give all their money back to the poor.
#3
Forcing people to do things they don't want to do or believe are wrong is bad too though right? Right? Oh yah that's right, no one gives a **** about that as long as you personally get something for "free" out of the deal.
#5
Quote by seanlang01
Forcing people to do things they don't want to do or believe are wrong is bad too though right? Right? Oh yah that's right, no one gives a **** about that as long as you personally get something for "free" out of the deal.


This religion I just made up says that working and paying taxes is wrong. Please accommodate me government!
#6
Quote by seanlang01
Forcing people to do things they don't want to do or believe are wrong is bad too though right?

I don't see why.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#7
Quote by ErikLensherr
I don't see why.
You don't get why using force to achieve compliance is bad? I sincerely doubt that. Perhaps you're too far removed from the realities of enforcing laws such as these.


This religion I just made up says that working and paying taxes is wrong. Please accommodate me government!
You can insert any protected class status for religion and get the same end result. The laws in the U.S. are what they are, I never said I agree with them. Justices are only there (or at least should be) to interpret the law and not to simply declare laws "good" or "bad," as they are bound by the constitution and precedent. The same type of laws that allow doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control or give abortion information to remain employed, and why Walgreen's will always have two pharmacists on staff in the event one will not hand over someone's birth control for religious reasons, are also the laws that criminalize hiring/firing someone based on their race, ethnicity, etc.

My libertarian leanings about requiring employers to bear the burden of providing healthcare/specific healthcare access or criminalizing free associations in employment are about as popular as overturning those laws, so they're bound to run into conflict. They are at times mutually exclusive.

And of course, there is always the FDA's excessively strict regulation on say, birth control, which does not allow it to be sold over the counter as it is in many other modern countries, that could probably be changed as well.
#8
If I have learned anything by now, it's that intelligent discussion on the Internet goes out the window as soon as religion is brought into the picture. I think this is a stupid ruling, and beyond that I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 50-54
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#9
Quote by seanlang01
You don't get why using force to achieve compliance is bad? I sincerely doubt that. Perhaps you're too far removed from the realities of enforcing laws such as these.

But that's how any law works?

My libertarian leanings


oh i see
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#10
Quote by ErikLensherr
But that's how any law works?
Yes, that is why laws are enforced, and where "force of law" comes from. Inevitably, compliance to the law operates on the foundation that the state has the authority to use force to achieve compliance. Obviously, governments start with the softest level of punitive measures they can reasonably use (or the least harsh if you're cynical) because society would not allow otherwise, but when push comes to shove police with their weapons and battering rams can and will take you to jail for defying the law. Most people will not let it get to that level in order to avoid conflict.
#11
I don't see anyone trying to not provide Viagra to male employees.
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
#12
Good news tho. Their male employees can still get Viagra prescriptions paid for so they can stiffen their limp dicks!
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#13
Quote by BladeSlinger
I don't see anyone trying to not provide Viagra to male employees.


Except Viagra helps to make more proud Americans unlike commie Contraception.
#14
Quote by seanlang01
Yes, that is why laws are enforced, and where "force of law" comes from. Inevitably, compliance to the law operates on the foundation that the state has the authority to use force to achieve compliance. Obviously, governments start with the softest level of punitive measures they can reasonably use (or the least harsh if you're cynical) because society would not allow otherwise, but when push comes to shove police with their weapons and battering rams can and will take you to jail for defying the law. Most people will not let it get to that level in order to avoid conflict.

Unless they do it on purpose to expose the violence inherent in the system. Whooooa.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#15
For a country that was founded on the belief that religion shouldn't be in the government, you have an awful lot of religion in your government
Eat your pheasant
Drink your wine
Your days are numbered, bourgeois swine!
#16
Quote by seanlang01
Forcing people to do things they don't want to do or believe are wrong is bad too though right? Right? Oh yah that's right, no one gives a **** about that as long as you personally get something for "free" out of the deal.

He's running a business. It's not forcing him to pay for it out of his own pocket. Like when you run a large business there's gunna be employees who you don't agree with. That doesn't mean you can withhold their rights because you don't agree with their views.

A business doesn't have religious rights. It's a not a person. We shouldn't protect the rights of a building over the rights of the employee.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#17
And that's a stupid point because tons of men support this when we don't personally gain anything from it. I don't pay for my girlfriend's birth control and we could use condoms anyway. She doesn't even work at Hobby Lobby. Still a big supporter of insurance covering birth control.
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
#18
Quote by lolmnt
He's running a business. It's not forcing him to pay for it out of his own pocket. Like when you run a large business there's gunna be employees who you don't agree with. That doesn't mean you can withhold their rights because you don't agree with their views.
What rights and how are they being "withheld"? You don't have a right to someone else's money or your job. You are entitled to pay as your agreement to employment states, but that is it.

Just because the cost of healthcare doesn't directly come out of someone's personal bank account doesn't mean that a family owned business is not absorbing the cost. That money which otherwise would have went to the business owners to be dealt with as he/she/they see fit.

A business doesn't have religious rights. It's a not a person. We shouldn't protect the rights of a building over the rights of the employee.
This is just stupid semantics. A building isn't a business either, so what point are you making? Businesses are made up of people who may have put their life's time and energy into making it what they want. If a family owns a business and wants it to align with their own beliefs and they are not harming anyone else why should they not be able to run it in that manner? The ability to run your business as you see fit is based on the individual rights that the owner/s have and so it is logical to extend some of those rights onto the entity itself since it acts as an extension of the owner/s will.
#19
Quote by seanlang01
What rights and how are they being "withheld"? You don't have a right to someone else's money or your job. You are entitled to pay as your agreement to employment states, but that is it.

Just because the cost of healthcare doesn't directly come out of someone's personal bank account doesn't mean that a family owned business is not absorbing the cost. That money which otherwise would have went to the business owners to be dealt with as he/she/they see fit.

This is just stupid semantics. A building isn't a business either, so what point are you making? Businesses are made up of people who may have put their life's time and energy into making it what they want. If a family owns a business and wants it to align with their own beliefs and they are not harming anyone else why should they not be able to run it in that manner? The ability to run your business as you see fit is based on the individual rights that the owner/s have and so it is logical to extend some of those rights onto the entity itself since it acts as an extension of the owner/s will.

okay
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#20
Quote by lolmnt
okay
So you're implying that a single entity choosing to not provide birth control free of charge to the recipient, while it is readily available elsewhere, is tantamount to causing harm? I'm not providing anyone birth control, therefore I'm doing harm right now. Good logic, bud.
#21
Quote by seanlang01
So you're implying that a single entity choosing to not provide birth control free of charge to the recipient, while it is readily available elsewhere, is tantamount to causing harm? I'm not providing anyone birth control, therefore I'm doing harm right now. Good logic, bud.


Lol
bawitaba a bang a bang diggy diggy diggy sed the boogie sed up jump the boogie
#22
ugh, corporations are machines not people
Quote by archerygenious
Jesus Christ since when is the Pit a ****ing courtroom...

Like melodic, black, death, symphonic, and/or avant-garde metal? Want to collaborate? Message me!
#23
You guys wanna hear some shit? Hobby Lobby's health insurance policy that predated the Affordable Care Act covered contraception and the family who runs the corporation never noticed it, until it was mandated.

So they never had enough problem with it to even check their own policy, say that obamacare required it, and poof, now their religious rights are being violated.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#24
Quote by lolmnt
You guys wanna hear some shit? ... now their religious rights are being violated.
Lol, picking and choosing what "rights" you care about.

It literally requires no interference from anyone for Hobby Lobby to exercise their "religious rights" and you call that shit, but it takes a massive government system and legal overhaul to procure a "right" to "free birth control," which entails forcing third parties to take the cost thereof.

Why be mad at one company for exploiting the law, when you could be mad that the FDA for not allowing otc sales of birth control in the first place?
#25
Quote by seanlang01
So you're implying that a single entity choosing to not provide birth control free of charge to the recipient, while it is readily available elsewhere, is tantamount to causing harm? I'm not providing anyone birth control, therefore I'm doing harm right now. Good logic, bud.

What you're saying is the rights of the corporation trumps the rights of the individual. Got ya.

(if part of the conditions of your employment includes health insurance, you should be provided with health insurance. employers can't pick and choose. i mean, what's stopping an employer from denying cancer medicine, which is super ****ing expensive, because they believe "God said it's your time to die?" i realize this is slippery-slopey, but my point isn't because this could happen, this could happen. it's that you can't use religious views to override aspects of healthcare.)

Something else to consider: the Catholic Health Association (religious hospitals) do not oppose the birth control mandate. How is a store that sells paint for model trains more of a religious institution than Catholic hospitals? (of course this was an internal decision from the CHA, not a court decision).
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#26
Quote by seanlang01
Why be mad at one company for exploiting the law, when you could be mad that the FDA for not allowing otc sales of birth control in the first place?
Why can't I be both?

But women pay significantly more than men for healthcare, and now you want them to pay more.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#27
This is all ignoring that Hobby Lobby's beliefs that Plan B causes, or is a form of, abortion is scientifically inaccurate.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#28
Quote by lolmnt
What you're saying is the rights of the corporation trumps the rights of the individual. Got ya.

(if part of the conditions of your employment includes health insurance, you should be provided with health insurance. employers can't pick and choose. i mean, what's stopping an employer from denying cancer medicine, which is super ****ing expensive, because they believe "God said it's your time to die?" i realize this is slippery-slopey, but my point isn't because this could happen, this could happen. it's that you can't use religious views to override aspects of healthcare.)

Something else to consider: the Catholic Health Association (religious hospitals) do not oppose the birth control mandate. How is a store that sells paint for model trains more of a religious institution than Catholic hospitals? (of course this was an internal decision from the CHA, not a court decision).


That middle paragraph scares me because that could and probably will happen and probably already has happened in this country before

Why is our healthcare system so ****ing back asswards
bawitaba a bang a bang diggy diggy diggy sed the boogie sed up jump the boogie
#29
Quote by lolmnt
What you're saying is the rights of the corporation trumps the rights of the individual. Got ya.
No, because no one's rights are being violated by a company not providing birth control.

(if part of the conditions of your employment includes health insurance, you should be provided with health insurance. employers can't pick and choose. i mean, what's stopping an employer from denying cancer medicine,
Yes, but those terms do not necessarily spell out what type of insurance, how much, or what it will cover. You don't have a right to your employer's money. Your employer has a right to change them as they see fit in the future, which the employee must sign off on or else quit/get fired. Employers are only responsible for retroactive payments and compensation that an employee has agreed to work for.
e.g. If I sign a contract to work for 14 dollars an hour and work two weeks, I must be paid according to that salary; if then the employer decides I did a bad job or otherwise and wants to change it to 12 dollars an hour, they may, but I have to agree to it. If I don't and also do not quit, likely I will be fired, because my continuing to work there would still be billed at 14 dollars and hour and the employer no longer wishes to compensate me at that rate. The same goes for changes in health benefits.

because they believe "God said it's your time to die?" i realize this is slippery-slopey, but my point isn't because this could happen, this could happen. it's that you can't use religious views to override aspects of healthcare.)
This is all very petty and in bad faith. You are assuming the absolute worst in intentions and only present stylized representation of an opposing viewpoint. You can't even be mature enough to come up with an actual argument, so as usual you're resorting to asinine "what if" scenarios and derogatory stereotypes. Not only that, you are conflating an employer providing a health benefits package with the health insurance companies delivery of said benefits which is a different issue entirely. An employer also cannot take away benefits already paid or owed, only discontinue the payments.

Something else to consider: the Catholic Health Association (religious hospitals) do not oppose the birth control mandate. How is a store that sells paint for model trains more of a religious institution than Catholic hospitals? (of course this was an internal decision from the CHA, not a court decision).
Another religious institution's position on the matter is irrelevant as is the notion that only "religious institutions" may make religious objections to any issue.

This is all ignoring that Hobby Lobby's beliefs that Plan B causes, or is a form of, abortion is scientifically inaccurate.
Also not relevant.

And, you conveniently dodged my main contention that forcing a person, or business to provide a benefit for someone else is morally worse than that entity simply not providing the benefit.
Last edited by seanlang01 at Jun 30, 2014,
#30
How can you dismiss all of that as irrelevant when it clearly isn't?
bawitaba a bang a bang diggy diggy diggy sed the boogie sed up jump the boogie
#31
Can't wait for the conservative outrage on "activist judges" on this one. It'll be here any time. You just wait. Wait for it. Wait. Still waiting. Any minute now.
Check out my band Disturbed
#32
Quote by lolmnt
Why can't I be both?

But women pay significantly more than men for healthcare, and now you want them to pay more.
To the first line, because one is worse than the other.
To the bolded, I never said those words, good try though. It's funny how you think healthcare is automatically magically lower in cost with more government intervention though. I want bc to be otc, where it would likely drop in cost without the expenses incurred via the prescription system and to loosen patent rules. Have you ever actually tried to engage in a productive conversation and use good faith reasoning? You don't seem capable because every response of yours is snarky bullshit ad hominem or avoids responding to a claim, misdirecting the topic.
#33
Quote by RylanThePotato
How can you dismiss all of that as irrelevant when it clearly isn't?
It has nothing to do with whether or not they can refuse to provide a service on religious grounds. The law protects exercising religious expression in a broad manner, and also protects from discrimination in hiring etc. Religions by definition are based on non-scientific beliefs and can be mutually exclusive from one another but they are all supposed to be granted equal protection. The law therefore, does not make broad scientific standards to which their objections must be upheld. They can believe whatever ******ed thing they want, and that's just how it goes. They basically have a right to be wrong.
#34
Quote by seanlang01
Have you ever actually tried to engage in a productive conversation and use good faith reasoning? You don't seem capable because every response of yours is snarky bullshit ad hominem or avoids responding to a claim, misdirecting the topic.


Christ, do you even listen to yourself

Jesus hasn't wept this much since Ian wasn't perma'd
bawitaba a bang a bang diggy diggy diggy sed the boogie sed up jump the boogie
#35
Quote by StewieSwan
Can't wait for the conservative outrage on "activist judges" on this one. It'll be here any time. You just wait. Wait for it. Wait. Still waiting. Any minute now.


Where was the activism? The SD did what they are supposed to do, rule on the validity of law. There was no judicial activism (legislation from the bench) here.

I understand your point, it just doesn't apply.

I'm not in favor of the ruling, as it seems to me to open the door really wide for other challenges, as for example perhaps a suit by a Jehovah's Witness group that feels that blood transfusion shouldn't be part of a health-care plan.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#36
Quote by Arby911
Where was the activism?



There isn't judicial activism in most cases where conservatives cry about "activist judges"
Check out my band Disturbed
#37
Quote by Arby911
Where was the activism? The SD did what they are supposed to do, rule on the validity of law. There was no judicial activism (legislation from the bench) here.

I understand your point, it just doesn't apply.

I'm not in favor of the ruling, as it seems to me to open the door really wide for other challenges, as for example perhaps a suit by a Jehovah's Witness group that feels that blood transfusion shouldn't be part of a health-care plan.

Yea, a lot of weird stuff will follow. Hopefully this gets reevaluated later.
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
#38
I guess we're doing the quote every sentence thing now.
Quote by seanlang01
No, because no one's rights are being violated by a company not providing birth control.
If a company provides health insurance for their employees, they have to actually provide healthcare for their employees. You said (paraphrased) "A company is only responsible for the terms of employment initially agreed upon." If healthcare is part of that, the employee is entitled to it. If the government approves birth control as part of it (Congress did pass the Women's Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act), the employer has to provide it.

You talked about "harm." Considering that women pay way more for healthcare than men, I think that counts as harm, at least financially. Consider this, the cost of an IUD is equal to one month salary for a minimum wage employee.

Yes, but those terms do not necessarily spell out what type of insurance, how much, or what it will cover.
Yeah, the Affordable Care Act does that.

You don't have a right to your employer's money.
First of all, it's not your employer's money. You're taking nothing from your employer's pocket. Second of all, they're paying you for your job. How is that not "taking your employer's money?" Third of all, it's not taking your employer's money. It's taking agreed upon compensation. Going back to the first point, if it's agreed upon compensation, you're as entitled to that as you are to your paycheck.

Your employer has a right to change them as they see fit in the future, which the employee must sign off on or else quit/get fired. Employers are only responsible for retroactive payments and compensation that an employee has agreed to work for.
Any changes has to meet the requirements of the law tho

e.g. If I sign a contract to work for 14 dollars an hour and work two weeks, I must be paid according to that salary; if then the employer decides I did a bad job or otherwise and wants to change it to 12 dollars an hour, they may, but I have to agree to it. If I don't and also do not quit, likely I will be fired, because my continuing to work there would still be billed at 14 dollars and hour and the employer no longer wishes to compensate me at that rate. The same goes for changes in health benefits.
All this depends on the conditions you agree to upon your hiring. If you sign a contract saying "*business* will pay me 14 dollars per hour for one year" they can't recant that without compensation.

But this is all way too hypothetical.

What's worth pointing out is that Hobby Lobby did provide the types of contraception they are now opposed to, until it was required by law. Then they started to oppose it. The healthcare package they provided their employees with had it.

This is all very petty and in bad faith. You are assuming the absolute worst in intentions and only present stylized representation of an opposing viewpoint. You can't even be mature enough to come up with an actual argument, so as usual you're resorting to asinine "what if" scenarios and derogatory stereotypes. Not only that, you are conflating an employer providing a health benefits package with the health insurance companies delivery of said benefits which is a different issue entirely. An employer also cannot take away benefits already paid or owed, only discontinue the payments.
You completely ignored the part where I said "This isn't a what if. It's that you can't use religious views to override aspects of coverage." But here's what Ginsburg said in her dissent:

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

Another religious institution's position on the matter is irrelevant as is the notion that only "religious institutions" may make religious objections to any issue.
I don't see how that's not relevant. A far more religiously-rooted organization has no problem with it. Why is a non-religiously root company (outside of the owners' beliefs, they sell craft supplies) more entitled to religious freedoms?

Also not relevant.
How is THAT not relevant? Hobby Lobby's entire case was that Plan B and IUDs are a form of abortion. Scientifically, they are not a form of abortion. That makes their entire case completely moot.

And, you conveniently dodged my main contention that forcing a person, or business to provide a benefit for someone else is morally worse than that entity simply not providing the benefit.
Stop saying "forcing a person." It's not forcing a person. It's forcing a corporation to adhere to the laws.
Quote by RylanThePotato
How can you dismiss all of that as irrelevant when it clearly isn't?
Quote by seanlang01
My libertarian leanings
That's how.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#39
Fine then I'm a christian scientist so going to the Dr's and taking any medicine is against my religion. Problem supreme court? Bad decision is bad.
Quote by joshua garcia
I was incredibly drunk and only really remember writing a fanfic where ESP was getting porked by a pony.

Quote by guitar0player
I'd honestly fap to anything with a set of genitals as long as I find it aesthetically appealing.
#40
Quote by seanlang01
No, because no one's rights are being violated by a company not providing birth control.

I'm not up to debating if birth control is a "right" or not, But you must understand that this could be a stepping stone for any business to not provide specific forms of health care based on "Religious beliefs".


Also guys, Don't apply science to a religious debate. It just don't add up for some reason.......

Edit; lolmnt is great.
KIFFLOM
Last edited by sonic_hippy at Jun 30, 2014,
Page 1 of 4