The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[labrys 0]

Quote

Ok
then you can not support someone saying that if you do not like a union in a company, you can chose not to work there

I've never said I supported anything of the sort.

Owned by Remi #?

[normiss 643]

Some religious beliefs prevent me from buying fried chicken on Sunday.
WTF?
The chicken doesn't care.
Why do those business owners prevent their employees from working on Sunday?

[rushmc 18]

labrys

Quote

Ok
then you can not support someone saying that if you do not like a union in a company, you can chose not to work there

I've never said I supported anything of the sort.

this was just a reply to the thread
Not to you specifically
Sorry

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

[weekender 0]

normiss

Some religious beliefs prevent me from buying fried chicken on Sunday.
WTF?
The chicken doesn't care.
Why do those business owners prevent their employees from working on Sunday?

did you not understand my point? im not being a wise ass, just not sure if you didnt or just want to insult me.

i responded to the other gentlemen who implied only christians impose their beliefs on others and not Jews. I cannot order a sandwich in many deli's with cheese AND meat. the sole reason is it goes against their dietary religious beliefs. that is an imposition on me since its completely normal to have cheese and they sell it. they are open but demand i follow their religious guidelines when ordering.

my point wasnt that its a huge imposition. i stated it was a quick example and was trying to show in a more humorous way that Orthodox Jews do in fact impose their beliefs on others.

PS. i dont truly believe global warming is a religion either.

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

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

You cant have it both ways

Yes you can and we already do it all the time. These same employers also (often) make their employees work on Sundays when their Christian faith dictates that you should be put to death for working on a Sunday.

it is far to convenient to be able to cherry pick your religious beliefs, then impose them on others. I say your religious beliefs end where my Constitutional beliefs begin, certainly when it comes to you making decisions for me based on your religious beliefs.

If your religious beliefs do not allow for birth control, then don't take birth control. That has nothing to do with me.

[normiss 643]

Yet we have the right to run a business as the owner sees fit.
With regards to most issues of choice anyway.
I say let them.
If I don't agree, they don't get my money.

Nobody is forcing you to close the DZ on Sunday even though some portions of a Sunday operation IS in violation of Florida law.
You're just upset they expect you to pray with them at city meetings.
I have always hated "forced" prayer.

[futuredivot 0]

http://www.hobbylobby.com/stores/store_hours.cfm

And I was under the impression that Hobby Lobby's issue wasn't with birth control in general, but the morning after pill specifically.
But then again, I'm not sure why coverage for any drug or treatment not needed for medical purposes is covered. I have to pay full cost for my recreations.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[tkhayes 153]

No they. do not have a right to run a business as they see fit. They cannot operate outside the boundaries of the law. They cannot run a business that sells slaves nor can they rub a business that dumps dangerous chemicals into a water supply.

They DO NOT get to run their business as they see fit- you are mistaken

[kallend 1,679]

weekender

heck, your religion wont let me buy a good old fashioned light bulb.

Really? Our local Home Depot, Lowes and Menards have plenty of them, including antique designs. Maybe that's because I'm in Chicago, well known for being ultra conservative.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,679]

weekender

im not being a wise ass...

You're in the wrong forum, then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[funjumper101 15]

rushmc

************I'm not sure it's exercising a religion when it limits the behavior of people who don't subscribe to that religion, even if they're your employees. Orthodox Jewish employers can't refuse to treat for trichinosis or shellfish allergies.

Wendy P.

Well, Orthodox Judaism doesn't try to impose its beliefs on anyone else.

Busybodying in this manner seems to be the province of some branches of Christianity.

the busybody is the government

That too. Trying to control womens' uteruses, telling adults that they may not ingest certain substances... mostly at the urging of the religious right.

More than just the religious right

There are many of us who are not religious that do not think the gov should be paying for women to kill babies

There are many of us who are not religious that think that the govt should pay for abortions, instead of paying for pay for food, housing, medical care, education, etc, for children whose parents aren't in a position to provide these things themselves.

There are many of us who are not religious that think that the govt should not conduct premeditated invasions and occupations of countries that never attacked the USA.

There are many of us who would rather that the govt, if they insist on conducting such operations, increase taxes to pay up front the true costs for these operations.

There are many of us who are not religious that think that the govt should not hide costs of these operations "off the books", while borrowing the money from China to pay for these operations.

There are many of us who are not religious that think that the govt should not have given huge tax breaks to the extremely wealthy, while borrowing billions to conduct such operations.

There are many of us who are not religious that think that find absolute hypocrisy in the concept that personal freedom and liberty applies to men, and does not apply to women, when it comes to personal, private medical decisions about reproductive issues.

I take it that the immense concern for not "killing babies" starts at some undefined point in the USA, and ends at the border, with many exceptions based on local demographics. I base this conclusion on the complete indifference shown by Marc, and others like him, to the babies killed in Iraq and Afghanistan via our military actions in those countries. This same indifference shows up when it comes to the poor in all parts of the USA. Cutting SNAP, aka, food stamps, limiting or ending job training programs for single mother, etc, etc.

The immense concern for the "babies" starts at conception, does not extend to the mother, and ends at delivery.

A friendly reminder - birth control is not 100% effective.

[normiss 643]

Nice work on cutting my comment in half there TK.

[tkhayes 153]

I get the argument from the religious group because that is what they 'believe in', and their belief structures are far different than they were 2000, 1000, 500 and even 30 years ago.

There is no 'standard of Christianity' to base laws on, and the last time we tried that we failed (congressional Congress I think 1774?). Somewhere after that time, around say, 1776, we decided that religion would have no part of the laws of the country, but you could practice on an individual basis. And many are trying to take us back to the time before that.

i do not want to go there. Not ever. have your beliefs, but under no circumstances do you get to impose them on me. That means you have an individual right to practice your religion and I have an individual right not not have it affect my life. And I will bet $1200 that is the outcome of the Supreme Court on this matter.

unless of course SCOTUS decides to jam out of the debate and make some arbitrary 'we're not gonna talk about it' ruling that leaves the country in limbo. And with the way the court has been lately, that is also entirely possible.

[normiss 643]

So you're still just ignoring it.
Whatever.

[tkhayes 153]

your opening sentence set up the premise for your post. Your opening statement was invalid, thus I ignored the rest of it. I did actually read it, I decided not to respond to it.

Does not change the response I gave you, which is correct. Businesses do not have the right to run themselves as they see fit. They have to operate within the confines of the law. the law says that health insurance plans have to provide birth control as well as many other women's services opposed by many religions. that is it. They should be challenging the law, which they are, and they will lose that battle most likely.

[normiss 643]

wow

explains a ton though.

[tkhayes 153]

Quote

Nobody is forcing you to close the DZ on Sunday even though some portions of a Sunday operation IS in violation of Florida law.

chapter and verse of what I am violating please.....

cannot read your mind Mark, if you have something to say, then i suggest you say it instead of beating around. Communication is two-ways. you have to get the message across effectively and I have to understand it effectively.

[normiss 643]

Since you used an invalid point, I stopped reading.
I love communication.

No worries TK.

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

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've worked for a healthy number of different companies in the fast moving Silicon Valley. I have never seen published policies in advance of accepting a job offer. You get generic information that they offer health plans (a given in the white collar world), and some light details about vacation and 401k etc. You can choose to ask probing questions during the interview, but that tends to paint you in a poor light. And once you've accepted the offer, you've also tendered a resignation elsewhere, so it's too late to back out.

So I'll reiterate, you'll need to have the god conversation if you expect any benefit to your health plan that might be offensive to anyone.

(Though I may laugh my ass off the first time Fox News reports on some angry employee being oppressed by his Muslim owned company. Then freedom of religion will be tossed aside for pitchforks)

[SkyDekker 1,154]

Quote

I've worked for a healthy number of different companies in the fast moving Silicon Valley. I have never seen published policies in advance of accepting a job offer. You get generic information that they offer health plans (a given in the white collar world), and some light details about vacation and 401k etc. You can choose to ask probing questions during the interview, but that tends to paint you in a poor light. And once you've accepted the offer, you've also tendered a resignation elsewhere, so it's too late to back out.

I am surprised you couldn't figure this out on your own, but the time to ask for this is after the offer is made and before you accept the offer.

My company has a website accessible to those who get job offers with all the company policies and procedures as well as a listing of all benefits. This allows them to read up before signing the offer back.

You would think these fast moving Silicone Valley technology companies could find somebody who can put a website together?

[quade 3]

SkyDekker

You would think these fast moving Silicone Valley technology companies could find somebody who can put a website together?

You'd think, but you'd be wrong. Web sites, especially in their early stages, crash. That's simply a fact of life because it's impossible to predict with 100% accuracy how the public is going to respond to it and what demands they'll place on it.

Hell, AMAZON.COM crashed the other day.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,154]

quade

***You would think these fast moving Silicone Valley technology companies could find somebody who can put a website together?

You'd think, but you'd be wrong. Web sites, especially in their early stages, crash. That's simply a fact of life because it's impossible to predict with 100% accuracy how the public is going to respond to it and what demands they'll place on it.

Hell, AMAZON.COM crashed the other day.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[kelpdiver 2]

weekender

my point wasnt that its a huge imposition. i stated it was a quick example and was trying to show in a more humorous way that Orthodox Jews do in fact impose their beliefs on others.

And B&H Photo closes early Friday through all of Saturday, so they denied me the ability to see them when I was in NYC for the marathon last month. But that's hardly imposing their beliefs on me. They just choose not to be open during those hours for their beliefs.

A company provides health insurance to its employees, or simply facilitates it as a group plan. It is not practicing immoral sex or abortions, or is it paying for these.

And it's largely debatable if the employer is paying for the policy, if these aspects are costing them money. Childbirth is much more expensive than birth control or abortions, so clearly the argument isn't about cost. Their moral stand should result in a higher premium. And it begs the question, are they also taking this moral stand against Viagra and Cialis? It was only back in the 90s that we had problems with health plans that would exclude motorcycle accidents or other random activities I don't approve of.
But more to the same point, if every employer wants a custom offering with minor variations left and right, the overhead only goes up.

Thinking to the bigger picture - letting employers fuck with this standardization of policies will only encourage moving away from the employer provided insurance to single payer or individual only, which is almost certainly worse to ACA opponents.

[champu 1]

davjohns

IF it violates the relgious beliefs of the owners to provide birth control (indirectly), there is an argument for 1st Amendment issues.

I think the "indirectly" in your post is important. To me, balking at some level of support to an employee's use of birth control in between personally administering it and paying the employee money for their work (which they then go off and spend on birth control) is capricious.

[weekender 0]

kelpdiver

***
my point wasnt that its a huge imposition. i stated it was a quick example and was trying to show in a more humorous way that Orthodox Jews do in fact impose their beliefs on others.

And B&H Photo closes early Friday through all of Saturday, so they denied me the ability to see them when I was in NYC for the marathon last month. But that's hardly imposing their beliefs on me. They just choose not to be open during those hours for their beliefs.

A company provides health insurance to its employees, or simply facilitates it as a group plan. It is not practicing immoral sex or abortions, or is it paying for these.

And it's largely debatable if the employer is paying for the policy, if these aspects are costing them money. Childbirth is much more expensive than birth control or abortions, so clearly the argument isn't about cost. Their moral stand should result in a higher premium. And it begs the question, are they also taking this moral stand against Viagra and Cialis? It was only back in the 90s that we had problems with health plans that would exclude motorcycle accidents or other random activities I don't approve of.
But more to the same point, if every employer wants a custom offering with minor variations left and right, the overhead only goes up.

Thinking to the bigger picture - letting employers fuck with this standardization of policies will only encourage moving away from the employer provided insurance to single payer or individual only, which is almost certainly worse to ACA opponents.

all valid points. not to nitpick or take away from what you said because i feel your points have merit. 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 dont complain because i am tolerant of their religion and can go to one of a million deli's.

my broader point was just that christians are not the only ones who try to impose their beliefs.

IMO, being relatively neutral on the subject, this entire argument is not about freedom of religion or speech or womens bodies. it comes down to both groups not liking the behavior of the others. both groups feeling morally superior to the other and refuse to be tolerant because the are certain of that superiority. you then mix in politics and our political courts and moderates are left shaking their heads at how extreme and holier than though both sides act.

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