The Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, and the ACA

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

I have been told repeatedly here that if a place of work has a union you are required to join if you chose to work there you must live with that

I've never told you that. I think that's a bullshit rule.

Quote

You cant have it both ways

I don't want it both ways.

And if someone does not like the religion of an employer they can choose to work some where else

"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

And if someone does not like the religion of an employer they can choose to work some where else

So now employees have to keep abreat of the religious doctrine of the company's owners?

And it's got nothing to do with not liking your employer's religion. The problem is when your employer tries to avoid government mandated employment requirements by citing their religion. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives people a free pass to shun laws based on their religion.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

And if someone does not like the religion of an employer they can choose to work some where else

So now employees have to keep abreat of the religious doctrine of the company's owners?

And it's got nothing to do with not liking your employer's religion. The problem is when your employer tries to avoid government mandated employment requirements by citing their religion. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives people a free pass to shun laws based on their religion.

and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to force an employer to provide abortion and contraceptive drugs

"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]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

You presented the analogy of unions. I pointed out that the instant case revolved around religion, which is protected in many instances. Unions are not in the US Constitution.

IF it violates the relgious beliefs of the owners to provide birth control (indirectly), there is an argument for 1st Amendment issues. The 1st Amendment is a restriction placed on the government. There is no such restriction on government support to unions. It's apples and oranges.

Personally, I don't see anything in any relgious canon about birth control...but I haven't read all of them yet.

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.

[wmw999 2,179]

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.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

wmw999

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, you are turing this sugesting than employess can tell and employer about behaviors limits!

"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]

It's not limiting the behavior of the people who don't subscribe. They do what they want. They can take pills, get abortions...whatever. The employer just doesn't want to pay for it. That (they claim) would violate THEIR beliefs.

Wendy, I love you, but comparing birth control which prevents the non-health threatening consequences of a voluntary act with the health endangering consequences of an accidental exposure? Be fair. It's not like people with shellfish allergies are going around eating shellfish and demanding their employer pay for the consequences so they can go on eating shellfish.

I'm not saying I agree with the employer. I just see that there is a potential 1st Amendment issue there. It appears the SCOTUS agrees.

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.

[kallend 1,683]

wmw999

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

[davjohns 1]

I'm trying to come up with a useful analogy. Since I've rejected the ones offered, it's only fair.

If the ACA required that circumcision be covered (I have no idea if it does), I would still object to requiring it. Why should an atheist employer have to pay for a religious practice? It's not a perfect analogy (most people don't count atheism as a religion and I don't know how circumcision would offend an etheist, but it sometimes does), but it gets the basic point.

Hopefully, that helps illustrate my position. The question in my mind is which party is being handed a duty that offends their beliefs.

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.

[kallend 1,683]

davjohns

... but comparing birth control which prevents the non-health threatening consequences of a voluntary act with the health endangering consequences of an accidental exposure?

My stepdaughter (and apparently many other young women) has a medical condition that requires her to take the hormones present in "the pill". This is not "voluntary" on her part.

...

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

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***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

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

[kallend 1,683]

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.

...

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

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*********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

"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

You presented the analogy of unions. I pointed out that the instant case revolved around religion, which is protected in many instances. Unions are not in the US Constitution.

rushmc brought up unions. I don't think unions should have legal protection beyond any group of citizens.

Quote

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

Well, it might be a 1st amendment issue, but that doesn't mean that the only way to resolve the issue is let the person claiming religious freedom do whatever they want.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to force an employer to provide abortion and contraceptive drugs

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to require hard hats or safety harnesses, either. Do you think the fed has the power to fine employers for breaking safety rules?

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to force an employer to provide abortion and contraceptive drugs

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to require hard hats or safety harnesses, either. Do you think the fed has the power to fine employers for breaking safety rules?

Having the power and usurping the power is two different things

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

[kallend 1,683]

rushmc

***

Quote

and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to force an employer to provide abortion and contraceptive drugs

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to require hard hats or safety harnesses, either. Do you think the fed has the power to fine employers for breaking safety rules?

Having the power and usurping the power is two different things

Tell it to the GOP, which repeatedly tries to control what women do with their own bodies.

...

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

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******

Quote

and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to force an employer to provide abortion and contraceptive drugs

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to require hard hats or safety harnesses, either. Do you think the fed has the power to fine employers for breaking safety rules?

Having the power and usurping the power is two different things

Tell it to the GOP, which repeatedly tries to control what women do with their own bodies.

Ya
We all know Obama lied to his own about the abortion dollars too
regarless of your attempted misdirects

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

[SkyDekker 1,155]

I think an employer should have the right to decide which benefits they want to offer and what is and isn't covered in that package.

Employees then have the right to either accept employment there, or not.

This issue gets a bit more complicated in my mind when drastic adjustments are made with existing employees. I strongly believe grandfathering works in those scenarios.

I don't believe in the government mandating to employers what they have to offer in their benefits package.

However, I also do not have an issue with the government mandating that federally approved medication, prescribed for its approved use by a licensed MD, has to be covered.

[labrys 0]

Quote

And it's got nothing to do with not liking your employer's religion. The problem is when your employer tries to avoid government mandated employment requirements by citing their religion.

I agree with this. To those who are saying that people who don't like a company owner's religious beliefs can just get another job, I say it's just not that simple. Communities and community leaders work to bring businesses and industry into their towns to provide jobs for the people who live there. Those jobs should be equally available to qualified residents regardless of their religious beliefs.

Those businesses often get tax deferments as incentives, which places more tax burden on everyone else. It's worth it in the long run though, because it brings jobs in. Those businesses also use government and community funded infrastructure and subsidies.

Unless a business owner is operating 100% in their own dime, I think they should follow community rules, not religious beliefs.

Owned by Remi #?

[turtlespeed 212]

747tech

Up until the ACA came into existence no employer was required to provide health care

Only if you have 50 or more employees.

Quote

In reality business would be better off giving the employers share of health care to the employee and they can go buy their own.

So just drop the coverage, save the money, invest it, and then when they are mandated to, provide the minimum possible.

See if they bitch then!

Quote

Birth control is not expensive the liberal community is just using it as a way to divide.

Status Quo

Quote

This whole thing is a mess.

Understatement of the year!

Should a 55 yo woman who had a hysterectomy lose her otherwise compliant coverage that would be grandfathered in with the exception that it doesn't cover pregnancy?

ACA can't be funded.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[weekender 0]

kallend

***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.

thats not entirely true. some quick examples. there are building in NYC where you cannot use the elevator on Saturdays or where it stops only on odd floors. they are trying to get me to not use the elevator or push the elevator buttons on their Holy Day. I do NOT have the option to change the elevator settings.

they also do NOT let me put cheese on sandwiches that have meat in some of their deli's. they sell them both but not on the same sandwich.

dont get me started on my halal butcher and my wife.

it doesnt bother me, as i mentioned before but is an imposition and not unique to any faith. heck, your religion wont let me buy a good old fashioned light bulb.

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

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

Well, there's that pesky 1st amendment thing.

Can you explain how this is a 1st Amendment issue? I don't see how Congress is making any laws regarding the establishment of religion in the ACA.

They are making it illegal to follow one's beliefs.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

labrys

Quote

And it's got nothing to do with not liking your employer's religion. The problem is when your employer tries to avoid government mandated employment requirements by citing their religion.

I agree with this. To those who are saying that people who don't like a company owner's religious beliefs can just get another job, I say it's just not that simple. Communities and community leaders work to bring businesses and industry into their towns to provide jobs for the people who live there. Those jobs should be equally available to qualified residents regardless of their religious beliefs.

Those businesses often get tax deferments as incentives, which places more tax burden on everyone else. It's worth it in the long run though, because it brings jobs in. Those businesses also use government and community funded infrastructure and subsidies.

Unless a business owner is operating 100% in their own dime, I think they should follow community rules, not religious beliefs.

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

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

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to force an employer to provide abortion and contraceptive drugs

There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the fed to require hard hats or safety harnesses, either. Do you think the fed has the power to fine employers for breaking safety rules?

So because BC is covered , you should have to take them right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun