Battle of the Sexes: SCOTUS

[cwolff]

Interesting to see gender play into this at the Supreme Court. It says that men just don't know shit about contraception. I certainly don't. I do know that women I've dated took the pill for greater reasons than the ability to screw around without consequence. One woman had a BC implant because she's got endometrosis. She wanted kids but her former husband didn't. Unfortunately she may only be able to get pregnant one time and it's something that she and her Dr. will need to manage. Others took the pill to keep from missing work due to painful periods. The fact the SCOTUS may be seperating on this issue along gender lines speaks volumes for our general knowledge of a woman's reproductive health.


There was a clear difference of opinion between male and female justices at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. The issue was whether for-profit corporations, citing religious objections, may refuse to include contraception coverage in the basic health plan now mandated under the Affordable Care Act.

The female justices were clearly supportive of the contraception mandate, while a majority of the male justices were more skeptical.

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/294385167/birth-control-mandate-goes-under-high-court-microscope

[Tgo01]

It's all stupid. I'm going to do something I rarely do and blame Obama for this.

[cwolff]

It's all stupid. I'm going to do something I rarely do and blame Obama for this.

What's really crazy is that Hobby Lobby covered contraception prior to Obamacare. You can blame Obama for them losing this coverage too!

[Tgo01]

What's really crazy is that Hobby Lobby covered contraception prior to Obamacare. You can blame Obama for them losing this coverage too!

Exactly. They are now fighting this because we have a black man in the White House. If Obama would have just let a white guy win we wouldn't be in this mess.

Thanks, Obama!

[cwolff]

Exactly. They are now fighting this because we have a black man in the White House. If Obama would have just let a white guy win we wouldn't be in this mess.

Thanks, Obama!

No doubt. Especially Willard. No one can criticize a Mormon for allowing women to have birth control. It's like criticizing LL Kool J for wearing a Kangol.

[Archigeek]

After listening to quotes of the arguments, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court finds for Hobby Lobby in this case. This just seems like a giant snowball if they do. What law will corporations next declare they don't want to participate in because of their religious beliefs? Also, by selectively picking and choosing laws to comply with for religious reasons, you are restricting the religious freedom of others, which should be a giant no no right? The Supreme Court has to take a broad view on this and as a result I'm guessing Hobby Lobby only gets a couple of votes on this, but who knows?

[cwolff]

After listening to quotes of the arguments, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court finds for Hobby Lobby in this case. This just seems like a giant snowball if they do. What law will corporations next declare they don't want to participate in because of their religious beliefs? Also, by selectively picking and choosing laws to comply with for religious reasons, you are restricting the religious freedom of others, which should be a giant no no right? The Supreme Court has to take a broad view on this and as a result I'm guessing Hobby Lobby only gets a couple of votes on this, but who knows?

I agree. I do not see how they can rule in favor of Hobby Lobby without creating massive problems. Where would the line be drawn after that?

So far the press I've read is leaning towards the male majority favoring Hobby Lobby but it's still early.

[Buckwheet]

I would argue insurance is an earned benefit just like your wage. If they can dictate one, they can dictate the other. If they side in favor of Hobby Lobby, I think it would cause all sorts of problems such as if someone working at Hobby Lobby did get an abortion, could Hobby Lobby fire them for that reason since it was their money used to fund the abortion? Could they set the stipulation that unless sufficient evidence is shown you got the money from another source you violated a employment contract?

[Allereli]

Exactly. They are now fighting this because we have a black man in the White House. If Obama would have just let a white guy win we wouldn't be in this mess.

Thanks, Obama!

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.7502470.1395789372!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG

But seriously, as a woman affected by reproductive system health issues, it's disturbing how little research there is into any issue that doesn't have to do with having babies. Many women have to be on birth control for their cycles to run properly, and when those cycles don't run properly, there can be serious consequences (anemia, anything hormonal, ovarian cysts, depression, etc etc etc).

[Buckwheet]

"I'm going to pay women that work for me less." - There's the problem.

Uh. I don't care about this being red rep, but felt like I should respond. I am not saying that isn't a problem. I am saying that if this is ruled in their favor it will give them the power to essentially do just that on the basis of religious freedom, and not just to women.

[cwolff]

http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.7502470.1395789372!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG

But seriously, as a woman affected by reproductive system health issues, it's disturbing how little research there is into any issue that doesn't have to do with having babies. Many women have to be on birth control for their cycles to run properly, and when those cycles don't run properly, there can be serious consequences (anemia, anything hormonal, ovarian cysts, depression, etc etc etc).

Apparently their case is built around abortificients though their definition seems to be their own and not supported by NIH and other medical bodies. In fact, the ACA specifically this type of coverage as a requirement. My guess is that they just wanted to find a reason to bring this case and Hobby Lobby's owners are active politically.


"I'm going to pay women that work for me less." - There's the problem.

Uh. I don't care about this being red rep, but felt like I should respond. I am not saying that isn't a problem. I am saying that if this is ruled in their favor it will give them the power to essentially do just that on the basis of religious freedom, and not just to women.

It's exactly what can happen. Religious liberty allows for all kinds of discrimination; even promotes it.

[crb]

ya'll people are crazy.



After listening to quotes of the arguments, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court finds for Hobby Lobby in this case. This just seems like a giant snowball if they do. What law will corporations next declare they don't want to participate in because of their religious beliefs? Also, by selectively picking and choosing laws to comply with for religious reasons, you are restricting the religious freedom of others, which should be a giant no no right? The Supreme Court has to take a broad view on this and as a result I'm guessing Hobby Lobby only gets a couple of votes on this, but who knows?

Hobby Lobby is not pushing their religion on anyone. Employees are free to buy and use whatever birth control they want. The only rights being violated are those of Hobby Lobby's owner. They are the only ones having choice and freedoms restricted. An employee who has chosen to voluntarily work for the company has choice in this matter. There is no right in the Constitution to have your birth control paid for by a third party with which you've voluntarily chosen to associate. Freedom of Religion is in there though, trust me, I checked.

Employees of Hobby Lobby have the freedom to find another job, use their wages from their job to buy supplemental insurance that would cover birth control, or just buy their own birth control like people have done for decades.

Also Hobby Lobby does cover numerous types of birth control, for free, for their employees, just not a few types which can be used in an abortive way.



I would argue insurance is an earned benefit just like your wage. If they can dictate one, they can dictate the other. If they side in favor of Hobby Lobby, I think it would cause all sorts of problems such as if someone working at Hobby Lobby did get an abortion, could Hobby Lobby fire them for that reason since it was their money used to fund the abortion? Could they set the stipulation that unless sufficient evidence is shown you got the money from another source you violated a employment contract?

This argument is similar to the arguments raised by opponents of same sex marriage "What's next? A man marrying a goat, where do you draw the line RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

The only rational response can be this: Seriously? That is a completely irrational scare tactic.

Your wage, your salary, is your money, to do with as you see fit, and if your employer gave you a voucher to buy health insurance you could buy insurance with extra abortion coverage from Beezelbub Insurance company at 666 You're Going to Hell Avenue, Hollywood California, 90066, and that would be okay.

But in this case the employer is buying insurance, directly, for you, and in fact many large employers self insure, which means they're actually paying directly for every bit of care you receive (then they just pay an insurance company to administer claims). And you're asking for the government to use its monopoly on force to coerce the owner's of a company to go against their legitimately held religious beliefs.

That is of course important, it is a legitimately held religious belief, not something made up. You can disagree with it all you want, I'm atheist, I disagree with it, but you can't claim that it isn't a legitimately belief of their religion. So the worry about people making up bullshit isn't a rational worry.

Gay marriage should be legal because the government cannot use religion as a basis of policy, this mandate needs to go because the government cannot use policy to control religion.

The owner of Hobby Lobby is a person with rights, he did not give up his rights because he became an employer, there is no asterisk in the first amendment. Other people have rights, not just you. Your right to swing your fist stops at my face.

Anyone wishing for government force to be used to restrict the rights of another deserves to have government force used upon them in a karmic matter. It seems too easy for some people to sell out the rights of those they disagree with.

I get utterly and completely annoyed by jesus people, but they're just people. But people who want to use government force to restrict the rights of others because they disagree with them, people like that are fucking evil. That would include opponents of gay marriage, and advocates of this mandate. Evil people on both sides.

[crb]

...and as I've said many times. The solution is a federal entitlement covering contraceptive for all women of child bearing age. Paid for out of tax dollars. That would be legal, using government force to make one private entity buy it for another private entity, that is not legal.

[Latrinsorm]

There is no right in the Constitution to have your birth control paid for by a third party with which you've voluntarily chosen to associate. Freedom of Religion is in there though, trust me, I checked.Can you cite the Bible passage that forbids you from paying for birth control for a third party?

[Buckwheet]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21005846/man-says-boss-carried-out-threat-to-fire-him-for-voting-for-obama

I don't believe for one second that your statement of your money is yours to do with as you see fit in today's politics based on the above email/lawsuit. You are right in that if my employeer gave me a voucher to go buy insurance I would have a choice and it would be the easiest way to solve everything with this issue. As far as I am aware this is not an option with the current law?

It would be great if what companies were allowed to do is say - Go to your exchange. Enter your information. Pick X plan level such as Bronze. Pay for the year and submit your receipt for reimbursement. If you want Silver or something higher, you just have to pay the difference.

[Tgo01]

Can you cite the Bible passage that forbids you from paying for birth control for a third party?

John 3:18

[Wrathbringer]

Can you cite the Bible passage that forbids you from paying for birth control for a third party?

Irrelevant. Religious freedom claims need not be biblical, or even biblically sound.

[cwolff]

Irrelevant. Religious freedom claims need not be biblical, or even biblically sound.

That's why the questions being asked are sound.

[crb]

Can you cite the Bible passage that forbids you from paying for birth control for a third party?

Do I look like someone who owns a bible?

Also wrathburner is correct, it is irrelevant. It is a legitimately held religious belief, I would bet my house on it being so, would you bet yours on it not? I doubt it, so don't be argumentative.

[Jeril]

I doubt it, so don't be argumentative.

But that is one of the things he lives for.

[Wrathbringer]

Do I look like someone who owns a bible?

Also wrathburner is correct, it is irrelevant. It is a legitimately held religious belief, I would bet my house on it being so, would you bet yours on it not? I doubt it, so don't be argumentative.

^ Yeah.

[cwolff]

Do I look like someone who owns a bible?

Also wrathburner is correct, it is irrelevant. It is a legitimately held religious belief, I would bet my house on it being so, would you bet yours on it not? I doubt it, so don't be argumentative.

I'd argue too but you're starting from a place that is so incorrect it's hard to know where to start. We'd require hours of education just to get you up to speed.

[crb]

I'd argue too but you're starting from a place that is so incorrect it's hard to know where to start. We'd require hours of education just to get you up to speed.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36725304.jpg

[Archigeek]

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Should corporations be allowed to decline to comply with US law due to the religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation? That's essentially the question. From the Supreme Court's POV, what the regulation is should be irrelevant. Nor does it matter if it comes from Christianity or Scientology or Voodoo.

[Warriorbird]

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Should corporations be allowed to decline to comply with US law due to the religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation? That's essentially the question. From the Supreme Court's POV, what the regulation is should be irrelevant. Nor does it matter if it comes from Christianity or Scientology or Voodoo.

Yeah. People think this is like a non appellate trial.

[Thondalar]

...Should corporations be allowed to decline to comply with US law due to the religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation? That's essentially the question....

US Law shouldn't violate anything that would even bring such a question up.

But I guess that ship sailed long ago.

[Warriorbird]

US Law shouldn't violate anything that would even bring such a question up.

But I guess that ship sailed long ago.

I tend to follow right along with you RE: the drug laws. Animal sacrifice and plural marriage are a bit sticker though.

[Latrinsorm]

Irrelevant. Religious freedom claims need not be biblical, or even biblically sound.I'm just wondering how crb defines "it is a legitimately held religious belief, not something made up." If there is no objective framework, how do we determine?
It is a legitimately held religious belief, I would bet my house on it being so, would you bet yours on it not? I doubt it, so don't be argumentative.Since you ask, I went to Mass a lot growing up and I don't remember any priest ever saying "you can't pay for someone else's abortion". Mr. Green to my knowledge never filed a lawsuit on the basis of having to pay for abortions via Medicaid, and I am reasonably sure he is more than 4 years old. You tell me what's more plausible:

1. Mr. Green had no idea he had been paying for abortions for decades, and a lawsuit relevant to Medicaid is coming soon.
2. Paying for someone else's abortion is in no way a violation of freedom of religion, and that belief was "made up" as you put it as an excuse to attack the ACA and to score points with his customer base.
But that is one of the things he lives for.How dare you question my legitimately held beliefs, sir.

[Parkbandit]

I'd argue too but you're starting from a place that is so incorrect it's hard to know where to start.

Hilarious.

[Jarvan]

After listening to quotes of the arguments, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court finds for Hobby Lobby in this case. This just seems like a giant snowball if they do. What law will corporations next declare they don't want to participate in because of their religious beliefs? Also, by selectively picking and choosing laws to comply with for religious reasons, you are restricting the religious freedom of others, which should be a giant no no right? The Supreme Court has to take a broad view on this and as a result I'm guessing Hobby Lobby only gets a couple of votes on this, but who knows?

Well, Hobby Lobby is a Privately owned Company. Slightly different then say... GM saying it doesn't want to cover Birth Control for Religious reasons.

As for Hobby Lobby, I would say they would have a case ~IF~ Obamacare required they offer Abortion on their plan, not just contraception. As far as I know Obamacare does not require it. I could be wrong though. I know every state is required to offer a plan that does not offer abortion coverage, but not sure about employers.

I still think it's retarded that I have to pay for someone else's birth control, but that's just me. I also think it's stupid if Viagra and such were included in the health plan. Tyranny of the Majority I guess.

As for restricting religious freedom of others... no you are not. If you go to work for a company that says they are open 24/7 365. You have no Religious Right to have Sundays or Religious holidays off. It's your choice to work there. Same with Hobby Lobby, if the employees don't like it (if Hobby Lobby were to win) they could leave. They are not being forced to work there.

All in All, it's still stupid.

[Thondalar]

I tend to follow right along with you RE: the drug laws. Animal sacrifice and plural marriage are a bit sticker though.

Well, it's really not sticky at all.

The problem is, you can't write up everything as Religious freedom. In that case, I could start a Religion that states I must kill people who cut me off in traffic. At the same time, you can't deny another person their right to practice whatever Religion they want, however they want.

The only way to make these two extremes work together is the non-aggression doctrine. As long as you're not hurting someone else or their property, practice whatever Religion you want, however you want to practice it.

[Jarvan]

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Should corporations be allowed to decline to comply with US law due to the religious beliefs of the owners of the corporation? That's essentially the question. From the Supreme Court's POV, what the regulation is should be irrelevant. Nor does it matter if it comes from Christianity or Scientology or Voodoo.

Hobby Lobby is a Privately Owned Company, Sorry if you didn't know this. Privately Owned. One person.

it's Not GM, Sony, Microsoft, or Apple.

It's like Joe's Diner down the street from you, but on a bigger scale.

You really should look at the place. And the owner.


"Hobby Lobby is a privately held retail chain of arts and crafts stores based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, and is formally called Hobby Lobby Creative Centers. The company was founded by David Green on August 3, 1972, and as of August 2012 the chain has 561 stores nationwide. Hobby Lobby headquarters are located in a 3,400,000-square-foot (320,000 m2) manufacturing, distribution, and office complex."

"Hobby Lobby stores and facilities are open for business everyday except for Sunday, in accordance with the founder's Christian beliefs.[2] Hobby Lobby plays a mixture of light jazz, classical, bluegrass, and contemporary music styles in stores, distributed by satellite from its Oklahoma headquarters. A large percentage of the music also incorporates instrumental versions of traditional Christian hymns and popular Christian songs by Zoe Girl, Vince Gill, and Jim Brickman.[3] Rather than utilizing a barcode system, the organization uses manual pricing for ordering of product and accounting. The website states they "continue to look at and review the option of scanning at the registers but do not feel it is right for [them] at this time."[2]"

"In 1970 Green took a $600 loan and started a home business called Greco Products in his garage assembling and selling miniature picture frames, capitalizing on a decorating fad of the time.[2] By August 1972 the business had thrived to such an extent that they were able to open their first store which had 300 square feet of retail space.[3] Sons Mart and Steve started work for the company at the young ages of nine and seven, earning seven cents for every frame they glued together."

"Green is the son of a preacher and comes from a family of preachers.[4] Green claims to have built his business squarely on biblical principles[2] and attributes his success to his faith in God. He has taken a public stance against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because of its inclusion of a provision allowing access to the morning-after pill.[5]

Green takes half of Hobby Lobby's total pretax earnings and commits it directly to a portfolio of evangelical ministries and as of 2012 it has donated an estimated $500 million.[6] This includes a $10.5 million gift to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in 2004, and $70 million to bail out Oral Roberts University in 2007. He has also put nearly 1.4 billion copies of gospel literature in homes in more than 100 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia.[7]

Green and his wife Barbara have also signed up to The Giving Pledge.[4]"

Sounds like an evil detestable man that just doesn't want to have to pay for contraception to me.

[Archigeek]

Actually there's plenty of case law supporting firmly held religious beliefs in not working on the Sabbath. Assuming you inform your employer:

http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/working-on-the-sabbath-sunday#If%20a%20person%20does%20not%20want%20to%20 work%20on%20Sundays%20due%20to%20sincerely%20held% 20religious%20beliefs,%20what%20are%20his%20or%20h er%20rights?

Also, Hobby Lobby is a corporation with a large number of employees. How the corporation is structured or who owns the corporation are irrelevant.

[cwolff]

Well, Hobby Lobby is a Privately owned Company. Slightly different then say... GM saying it doesn't want to cover Birth Control for Religious reasons.

As for Hobby Lobby, I would say they would have a case ~IF~ Obamacare required they offer Abortion on their plan, not just contraception. As far as I know Obamacare does not require it. I could be wrong though. I know every state is required to offer a plan that does not offer abortion coverage, but not sure about employers.

This is correct. They don't have to cover abortions or abortifacients. The Green's are essentially trying to expand the definition of what constitutes an abortifacient based on their definition not the ACA's, NIH etc...


I still think it's retarded that I have to pay for someone else's birth control, but that's just me. I also think it's stupid if Viagra and such were included in the health plan. Tyranny of the Majority I guess.

As for restricting religious freedom of others... no you are not. If you go to work for a company that says they are open 24/7 365. You have no Religious Right to have Sundays or Religious holidays off. It's your choice to work there. Same with Hobby Lobby, if the employees don't like it (if Hobby Lobby were to win) they could leave. They are not being forced to work there.

All in All, it's still stupid.

You do have a religious right to not work on Sundays even if it's a new belief.

[Jarvan]

I'm just wondering how crb defines "it is a legitimately held religious belief, not something made up." If there is no objective framework, how do we determine?Since you ask, I went to Mass a lot growing up and I don't remember any priest ever saying "you can't pay for someone else's abortion". Mr. Green to my knowledge never filed a lawsuit on the basis of having to pay for abortions via Medicaid, and I am reasonably sure he is more than 4 years old. You tell me what's more plausible:

1. Mr. Green had no idea he had been paying for abortions for decades, and a lawsuit relevant to Medicaid is coming soon.
2. Paying for someone else's abortion is in no way a violation of freedom of religion, and that belief was "made up" as you put it as an excuse to attack the ACA and to score points with his customer base.How dare you question my legitimately held beliefs, sir.

You went to mass every sunday, do you remember hearing your priest say "don't have an abortion"?

Or is it because you are not doing it yourself, but simply paying for it? Man, would THAT be an awesome way around the ten commandments.

Don't KILL someone, pay someone else to kill someone, God never said that wasn't bad, amiright?

[Jarvan]

This is correct. They don't have to cover abortions or abortifacients. The Green's are essentially trying to expand the definition of what constitutes an abortifacient based on their definition not the ACA's, NIH etc...



You do have a religious right to not work on Sundays even if it's a new belief.

And the company has the right to not hire you, or fire you for not working on Sundays. Fun isn't it? Oh, they may not SAY that's the reason, but they will still do it if they want.

Depends how you look at the morning after pill really. Tho I don't think it is an abortifacient myself. I could see how more extreme views could see it as one.

[cwolff]

And the company has the right to not hire you, or fire you for not working on Sundays. Fun isn't it? Oh, they may not SAY that's the reason, but they will still do it if they want.

Depends how you look at the morning after pill really. Tho I don't think it is an abortifacient myself. I could see how more extreme views could see it as one.

The first example you provided is actionable and we have rules against that. I'm sure it happens but if you've been damaged this way there is recourse.

In the second example I can understand what you're saying. Of course, it's not up to us to be the decider. This question has been asked and is settled.


Medical Experts Agree: The Morning-After Pill Does Not Prevent Implantation. The National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics all agree that the morning-after pill does not prevent implantation, the medical beginning of pregnancy. From The Daily Beast:

In federal law and medical terms, pregnancy does not begin with a fertilized egg, but with a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus. The contraceptives in question--Plan B, Ella, copper and hormonal IUDs--do not cause abortions as the plaintiffs maintain, because they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies.

[...]

Since the FDA approved Plan B in 1999, repeated studies have shown the drug does not inhibit implantation. After The New York Times' Pam Belluck investigated these findings in 2012, the NIH and the Mayo Clinic updated their websites to remove the implantation clause. In Europe, the label for the drug Norlevo, which is identical to Plan B, has already been changed to reflect the most recent research. And the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception have issued statements saying levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptives do not stop implantation. [The Daily Beast, 3/22/14]

[Jarvan]

The first example you provided is actionable and we have rules against that. I'm sure it happens but if you've been damaged this way there is recourse.

In the second example I can understand what you're saying. Of course, it's not up to us to be the decider. This question has been asked and is settled.

Guess it depends on how you define life then, huh. Not to mention Pregnancy. Is it surprising that some people have a different idea of what something is?

[cwolff]

Guess it depends on how you define life then, huh. Not to mention Pregnancy. Is it surprising that some people have a different idea of what something is?

No not surprising.

[Jarvan]

No not surprising.

Hence why the need for something like this to go to SCOTUS.

Hell, look at abortion in general. Viability is the arbitrary point used to determine life or death. Viability is changing over time as it is, but even still. One person may agree with that, and another may say that life begins at conception. And ending life just because you don't want it is wrong. As a society we use an arbitrary point. The extremes of both sides don't like it, but in general it's accepted. The thing is, you really can't argue beliefs. And that's the problem. For people that believe life begins at conception, anything done afterward is wrong.

As for stopping implantation... Plan B's own website and WEB MD really should update their information, huh.


"Plan B One-Step® is one tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B One-Step® contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills, but works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)."

http://planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx

You would THINK the makers of the pill would know how it worked.

[cwolff]

Hence why the need for something like this to go to SCOTUS.

Hell, look at abortion in general. Viability is the arbitrary point used to determine life or death. Viability is changing over time as it is, but even still. One person may agree with that, and another may say that life begins at conception. And ending life just because you don't want it is wrong. As a society we use an arbitrary point. The extremes of both sides don't like it, but in general it's accepted. The thing is, you really can't argue beliefs. And that's the problem. For people that believe life begins at conception, anything done afterward is wrong.

As for stopping implantation... Plan B's own website and WEB MD really should update their information, huh.



http://planbonestep.com/faqs.aspx

You would THINK the makers of the pill would know how it worked.

In federal law and medical terms, pregnancy does not begin with a fertilized egg, but with a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus. The contraceptives in question--Plan B, Ella, copper and hormonal IUDs--do not cause abortions as the plaintiffs maintain, because they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies.

[Merala]

Corporations are not people, ergo corporations do not have beliefs. Corporations do not have religious rights. People have religious rights. When we stop trying to pretend corporations are people, these problems won't come up anymore.

[Parkbandit]

Corporations are not people, ergo corporations do not have beliefs. Corporations do not have religious rights. People have religious rights. When we stop trying to pretend corporations are people, these problems won't come up anymore.

Corporations can be owned by 1 or 2 people and do have beliefs. Should the owners simply forgo all their beliefs because you don't agree with them?

[Latrinsorm]

Well, it's really not sticky at all.

The problem is, you can't write up everything as Religious freedom. In that case, I could start a Religion that states I must kill people who cut me off in traffic. At the same time, you can't deny another person their right to practice whatever Religion they want, however they want.

The only way to make these two extremes work together is the non-aggression doctrine. As long as you're not hurting someone else or their property, practice whatever Religion you want, however you want to practice it.How does that doctrine rule on this issue? I ask because I can see it both ways:

1. Denying healthcare to someone is a rather textbook definition of hurting them.
2. Aborting a fetus is also a textbook definition of hurting someone.

So how does Justice Thondalar rule?
You went to mass every sunday, do you remember hearing your priest say "don't have an abortion"?

Or is it because you are not doing it yourself, but simply paying for it? Man, would THAT be an awesome way around the ten commandments.

Don't KILL someone, pay someone else to kill someone, God never said that wasn't bad, amiright?The Ten Commandments have nothing to do with good and bad. They don't say "killing is bad, worshiping God is good", they say "you will worship God, you won't kill", and the "you" in question are the chosen people of God. Those who are not Israelites (and by extension Christians) are not bound by that contract.

There are plenty of Christians who are pro-choice outright, and even plenty of official Protestant denominations. It is therefore possible to be a Christian and merely fund someone else's abortions.

[waywardgs]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z205/JekyllnHyde_photos/July%2017th%202011/corporations-people-texas-execute.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Corporations can be owned by 1 or 2 people and do have beliefs. Should the owners simply forgo all their beliefs because you don't agree with them?The owner should forgo their beliefs to the degree required to ensure everyone's life. This is why "my religion says I should kill you" doesn't fly, no matter how "legitimately held" a belief it is.

[Merala]

Corporations can be owned by 1 or 2 people and do have beliefs. Should the owners simply forgo all their beliefs because you don't agree with them?

If somehow the corporation owned by that person somehow morphs into one living breathing entity, fine, it has rights. The person who owns the corporation has rights, the corporation does not. Defending the religious rights of an unthinking, unfeeling entity is ridiculous.

On another note, I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Disease. My likelihood of conceiving a child is very low because of the damage caused by it. I do not take birth control to prevent pregnancy, I take birth control to limit further damage and keep me from being absolutely miserable. If your (general your) religious rights can prevent me from getting treatment for a medical condition just because that treatment has uses your religion doesn't agree with, who is going to prevent you (still general) from preventing me from getting other medical treatment that you feel violates your religious beliefs?

In some sets of religious beliefs, anything synthetic put into the body violates their beliefs. If that person runs a company, do they only have to provide insurance that covers organic health care?

[Candor]

If somehow the corporation owned by that person somehow morphs into one living breathing entity, fine, it has rights. The person who owns the corporation has rights, the corporation does not. Defending the religious rights of an unthinking, unfeeling entity is ridiculous.

On another note, I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Disease. My likelihood of conceiving a child is very low because of the damage caused by it. I do not take birth control to prevent pregnancy, I take birth control to limit further damage and keep me from being absolutely miserable. If your (general your) religious rights can prevent me from getting treatment for a medical condition just because that treatment has uses your religion doesn't agree with, who is going to prevent you (still general) from preventing me from getting other medical treatment that you feel violates your religious beliefs?

In some sets of religious beliefs, anything synthetic put into the body violates their beliefs. If that person runs a company, do they only have to provide insurance that covers organic health care?

I am a Conservative, I vote Conservative (usually), and I have Conservative beliefs. And I would never knowingly prevent you from getting medical treatment to treat your condition. Don't lump us all into the same pile.

[Merala]

I am a Conservative, I vote Conservative (usually), and I have Conservative beliefs. And I would never knowingly prevent you from getting medical treatment to treat your condition. Don't lump us all into the same pile.

I wasn't trying to lump anyone other than those arguing that the religious freedom of a corporation should be able to limit my ability to get a medication that is the only hope of saving my fertility, should I have any left at all. My argument was specifically directed at PB because of his statement. A corporation is unthinking, and unfeeling, and the notion that is has religious rights that could impede me from getting medical treatment is in my opinion completely ridiculous. If that's you, consider yourself lumped. If not, then you are not a part of the general you to which I was referring.

I'm a liberal, I tend to vote liberal and have liberal beliefs. I do not always fall in step with my party. In fact, some liberals think I'm not very liberal at all. I was not trying to imply all conservatives feel that way.

[Jarvan]

If somehow the corporation owned by that person somehow morphs into one living breathing entity, fine, it has rights. The person who owns the corporation has rights, the corporation does not. Defending the religious rights of an unthinking, unfeeling entity is ridiculous.

On another note, I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Disease. My likelihood of conceiving a child is very low because of the damage caused by it. I do not take birth control to prevent pregnancy, I take birth control to limit further damage and keep me from being absolutely miserable. If your (general your) religious rights can prevent me from getting treatment for a medical condition just because that treatment has uses your religion doesn't agree with, who is going to prevent you (still general) from preventing me from getting other medical treatment that you feel violates your religious beliefs?

In some sets of religious beliefs, anything synthetic put into the body violates their beliefs. If that person runs a company, do they only have to provide insurance that covers organic health care?

If Joe owns a bakery and pays for his employees benefits. (Lets just say he has 50 workers) Does Joe no longer have religious rights? If he is personally paying for your medical bills (self insured) and you want abortion coverage, does he have to supply it, even if it goes against everything he believes in? If you answer no, then you agree that Hobby Lobby (One guy) has the right of Religious Belief. If you answer no, then you say that YOUR beliefs are more important then someone else's. Once again, anyone that would WANT it covered from Hobby Lobby, could just instead choose to NOT work at Hobby Lobby. Telling One Guy, that he looses his Religious beliefs because he incorporated to protect himself is asinine.

As for your medical condition, I think that's a perfect example of why it could be covered. IF MEDICALLY NECESSARY. But then again, like Pot in CA and other places, some DR's will give a prescription to anyone.

I still find Flukes testimony funny. The way she worded it, it makes it sound like contraception costs 3k a year, when it's 3k for the years in Law School. So that's 1k a year. Apparently, as a College graduate, and a Woman attending law school, she can only make 1,000 a summer. Just enough to cover her pills. She should learn to play GS, people here make MUCH more then 1k a summer.

Then again, I never heard of the pill costing over 80 bucks a month. Even when not on a health plan. Altho seriously... why would you as a Woman, attend a school that didn't offer birth control in it's student plan if you really wanted it, other to make a political statement?

[Gelston]

I still find Flukes testimony funny. The way she worded it, it makes it sound like contraception costs 3k a year, when it's 3k for the years in Law School. So that's 1k a year. Apparently, as a College graduate, and a Woman attending law school, she can only make 1,000 a summer. Just enough to cover her pills. She should learn to play GS, people here make MUCH more then 1k a summer.

Then again, I never heard of the pill costing over 80 bucks a month. Even when not on a health plan. Altho seriously... why would you as a Woman, attend a school that didn't offer birth control in it's student plan if you really wanted it, other to make a political statement?

If Birth Control costs her that much, and she is buckling under the costs of it (and she doesn't have a medical condition that requires it in some way) I have an idea that will fix it. Stop having sex until you can afford it.

[Jarvan]

If Birth Control costs her that much, and she is buckling under the costs of it (and she doesn't have a medical condition that requires it in some way) I have an idea that will fix it. Stop having sex until you can afford it.

Now that's just unreasonable. We all should PAY for her birth control so she can have sex while attending an elitist law school.

Honestly, I personally think the only reason she even wanted to appear before congress was to get her name out there so she could run for office. Which, go figure, she is.

[Wrathbringer]

Now that's just unreasonable. We all should PAY for her birth control so she can have sex while attending an elitist law school.

Honestly, I personally think the only reason she even wanted to appear before congress was to get her name out there so she could run for office. Which, go figure, she is.

It's always the sluts whining about free birth control. If it's that big of a deal, I'd imagine their johns would pay an extra couple bucks per session to keep them open for business.

[Wrathbringer]

If somehow the corporation owned by that person somehow morphs into one living breathing entity, fine, it has rights. The person who owns the corporation has rights, the corporation does not. Defending the religious rights of an unthinking, unfeeling entity is ridiculous.

On another note, I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Disease. My likelihood of conceiving a child is very low because of the damage caused by it. I do not take birth control to prevent pregnancy, I take birth control to limit further damage and keep me from being absolutely miserable. If your (general your) religious rights can prevent me from getting treatment for a medical condition just because that treatment has uses your religion doesn't agree with, who is going to prevent you (still general) from preventing me from getting other medical treatment that you feel violates your religious beliefs?

In some sets of religious beliefs, anything synthetic put into the body violates their beliefs. If that person runs a company, do they only have to provide insurance that covers organic health care?

Yes. If folks don't like that, they can apply somewhere else.

[Jarvan]

I still love how people keep saying Company. The business is owned entirely by one guy. It's not like some wacko was hired as CEO and now he wants to force his beliefs on all the workers. It's his PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS. One guy. Not some nameless company.

Once again, it's not like it's GM or Sony. There are not millions of shareholders all voting on if they should cover birth control. He couldn't bring the lawsuit as an individual, since he incorporated the company for legal protection, oddly enough, it seems that that same protection, may also remove his Religious Freedom.

Think of it this way. The Amish, by and large are exempt from Obamacare. Now.. I don't know any Amish companies or businesses that employ many or any non Amish. But if they did, would they have to pay for healthcare for the non Amish? Since it is against their beliefs. Or would you force them to do it as well, since they are a company and must therefor give up their beliefs?

It really is rather funny.

Freedom of Religion... a Guaranteed Right, in the Bill of Rights...

Free Birth control... a made up right...

Really sad when you think about it.

[Whirlin]

I'm not sure why you're preaching religious freedom of corporations in order to take the rights away from individuals.

Fiscally, I'd rather pay the costs of the birth control than the welfare, health insurance hikes from the prenatal care, decreased tax revenue from the dependent, and likely eventual incarceration time due to crappy socioeconomic conditions.

[crb]

I think the most interesting thing to come out of the oral arguments. Under federal law a corporation can have a race/ethnicity, it can also have a gender, it can also have a work history (veteran). So if a corporation can have a race and a gender why can't it have a religion? If all of these traits are based on ownership of course?

Short answer: Principle lacking progressives like minorities because they vote for their people, but dislike christians because they tend to vote for the other guy, so some are deserving of recognition, others are not. Pure partisanship.

Everyone deserves rights, even people you dislike, or people who disagree with you, or people who think Jebus is magic. Anyone who would trade away their neighbor's rights (real rights mind you, not made up) for their own benefit is a douchebag, a collaborator, in the darkest sense of that word.

[crb]

Corporations can be owned by 1 or 2 people and do have beliefs. Should the owners simply forgo all their beliefs because you don't agree with them?

Silly parkbandit, business owners aren't entitled to protections under the Bill of Rights. Haven't you read it, it says right there "Freedom of Religion, unless you decide to employ someone, then the government can make you violate your conscience." I believe the next line says "If you want something for free, and someone else refuses to buy it for you because it makes them uncomfortable, they're violating your religious freedom."

[crb]

If somehow the corporation owned by that person somehow morphs into one living breathing entity, fine, it has rights. The person who owns the corporation has rights, the corporation does not. Defending the religious rights of an unthinking, unfeeling entity is ridiculous.

On another note, I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Disease. My likelihood of conceiving a child is very low because of the damage caused by it. I do not take birth control to prevent pregnancy, I take birth control to limit further damage and keep me from being absolutely miserable. If your (general your) religious rights can prevent me from getting treatment for a medical condition just because that treatment has uses your religion doesn't agree with, who is going to prevent you (still general) from preventing me from getting other medical treatment that you feel violates your religious beliefs?

In some sets of religious beliefs, anything synthetic put into the body violates their beliefs. If that person runs a company, do they only have to provide insurance that covers organic health care?

I'm sorry for your difficulty, I wasn't aware a corporation was keeping you locked in a basement unable to purchase the medicine you need. Can you text us your address and I will call the police and have them come rescue you from bondage so you can be free to make any choice you like in regards to your own healthcare. Also can you describe your captor? Does he look like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U2kx9Gfisq4/Tf96N17xrNI/AAAAAAAADys/imDlh0yknqY/s1600/Straw-man3.jpg

It'll be really helpful if I can tell the police who to look for. Who is the person restricting your choices and freedoms?

[Candor]

Yes. If folks don't like that, they can apply somewhere else.

I honestly do not understand how anyone could deny birth control pills to a woman who needs them to treat a health condition, and I hold pretty conservative beliefs overall (admittedly with a few exceptions). If you would do that Wrathbringer, then I question your membership in the human race.

[crb]

How does that doctrine rule on this issue? I ask because I can see it both ways:

1. Denying healthcare to someone is a rather textbook definition of hurting them.


No it isn't, and that isn't what this argument is about either.

Suppose you're starving, and suppose I'm a farmer. I have food. Do you have an entitlement to my work product for free? If I refuse to give you food am I hurting you. Does your right to swing your fist stop at my face or not? If I decline to give you free food I'm not preventing you from finding food, or from finding money to pay me for my food. You have all the choice in the world, including the choices that lead to you starving in the first place. I may not be lending a hand, but I am not standing in your way. There is a major difference between the two. You might call me an asshole, and you might be right, but I have the freedom to be an asshole, and suppose you're politically connected and call in your buddy the State to bring in force to make me give you my food, then you're the one who has broken the non aggression principle Thondolar brought up, not me.

Not lending a hand is not the same thing as standing in your way.



So how does Justice Thondalar rule?The Ten Commandments have nothing to do with good and bad. They don't say "killing is bad, worshiping God is good", they say "you will worship God, you won't kill", and the "you" in question are the chosen people of God. Those who are not Israelites (and by extension Christians) are not bound by that contract.

There are plenty of Christians who are pro-choice outright, and even plenty of official Protestant denominations. It is therefore possible to be a Christian and merely fund someone else's abortions.[/QUOTE]

[Warriorbird]

No it isn't, and that isn't what this argument is about either.

Suppose you're starving, and suppose I'm a farmer. I have food. Do you have an entitlement to my work product for free? If I refuse to give you food am I hurting you. Does your right to swing your fist stop at my face or not? If I decline to give you free food I'm not preventing you from finding food, or from finding money to pay me for my food. You have all the choice in the world, including the choices that lead to you starving in the first place. I may not be lending a hand, but I am not standing in your way. There is a major difference between the two. You might call me an asshole, and you might be right, but I have the freedom to be an asshole, and suppose you're politically connected and call in your buddy the State to bring in force to make me give you my food, then you're the one who has broken the non aggression principle Thondolar brought up, not me.

Not lending a hand is not the same thing as standing in your way.

So doctors who belong to Christian Identity should be able to refuse to see black patients? Members of the Nation of Islam should be able to only provide insurance for their Muslim employees? Awful convenient set of notions.

[crb]

I honestly do not understand how anyone could deny birth control pills to a woman who needs them to treat a health condition, and I hold pretty conservative beliefs overall (admittedly with a few exceptions). If would do that Wrathbringer, then I question your membership in the human race.

I hold not a single conservative religious belief and I cannot understand why so many people are willing to take away the religious freedoms of their neighbors if it provides them with a personal benefit.

I also do not understand why people constantly conflate the act of not buying something for someone for free with denying them access to that product.

For these people I question their membership in the human race... not out of any set of common morals, but because homo sapiens is supposed to be capable of rational thought.

I mean really people, it doesn't matter if your employer covers birth control anyways. Unless your employer also buys you a car you'll have no way to make it to the pharmacy to pick up your prescription, and then what happens if you have dry mouth, and find it hard to swallow pills. You're going to need cups and water, and if your employer isn't including free beverages then how are you supposed to swallow your pills? So even if they cover birth control, they're still going to be denying you access to it unless they also provide a car and beverage. It is totally unfair that they wouldn't buy those things for you when you need them. How will you make it through this life without their support? They also aren't giving you free newspapers and Internet connections for you to search for a different job that gives you all the free swag you need, assholes!

[Wrathbringer]

I honestly do not understand how anyone could deny birth control pills to a woman who needs them to treat a health condition, and I hold pretty conservative beliefs overall (admittedly with a few exceptions). If would do that Wrathbringer, then I question your membership in the human race.

Question it, then. I'm denying no one. I'm saying, "oh, he won't cover your meds? Go someplace that will." It's not a difficult concept. This outrage is as ludicrous as suing burger king because they won't serve you a big Mac. Just quit whining and go to McDonalds.

[crb]

So doctors who belong to Christian Identity should be able to refuse to see black patients? Members of the Nation of Islam should be able to only provide insurance for their Muslim employees? Awful convenient set of notions.

Because that it totally what I said.

You've just proven the PCforums Law. The longer a thread goes on, the probability of Warriorbird playing crying racism reaches 100%.

We've got these neat things called antidiscrimination laws. You can't tell someone to get lost if they're the wrong color or worship the wrong god, if they're a paying customer. You totally can still tell them to get lost if they're begging for a handout though.

You see the difference right? Hobby Lobby wants to treat all customers and employees the same, treating everyone the same isn't discrimination, because dictionary. Not giving something away for free isn't the same thing as not engaging in a transaction with someone because of their skin color, because rational thought. Get it?

[Whirlin]

I hold not a single conservative religious belief and I cannot understand why so many people are willing to take away the religious freedoms of their neighbors if it provides them with a personal benefit.

I also do not understand why people constantly conflate the act of not buying something for someone for free with denying them access to that product.

For these people I question their membership in the human race... not out of any set of common morals, but because homo sapiens is supposed to be capable of rational thought.

I mean really people, it doesn't matter if your employer covers birth control anyways. Unless your employer also buys you a car you'll have no way to make it to the pharmacy to pick up your prescription, and then what happens if you have dry mouth, and find it hard to swallow pills. You're going to need cups and water, and if your employer isn't including free beverages then how are you supposed to swallow your pills? So even if they cover birth control, they're still going to be denying you access to it unless they also provide a car and beverage. It is totally unfair that they wouldn't buy those things for you when you need them. How will you make it through this life without their support? They also aren't giving you free newspapers and Internet connections for you to search for a different job that gives you all the free swag you need, assholes!

But, I think your analogy is failing because it implies that the current default status of birth control is "Deny". I'm a man, so I'd look to the forum women to confirm, but I was under the impression that birth control was default "Allow" up until now, or at least Subsidize consistent with other Pharma scripts.

But, if we're going to make the slippery slope arguments, I'll go the other way. And yes, I realize that it's ridiculous.

If employers are able to handpick what health services to provide to their employees to keep cost down, what's to stop them from saying that they're not going to cover treatment on an ailment like pneumonia, because that was a personal choice of the employees to smoke, or not treat their cold? And, lets make it a bit broader and not cover Diabetes treatment, because it was the employee's choice to eat. And while they're at it, lets cut out Cancer treatment, because that's too expensive. But, instead of citing those reasons for personal accountability or cost, I'll just say it's religion so I'm protected.

[Parkbandit]

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z205/JekyllnHyde_photos/July%2017th%202011/corporations-people-texas-execute.jpg

They've killed plenty of abortion clinics that were corporations.

KILLED THEM DEAD!

[Buckwheet]

If they don't believe in eating cows or pork, or animals in general, and its their religious belief they could refuse to cover any condition associated with that or require you to stop doing something to prove it is not related to your condition. Additionally, what about that relgious people who refuse any and all medications? The ones that let their family members die or become permanently disabled because they believe only in the power of prayer?

I get the idea that "if you don't like it go somewhere else" but the same folks who are saying that are saying that unemployment is a huge problem. So if you recognize that in general finding a job is difficult because of current conditions, the idea that you can just jump ship to a new job seems a little silly.

Right now there is more competition between workers than there is between employers and because of that employers don't have to increase benefit packages or salary packages to attract talent. Its a buyers world right now not a sellers. Also we are making the assumption that maybe Hobby Lobby pays people really well? I don't know. But if they pay their workers like any other large retailer the workers may not be full time or make a wage high enough to be considered above the poverty level. This would mean that because Hobby Lobby is providing them insurance they can't go on medicaid or to an exchange.

I think that the best thing I have heard in the thread is to change the law to either allows companies to provide care or do a straight reimbursement for a plan on an exchange for a bronze level plan. If you want something more you pay the difference.

[Parkbandit]

If somehow the corporation owned by that person somehow morphs into one living breathing entity, fine, it has rights. The person who owns the corporation has rights, the corporation does not. Defending the religious rights of an unthinking, unfeeling entity is ridiculous.

This is incorrect.

I own Company X. I have beliefs.. many of them in fact. I believe I should pay a good wage if I want to attract a good employee. I believe I should treat employees the way I would like to be treated. I believe that if I offer incentives to my employees, they will produce more for both of us.

I could be like most bosses out there that just burn through people, but I don't... which is why I have a very successful business.

To think that an owners beliefs shouldn't be part of his business is naive and foolish at best.


On another note, I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Disease. My likelihood of conceiving a child is very low because of the damage caused by it. I do not take birth control to prevent pregnancy, I take birth control to limit further damage and keep me from being absolutely miserable. If your (general your) religious rights can prevent me from getting treatment for a medical condition just because that treatment has uses your religion doesn't agree with, who is going to prevent you (still general) from preventing me from getting other medical treatment that you feel violates your religious beliefs?

What company can force you from not using birth control? I really want to know, because I've never heard of such a power the company can hold over it's employees.


In some sets of religious beliefs, anything synthetic put into the body violates their beliefs. If that person runs a company, do they only have to provide insurance that covers organic health care?

Do you have an example of this non-existing religion or company?

Are there insurance companies that only cover organic? I doubt it.

[cwolff]

The histrionics are getting out of hand here.

Every business owner must conform to U.S. Law and regulations to do business here so quit with the crying about "IT's his freedom!" You can't pay people 1$ an hour no matter what the good book says. The answer "You have the freedom to work somewhere else" may be how you wish things were but it is not how things are.

The idea that women use this medicine to be immoral is also retarded. You're using judeo christian values to judge another citizen and again you are incorrect. BC is covered by Hobby Lobby. Abortificants and abortions are not covered nor are they required to be. Mr. Green is bringing this case about a few emergency BC measures that according to him are abortificants but according to the Medical Community are not.

[Parkbandit]

I honestly do not understand how anyone could deny birth control pills to a woman who needs them to treat a health condition, and I hold pretty conservative beliefs overall (admittedly with a few exceptions). If would do that Wrathbringer, then I question your membership in the human race.

A company cannot deny an employee from taking birth control. They can, however, have health insurance that doesn't give it to their employees for free.

I have allergies. Every January, I have to take 3 medications for 3 months or I am a snotty, sneezy mess. My health insurance does not give me these for free.. and in the case of 1 of the medications, doesn't cover it (it covers a similar type). I have the choice of not taking it or paying for it because I feel that I need it.

[Buckwheet]

Do you have an example of this non-existing religion or company?


http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

Then I think you have a whole sub group that specify certain treatments that deal with blood products or blood transfusions. Mormons, Jehova's, and amish I think? There is something in the bible that says to not partake in blood or something. They also disagree with certain "invasive" surgeries.


A company cannot deny an employee from taking birth control. They can, however, giving it to their employees for free.

I have allergies. Every January, I have to take 3 medications for 3 months or I am a snotty, sneezy mess. My health insurance does not give me these for free.. and in the case of 1 of the medications, doesn't cover it (it covers a similar type). I have the choice of not taking it or paying for it because I feel that I need it.

Mine doesn't give it to me for "free" either. Until I hit my max deductible. Then its "free".

[Parkbandit]

You've just proven the PCforums Law. The longer a thread goes on, the probability of Warriorbird playing crying racism reaches 100%.


That's awesome.

(and sadly true)

[Parkbandit]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical8.htm

Then I think you have a whole sub group that specify certain treatments that deal with blood products or blood transfusions. Mormons, Jehova's, and amish I think? There is something in the bible that says to not partake in blood or something. They also disagree with certain "invasive" surgeries.


Is that a company with employees? If it is.. why would normal people apply to work there, knowing what the company stands for?

And now, they have to find an insurance company that also only pays for organic healthcare.. is there one of those too?



Mine doesn't give it to me for "free" either. Until I hit my max deductible. Then its "free".

It happens in January... so I am fucked because BCBS's fiscal calendar starts in January.

[waywardgs]

Birth control is medicine. I you're in the business of health insurance and your religious views prevent you from providing access to medicine, you're in the wrong fucking business.

[Buckwheet]

Is that a company with employees? If it is.. why would normal people apply to work there, knowing what the company stands for?

And now, they have to find an insurance company that also only pays for organic healthcare.. is there one of those too?



It happens in January... so I am fucked because BCBS's fiscal calendar starts in January.
Look at your original quote. You asked for religions or businesses. I provided you the religions because I don't know how many business are run by people of these specific religions, but I am sure there are several.

[Johnny Five]

Amish people hire Amish people. They have already solved this problem.

[Parkbandit]

Birth control is medicine. I you're in the business of health insurance and your religious views prevent you from providing access to medicine, you're in the wrong fucking business.

I don't think Hobby Lobby is in the business of health insurance.

And if the pill is covered for free, why not condoms? You can't trust a bitch to keep up on her pills and condoms prevent pregnancy AND the spread of the HiV.

And not just regular cheap condoms either. I'm not an animal. I like the special ones with ribs. The last thing I want to be called is a selfish lover.

And what about quality lube? Sometimes when you are going at it, you create friction and you can burn right through a condom. Good quality lube should be covered so you can get your grove on and not worry about getting scuff dick.

And you can't get your grove on without some sweet jams. Some Marvin Gaye or Luther Vandross. Crank that up and go to town.. am I right?

And let's be honest.. without a solid sound system, those jams are distracting! Real freedom is a quality sound system in every bedroom! It's a damn right!!!

[Buckwheet]

Amish people hire Amish people. They have already solved this problem.

That is not true. It depends on the specific Amish community and the rules around it. Some of their business are allowed to use electricity and computers and hire non-amish people. They also are allowed to hire people to be personal drivers if car "ownership" is taboo.

[Parkbandit]

Look at your original quote. You asked for religions or businesses. I provided you the religions because I don't know how many business are run by people of these specific religions, but I am sure there are several.

Ah.. so we now have a religion.

We should find a company where this impacts them.. then the insurance company that only deals with organics.

THEN we have proven that Merala isn't some left wing nutball who is out of touch with reality.

WE GOT THIS!

[Buckwheet]

I don't think Hobby Lobby is in the business of health insurance.

And if the pill is covered for free, why not condoms? You can't trust a bitch to keep up on her pills and condoms prevent pregnancy AND the spread of the HiV.

And not just regular cheap condoms either. I'm not an animal. I like the special ones with ribs. The last thing I want to be called is a selfish lover.

And what about quality lube? Sometimes when you are going at it, you create friction and you can burn right through a condom. Good quality lube should be covered so you can get your grove on and not worry about getting scuff dick.

And you can't get your grove on without some sweet jams. Some Marvin Gaye or Luther Vandross. Crank that up and go to town.. am I right?

And let's be honest.. without a solid sound system, those jams are distracting! Real freedom is a quality sound system in every bedroom! It's a damn right!!!

Now you are just being silly. As others have mentioned the pill, depending on what is in it, has other medical benefits. Just like ED pill have properties that can help with enlarged prostate.


Ah.. so we now have a religion.

We should find a company where this impacts them.. then the insurance company that only deals with organics.

THEN we have proven that Merala isn't some left wing nutball who is out of touch with reality.

WE GOT THIS!

Well there is a Amish furniture store near my house that hires non-Amish and has computers and electricity! Once this case gets ruled on I guess I could stop in and ask them. But I am really not interested in doing armchair research because I have a feeling the ruling could change a lot of businesses and they might just be waiting for that ruling.

[Archigeek]

Amish people hire Amish people. They have already solved this problem.

Organic Valley is a cooperative. Many of the owners of Organic Valley are Amish. Organic Valley does not hire only Amish. Cooperatives are companies.

[Johnny Five]

Alot of these stores and shit that claim to be Amish, really aren't Amish. They just use the name to pull sway that they have hi-quality furniture. But oh well you have proved me wrong!

[cwolff]

This lawsuit has nothing to do with birth control or religious freedom. That's a smoke screen. BC is covered and uncontested. Abortions are not covered nor is that being challenged. The case is Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius. This is strictly an ACA challenge. There were about 5 of these challenges that split in state courts which is why the Supreme Court is hearing one of them.

Mr. Green doesn't have to cover any of his people if it's against his religion. He can pay the tax and not offer insurance then his employees can go on the exchanges for their health benefits. The cost of not insuring them will defray the cost of his insurance. Problem Solved.

Hobby Lobby's not doing that though. They're going out of their way to impose their will on other people in a very secular political fight.

[waywardgs]

I don't think Hobby Lobby is in the business of health insurance.

And if the pill is covered for free, why not condoms? You can't trust a bitch to keep up on her pills and condoms prevent pregnancy AND the spread of the HiV.

And not just regular cheap condoms either. I'm not an animal. I like the special ones with ribs. The last thing I want to be called is a selfish lover.

And what about quality lube? Sometimes when you are going at it, you create friction and you can burn right through a condom. Good quality lube should be covered so you can get your grove on and not worry about getting scuff dick.

And you can't get your grove on without some sweet jams. Some Marvin Gaye or Luther Vandross. Crank that up and go to town.. am I right?

And let's be honest.. without a solid sound system, those jams are distracting! Real freedom is a quality sound system in every bedroom! It's a damn right!!!

Actually, I suspect being proactive with dispensing prophylactic devices like condoms would probably save this country a lot of money in the long term. You like money, right?

[Johnny Five]

You can give someone a condom but you can't force them to use it. Unless you want the feds to follow everyone around and force a condom on their dick. But you probably would.
Maybe we can just invent perm condoms and you can only take it off if you go to a government office and have them remove it after you get approved to produce a child.


P.S.
Condoms suck

[Latrinsorm]

No it isn't, and that isn't what this argument is about either.

Suppose you're starving, and suppose I'm a farmer. I have food. Do you have an entitlement to my work product for free?
Hobby Lobby wants to treat all customers and employees the same, treating everyone the same isn't discrimination, because dictionary. Not giving something away for free isn't the same thing as not engaging in a transaction with someone because of their skin color, because rational thought.An employer exchanges healthcare (among other things) for the specific employee's work. Saying employers give away healthcare for free is saying they give away wages for free.
I hold not a single conservative religious belief and I cannot understand why so many people are willing to take away the religious freedoms of their neighbors if it provides them with a personal benefit.The explanation is simple: there is no loss of religious freedom. You cannot merely call "religion!" and sanctify any behavior, even if you honestly believe it.
To think that an owners beliefs shouldn't be part of his business is naive and foolish at best.Economical school is not a protected class.
Is that a company with employees? If it is.. why would normal people apply to work there, knowing what the company stands for?As cwolff has said, the onus is not on the employees to comply with employer law. An employer is not allowed to violate OSHA regulations if people voluntarily work there.

[waywardgs]

You can give someone a condom but you can't force them to use it. Unless you want the feds to follow everyone around and force a condom on their dick. But you probably would.
Maybe we can just invent perm condoms and you can only take it off if you go to a government office and have them remove it after you get approved to produce a child.


P.S.
Condoms suck

I'd be good with the feds ensuring YOU don't reproduce. For everyone else, I'm betting education and access to prophylactics save money in the long term by having at least some affect on the rate of unwanted pregnancies, std's and their associated societal costs.

[Parkbandit]

Now you are just being silly. As others have mentioned the pill, depending on what is in it, has other medical benefits. Just like ED pill have properties that can help with enlarged prostate.

So, the threshold for whether an insurance company gives it for free or not is determined if it has dual properties: gives something to the user (no fetus/stiff wood) and another health benefit?

So basically, I need to find another benefit from my allergy medications in order to get it given to me for free.

[Buckwheet]

Alot of these stores and shit that claim to be Amish, really aren't Amish. They just use the name to pull sway that they have hi-quality furniture. But oh well you have proved me wrong!

Another assumption. Imagine that. I know the store is owned by real Amish.

[Buckwheet]

So, the threshold for whether an insurance company gives it for free or not is determined if it has dual properties: gives something to the user (no fetus/stiff wood) and another health benefit?

So basically, I need to find another benefit from my allergy medications in order to get it given to me for free.

I don't know why you keep saying.."for free" when addressing me. Because I have never said it should be "free". I am saying it should be "covered". This means the same thing to me as when I get vicodin. I don't get those "for free" either. I pay the deductible until it has been satisfied and then it could be "free". Its medication and should not be treated any different than any other medication. If your employer wants to cover your meds 100% great! If they want to have a plan with a $2500 deductible and all you use your plan for is ED pills or birth control pills great!

[Gelston]

I think they should, instead of birth control, cover one time vasectomies and tubal ligations.

If someone has a health issue, that should all be covered. Pleasureful activities should not be.

[Johnny Five]

I'd be good with the feds ensuring YOU don't reproduce. For everyone else, I'm betting education and access to prophylactics save money in the long term by having at least some affect on the rate of unwanted pregnancies, std's and their associated societal costs.

You are aware that MANY schools teach a sexual education class. And many cities offer free condoms at locations.

[Gelston]

You are aware that MANY schools teach a sexual education class. And many cities offer free condoms at locations.

Those condoms are terrible. See how easily they break and get back to me.

[Johnny Five]

Those condoms are terrible. See how easily they break and get back to me.

This is true, but if want a good quality condom. Fork out the whole 3 bucks for a pack.

[Gelston]

This is true, but if want a good quality condom. Fork out the whole 3 bucks for a pack.

Fuck that. Women get BC, I want it too.

[Wrathbringer]

This lawsuit has nothing to do with birth control or religious freedom. That's a smoke screen. BC is covered and uncontested. Abortions are not covered nor is that being challenged. The case is Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius. This is strictly an ACA challenge. There were about 5 of these challenges that split in state courts which is why the Supreme Court is hearing one of them.

Mr. Green doesn't have to cover any of his people if it's against his religion. He can pay the tax and not offer insurance then his employees can go on the exchanges for their health benefits. The cost of not insuring them will defray the cost of his insurance. Problem Solved.

Hobby Lobby's not doing that though. They're going out of their way to impose their will on other people in a very secular political fight.

He's exercising a right. The only thing imposing will on others here is the aca. It's a law. It's what laws do. This guy is not imposing anything on anyone. No one is forcing anyone to work there.

[Parkbandit]

Actually, I suspect being proactive with dispensing prophylactic devices like condoms would probably save this country a lot of money in the long term. You like money, right?

Only if they are given away for free. If they cost people money, then you are infringing on their Rights!

[Parkbandit]

I don't know why you keep saying.."for free" when addressing me. Because I have never said it should be "free". I am saying it should be "covered". This means the same thing to me as when I get vicodin. I don't get those "for free" either. I pay the deductible until it has been satisfied and then it could be "free". Its medication and should not be treated any different than any other medication. If your employer wants to cover your meds 100% great! If they want to have a plan with a $2500 deductible and all you use your plan for is ED pills or birth control pills great!

Wait.. I thought this whole "WARZ ON WOMANZ!" was because birth control wasn't given to them for free?

Are we switching war fronts again??

[Parkbandit]

I think they should, instead of birth control, cover one time vasectomies and tubal ligations.

If someone has a health issue, that should all be covered. Pleasureful activities should not be.

As I understand it.. my insurance almost completely covers a vasectomy.. I think I had to pay a co-pay of like $100 for the surgery.

They won't cover the reversal though.

[Latrinsorm]

He's exercising a right. The only thing imposing will on others here is the aca. It's a law. It's what laws do. This guy is not imposing anything on anyone. No one is forcing anyone to work there.This argument does not excuse an employer from any other regulations (e.g. OSHA), even if they say complying with them would be against their religion.

[rolfard]

In addition to limiting contraceptives they ought to limit life support options. It's not in line with some religious beliefs of to use machines to prolong life!

[Wrathbringer]

This argument does not excuse an employer from any other regulations (e.g. OSHA), even if they say complying with them would be against their religion.

We're discussing other regulations now? I suggest a new thread specifying which regulation and relavent religious objections to which you're referring.

[Latrinsorm]

We're discussing other regulations now?What's good for the clean air goose is good for the abortifacient funding gander.
I suggest a new thread specifying which regulation and relavent religious objections to which you're referring.There are no relevant religious objections, that's the point. Let me tell you what you can do with your suggestion. You can table it and offer it up another time. Just know that I really appreciate the gesture.

[Buckwheet]

Wait.. I thought this whole "WARZ ON WOMANZ!" was because birth control wasn't given to them for free?

Are we switching war fronts again??

I don't think so? I thought the argument was that an entity didn't want to pay for an insurance plan that provides items they disagree with on the basis that it is an abortion. Those plans may or may not give women these devices/medications without them having to pay an additional cost beyond their premium. A premium that may be paid for 100% by their employer. I believe RU-486 is not covered and as such would not be "given away for free". RU-486 is not the drug this particular entity is going after in their lawsuit, they are going after medications/devices that are different and are much more closely aligned to birth control. I believe even the pharma companies are saying their medications/devices are not similar to RU-486. So all you have is the entity's "belief" that they are.

The question is where belief and science differ, do you side on science and their experts or belief and theirs?

[Wrathbringer]

What's good for the clean air goose is good for the abortifacient funding gander.There are no relevant religious objections, that's the point. Let me tell you what you can do with your suggestion. You can table it and offer it up another time. Just know that I really appreciate the gesture.

The catholic church teaches that contraception is a sin. Groundless or not, it's certainly relevant to them. Not relevant to you? Then offer contraception coverage so the heathens can fornicate. That's your prerogative. It shouldn't have to be someone else's.

[Latrinsorm]

The catholic church teaches that contraception is a sin. Groundless or not, it's certainly relevant to them.I am totally fine with fellow Catholics choosing not to use contraception, or choosing not to use a respirator in an atmosphere immediately dangerous to life or health. As the Lord says, nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. What is not fine is if Catholic employers extend that reasoning to deny the former or the latter to their employees.

[Jarvan]

I'd be good with the feds ensuring YOU don't reproduce. For everyone else, I'm betting education and access to prophylactics save money in the long term by having at least some affect on the rate of unwanted pregnancies, std's and their associated societal costs.

And if not, the Dems eugenics arm will just see to those unwanted pregnancies. amiright?

[waywardgs]

And if not, the Dems eugenics arm will just see to those unwanted pregnancies. amiright?

You're right, you should adopt an unwanted kid.

[Candor]

The catholic church teaches that contraception is a sin. Groundless or not, it's certainly relevant to them. Not relevant to you? Then offer contraception coverage so the heathens can fornicate. That's your prerogative. It shouldn't have to be someone else's.

And if I understand the Catholic Church's position correctly, contraception methods needed to treat a medical condition are also a sin, because the method also causes birth control. So if you need birth control pills to live or avoid serious medical issues, tough beans. And this is what really, really, bothers me about their position.

Someone please correct me if I do not have a correct understanding of the Catholic Church's position on this matter.

[Jeril]

And if I understand the Catholic Church's position correctly, contraception methods needed to treat a medical condition are also a sin, because the method also causes birth control. So if you need birth control pills to live or avoid serious medical issues, tough beans. And this is what really, really, bothers me about their position.

Someone please correct me if I do not have a correct understanding of the Catholic Church's position on this matter.

And they aren't saying that they agree with their position, only agreeing that they have the right to have that position. As crb has stated multiple times they aren't helping nor preventing these people from getting the treatment they need. Does it suck that the Catholic Church is that way, yes, but they aren't stopping people from getting treatment in any direct way.

[Latrinsorm]

And they aren't saying that they agree with their position, only agreeing that they have the right to have that position. As crb has stated multiple times they aren't helping nor preventing these people from getting the treatment they need. Does it suck that the Catholic Church is that way, yes, but they aren't stopping people from getting treatment in any direct way.crb's standard is not the legal standard. You can get food elsewhere too, but restaurants can't refuse you service based on color.

I recognize that crb doesn't find those two situations analogous, but to this point he has been unable to offer any way to distinguish them beyond the incomprehensible claim that employers give insurance away for free.

[Jarvan]

You're right, you should adopt an unwanted kid.

Actually, single men have a fairly hard time adopting. Not that most of the world would really want me raising a kid anyway.

Of course that doesn't stop YOU from adopting unwanted kids. (see what I did there?)

[Jeril]

crb's standard is not the legal standard. You can get food elsewhere too, but restaurants can't refuse you service based on color.

I recognize that crb doesn't find those two situations analogous, but to this point he has been unable to offer any way to distinguish them beyond the incomprehensible claim that employers give insurance away for free.

But if you go to a restaurant that only serves steaks and you want a hamburger you either eat a steak or go find a place that serves hamburgers.

[Jarvan]

crb's standard is not the legal standard. You can get food elsewhere too, but restaurants can't refuse you service based on color.

I recognize that crb doesn't find those two situations analogous, but to this point he has been unable to offer any way to distinguish them beyond the incomprehensible claim that employers give insurance away for free.

If an employer stopped offering insurance, do they then HAVE to by law, raise the employees wages the same amount as spent on insurance? Healthcare is an added expense they didn't have to offer in the past. The fact that prior to Obamacare, healthcare wasn't considered part of your wages, ie, you were not taxed on it, begs to differ.

I think the best way to settle this particular case would be for SCOTUS to say that citizens, and privately owned companies do not have to pay for abortions, nor abortifacients under the ACA as it is now, or in the future, if it clashes with their religiously held beliefs. THEN rule that Plan B is not an abortifacient (even if the company itself says it is, go figure).

Yes, I know the law as written does not require companies to offer abortion of abortifacients, but lets be honest. It's only a matter of time till Pro-Choice people push for it to be mandated.

As for refusing people based on color... what the fuck does color have to do with a legal battle on birth control?

[Buckwheet]

My benefits are listed in my total compensation package and have been since 2001. It is an "earned" benefit.

Here is Princeton's research that is peer reviewed. http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ec-review.pdf people should get educated.

[cwolff]

If an employer stopped offering insurance, do they then HAVE to by law, raise the employees wages the same amount as spent on insurance? Healthcare is an added expense they didn't have to offer in the past. The fact that prior to Obamacare, healthcare wasn't considered part of your wages, ie, you were not taxed on it, begs to differ.

No, your employer can cut your compensation anytime they want with exceptions being things like unions.


I think the best way to settle this particular case would be for SCOTUS to say that citizens, and privately owned companies do not have to pay for abortions, nor abortifacients under the ACA as it is now, or in the future, if it clashes with their religiously held beliefs. THEN rule that Plan B is not an abortifacient (even if the company itself says it is, go figure).

The definition is attachment not insemination. Correct me if I'm wrong but the things you posted yesterday said the drugs prevent attachment.


Yes, I know the law as written does not require companies to offer abortion of abortifacients, but lets be honest. It's only a matter of time till Pro-Choice people push for it to be mandated.

As for refusing people based on color... what the fuck does color have to do with a legal battle on birth control?

Let's be honest. Abortion isn't about babies. It's strictly a politicized issue that can raise money. Even the pope is sick of this shit.


“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

“Because God is first; God is always first and makes the first move,” he said. “I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else — God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”

[Jarvan]

No, your employer can cut your compensation anytime they want with exceptions being things like unions.



The definition is attachment not insemination. Correct me if I'm wrong but the things you posted yesterday said the drugs prevent attachment.



Let's be honest. Abortion isn't about babies. It's strictly a politicized issue that can raise money. Even the pope is sick of this shit.

Yeah, Plan B's website says the drug can "prevent attachment". So... Plan B's makers think it's an Abortifacient.

Abortion isn't about babies? What is it about? Broccoli?

I don't think your quote means what you think it means.

Once again for the reading impaired... (direct from their website STILL)


"How does Plan B One-Step® work?

Plan B One-Step® is one tablet with levonorgestrel, a hormone that has been used in many birth control pills for several decades. Plan B One-Step® contains a higher dose of levonorgestrel than birth control pills, but works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B One-Step® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb)."

You would think the owners and makers of it would know if it did or didn't. As far as they are concerned, Plan B could possibly be an Abortifacient. Actually, the FDA says it can do this as well. So here is the real question, if the Federal Government says it can prevent attachment, and attachment is the red line for pregnancy, then Plan B according to the federal Government is an Abortifacient. Which would make Hobby Lobby's case 100% valid.

So unless the FDA changes their stance, I can't see how legally the government can say it isn't one.

[cwolff]

The legal definition is attachment. Not fertilization. If the egg does not attach to the uteran wall it's not abortive. What are you quoting that says something different?

[Latrinsorm]

But if you go to a restaurant that only serves steaks and you want a hamburger you either eat a steak or go find a place that serves hamburgers.Hamburger and steak is not analogous to birth control medication and no birth control medication: the former are both types of food, the latter are not both types of birth control medication.
If an employer stopped offering insurance, do they then HAVE to by law, raise the employees wages the same amount as spent on insurance? Healthcare is an added expense they didn't have to offer in the past. The fact that prior to Obamacare, healthcare wasn't considered part of your wages, ie, you were not taxed on it, begs to differ.An employer that does not offer insurance is irrelevant, in the same way that a business that does not offer dining is irrelevant. Once you make either offer, you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes while doing so.
As for refusing people based on color... what the fuck does color have to do with a legal battle on birth control?It is a behavior that is illegal regardless of the proprietor's religion. No matter how legitimately a restaurant holds the religious belief that black people don't warrant equal treatment, they are required by law to treat black people equally.

My treatment of freedom of religion is the same in both cases. Don't you wonder why yours isn't?

[Jeril]

Hamburger and steak is not analogous to birth control medication and no birth control medication: the former are both types of food, the latter are not both types of birth control medication.An employer that does not offer insurance is irrelevant, in the same way that a business that does not offer dining is irrelevant. Once you make either offer, you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes while doing so.It is a behavior that is illegal regardless of the proprietor's religion. No matter how legitimately a restaurant holds the religious belief that black people don't warrant equal treatment, they are required by law to treat black people equally.

My treatment of freedom of religion is the same in both cases. Don't you wonder why yours isn't?

Let me make this simpler then, if you walk into a drug store looking for birth control and they don't stock it for religious reasons you can't very well force them to do so, you just have to find another store. You are a smart guy and I am sure you knew what I meant, you can't be that dense, so why try and distract from the issue?

[Johnny Five]

Let me make this simpler then, if you walk into a drug store looking for birth control and they don't stock it for religious reasons you can't very well force them to do so, you just have to find another store. You are a smart guy and I am sure you knew what I meant, you can't be that dense, so why try and distract from the issue?

Jeril meet Latrin.

[Jarvan]

Hamburger and steak is not analogous to birth control medication and no birth control medication: the former are both types of food, the latter are not both types of birth control medication.An employer that does not offer insurance is irrelevant, in the same way that a business that does not offer dining is irrelevant. Once you make either offer, you can't discriminate on the basis of protected classes while doing so.It is a behavior that is illegal regardless of the proprietor's religion. No matter how legitimately a restaurant holds the religious belief that black people don't warrant equal treatment, they are required by law to treat black people equally.

My treatment of freedom of religion is the same in both cases. Don't you wonder why yours isn't?

A DR can refuse to give an abortion to someone if it is against their religious beliefs. As for your mythical religion that doesn't warrant equal treatment for colored people... I know you love to make shit up, but seriously. This is the stupidest argument since the last thing Back said.

Also, there are ways around treating black people equally if a religion REALLY wanted to. They could have a restaurant run by the church, which would only allow members of the church to eat there. The church being a private group can exclude membership to whomever they want. There are still some private clubs that exclude certain races.

but this is all beside the point.

You can't use a law to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. It's plain and simple. Now.. that doesn't mean someone can make up a religion where paying taxes is against their religious belief.

[Jarvan]

Let me make this simpler then, if you walk into a drug store looking for birth control and they don't stock it for religious reasons you can't very well force them to do so, you just have to find another store. You are a smart guy and I am sure you knew what I meant, you can't be that dense, so why try and distract from the issue?

Just wait.. that will be next.

[cwolff]

Just wait.. that will be next.

It is a beautiful thought. Some day. If Humans can survive that long, we will wipe the scourge of religion from all of man's endeavors. I won't live to see this wonderful day and will have to end my time taking consolation in the dream that in time our progeny will be free from this tyranny.

[Jarvan]

The legal definition is attachment. Not fertilization. If the egg does not attach to the uteran wall it's not abortive. What are you quoting that says something different?

See, that is where you seem to have the problem understanding. SOME people believe (religiously I may add) that life begins at conception. If a Fertilized egg is prevented from attaching to the wall, then that "life" was aborted.

The reason Hobby Lobby covered all the other contraceptives.. was because they DIDN'T possibly prevent attachment. They prevented fertilization, or ovulation.

Here is a little Primer for you...


"Fertilization

If one sperm does make its way into the Fallopian tube and burrow into the egg, it fertilizes the egg. The egg changes so that no other sperm can get in.

At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl.

Implantation: Moving to the Uterus

The egg stays in the Fallopian tube for about three to four days, but within 24 hours of being fertilized it starts dividing very fast into many cells. It keeps dividing as it moves slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Its next job is to attach to the lining of uterus. This is called implantation. "

So.. this is why some people feel it's an abortifacient. A fertilized egg has a sex, it starts dividing (life and growth, go figure), then attaches to the uterus wall for nourishment and so on.

(Notice ~I~ didn't say I feel it is one, just that some people do, and their opinion is valid and needs to be addressed)

Hence why it is before SCOTUS.

[Jarvan]

It is a beautiful thought. Some day. If Humans can survive that long, we will wipe the scourge of religion from all of man's endeavors. I won't live to see this wonderful day and will have to end my time taking consolation in the dream that in time our progeny will be free from this tyranny.

LOL. No, instead you put your "faith" in Global Warming.

It's good to know tho that you are a bigot. Makes things much clearer.

[cwolff]

See, that is where you seem to have the problem understanding. SOME people believe (religiously I may add) that life begins at conception. If a Fertilized egg is prevented from attaching to the wall, then that "life" was aborted.

The reason Hobby Lobby covered all the other contraceptives.. was because they DIDN'T possibly prevent attachment. They prevented fertilization, or ovulation.

Here is a little Primer for you...



So.. this is why some people feel it's an abortifacient. A fertilized egg has a sex, it starts dividing (life and growth, go figure), then attaches to the uterus wall for nourishment and so on.

(Notice ~I~ didn't say I feel it is one, just that some people do, and their opinion is valid and needs to be addressed)

Hence why it is before SCOTUS.

This is not why it's before the Supreme Court. The reason it's before the court is for strictly secular reasons. This case is an attempt to thwart the ACA. The effect is what they are after, the cause is not relevant. Any old issue that can make a case is what they will bring.

As to the first portion of your post can we now agree that these contraceptives do not meet the current legal definition of abortion? Each individual's opinion is a different matter and there will always be a wide range of opinions.

[cwolff]

LOL. No, instead you put your "faith" in Global Warming.

It's good to know tho that you are a bigot. Makes things much clearer.

:wtf2:

[Jarvan]

:wtf2:

Well, you want the "scourge of religion" wiped from the world. And think it's a "tyranny".

So I will help you out...


"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "

[Jeril]

LOL. No, instead you put your "faith" in Global Warming.

It's good to know tho that you are a bigot. Makes things much clearer.

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Where is his intolerance?

[Johnny Five]

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachments/toyota-truck-4runner/499025d1265264958-91-4runner-200-bucks-backpedal.jpg

[Back]

I'm a bigot against idiots.

[Johnny Five]

I'm a bigot against idiots.

Self-hate is a terrible thing my friend.

[cwolff]

Well, you want the "scourge of religion" wiped from the world. And think it's a "tyranny".

So I will help you out...

Nope. That doesn't fit. Try again.

I notice you've left off your crazy "Global Warming as a religion" idea. At least we're making some progress.

[Gelston]

Cwolff, are you one of those annoying types of atheists that go up to people and tell them believing in God is stupid?

[cwolff]

Cwolff, are you one of those annoying types of atheists that go up to people and tell them believing in God is stupid?

Nope.

[Parkbandit]

Cwolff, are you one of those annoying types of atheists that go up to people and tell them believing in God is stupid?

Only on the Internet where he's "safe".

[Merala]

We'll try this again.

Corporations do not have religious beliefs. Yes, people who own corporations have religious beliefs. Corporations do not. To try and protect a corporation's religious rights is completely ridiculous.

The company Hobby Lobby is required to pay for health insurance for its employees or to pay a fine. That is the law. Allowing a corporation to refuse to provide medical care based on the religious beliefs of the owner allows all kinds of opportunity to escape paying for coverage. This is not a slippery slope like the arguments made about gay marriage (where people will marry animals next, etc.). That would require further legislation. A decision in favor of the religious rights of corporations would establish just that, religious rights. All a corporation would have to do is object to a treatment based on religious grounds. That means a Catholic-owned corporation would be able to say, "No birth control, period." So while, Mr. Green is not saying at this moment no birth control at all, a ruling in his favor will absolutely open a door for that to happen, no further legislation or ruling needed. As well as no coverage for vaccinations, and blood transfusions (I believe that may have been mentioned).

Mr. Green does not have to provide birth control coverage to his employees. Hobby Lobby does. Hobby Lobby and Mr. Green are entirely separate entities. Mr. Green has to file his own taxes, as does Hobby Lobby. Mr. Green and Hobby Lobby are not one entity. Only one of those entities has religious rights. Guess what? It isn't Hobby Lobby.

[waywardgs]

Citizens United paved the way for this kind of bullshit anyway. Thanks a lot, SCOTUS.

[Tgo01]

Citizens United paved the way for this kind of bullshit anyway. Thanks a lot, SCOTUS.

YOU LIE!

[Parkbandit]

We'll try this again.

Corporations do not have religious beliefs. Yes, people who own corporations have religious beliefs. Corporations do not. To try and protect a corporation's religious rights is completely ridiculous.

The company Hobby Lobby is required to pay for health insurance for its employees or to pay a fine. That is the law. Allowing a corporation to refuse to provide medical care based on the religious beliefs of the owner allows all kinds of opportunity to escape paying for coverage. This is not a slippery slope like the arguments made about gay marriage (where people will marry animals next, etc.). That would require further legislation. A decision in favor of the religious rights of corporations would establish just that, religious rights. All a corporation would have to do is object to a treatment based on religious grounds. That means a Catholic-owned corporation would be able to say, "No birth control, period." So while, Mr. Green is not saying at this moment no birth control at all, a ruling in his favor will absolutely open a door for that to happen, no further legislation or ruling needed. As well as no coverage for vaccinations, and blood transfusions (I believe that may have been mentioned).

Mr. Green does not have to provide birth control coverage to his employees. Hobby Lobby does. Hobby Lobby and Mr. Green are entirely separate entities. Mr. Green has to file his own taxes, as does Hobby Lobby. Mr. Green and Hobby Lobby are not one entity. Only one of those entities has religious rights. Guess what? It isn't Hobby Lobby.

You are welcome to your opinion.

I disagree with your ridiculous assertion that Mr. Green has no say to what happens in his company. What's next, do we force Chick-fil-A to open on Sundays? Fuck them because they believe in worshiping on Sundays.. we need our chicken!

Guess what though.. we will wait for SCOTUS to determine if Hobby Lobby has to... it's what we have them to do. After all is said and done.. our personal opinions don't mean much.

[Laviticas]

It is a beautiful thought. Some day. If Humans can survive that long, we will wipe the scourge of religion from all of man's endeavors. I won't live to see this wonderful day and will have to end my time taking consolation in the dream that in time our progeny will be free from this tyranny.

Damn religion, founding all those hospitals, universities, ending slavery in the US. Such a scourge on mankind.

[waywardgs]

Damn religion, founding all those hospitals, universities, ending slavery in the US. Such a scourge on mankind.

http://photos.forteantimes.com/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_6/fortean_times_3365_7.jpg
http://cdn2.unitedwithisrael.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/368-spanish-inquisition2.jpg
http://wootton9.tripod.com/images/romanempire/knights.jpg
http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/church__130402174614.jpg

[Laviticas]

http://photos.forteantimes.com/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_6/fortean_times_3365_7.jpg
http://cdn2.unitedwithisrael.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/368-spanish-inquisition2.jpg
http://wootton9.tripod.com/images/romanempire/knights.jpg
http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/church__130402174614.jpg

You mean humans do bad things to each other? Stalin was a saint

[waywardgs]

You mean humans do bad things to each other? Stalin was a saint

Exactly. Religion is no different. Good and bad. IMHO, probably more bad than good, but that's just me. Regardless, tossing out a couple hospitals they started doesn't excuse the bad.

And LOL at ending slavery.

http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/kkk.jpg

[cwolff]

You mean humans do bad things to each other? Stalin was a saint

You just destroyed your point that religion is responsible for wonderful things.

[Gelston]

You just destroyed your point that religion is responsible for wonderful things.

The official Communist Party line on Religion was atheism. This includes the party under Chairman Mao in China. I think they win for terrible things done, since we are turning this into a game and all.

[cwolff]

The official Communist Party line on Religion was atheism. This includes the party under Chairman Mao in China. I think they win for terrible things done, since we are turning this into a game and all.

Laviticus would disagree. His point speaks to humanism.

I'm not sure what game is being played. I don't believe it's possible to compile a list of the GOOD (religion) and the BAD (atheism) then compare to see which side wins/loses. I'm surprised you're trying it.

[Laviticas]

Exactly. Religion is no different. Good and bad. IMHO, probably more bad than good, but that's just me. Regardless, tossing out a couple hospitals they started doesn't excuse the bad.

And LOL at ending slavery.

http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/kkk.jpg

So you're denying that the abolition movement was the driving force behind ending slavery?

[waywardgs]

So you're denying that the abolition movement was the driving force behind ending slavery?

I'm saying that religion swings both ways. Like bisexuals.

[Gelston]

Laviticus would disagree. His point speaks to humanism.

I'm not sure what game is being played. I don't believe it's possible to compile a list of the GOOD (religion) and the BAD (atheism) then compare to see which side wins/loses. I'm surprised you're trying it.

I'm only posting to show that Religion is used as a scapegoat. If religion didn't exist we'd have done the same bad shit. Just with different reasons.

Religion doesn't cause wars, murder, etc., people do.

[waywardgs]

Too much nationalism and too much religion are both very scary things though.

[Gelston]

Too much nationalism and too much religion are both very scary things though.

It is all things that provide drive. Too much drive, no matter what it is, is a bad thing. Too little, however, is also a bad thing. Basically we all need to be Goldilocks.

[cwolff]

I'm only posting to show that Religion is used as a scapegoat. If religion didn't exist we'd have done the same bad shit. Just with different reasons.

Religion doesn't cause wars, murder, etc., people do.

Religion did it's job. It was the first form of government. We've got the tools that make it obsolete now and I believe that going forward we'll continue to outgrow it.

I find it interesting that the more security people feel in their life the less religion they need.

[Tgo01]

Outgrow it and then...what?

[Laviticas]

I'm saying that religion swings both ways. Like bisexuals.


I can accept that, of course cwolff is the only one so far that has a wanting of mass murder of Christians. How very humanist of him.

[cwolff]

I can accept that, of course cwolff is the only one so far that has a wanting of mass murder of Christians. How very humanist of him.

Yes that's exactly my point. Kill them all let ...er...the secular democratically elected council of judges sort them out. Sounds like you're feeling a bit persecuted.


Outgrow it and then...what?

Then nothing. Rule of law, democracy in it's various forms etc... Religion's no longer necessary to a country that has rule of law. The religious codes have been replaced by agreed upon rules. By humans, for humans with no need of divine guidance.

[Jeril]

Outgrow it and then...what?

WE RULE THE UNIVERSE!

And any other places we may find.

[Tgo01]

Then nothing. Rule of law, democracy in it's various forms etc... Religion's no longer necessary to a country that has rule of law. The religious codes have been replaced by agreed upon rules. By humans, for humans with no need of divine guidance.

Okay. Just as long as you're not one of those people who thinks if we ever "cure" ourselves of religion then we will all be peace loving hippies.


WE RULE THE UNIVERSE!

And any other places we may find.

I thought we already did?

USA! USA! USA!

[cwolff]

Okay. Just as long as you're not one of those people who thinks if we ever "cure" ourselves of religion then we will all be peace loving hippies.

I've rarely met a non-religious hippie. I lived in the north woods for a year at an outdoor survival school. In that group I was not only the conservative but also the only one with no belief in the supernatural. Interestingly enough, I went to work as a hunting guide after that. Still the only one with no belief in the super natural except that in hunting camp I was a liberal.

[Laviticas]

Yes that's exactly my point. Kill them all let ...er...the secular democratically elected council of judges sort them out. Sounds like you're feeling a bit persecuted.



Then nothing. Rule of law, democracy in it's various forms etc... Religion's no longer necessary to a country that has rule of law. The religious codes have been replaced by agreed upon rules. By humans, for humans with no need of divine guidance.

Ummm...where the hell do you think those laws came from?

[cwolff]

Ummm...where the hell do you think those laws came from?

The brains of human beings.

[Gelston]

Religion did it's job. It was the first form of government. We've got the tools that make it obsolete now and I believe that going forward we'll continue to outgrow it.

I find it interesting that the more security people feel in their life the less religion they need.

It isn't obsolete and it won't be "outgrown". But yeah, you are one of those annoying atheists.

[waywardgs]

The brains of human beings.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02057/qi-adam-eve_2057954b.jpg

[cwolff]

It isn't obsolete and it won't be "outgrown". But yeah, you are one of those annoying atheists.

Whatever the fuck that means. You're here talking too. I'm not accosting you with my beliefs as you're walking down the street or posting gobs of christian shit like saipher did.

As for outgrowing it, we already are. That's why there is a correlation between religiosity and poverty.

[Laviticas]

The brains of human beings.

Those laws are Jewish/Christian principles. Notice you won't find democracy in non Jewish or Christian majority countries.

[cwolff]

Those laws are Jewish/Christian principles. Notice you won't find democracy in non Jewish or Christian majority countries.

I think you twisted up your meaning there. Do you mean to say that there is only democracy in countries that are predominantly influenced by judeo-christianity?

[Laviticas]

I think you twisted up your meaning there. Do you mean to say that there is only democracy in countries that are predominantly influenced by judeo-christianity?

I think you need to read what I said again, and yes that is what I am saying.

[cwolff]

I think you need to read what I said again, and yes that is what I am saying.

Ok, I see what you meant. What does that mean in regards to this conversation? I'm not sure what your point is.

[Valthissa]

strange thread

Almost everything I read here is contrary to my understanding of the case

Hobby Lobby covers many form of contraception and will continue to do so no matter the results of this case.

The ACA itself did not specify things like which forms of contraception would be required, that was decided by HHS.

Hobby Lobby contends that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed in response to a restriction on the religous expression in an opinion written by Scalia (maybe he didn't like peyote use at mass), gives them the legal right to object to specific forms of birth control. So their claim is that a specific law gives them the legal right not to cover two (three? out of 20?) forms of birth control.

The government is reduced to arguing that the RFRA means something other than the plain language adopted by congress with 95%+ in favor of the law (it's late or I would post a link to the RFRA).

Now I think the justices will somehow figure out how to rule against Hobby Lobby, but the real answer would be to exempt the ACA from the RFRA (which congress could easily do).

This is a prime example of just how craven our elected officials are - they never want to make a tough decision - just pass laws like RFRA in response to some ruling they don't like and then hope the courts bail them out of any unintended consequences.

[Jeril]

just how craven our elected officials are - they never want to make a tough decision -

So true, they worry too much about the short term happiness of people and what it means for the next election cycle.

[waywardgs]

So true, they worry too much about the short term happiness of people and what it means for the next election cycle.

Hey, politicians have mortgages too!

[Jeril]

Hey, politicians have mortgages too!

Maybe they should get real jobs then.

[Laviticas]

Ok, I see what you meant. What does that mean in regards to this conversation? I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is, for all the bad man has used religion for. It has resulted in more good than bad. It's often hard to grasp how what appears to be bad at the time often results to good. I will expand on this when i get home from work and able to do this on my PC and not fat fingering this damn phone.

[waywardgs]

Maybe they should get real jobs then.

I actually think politicians should get paid way more. On the order of millions. I worry about the person drawn to the idea of wielding power over people way more than the person who's in it for the bucks. Besides, if you give a guy a few million to work for a couple years, maybe they'll do what they were voted in to do and not just what will get them reelected.

I'm probably wrong.

[Warriorbird]

My point is, for all the bad man has used religion for. It has resulted in more good than bad. It's often hard to grasp how what appears to be bad at the time often results to good. I will expand on this when i get home from work and able to do this on my PC and not fat fingering this damn phone.

I tend to credit the good and bad to people. Without religion the Western World might have emerged from feudalism much earlier.

[Parkbandit]

It isn't obsolete and it won't be "outgrown". But yeah, you are one of those annoying atheists.

Has it really taken you this long to figure out how intolerant cwolff is?

[Jarvan]

Exactly. Religion is no different. Good and bad. IMHO, probably more bad than good, but that's just me. Regardless, tossing out a couple hospitals they started doesn't excuse the bad.

And LOL at ending slavery.

http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/kkk.jpg

I figure you are aware that the KKK wasn't a religion. So I will take this to mean that the burning of a cross somehow implies that Christianity had something to do with the KKK.

I may have to start including you in the Back/Cwolff group.

[Jarvan]

I actually think politicians should get paid way more. On the order of millions. I worry about the person drawn to the idea of wielding power over people way more than the person who's in it for the bucks. Besides, if you give a guy a few million to work for a couple years, maybe they'll do what they were voted in to do and not just what will get them reelected.

I'm probably wrong.

I agree with you, there I said it.

[Jarvan]

I tend to credit the good and bad to people. Without religion the Western World might have emerged from feudalism much earlier.

Without religion, we would likely have never emerged from our "caves".

Religion is not bad, no matter what Cwolff thinks or says. Faith isn't bad.

It's when Human beings take anything to an extreme that it becomes "bad". There is nothing wrong with believing in God. There is nothing wrong with praying to God for help with dealing with something like Cancer. There IS something wrong with thinking God will cure that cancer so there is no need to send your 6 year old to the Dr.

That's called an extreme.

Almost every scientist is a man/woman of faith. They may not be of God, but they have to have faith for them to theorize about something without being able to prove it is true. Pretty much the definition of faith.

We as a world will never "outgrow" religion. Religions may change, but we will never outgrow them. Frankly.. you better damn well hope we don't. I personally think a world of Atheists would be a disaster.

[waywardgs]

I figure you are aware that the KKK wasn't a religion. So I will take this to mean that the burning of a cross somehow implies that Christianity had something to do with the KKK.

I may have to start including you in the Back/Cwolff group.



So in your little head the KKK had no Christian roots? Do you know anything about the group?

[rolfard]

Humans roamed for almost 100 thousand to a million years before religion emerged. If anything it was the written word (after fire and tools and clothes) that preceded our leaving the cave. Religion is what we use to console ourselves that the darkness isn't really as empty as it appears.

[Jarvan]

Humans roamed for almost 100 thousand to a million years before religion emerged. If anything it was the written word (after fire and tools and clothes) that preceded our leaving the cave. Religion is what we use to console ourselves that the darkness isn't really as empty as it appears.

I think you are thinking of organized religions.

[Jarvan]

So in your little head the KKK had no Christian roots? Do you know anything about the group?

You know, I did read up on it once. And I don't remember the Church being involved in it. Actually, the KKK of the 1920's+ were anti-Catholic.

Maybe in your eyes tho, if a Christian founds a hate group, the church endorses it. Far as ~I~ know tho, no Christian religion burns crosses. Specially since it is usually a holy symbol.

Of course if you are strictly referring to the use of religious symbols by the KKK in various ways.... do you consider the Nazi Party a Religious group because they used a Swastika?

[cwolff]

So in your little head the KKK had no Christian roots? Do you know anything about the group?


You know, I did read up on it once. And I don't remember the Church being involved in it. Actually, the KKK of the 1920's+ were anti-Catholic.

Maybe in your eyes tho, if a Christian founds a hate group, the church endorses it. Far as ~I~ know tho, no Christian religion burns crosses. Specially since it is usually a holy symbol.

Of course if you are strictly referring to the use of religious symbols by the KKK in various ways.... do you consider the Nazi Party a Religious group because they used a Swastika?

Man you tortured the shit out of that logic. KKK is opposed to Catholics, Catholics are religious, therefore KKK is not religious. No christian religion burns crosses, the KKK burns crosses, therefore the KKK is not christian. The church does not endorse the KKK, therefore the KKK is not religious.

[waywardgs]

When people say "We're doing this because of our religious beliefs!!!!111" I tend to believe them.


America, Our Nation is Under Judgement from God!

"There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. "

National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb

http://www.kkk.com

[crb]

If employers are able to handpick what health services to provide to their employees to keep cost down, what's to stop them from saying that they're not going to cover treatment on an ailment like pneumonia, because that was a personal choice of the employees to smoke, or not treat their cold? And, lets make it a bit broader and not cover Diabetes treatment, because it was the employee's choice to eat. And while they're at it, lets cut out Cancer treatment, because that's too expensive. But, instead of citing those reasons for personal accountability or cost, I'll just say it's religion so I'm protected.

And if we allow two gay men to marry, what is next? A man marrying a goat! Where do you draw the line! We absolutely must deny these people their rights because WHO KNOWS WHERE IT COULD END?!?!?!?!? I AM AN ASSHOLE! You're seriously mirroring the arguments of the homophobic crowd. We must not allow these basic enumerated rights because slippery slope to craziness. But of course, every single person against this mandate but for gay marriage is a flaming hypocrite, and vice versa. Freedom of religion goes both ways.

There are already tons of laws that take religion into account where you can get a pass from the law if your religion calls for it. It isn't hard to figure out if something is a legitimately held religious belief or made up bullshit. Every once in awhile some case makes it to court about it, I vaguely remember one where some prisoner stated his made-up religion required him to frequently masturbate or something. We have a judicial system to figure out if a religious belief is legitimate or not if it comes to that.

And you know what, right now, your employer can decide to just cover nothing, which, if Hobby Lobby loses, is what is likely to be their ultimate choice. They'll just drop insurance altogether, and pay a fine that in total is less than their prior insurance cost, making a net gain on the situation, and dumping their workforce onto the exchanges. So really you're bitching about ridiculous hyperbolic examples of certain things not being covered when employers all still maintain the legal option of covering nothing at all?

[crb]

If they don't believe in eating cows or pork, or animals in general, and its their religious belief they could refuse to cover any condition associated with that or require you to stop doing something to prove it is not related to your condition. Additionally, what about that relgious people who refuse any and all medications? The ones that let their family members die or become permanently disabled because they believe only in the power of prayer?

I get the idea that "if you don't like it go somewhere else" but the same folks who are saying that are saying that unemployment is a huge problem. So if you recognize that in general finding a job is difficult because of current conditions, the idea that you can just jump ship to a new job seems a little silly.

Right now there is more competition between workers than there is between employers and because of that employers don't have to increase benefit packages or salary packages to attract talent. Its a buyers world right now not a sellers. Also we are making the assumption that maybe Hobby Lobby pays people really well? I don't know. But if they pay their workers like any other large retailer the workers may not be full time or make a wage high enough to be considered above the poverty level. This would mean that because Hobby Lobby is providing them insurance they can't go on medicaid or to an exchange.

I think that the best thing I have heard in the thread is to change the law to either allows companies to provide care or do a straight reimbursement for a plan on an exchange for a bronze level plan. If you want something more you pay the difference.

The status of the employment market, or your own personal lack of marketable skills or education or experience, is not a valid excuse to strip a constitutional right from a third party.

"Bob has a hard time finding a job, so Carl doesn't get freedom of religion."

Nope, thats pretty ridiculous.

[crb]

The histrionics are getting out of hand here.

Every business owner must conform to U.S. Law and regulations to do business here so quit with the crying about "IT's his freedom!" You can't pay people 1$ an hour no matter what the good book says. The answer "You have the freedom to work somewhere else" may be how you wish things were but it is not how things are.


And US Law must abide by the Constitution, which is why this lawsuit is being brought on constitutional grounds. Dumbass.

Oh, and who lacks freedom to work somewhere else? We really have to chase down this straw stuffed evil doer who is chaining all these people up.

[Taernath]

And if we allow two gay men to marry, what is next? A man marrying a goat!

We can only hope. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88477-Goat-Simulator)

[crb]

This lawsuit has nothing to do with birth control or religious freedom. That's a smoke screen. BC is covered and uncontested. Abortions are not covered nor is that being challenged. The case is Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius. This is strictly an ACA challenge. There were about 5 of these challenges that split in state courts which is why the Supreme Court is hearing one of them.

Mr. Green doesn't have to cover any of his people if it's against his religion. He can pay the tax and not offer insurance then his employees can go on the exchanges for their health benefits. The cost of not insuring them will defray the cost of his insurance. Problem Solved.

Hobby Lobby's not doing that though. They're going out of their way to impose their will on other people in a very secular political fight.

Do you think before you type?

You call them dropping insurance "problem solved." and then attack them for "imposing their will on other people." for daring to want to provide a free benefit to their employees that doesn't include something you think it should include?

Again, NOT GIVING YOU SOMETHING FOR FREE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BLOCKING YOU FROM ACCESSING IT.

And is it so hard to believe they want to continue to provide insurance for their workers without violating their religious beliefs? I realize that idiot progressives, of which you're one, believe that religious people are basically caricatures, wandering around lynching blacks and gays while secretly fondling altar boys and thinking up ways to kill muslims. But believe it or not, some of them are just regular nice people who happen to believe in a super natural being that isn't Gaia Earth Mother and try to be a good person and genuinely care about others (which is why they give so much more to charity than people on the left).

Though you've basically gotten into ad hominem now, having no rational leg to stand on. You attack their motivations rather than the merits of the case. Just because you're so partisan doesn't mean everyone is.

[cwolff]

And US Law must abide by the Constitution, which is why this lawsuit is being brought on constitutional grounds. Dumbass.

Oh, and who lacks freedom to work somewhere else? We really have to chase down this straw stuffed evil doer who is chaining all these people up.

The problem you keep running into is that you think your interpretation of the constitution is the only valid interpretation. Beyond that your response has some other problems. Your other ideas are only valid in a completely free market which we are not. There are rules. Ownership is not carte blanche to do any fucking thing you want. You hire a religious guy, you got to let him off work on Sundays. You hire an entry level employee. They get at least a minimum wage. If you can't understand that we can not help you.

[crb]

An employer exchanges healthcare (among other things) for the specific employee's work. Saying employers give away healthcare for free is saying they give away wages for free.

So, they're taxed like wages right? It is income for the employee, so it must be taxed. No? Hrmm.... Guess it isn't exactly like a wage.

But I do see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a voluntary arrangement. An employee can choose not to work there if they do not like the benefit package, or the wage, or the hours, or anything else to do with the job.


As cwolff has said, the onus is not on the employees to comply with employer law. An employer is not allowed to violate OSHA regulations if people voluntarily work there.

And OSHA regulations cannot violate the Constitution.

[crb]

This argument does not excuse an employer from any other regulations (e.g. OSHA), even if they say complying with them would be against their religion.

Actually, you could bring a constitution claim against any law or regulation that violates your religion or speech or any other part of the constitution.

Why do you think federal regulators are the supreme law of the land suddenly? Constitutional challenges to laws or regulations literally happen all the fucking time.

[crb]

I am totally fine with fellow Catholics choosing not to use contraception, or choosing not to use a respirator in an atmosphere immediately dangerous to life or health. As the Lord says, nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. What is not fine is if Catholic employers extend that reasoning to deny the former or the latter to their employees.

And when Hobby Lobby stations armed guards in pharmacies or chains their employees up you'll have an argument. Not giving you something is not the same thing as denying you access to it.

[crb]

crb's standard is not the legal standard. You can get food elsewhere too, but restaurants can't refuse you service based on color.

I recognize that crb doesn't find those two situations analogous, but to this point he has been unable to offer any way to distinguish them beyond the incomprehensible claim that employers give insurance away for free.

There is nothing analogous about them. First of all, stop playing the race card, it is irrelevant.

Here is your analogy if you want to use restaurants:

A jew walks into a restaurant, demands pizza with kosher pepperoni. The waiter says "Sorry, we don't have that here, but would be glad to sell you a pizza with regular pepperoni." The jew sues the restaurant for forcing their religion on him and only giving him the option of regular pepperoni. Or even more aptly, a heathen goes into a Jewish restaurant, asks for a non-kosher meal, says they don't have anything non-kosher, and sues the restaurant for trying to turn him jewish. He can buy what they're serving, or go elsewhere, the restaurant doesn't have to change their menu to his tastes. His choice is to eat their or not, they choose the menu.

No employee is in danger of losing their job because of their race, gender, orientation, or religion. They're all being employed and treated equally, so as I said, that isn't discrimination because dictionary.

[waywardgs]

I really am amused at how the word "free" is being used.

[crb]

But if you go to a restaurant that only serves steaks and you want a hamburger you either eat a steak or go find a place that serves hamburgers.

Unless you're black, in which case you call Al Sharpton and cry "RAAAAAAAACISM!"

[crb]

It is a behavior that is illegal regardless of the proprietor's religion. No matter how legitimately a restaurant holds the religious belief that black people don't warrant equal treatment, they are required by law to treat black people equally.

My treatment of freedom of religion is the same in both cases. Don't you wonder why yours isn't?

No it isn't actually. In your first example you are treating people differently. In the example of the Hobby Lobby case everyone is being treated equally.

You may find this helpful:

https://www.google.com/#q=define+discrimination

[crb]

Let me make this simpler then, if you walk into a drug store looking for birth control and they don't stock it for religious reasons you can't very well force them to do so, you just have to find another store. You are a smart guy and I am sure you knew what I meant, you can't be that dense, so why try and distract from the issue?

Wait wait wait. Latrine is a guy?!?!?! Are we sure?

[crb]

It is a beautiful thought. Some day. If Humans can survive that long, we will wipe the scourge of religion from all of man's endeavors. I won't live to see this wonderful day and will have to end my time taking consolation in the dream that in time our progeny will be free from this tyranny.

I know, people dressing up and going to a building on Sundays to sing, pray, and talk about how to live a good life totally fucks up my day and affects me. God damn people, don't they know that all that singing and praying is affecting us? As an atheist I get particularly offended when I say the pledge of allegiance or something with God in it, because I know that words have magical powers and when I say these words little midichlorians from heaven come down and inhabit my body and I risk turning into a scientologist or something. I hate it when Jebus people pray around me, I worry that I'll get 2nd hand midichlorians and before I know it I'll be stuck entertaining Tom Cruise at a dinner party and that guy is a serious douchebag.

[Latrinsorm]

Two posts for the two themes:
Let me make this simpler then, if you walk into a drug store looking for birth control and they don't stock it for religious reasons you can't very well force them to do so, you just have to find another store. You are a smart guy and I am sure you knew what I meant, you can't be that dense, so why try and distract from the issue?I think it is good form and I have found it to be good practice to take peoples' words seriously. Again though, the situations are not analogous. Insurance is not a provider of treatment, it doesn't stock or dispense any medications.
A DR can refuse to give an abortion to someone if it is against their religious beliefs.The difference is that Hobby Lobby already funds other peoples' abortions. More on this later.
As for your mythical religion that doesn't warrant equal treatment for colored people... I know you love to make shit up, but seriously. This is the stupidest argument since the last thing Back said.I was referring to Christianity. Biblical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic) justifications were given for African slavery and disenfranchisement. Were they correct? No, but neither is Hobby Lobby.
You can't use a law to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. It's plain and simple. Now.. that doesn't mean someone can make up a religion where paying taxes is against their religious belief.How do you decide which religions or beliefs are made up? Suppose a corporation has no problem funding a certain act for 30 years, then abruptly declares that it is a violation of their religion to do so. That sounds made up to me, how about you?
So really you're bitching about ridiculous hyperbolic examples of certain things not being covered when employers all still maintain the legal option of covering nothing at all?It's the same way that a restaurant can choose to serve food to nobody or to everybody. Both are legal options. Anywhere in the middle (as far as protected classes are concerned) is not.
So, they're taxed like wages right? It is income for the employee, so it must be taxed. No? Hrmm.... Guess it isn't exactly like a wage.There is no compensation tax, so forms of compensation that do not fit any other category (such as income) are not taxed. A reserved parking space, a private bathroom, insurance: these sort of things aren't taxed, but they are still forms of compensation.
Actually, you could bring a constitution claim against any law or regulation that violates your religion or speech or any other part of the constitution.It is true that you are free to file frivolous lawsuits, but said filing does not excuse you from following the law or suffering the proscribed consequences.
They're all being employed and treated equally, so as I said, that isn't discrimination because dictionary.This is an equivocation. If Hobby Lobby refused to offer OB-GYN coverage to everyone, they would all be treated "equally" but that would clearly be discrimination against women.

[Latrinsorm]

Religion did it's job. It was the first form of government. We've got the tools that make it obsolete now and I believe that going forward we'll continue to outgrow it.

I find it interesting that the more security people feel in their life the less religion they need.There is no end to religion. Humans can't help but worship something. There was a time when those somethings were not the Christian God, there will be a time when they aren't again. Atheism is no more an alternative to religion than vegetarianism is an alternative to eating.
Those laws are Jewish/Christian principles. Notice you won't find democracy in non Jewish or Christian majority countries.India and Indonesia comprise 21% of the world's population and are as democratic as we are.

[crb]

Citizens United paved the way for this kind of bullshit anyway. Thanks a lot, SCOTUS.

Ya because people who self select into groups totally give up freedom of speech when doing so.

Which, despite all the noise, is what that case said.

Bob has freedom of speech
Carl has freedom of speech
Mary Jane has freedom of speech.

But if Bob, Carl, and Mary Jane group up, they have limits.

It wasn't about rich people buying elections, rich individuals have always been able to have unlimited political speech. It was about small people banding together into groups to pool their resources to have as much impact as a single rich person. It was about whether a group of individuals has the same speech rights as the individual members do separately, and SCOTUS correctly said: Yes, yes they do.

Much in the way you don't give up your freedom of religion when you hire an employee, you don't give up your freedom of speech when you join a group.

[Tgo01]

Do I give up my freedom to bear arms if I join a gang?

[Buckwheet]

Do I give up my freedom to bear arms if I join a gang?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/719/331/94af8465475f84beee86646be13c1b73_large.jpg?1372884 906

[Tgo01]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/719/331/94af8465475f84beee86646be13c1b73_large.jpg?1372884 906

Must...buy!

[Buckwheet]

Must...buy!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1337495671/right-to-bear-arms-shirt

[Johnny Five]

Damn CRB went ape shit. I approve.

[Merala]

Amazing how crb completely glossed over the point where I showed that this is very much different from the anti-gay marriage rhetoric.

[cwolff]

There is no end to religion. Humans can't help but worship something. There was a time when those somethings were not the Christian God, there will be a time when they aren't again. Atheism is no more an alternative to religion than vegetarianism is an alternative to eating.India and Indonesia comprise 21% of the world's population and are as democratic as we are.

I agree in that it'll be very difficult for humanity to drop religion completely. There was a time though, when there was no religion. The thought hadn't even occured yet. This tells me that if something can be learned it can be unlearned, modified, changed or replaced by something that does it's job but better.

[Wrathbringer]

There was a time though, when there was no religion. The thought hadn't even occured yet.

Source?

[Latrinsorm]

I agree in that it'll be very difficult for humanity to drop religion completely. There was a time though, when there was no religion. The thought hadn't even occured yet. This tells me that if something can be learned it can be unlearned, modified, changed or replaced by something that does it's job but better.Were those people humans, though? Or... were those humans people? Humanity is more than (less than?) a genetic code: we don't use a mass spec to call one another inhuman.

Or: what if it only looks like there was no religion when in fact there was just no paint? no building materials and/or concept of architecture? no desire to make permanent record at all? We can see that phenomenon even today, consider Snapchat vs. Instagram or various streaming services vs. Youtube. It could be that while any particular religion is a creation the religious urge is innate, no more replaceable than hunger or sleep.

[Bartlett]

I have been taking Allegra for years. I had a prescription for it and my pharmacy dispenses it as a prescription product. A while back it became available over the counter so my health insurance company decided that they would no longer pay for it (minus the copay.) This left me with choices. I could find a new job since this health care plan is only one my employer offers, use an alternative allergy medication that is covered, sue my health insurance company for no longer covering a prescribed medication, or pay 4 times what I paid before for the same medicine.

For a reasonable person there are only 2 options, for the rest of you I'm sure you can come up with more than the 4 I listed. I found other medications did not give me the same results as what I was taking so I now just buy it myself over the counter at a much higher rate.

We can argue all day that I have a "right" to health insurance and prescription coverage. If we determined that were true, the provider also has the right to choose what they will cover, and my employer has (should have) the right to offer a health plan that suits them. Some people have pointed out that this is just a way of fighting the ACA - maybe it is. Since the government has decided that the government acted legally in "forcing" employers to pay for health care it is likely that people will continue to look for alternative battlegrounds to protect their assets and Hobby Lobby has found something that just may work.

[Jeril]

Insurance is not a provider of treatment, it doesn't stock or dispense any medications.

No, they just pay or help pay for it. And I am pretty sure that Hobby Lobby wouldn't have a hard time finding an insurance company who wants their money and would craft a plan the way they want it. Makes you wonder why they didn't do that in the first place, would have been a far simpler solution then what they are doing.


The difference is that Hobby Lobby already funds other peoples' abortions. More on this later.


If they are knowingly doing that, it wouldn't give them much of a leg to stand on and makes this whole thing rather silly. If it is some obscure indirect method, you are just being obtuse again.

[crb]

It's the same way that a restaurant can choose to serve food to nobody or to everybody. Both are legal options. Anywhere in the middle (as far as protected classes are concerned) is not.

Which has exactly nothing to do with the argument at hand... unless you're saying medications are people. Hobby Lobby isn't discriminating against people, they're discriminating against medications.

It isn't whether the restaurant serves you or not, you're bitching about the menu. Hobby Lobby is serving all their employees, equally, you're just complaining about the cooking "My soup is too cold! There is a pube on my plate! Why did you give me TWO forks?!?!" So no, it is actually nothing like actual discrimination, but keep on trying to wave that race card about, do it enough you might get elected to public office.

http://katdish.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.jpg

[waywardgs]

Which has exactly nothing to do with the argument at hand... unless you're saying medications are people.

Hell, if corporations are people, maybe medications are too.

Discrimination comes in when the type of medication is sex-specific. Like was said- if access to ob-gyn is withheld equally, it's "equal" but still discrimination re. gender.

Anyway, gonna go register my three LLC's for the vote and maybe social security benefits. Afterwards we're gonna go protest something to exercise our freedom of speech. Back in a bit.

[cwolff]

No, this case has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with basic partisan politics.



Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers
These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

...for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

[Parkbandit]

No, this case has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with basic partisan politics.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

:rofl:

You really are blissfully ignorant, aren't you?

Do you have any idea what investing in a mutual fund entails?

ETA: Dammit, I fell for an April Fools Day joke here, didn't I??

[cwolff]

It's too bad there aren't faith based mutual funds. I guess when it comes to Jesus and ROI, Mr. Green loves ROI more. Sorry Jesus, until you can return a higher return and start paying dividends we're going to put our money with the baby killers.

[waywardgs]

Divestment was one of the tactics used to end apartheid. If they hated baby-killing pills enough they would look at what the funds invest in and go on to different ones.

[cwolff]

Divestment was one of the tactics used to end apartheid. If they hated baby-killing pills enough they would look at what the funds invest in and go on to different ones.

Maybe they just got religion. After all, they offered abortion pills on their health care as recently as 2 years ago. When did they file this lawsuit?

[cwolff]

Oh I guess not. Turns out they've had religion for 40 years. Here's what Mr. Green has to say about it:


When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word...
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are 1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and 2) to focus on people more than money.

Something here doesn't make sense. If god doesn't want you to kill babies, and your goals are to run your business in harmony with God's law while focusing on people (I presume he's also referring fertilized eggs here as people) more than money you'd sure think he'd have invested differently.

Is it like 6 degrees of baby killing? As long you put your company in a trust, then the trust hires a 401k manager and that manager puts your money to work with baby killers it's not really your problem. Kind of out of sight out of mind thing? Is that new testament or old testament?

[Wrathbringer]

blahblahdyblahblah, blahblahblahblah. Blahblahblah? BLAHBLAHBLAH!!!oneeleventy1!

Wow, your reputation is suffering. I'm not sure I can trust anything you're saying anymore.

[cwolff]

Wow, your reputation is suffering. I'm not sure I can trust anything you're saying anymore.

I do get a steady stream of anonymous neg rep. It's the last refuge for people who lose their arguments in the open.

Check out this last one for example. Hell it probably came from you since your post was about simultaneous to it.

Thread: Battle of the Sexes: SCOTUS
No one cares. It's his business.

We've already established it's not just his business. Whether he wins or loses, there's a lot more to corporate ownership than "I do what I want!". What I'm saying is that the retard who left his already knows that's a loser argument so he/she has to do it privately. Just to feel good I guess.

[Wrathbringer]

I do get a steady stream of anonymous neg rep. It's the last refuge for people who lose their arguments in the open.

I prefer to think of it as the first refuge for truth and patriotism. The liberal lies and their proponents must be discredited.

[cwolff]

I prefer to think of it as the first refuge for truth and patriotism. The liberal lies and their proponents must be discredited.

You can't get that by whispering insults in the dark. Come out in the open and use your words.

[Jarvan]

You can't get that by whispering insults in the dark. Come out in the open and use your words.

Doesn't really matter. If SCOTUS rules in his favor, you will say it's because they are obviously skewed to the right. If they rule against, you will say they made a very well thought out choice.

BTW.. how is your walking to work going? After all, someone who "Believes" in Climate Change would do everything in their power to stop it wouldn't they? How are you even posting, I would figure since you believe so much, you wouldn't want to damage the earth by using evil electricity derived from fossil fuels.

It's ok, we all know your arguments are "It's not the same thing, and I am not the one.. blah blah blah."

Take this as an April fools joke...

Global Warming Exists... God Does not.

[Latrinsorm]

After all, someone who "Believes" in Climate Change would do everything in their power to stop it wouldn't they?I believe in germs, but I don't do everything in my power to neutralize them. I do endorse government programs such as tap water fluoridation and milk pasteurization, because they are reasonable steps to curb germs' influence.

[cwolff]

Doesn't really matter. If SCOTUS rules in his favor, you will say it's because they are obviously skewed to the right. If they rule against, you will say they made a very well thought out choice.

BTW.. how is your walking to work going? After all, someone who "Believes" in Climate Change would do everything in their power to stop it wouldn't they? How are you even posting, I would figure since you believe so much, you wouldn't want to damage the earth by using evil electricity derived from fossil fuels.

It's ok, we all know your arguments are "It's not the same thing, and I am not the one.. blah blah blah."

Take this as an April fools joke...

Global Warming Exists... God Does not.

(red)Thread: Battle of the Sexes: SCOTUS
Just so you can't complain about anon neg rep - Jarvan (P.S. Your trolling is even worse then Back's you need to try harder)

There you go buddy. We just might make a man out of you yet.

[Latrinsorm]

I believe in germs, but I don't do everything in my power to neutralize them. I do endorse government programs such as tap water fluoridation and milk pasteurization, because they are reasonable steps to curb germs' influence.Someone left me a rep about this calling me a hypocrite, which I think is very telling about this sort of criticism. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, but I say germs are bad and I act to avoid germs. This criticism that any belief must be pursued to the extreme is a very odd sort of philosophy. Suppose I say that I am hungry and I eat 6 crunchy tacos from Taco Bell. Am I a hypocrite because I didn't eat any burritos, chalupas, or nachos? Must I order everything on the menu to prove I desire food? Must I consume literally everything in the restaurant? That seems ridiculous to me.