SCOTUS set to rule on corporations having religious "rights" today

[Parkbandit]

I'm torn on this case...

On one hand, I'm all about a ruling against Obamacare. I believe it's a terrible law and the consequences of it will be felt for years and years unless it's overturned or dramatically redone.

On the other hand, I think it's a slippery slope to grant companies specific religious rights. What happens when I create a religion that is against taxes.. do I now become tax exempt?

What should happen is that if a company is family/individually owned, then they should be able to get a waiver for laws that are against an already established religious belief.

[Warriorbird]

I just want corporations to be jailable and executable. Then we're good.

[Whirlin]

On one hand, I'm all about a ruling against Obamacare. I believe it's a terrible law and the consequences of it will be felt for years and years unless it's overturned or dramatically redone.

On the other hand, I think it's a slippery slope to grant companies specific religious rights. What happens when I create a religion that is against taxes.. do I now become tax exempt?

What should happen is that if a company is family/individually owned, then they should be able to get a waiver for laws that are against an already established religious belief.

While I can understand your sentiments about Obamacare, I don't think this is the proper way to go about attacking it, for reasons including those outlined by your 'other hand' comments. I think this can have some drastic negative impacts on workers' rights that we've accumulated over the years.

All it takes is the corporations to get together and form their own capitalist religion, praying to the almighty dollar, in which they believe it's their religious rights to have their employees work 80 hour weeks, pay less than minimum wage, and not offer health insurance. The capitalist religion would subsequently become the largest lobby in 'Merica, being bankrolled by every corporation ever.

I mean shit, if Scientology can be a thing, so can that.

[Laviticas]

The way I'm understanding this decision, could this posibly play a part in a business deciding to go public? Is this a good or bad thing? Would we see more family ran business's ?

[Parkbandit]

I just want corporations to be jailable and executable. Then we're good.

Can't they already though?

Enron? Pretty much jailed and executed.

[Androidpk]

Enron was a fluke.

[Parkbandit]

Enron was a fluke.

Speaking of Fluke.. she's going to have a bad day without free birth control for all women :(

[Tsk Tsk]

I'm extremely interested in reading the details of how they came to this decision. I'm honestly pretty shocked. I'm with PB on it being a massive slippery slope.

[Laviticas]

I'm extremely interested in reading the details of how they came to this decision. I'm honestly pretty shocked. I'm with PB on it being a massive slippery slope.

I think the slippery slope is a government that forces its people to purchase a product. Of course if I was selling this product I would be a willing to reap the benifits of the law.

[Tgo01]

I think it's bullshit.

Can a company fire someone who pays for their own birth control then? After all the person is paying for birth control pills with money paid to them by the company.

Might as well just go ahead and let companies run our lives from now on.


I think the slippery slope is a government that forces its people to purchase a product.

I think Obamacare is bullshit too but unfortunately it's the law. I dislike the idea of some people getting waivers to the law.

Heck, people can opt out of being required to buy health insurance due to religious reasons.

It's insane.

[Tenlaar]

Another great day for corporations. And nobody else.

[Gelston]

Another great day for corporations. And nobody else.

Well, and you know, everyone that was against it that isn't a corporation. This covers specific, closely held corporations.

[Parkbandit]

I think it's bullshit.

Can a company fire someone who pays for their own birth control then? After all the person is paying for birth control pills with money paid to them by the company.

Might as well just go ahead and let companies run our lives from now on.

lolwut? I don't think it works that way.


I think Obamacare is bullshit too but unfortunately it's the law. I dislike the idea of some people getting waivers to the law.

Heck, people can opt out of being required to buy health insurance due to religious reasons.

It's insane.

It's a terrible law and should be completely scraped.

[Tenlaar]

Well, and you know, everyone that was against it that isn't a corporation.

They may think that, but I believe it is a bad day for those people too. They just don't know it yet.

[Gelston]

They may think that, but I believe it is a bad day for those people too. They just don't know it yet.

Maybe it is a good day for everyone and they just don't know it yet.

[Parkbandit]

They may think that, but I believe it is a bad day for those people too. They just don't know it yet.

How exactly is it such a bad day for you?

Am I missing something? Isn't this just about the government not being able to force a family/individual owned business from having insurance that gives free contraception to it's employees?

[Gelston]

How exactly is it such a bad day for you?

Am I missing something? Isn't this just about the government not being able to force a family/individual owned business from having insurance that gives free contraception to it's employees?

He tends to disagree with most things because he wants to be a hipster.

[Tgo01]

lolwut? I don't think it works that way.

Not yet. It's basically the same argument.

We don't want to pay for someone to receive birth control pills.

The argument fits this ruling and the scenario I described.

[Parkbandit]

Not yet. It's basically the same argument.

We don't want to pay for someone to receive birth control pills.

The argument fits this ruling and the scenario I described.

You don't believe there is legal recourse for a company firing an employee for buying their own contraception?

You're being dramatic. Settle down Francis.

[Tgo01]

You don't believe there is legal recourse for a company firing an employee for buying their own contraception?

I guess we'll find out what the Supreme Court thinks if it ever happens.

[Gelston]

I guess we'll find out what the Supreme Court thinks if it ever happens.

I think Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination laws would prevent firing for religious reasons.

[Sorcasaurus]

How exactly is it such a bad day for you?

Am I missing something? Isn't this just about the government not being able to force a family/individual owned business from having insurance that gives free contraception to it's employees?

Personally yes, removing "free" birth control from employees health insurance is awful.

The greater issue is the door it's opening. Allowing corporations exemptions or authority to effect their employees lives more than current laws permit (EDIT: well, i guess more than laws a few days ago permitted). Saying it's allowable for religious reasons is so open ended it's ridiculous. Can a company require it's employees to eat kosher to receive health insurance? No longer allowing health insurance for sun related skin problems because you're supposed to be completely covered in public? Refusing health insurance coverage for complications that arise from eating a likeness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Take your pick.

There are some religions with practices far removed from current government (and arguably social) requirements and standards. Imagine what would be in this pandora's box if a new religion was created with this law in mind.

[Gelston]

Personally yes, removing "free" birth control from employees health insurance is awful.

The greater issue is the door it's opening. Allowing corporations exemptions or authority to effect their employees lives more than current laws permit (EDIT: well, i guess more than laws a few days ago permitted). Saying it's allowable for religious reasons is so open ended it's ridiculous. Can a company require it's employees to eat kosher to receive health insurance? No longer allowing health insurance for sun related skin problems because you're supposed to be completely covered in public? Refusing health insurance coverage for complications from eating a likeness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Take your pick.

There are some religions with practices far removed from current government (and arguably social) requirements and standards. Imagine what would be in this pandora's box if a new religion was created with this law in mind.

I've said this before but, unless you are planning to have children, sex is recreation. I don't think any company should be required to pay for recreation. Religion or not.

However, Hobby Lobby was only against 4 of the 16 approved contraceptives... So it isn't like they will no longer be providing any. This ruling is also very specific on which companies are covered.

[Tgo01]

I think Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination laws would prevent firing for religious reasons.

True. Then again I would have thought the Supreme Court wouldn't have granted corporations religious rights.

I guess the question now is whose religious rights are more important.

[Gelston]

True. Then again I would have thought the Supreme Court wouldn't have granted corporations religious rights.

I guess the question now is whose religious rights are more important.

Only specific, tightly held companies with very few owners.

[Androidpk]

True. Then again I would have thought the Supreme Court wouldn't have granted corporations religious rights.

I guess the question now is whose religious rights are more important.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise considering their ruling on citizens united.

[Back]

Supreme Court decides in favor of marginalizing women in the 21st century based on religious ideals. Man have we got a long long long way to go.

[Laviticas]

Supreme Court decides in favor of marginalizing women in the 21st century based on religious ideals. Man have we got a long long long way to go.

Don't do business with them or work for them, thank you freedom.

[Tgo01]

Only specific, tightly held companies with very few owners.

I think that actually makes it worse. They want all of the protections afforded to them by being a corporation while they also want to be shielded from some of the drawbacks.


It shouldn't have come as a surprise considering their ruling on citizens united.

Hey! Corporations are people too.

[Whirlin]

Personally yes, removing "free" birth control from employees health insurance is awful.

The greater issue is the door it's opening. Allowing corporations exemptions or authority to effect their employees lives more than current laws permit (EDIT: well, i guess more than laws a few days ago permitted). Saying it's allowable for religious reasons is so open ended it's ridiculous. Can a company require it's employees to eat kosher to receive health insurance? No longer allowing health insurance for sun related skin problems because you're supposed to be completely covered in public? Refusing health insurance coverage for complications that arise from eating a likeness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Take your pick.

There are some religions with practices far removed from current government (and arguably social) requirements and standards. Imagine what would be in this pandora's box if a new religion was created with this law in mind.

Interestingly, your greater issue door specifically targeted other non-Health care related concerns.

What if the religious freedoms allowed restrictions of other medical treatment?
"We don't believe in heart transplants, because it's not gods' will?"
"Cancer is just gods trying to turn us into XMen"

Any insurance only works if all participants cover each other.



I've said this before but, unless you are planning to have children, sex is recreation. I don't think any company should be required to pay for recreation. Religion or not.

Isn't that exactly what every company is paying people for? Recreation? Your actions contributing to your company's success, which in turn grants you a salary which you can spend however you want, whether it be recreational or not.

[Gelston]

Isn't that exactly what every company is paying people for? Recreation? Your actions contributing to your company's success, which in turn grants you a salary which you can spend however you want, whether it be recreational or not.

Exactly. If you want to bang with contraceptives, use your wages. The company is already paying you for it that way if you so choose. GENIUS!

[Whirlin]

Exactly. If you want to bang with contraceptives, use your wages. The company is already paying you for it that way if you so choose. GENIUS!

Why are you lobbying against employee rights?

[Gelston]

Why are you lobbying against employee rights?

I'm a lobby now? :O

[Whirlin]

I'm a lobby now? :O

Fair enough... I'll rephrase.

Why are you against individuals getting additional compensation?

[Back]

Don't do business with them or work for them, thank you freedom.

Or... don't hire women.

[Gelston]

Fair enough... I'll rephrase.

Why are you against individuals getting additional compensation?

I'm not. I just don't think that additional compensation should be mandated by the US Government.

[Whirlin]

I'm not. I just don't think that additional compensation should be mandated by the US Government.

Compensation has been fair game for government mandate since minimum wage was introduced in 1938.

[Sorcasaurus]

However, Hobby Lobby was only against 4 of the 16 approved contraceptives... So it isn't like they will no longer be providing any. This ruling is also very specific on which companies are covered.

It's a federal requirement that all for profit companies "are required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration". Whether sex is recreation or not, they're seeking to have an exemption to a federal requirement for religious beliefs. It's something the courts have already ruled a fair number of times on, that corporations for profit cannot claim.

I'm not familiar enough with which methods or companies were or were not allowed, and will have to look into why they were chosen. What I take from your second point is, it sounds like they're saying you can have Advil but not Tylenol.

It doesn't change my argument against this opening a door to corporate abuse.

[Back]

I'm not. I just don't think that additional compensation should be mandated by the US Government.

LOL. Yeah, if we left compensation up to the corporations we'd all be living like pigs in a slaughterhouse while the .0001% lived in ivory towers.

[Gelston]

LOL. Yeah, if we left compensation up to the corporations we'd all be living like pigs in a slaughterhouse while the .0001% lived in ivory towers.

Yes, because companies give out end of year bonuses because the Government tells them to.

[Laviticas]

Or... don't hire women.

Could you imagine the PR nightmare? I certainly wouldn't give my money to a company with those hiring standards.

See how this works?

[Gelston]

It's a federal requirement that all for profit companies "are required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration". Whether sex is recreation or not, they're seeking to have an exemption to a federal requirement for religious beliefs. It's something the courts have already ruled a fair number of times on, that corporations for profit cannot claim.

I'm not familiar enough with which methods or companies were or were not allowed, and will have to look into why they were chosen. What I take from your second point is, it sounds like they're saying you can have Advil but not Tylenol.

It doesn't change my argument against this opening a door to corporate abuse.

Not anymore it isn't. The methods they were against were the ones that are considered post conception.

[Sorcasaurus]

Not anymore it isn't. The methods they were against were the ones that are considered post conception.

Yes, it is. There is just another exception group now.

Yes, I found that they consider it an early abortion. Two of the drugs on the list prevent fertilization, but are in the "emergency" grouping of birth control. [edit addition]Certainly less dire than my first post implied about it being awful. As specific as the ruling was about limiting this cases ramifications, I still am very concerned about it opening more doors for religious exceptions for companies.

[Gelston]

Yes, it is. There is just another exception group now.

Yes, I found that they consider it an early abortion. Two of the drugs on the list prevent fertilization, but are in the "emergency" grouping of birth control. [edit addition]Certainly less dire than my first post implied about it being awful. As specific as the ruling was about limiting this cases ramifications, I still am very concerned about it opening more doors for religious exceptions for companies.

Clarified, Not anymore it isn't for all companies.... As I've said about 3452345 times in this thread.

[Sorcasaurus]

Clarified, Not anymore it isn't for all companies.... As I've said about 3452345 times in this thread.

I've never claimed it didn't happen. I believe my posts have been along the lines of "I Don't like this. Additionally, it's a scary precedent to set, letting corporations establish exceptions to federal laws/requirements for religious reasons"

You seem to narrow the argument to birth control, and your arguments could very well be used to remove free birth control from benefits outside the religious beliefs case.

On a broader scale, Do you think for profit companies should be allowed exceptions based on religion?

[Warriorbird]

Could you imagine the PR nightmare? I certainly wouldn't give my money to a company with those hiring standards.

See how this works?

If we counted on just the media and citizen anger to curb the actions of corporations we would be in a lot of trouble. It's sort of like counting on the kindness of strangers.

[Parkbandit]

Why are you lobbying against employee rights?

When was it established that it's a right to get free contraception?

[Parkbandit]

Yes, it is. There is just another exception group now.

Yes, I found that they consider it an early abortion. Two of the drugs on the list prevent fertilization, but are in the "emergency" grouping of birth control. [edit addition]Certainly less dire than my first post implied about it being awful. As specific as the ruling was about limiting this cases ramifications, I still am very concerned about it opening more doors for religious exceptions for companies.

Since we are talking about employees who hold a full time job.. don't you believe that these individuals can obtain "emergency" birth control if they had to?

[Sorcasaurus]

Since we are talking about employees who hold a full time job.. don't you believe that these individuals can obtain "emergency" birth control if they had to?

Other peoples financial situation has nothing to do with why this bothers me. I don't really care if they can or can't afford it. In all likelihood most can afford all 20 birth controls on the list.

I was simply including it as information about the ruling, and clarifying that not all medications banned are post conception. I made a general statement earlier in thread without having the details myself and overstated the situation as a result.

[Laviticas]

If we counted on just the media and citizen anger to curb the actions of corporations we would be in a lot of trouble. It's sort of like counting on the kindness of strangers.

The actions of corporations is a subjective opinion. What you consider to be bad business practices, I may not. There is a certain line that must be maintained that lies between freedom and law that the public must maintain without law over stepping that line. The free market is one of the tools the public has to control that grey area, the excuse of a lazy consumer and a biased media is not good enough reason to move that boundary in favor of law.

[Parkbandit]

Other peoples financial situation has nothing to do with why this bothers me. I don't really care if they can or can't afford it. In all likelihood most can afford all 20 birth controls on the list.

I was simply including it as information about the ruling, and clarifying that not all medications banned are post conception. I made a general statement earlier in thread without having the details myself and overstated the situation as a result.

But this ruling is specifically about those employees who work full time and who work for a company who's ownership is tightly held with a few people. I'm not sure it affects that many people to be honest.

[waywardgs]

RBG in her dissent:

"On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."


Read more: In Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court chooses religion over science Jay Mallin/ZUMA
Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

[Jarvan]

When was it established that it's a right to get free contraception?

Well.. the problem arises with the women that DO need birth control for medical conditions. The PROBLEM arises when the government includes things that are not medically necessary as "birth control". I have never ever heard of a woman who had a medical condition that required them to take Plan B to control their medical condition. (Unlike regular birth control pills)

Regular birth control should be covered as regular medication is covered, I.E. if medically necessary. (determined by the DR) Sadly.. this administration and some people are pushing for things that are NOT medically needed, simply because deep down, they LIKE them. Plan B and Ella, for example, are "I fucked someone I shouldn't have fucked and we were not safe.. OMG what the fuck do I do now" pills.

Hell.. just look at Plan B's website...


"
Plan B One-Step Is

The first emergency contraceptive FDA-approved to be available in the aisle
A backup plan that helps prevent pregnancy from happening after unprotected sex or birth control failure and is not for routine use
For use within 72 hours (3 days) after sex, but the sooner you take it, the better it works
Contains levonorgestrel, the same ingredient used in many birth control pills—and it works in a similar way
Just one pill, so you get what you need right away"

So.. not medically needed. Should not be "Required" to be covered.

[Jarvan]

But this ruling is specifically about those employees who work full time and who work for a company who's ownership is tightly held with a few people. I'm not sure it affects that many people to be honest.

I read somewhere that about 90% of all US corporations are privately owned, or owned tightly by just a few people.(Family usually) BUT.. I doubt Joe Smith who owns Smith's Lawn Care Corp is likely to suddenly decide he is super religious so he can get out of covering those 4 contraceptive items.

[Latrinsorm]

I read somewhere that about 90% of all US corporations are privately owned, or owned tightly by just a few people.(Family usually) BUT.. I doubt Joe Smith who owns Smith's Lawn Care Corp is likely to suddenly decide he is super religious so he can get out of covering those 4 contraceptive items.Why wouldn't he?

[Whirlin]

Prescriptions such as Viagra and other ED medicines are covered by medical insurance, even though the end result is just sex for the end users... But nobody really seems to be talking about that.

Also, wouldn't plan B be required if the woman was at a high risk of complications with pregnancy? I mean, if it's to prevent a condition which could be life threatening, I see no difference between that and cholesterol medicine. You chose to eat all that shitty food, she chose to jump some dude.

[Atlanteax]

I read somewhere that about 90% of all US corporations are privately owned, or owned tightly by just a few people.(Family usually) BUT.. I doubt Joe Smith who owns Smith's Lawn Care Corp is likely to suddenly decide he is super religious so he can get out of covering those 4 contraceptive items.


Why wouldn't he?

Will not need to. Corporation is 'too small' to be regulated.

[Parkbandit]

I read somewhere that about 90% of all US corporations are privately owned, or owned tightly by just a few people.(Family usually) BUT.. I doubt Joe Smith who owns Smith's Lawn Care Corp is likely to suddenly decide he is super religious so he can get out of covering those 4 contraceptive items.

I think that's probably a misleading statistic. Filter out those businesses that already are exempt from Obamacare and look at the total number of employees rather than percent of companies and you'll probably get a clearer picture of who this really impacts.

[Buckwheet]

Its not just plan B it was also a IUD that they objected to. I haven't read the ruling to find out if that specific item was ruled against. IUDs are no different than birth control pill for many people who don't think that not allowing something to implant is the same as an abortion.

[Parkbandit]

Prescriptions such as Viagra and other ED medicines are covered by medical insurance, even though the end result is just sex for the end users... But nobody really seems to be talking about that.


I think they are different though.. one is required to have sex and the other is more of a personal choice to use during sex.

[Buckwheet]

I think they are different though.. one is required to have sex and the other is more of a personal choice to use during sex.

I don't think ED medication should be covered just like testosterone replacement therapy isn't covered for guys who are old.

[Hydra]

Prescriptions such as Viagra and other ED medicines are covered by medical insurance, even though the end result is just sex for the end users... But nobody really seems to be talking about that.

Also, wouldn't plan B be required if the woman was at a high risk of complications with pregnancy? I mean, if it's to prevent a condition which could be life threatening, I see no difference between that and cholesterol medicine. You chose to eat all that shitty food, she chose to jump some dude.Are Viagra and other ED medicines part of the mandate? I don't know and would like to think they aren't mandated.

[Jarvan]

Prescriptions such as Viagra and other ED medicines are covered by medical insurance, even though the end result is just sex for the end users... But nobody really seems to be talking about that.

Also, wouldn't plan B be required if the woman was at a high risk of complications with pregnancy? I mean, if it's to prevent a condition which could be life threatening, I see no difference between that and cholesterol medicine. You chose to eat all that shitty food, she chose to jump some dude.

Wouldn't not having sex be a better way to prevent it? Or better yet, if the woman could ALWAYS (which it would have to be an always since plan B only works 3 days after sex) wouldn't getting fixed be a better option for her then? Plan B is never really needed.

[Jarvan]

Are Viagra and other ED medicines part of the mandate? I don't know and would like to think they aren't mandated.

They are not, which is the funny thing.

Once again, SOME women need BC for medical reasons. Then there are people who just want you to pay for it so she can go around fucking people and not worry about using protection.

ED medicines would fall into the second group to me.

[Back]

Medicare covers penis pumps.

[Parkbandit]

Medicare covers penis pumps.

I'll take your word for it.

Did it work?

[Tgo01]

I think ED drugs should be covered.

If someone's hand wasn't working properly no one would bat an eye if their insurance covered getting it working again, why are penises different?

[waywardgs]

I think ED drugs should be covered.

If someone's hand wasn't working properly no one would bat an eye if their insurance covered getting it working again, why are penises different?

Unless it's for procreation, sex is just recreation, so no, penises are not covered. Didn't someone make this argument re, BC? Also, masturbation is against gods law, can't have that can we!

[Hydra]

I think ED drugs should be covered.

If someone's hand wasn't working properly no one would bat an eye if their insurance covered getting it working again, why are penises different?

That is an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

[TheEschaton]

I haven't read this opinion yet, so a few questions: How public are these companies? Can they now be waived from federal anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals if they believe it's a sin? In other words, can Hobby Lobby now decline to hire homosexuals, when federal law prohibits even inquiring about one's sexual orientation in an interview?

[Parkbandit]

I haven't read this opinion yet, so a few questions: How public are these companies?

They aren't public at all. They are individually or family owned.


Can they now be waived from federal anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals if they believe it's a sin? In other words, can Hobby Lobby now decline to hire homosexuals, when federal law prohibits even inquiring about one's sexual orientation in an interview?

Hobby Lobby is a store that sells fabrics, glitter, ribbons, etc... why would they NOT want to hire them????

[Elantari]

I haven't read this opinion yet, so a few questions: How public are these companies? Can they now be waived from federal anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals if they believe it's a sin? In other words, can Hobby Lobby now decline to hire homosexuals, when federal law prohibits even inquiring about one's sexual orientation in an interview?

The ruling was an incredibly narrow, incoherent and inconsistent patchwork of nonsense. To answer your question, no. The majority opinion applies ONLY to contraceptives, despite the reasoning applying equally to anything you like. It is one of the most retarded opinions ever released by the SCOTUS, and Kennedy is a traitorous fuck.

Hobby Lobby is a massive chain. It is #135 on Forbes list of largest privately owned corporations. They have over 500 stores and over 20,000 employees. They sell shitty twee overpriced garbage only hoarders want.

[Methais]

http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/06/44584-fk-you-tolerant-liberals-want-to-burn-down-hobby-lobby-after-scotus-win/

loltolerance

Hear Hobby Lobby’s ‘Controversial’ Abortion Argument About the Supreme Court Decision Tomorrow


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5Tqglm0dg

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will be announcing its decision on one of the biggest religious freedom cases of recent years: Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.
No doubt, tomorrow’s decision will be an emotional and controversial one, both for the Justices and for the rest of the country. From New York Daily News:

The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice.
*
The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those that Hobby Lobby and furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvania, say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.
*
The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women’s health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions.

Many who side with the Obama administration on this case have denounced Hobby Lobby’s position as appalling, but it seems that they, in large part, misunderstand what the company is really asking for.

However, as Hobby Lobby’s Mandi Broadfoot explains, the company is not refusing to pay for its employees’ birth control coverage – only emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices.

It’s important that those who so loudly oppose the company get the facts straight: Hobby Lobby’s founders are not asking to deny women of birth control; they are simply asking for the freedom to not pay for those few, specific and controversial methods which violate their religious beliefs.

Doesn’t sound so controversial, does it?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/152185-hear-hobby-lobbys-ultra-offensive-abortion-argument-supreme-court-decision-tomorrow/

[Buckwheet]

No until someone else sues for regular stuff and uses this ruling as a basis for the argument.

[TheEschaton]

Narrow it may be, but Scalia is a scaly fuck who won't hesitate to use it as precedent. That's the slimy thing about American jurisprudence, you can make a narrow ruling....and then use it to paint broad strokes later on. It's happened countless times, including with liberal causes like Brown v Board of Education, where a narrow ruling was used as precedent to overturn centuries of racism which couldn't otherwise be legally struck down because of broad, racist opinions by the Court in the 19th century.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

by Joshua Riddle on June 30, 2014 in News & Politics

The evil folks at Hobby Lobby pay their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage. The hourly wage for part-time employees is also $9.50.

“We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation,” said the CEO and founder David Green.

A full-time employee there can buy their own birth control for $9 a month. Not that it matters though because Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20 contraceptions (never hear liberals mention that either).

This is classic liberalism. Hobby Lobby provides a huge amount of jobs, sells nice goods to consumers, treats their employees well with good pay, and liberals hate them. #Facepalm

[Laviticas]

My prediction:

Grandma and the soccer moms will continue to shop at hobby lobby because no matter what liberals believe, people don't care enough about your birth control to stop them from shopping at hobby lobby.

[Warriorbird]

by Joshua Riddle on June 30, 2014 in News & Politics

The evil folks at Hobby Lobby pay their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage. The hourly wage for part-time employees is also $9.50.

“We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation,” said the CEO and founder David Green.

A full-time employee there can buy their own birth control for $9 a month. Not that it matters though because Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20 contraceptions (never hear liberals mention that either).

This is classic liberalism. Hobby Lobby provides a huge amount of jobs, sells nice goods to consumers, treats their employees well with good pay, and liberals hate them. #Facepalm

By definition "classic liberalism" is a variety of libertarianism, just so you're aware.

The issue is less whether these are nice people who pay their employees a lot or whether every woman can get by on Walmart variety birth control versus whether people can use their religion to get out of paying for things that they're supposed to.

I think they ought not to be able to. I also think churches and church related businesses should be taxed.

[waywardgs]

by Joshua Riddle on June 30, 2014 in News & Politics

The evil folks at Hobby Lobby pay their full-time employees a minimum of $14 an hour. That is nearly double the national average for minimum wage. The hourly wage for part-time employees is also $9.50.

“We are very fortunate to be able to increase hourly wages for our employees, because we know our company would not be successful without the great work they do each day in our stores across the nation,” said the CEO and founder David Green.

A full-time employee there can buy their own birth control for $9 a month. Not that it matters though because Hobby Lobby covers 16 out of 20 contraceptions (never hear liberals mention that either).

This is classic liberalism. Hobby Lobby provides a huge amount of jobs, sells nice goods to consumers, treats their employees well with good pay, and liberals hate them. #Facepalm

This message brought to you by the Instutute of Things That Are Beside The Point.

[crb]

This thread is poorly titled. It should say...

"SCOTUS rules individuals do not abdicate first amendment rights when they form groups." subtitle: "Ruling decides actual right to freedom of religion is superior to made up right to have a third party with whom you've voluntarily chosen to associate be forced through threat of government force to pay for your birth control."

Gay marriage is legal, contraception mandates are not. Freedom of religion is a two way street, all the hypocrites on the right and left can learn to deal with it. People on the left who can't see this are essentially mirror images of Rick Santorum. How does it feel, being the progressive equivalent of Rick Santorum?

[Laviticas]

Had you all been fighting for free liquor and dope, I would fight for that.

[crb]

I think they ought not to be able to. I also think churches and church related businesses should be taxed.

I think that nonprofits that pay any employees in excess of $500,000 a year should have those excess wages taxed. Afterall, when banks were on TARP loans their executives were limited but we allow taxpayer subsidized nonprofits to pay 7 figure salaries.

But that is irrelevant.

Do you honestly think that we should tax churches, essentially taxing people who wish to exercise their 1st amendment rights by worshipping in a church? Do you perhaps recall when, in the past, we have tried taxing an exercise of another fundamental right? Do you think that was a good thing? If you're okay with taxing one fundamental right, why not others, right? So you would support bringing back the poll tax? I fail the see the difference from a logical point of view, if the government has the power to do the former it has the power to do the latter.

Personally, I'd be in favor of neither. I don't much like the idea of the government limiting individual rights through tax policy. That seems as though it could end poorly for most people.

[crb]

I'm torn on this case...

On one hand, I'm all about a ruling against Obamacare. I believe it's a terrible law and the consequences of it will be felt for years and years unless it's overturned or dramatically redone.

On the other hand, I think it's a slippery slope to grant companies specific religious rights. What happens when I create a religion that is against taxes.. do I now become tax exempt?

What should happen is that if a company is family/individually owned, then they should be able to get a waiver for laws that are against an already established religious belief.

What happens if half the world turns into strawmen that can only be killed with a headshot from a muzzleloader?

A tenet of a religion that is exponentially older than our country and followed by a billion people worldwide is not some made up BS. I don't think the courts will allow you to make up bullshit religions just to get out of paying property tax or something, and besides, PEOPLE, you, me, Nancy Pelosi, have always had freedom of religion. This ruling just says that if we form certain groups we don't abdicate that right. People have had freedom of religion of 200 years, if there was such a risk of madeup bullshit why aren't we all members of the Church of Latter Day Bovine Scatologists where one of the core tenets is that paying any taxes is a mortal sin? If individuals haven't been able to pull off shit like that in 200 years, why are you worried that businesses are going to try?

[Kembal]

Here's what bugs me: Neither Plan B or IUD actually do anything to a fertilized egg. Are we supposed to allow religious beliefs that are proven factually wrong by science to trump federal law?

Plan B can definitely be medically necessary in certain situations. IUDs can be as well, if someone can't get pregnant for medical reasons for a certain period but wants to retain the option for later.

I thought the Court was doing better at understanding science and technology after its ruling in the cellphone privacy case. Guess I was too optimistic here.

[crb]

Personally yes, removing "free" birth control from employees health insurance is awful.

The greater issue is the door it's opening. Allowing corporations exemptions or authority to effect their employees lives more than current laws permit (EDIT: well, i guess more than laws a few days ago permitted). Saying it's allowable for religious reasons is so open ended it's ridiculous. Can a company require it's employees to eat kosher to receive health insurance? No longer allowing health insurance for sun related skin problems because you're supposed to be completely covered in public? Refusing health insurance coverage for complications that arise from eating a likeness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Take your pick.

There are some religions with practices far removed from current government (and arguably social) requirements and standards. Imagine what would be in this pandora's box if a new religion was created with this law in mind.

Fail of the day: Comparing new made up religions to Catholicism and thinking NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!

You also have a broader common fail that nearly every opponent of freedom of religion and the 1st amendment has. You're seeing the employer as pushing a belief on the employee, forcing them to do something. That is inaccurate. The employee was trying to force the employer to do something: buy birth control (and in the hobby lobby case specific types of birth control they consider abortive). Now if you're a jebus loving christian, thats a sin. You don't have to agree with them, you just have to understand that in their mind, they were being forced by their government to pay for abortions. SCOTUS said no, you can't force someone to go against their religion. They didn't say "If you work for Hobby Lobby, you can't get these pills." There will be no police at pharmacies checking who your employer is. Nothing is forced on the employee (as opposed to every last one of your strawman examples). They simply must deal with birth control as women have since it was invented, buy it themselves. They're not forced to buy it, or forced to use it, they're not forced to do anything, they have the option and freedom to do as they wish.

If the case was Hobby Lobby wanted to do a blood test on all employees to make sure they didn't use birth control, then your examples wouldn't be ridiculously stupid strawmen, but that wasn't the case here.

[Tgo01]

Unless it's for procreation, sex is just recreation, so no, penises are not covered.

I think it's a dangerous precedent to make to say certain appendages aren't important.

You could probably live a normal life without your middle finger but I would hope your insurance company would pay to have it reattached if you ever lost it in an accident.

[crb]

True. Then again I would have thought the Supreme Court wouldn't have granted corporations religious rights.

I guess the question now is whose religious rights are more important.

They didn't, they simply said that individuals maintain their rights when they form groups. So like, a group of people has the same protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as an individual does. Cool huh? And you thought you could simply lose your rights if you formed a group of some sort? How scary that would be. I sure am glad we don't live in a retarded country that would do that. Imagine how difficult it would be for citizens to team up to affect change if they had no rights when they stopped functioning as a mere individual.

[Aluvius]

Actually most executive pay at banks receiving TARP funds was not capped at $500,000 due to lobbying by the banks and the Treasury Department itself. More than half received over $3m and that's just the cash portions of their pay, it doesn't count stock related compensation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/01/28/tarp-watchdog-treasury-failed-to-rein-in-pay-at-bailed-out-aig-gm-ally-financial/

[waywardgs]

I think it's a dangerous precedent to make to say certain appendages aren't important.

You could probably live a normal life without your middle finger but I would hope your insurance company would pay to have it reattached if you ever lost it in an accident.

I was being sarcastic.

[crb]

It shouldn't have come as a surprise considering their ruling on citizens united.

That was such a great ruling.

Bob has freedom of speech, Jane has freedom of speech. If Bob and Jane form a group, they still have freedom of speech!

I can't believe there are people out there who want to limit the political speech of others just because they have formed a group, who do those people think they are? Nazis?

[crb]

Actually most executive pay at banks receiving TARP funds was not capped at $500,000 due to lobbying by the banks and the Treasury Department itself. More than half received over $3m and that's just the cash portions of their pay, it doesn't count stock related compensation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/01/28/tarp-watchdog-treasury-failed-to-rein-in-pay-at-bailed-out-aig-gm-ally-financial/

Good.

[Warriorbird]

I think that nonprofits that pay any employees in excess of $500,000 a year should have those excess wages taxed. Afterall, when banks were on TARP loans their executives were limited but we allow taxpayer subsidized nonprofits to pay 7 figure salaries.

But that is irrelevant.

Do you honestly think that we should tax churches, essentially taxing people who wish to exercise their 1st amendment rights by worshipping in a church? Do you perhaps recall when, in the past, we have tried taxing an exercise of another fundamental right? Do you think that was a good thing? If you're okay with taxing one fundamental right, why not others, right? So you would support bringing back the poll tax? I fail the see the difference from a logical point of view, if the government has the power to do the former it has the power to do the latter.

Personally, I'd be in favor of neither. I don't much like the idea of the government limiting individual rights through tax policy. That seems as though it could end poorly for most people.

What happens when they're blatantly using it to avoid tax laws and owning a significant portion of all businesses in a city? It gets less simple then.

[Tgo01]

They didn't, they simply said that individuals maintain their rights when they form groups.

This would be an awesome argument if somehow the rights of Hobby Lobby's owners were in trouble.

What this ruling basically says is Hobby Lobby can impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

[Tgo01]

I was being sarcastic.

You lie!

[crb]

Here's what bugs me: Neither Plan B or IUD actually do anything to a fertilized egg. Are we supposed to allow religious beliefs that are proven factually wrong by science to trump federal law?

Plan B can definitely be medically necessary in certain situations. IUDs can be as well, if someone can't get pregnant for medical reasons for a certain period but wants to retain the option for later.

I thought the Court was doing better at understanding science and technology after its ruling in the cellphone privacy case. Guess I was too optimistic here.

Science killed god a long time ago, but there is no asterisk in the 1st amendment saying it only applies if your religious beliefs coincide with modern science, I mean seriously dude?

You know I'm a raging atheist, and the one thing I hate is the idea that a government could be powerful enough to force me to worship jebus. But what I realize, is that if the government has enough power over religion to force the jebus people to go against their religion, then it has enough power to force me to go with their religion.

It doesn't matter what YOU think of their religious beliefs, and it sure as shit doesn't matter what SCIENCE thinks of their religious beliefs. It only matters what they think, because they are their beliefs. Creationism is nonsense, but we can't force homeschooling fundamentalists to stop teaching it, because they believe it, and freedom of religion means you have that right. Like it means I have the right NOT to believe it.

And I would edit your question:


Are we supposed to allow the constitution to trump federal law?

Yes.

[crb]

This would be an awesome argument if somehow the rights of Hobby Lobby's owners were in trouble.

What this ruling basically says is Hobby Lobby can impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

Incorrect, but that is the most common strawman.

Prior to this ruling, the government was forcing Hobby Lobby owners to buy something they considered a sin and against their religion.

After this ruling Hobby Lobby employees are forced to.... do nothing. If there is no force how can anything be imposed? Are the employees under threat of fine or imprisonment?

In 2006 Obamacare didn't exist, does that mean that every woman in the country was having christian beliefs forced on her? Please. Use your noodle.

This ruling does not say that Hobby Lobby can impose religion on their employees. It says that the government cannot impose a lack of religion on Hobby Lobby's owners. The fact that some employees will not have access to some forms of birth control FOR FREE does not mean they're being forced to follow some religion, anymore than everyone was automatically christian in 2006 because the contraception mandate was just a glimmer in Obama's eye.

[Tgo01]

Prior to this ruling, the government was forcing Hobby Lobby owners to buy something they considered a sin and against their religion.

The government was not forcing anyone to actually take these medications; much less the owners of Hobby Lobby.

Now the government is saying it's okay for Hobby Lobby to bypass federal law so they can impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

[Aluvius]

I think this is one of those rulings that is going to have some insane effects down the road, probably some good ones for those more liberal minded. I doubt it will be interpreted/used narrowly at all. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that it would end up pointed back at corporations in lawsuits dealing with employment termination. It'll be interesting to watch.

[waywardgs]

Bob and Steve don't form a corporation because they want to hang out and enjoy each other's rights. They form the corporation for the limited liability. Thus, it becomes a different type of entity.

[crb]

Thread: SCOTUS set to rule on corporations having religious "rights" today
how is Catholicism not a "made up religion"? give it another hundred years and Scientology and Mormonism will be just as established as Catholicism, even though they now appear "made up".

Because the guys who made up Catholicism died a long, long, long time ago, before North America was even known to their civilization. So I'm pretty sure they didn't artificially construct a religion because 2000 years in the future they saw a man named Barack Obama might try to force business owners to buy alchemical substances that would obstruct pregnancies, and they knew that the business owners would want to save the couple dollars (paper money, what a novel idea?) that these elixirs would cost but would need an excuse so lets create this whole elaborate religion, make sure it grows over the next 2000 years so when the time comes to save that big mac a month, an excuse would be ready.

I'm sure that is not how things went down back in the day.

So when you raise the strawman of someone seriously going to court stating his business (after all, he could do this personally for the income tax already), which is closely held by him, follows his religious belief of not paying any taxes in his new found religion of Book of Orlando Mormonism, its not quite the same thing.

Courts have always already managed to deal with the difference between actual religious beliefs and madeup bullshit, there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so. You do know that there is a long history of prisoners trying to make up bullshit religions to get special privileges in jail, and well, the courts handle that just fine.

[crb]

The government was not forcing anyone to actually take these medications; much less the owners of Hobby Lobby.

Now the government is saying it's okay for Hobby Lobby to bypass federal law so they can impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

They were forcing them to buy them.

It'd be like forcing a vegetarian to buy meat, a lot of vegetarians would be upset at that even if they weren't forced to eat it.

But you need to be more specific, what religious beliefs are employees being forced to follow? If you're going to keep using this ridiculous strawman, at least explain it. What is the mechanism of the force? Of course, government has a monopoly on force in this country, so by what means did the owners of Hobby Lobby obtain the ability to force a private citizen to follow a religion? I'm certainly very concerned to hear any corporation or any private citizen could force me to do anything whatsoever. Please, explain? I'm sure of course they could deny to provide me something for free, but that doesn't force me in any which way whatsoever.

In fact, Tgo01, today you neglected to give me a free sandwich, and if you continue to not give me a free sandwich I am going to have to report your assault to the local policy department. How dare you force me not to get to have a free sandwich I wanted the government to force you to give to me! Fucker.

[waywardgs]

P.S. An enraged crb enters the fray!

I was wondering when he'd show up.

[Tgo01]

It'd be like forcing a vegetarian to buy meat, a lot of vegetarians would be upset at that even if they weren't forced to eat it.

Just about 100% of the population is upset that they have to pay taxes. Being upset about something does not automatically give you more rights than someone who is not upset.

[Jeril]

Tgo, where is my free sandwich!

[waywardgs]

What I want to know, crb, is why can't I enjoy the same benefits a corporation gets vis-a-vis limited liability, even though I'm just an individual??

[Dendum]

It'd be like forcing a vegetarian to buy meat, a lot of vegetarians would be upset at that even if they weren't forced to eat it.



Vegetarians are forced to support the meat industry, billions go to subsidies and advertisement campaigns. Are they forced to eat it? No, but they are forced to support it.

[Tgo01]

Tgo, where is my free sandwich!

In your face!

Or something.

[Androidpk]

I want a free sandwich too, Tgo. Why do you hate white people!?

[Jeril]

In your face!

Or something.

If it was in my face I wouldn't have a need to complain about the lack of it. I bet it is in your face because you ate it you big jerk!

[ClydeR]

What will be interesting is when the owners of corporations are not unanimous in their religious beliefs. In that case, the corporation's religion will be the religion of the majority of the owners, and the minority owners will be forced to go along.

[ClydeR]

Clinton Tweeted (http://www.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/483755538589556736), "Hard-working women will pay the price for today's two troubling #SCOTUS decisions -- in wages, health care & dignity."

Who will benefit from this 5-4 decision in 2016?

[Hydra]

Clinton Tweeted (http://www.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/483755538589556736), "Hard-working women will pay the price for today's two troubling #SCOTUS decisions -- in wages, health care & dignity."

Who will benefit from this 5-4 decision in 2016?
I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the Democrat leadership were happy about this decision. The can wave the banner of "War on Women" and vilify the opposition using it.

[Jarvan]

Here's what bugs me: Neither Plan B or IUD actually do anything to a fertilized egg. Are we supposed to allow religious beliefs that are proven factually wrong by science to trump federal law?

Plan B can definitely be medically necessary in certain situations. IUDs can be as well, if someone can't get pregnant for medical reasons for a certain period but wants to retain the option for later.

I thought the Court was doing better at understanding science and technology after its ruling in the cellphone privacy case. Guess I was too optimistic here.

Plan B is never Medically Necessary. It's a "Opps I forgot or the condom broke" item. Try not having sex then. I don't know enough about IUD's other then the whole implanted into uterus part.. I am sure there are some women that can't get the other options to help regulate periods and need an IUD. But NO ONE NEEDS Plan B/Ella. The ONLY thing it does is stop a pregnancy. It doesn't control periods.

Know what else stops a pregnancy?

Not having sex.

Also.. show me this scientifically proven fact that it doesn't stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall. Since Plan B's website still shows it.

[Whirlin]

Plan B is never Medically Necessary. It's a "Opps I forgot or the condom broke" item. Try not having sex then. I don't know enough about IUD's other then the whole implanted into uterus part.. I am sure there are some women that can't get the other options to help regulate periods and need an IUD. But NO ONE NEEDS Plan B/Ella. The ONLY thing it does is stop a pregnancy. It doesn't control periods.

Plan B prevents ovulation. It is not effective post ovulation, or post egg fertilization.

IUDs basically release copper into the uterian wall to make it produce a natural spermicide which prevents sperm from getting into the fallopian tube to fertilize an egg.



Both of these forms of birth control basically function the same way as the accepted 16 by preventing egg release/contraception. Therefore, there is nothing special about these 4 except misknowledge.

[Dwaar]

I'm not sure about this whole thing, but I guess I have never understood why it is anyone's responsibility to pay for another persons sex life.

Sex is optional. You can choose who to do it with, when to do it, and how to do it. No one else tells you those things.

So why someone should pay for the personal choices we make... I just don't get it.

You want to have sex... go buy birth control. You want to have sex... buy an insurance plan that covers your birth control. You want to have sex... and get pregnant? Why are others paying for the choice you made in the first place?

If someone is paying for you to have sex (free birth control), does that mean they get the benefits of that monetary compensation? As in sex with you?

I guess I don't get why everyone thinks they are entitled to things from other people, just so they can do what they want in the first place.

As for the legal ruling, I'll have to read the arguments when they are posted to try and understand it better.

[waywardgs]

Plan B is never Medically Necessary. It's a "Opps I forgot or the condom broke" item. Try not having sex then. I don't know enough about IUD's other then the whole implanted into uterus part.. I am sure there are some women that can't get the other options to help regulate periods and need an IUD. But NO ONE NEEDS Plan B/Ella. The ONLY thing it does is stop a pregnancy. It doesn't control periods.

Know what else stops a pregnancy?

Not having sex.

Also.. show me this scientifically proven fact that it doesn't stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall. Since Plan B's website still shows it.

If it weren't so dispicable and unproductive, the abstinence-only crowd would be cheek-pinchingly cute in their naïveté.

[Jeril]

Plan B prevents ovulation. It is not effective post ovulation, or post egg fertilization.

IUDs basically release copper into the uterian wall to make it produce a natural spermicide which prevents sperm from getting into the fallopian tube to fertilize an egg.



Both of these forms of birth control basically function the same way as the accepted 16 by preventing egg release/contraception. Therefore, there is nothing special about these 4 except misknowledge.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=plan+b+birth+control

You sure about the bold part? Everything there seems to refer to it as the morning after pill.

[Whirlin]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=plan+b+birth+control

You sure about the bold part? Everything there seems to refer to it as the morning after pill.

Yeah. It's referred to as the morning after pill, but it's still inherently preventing ovulation. Sperm can live within a woman's body for 3 days, where it travels up the fallopian tubes to fertilize the egg. Since any ovulation within 3 days of sex can result in fertilization, it'll still reduce the chances.

[waywardgs]

I'm not sure about this whole thing, but I guess I have never understood why it is anyone's responsibility to pay for another persons sex life.

Sex is optional. You can choose who to do it with, when to do it, and how to do it. No one else tells you those things.

So why someone should pay for the personal choices we make... I just don't get it.

You want to have sex... go buy birth control. You want to have sex... buy an insurance plan that covers your birth control. You want to have sex... and get pregnant? Why are others paying for the choice you made in the first place?

If someone is paying for you to have sex (free birth control), does that mean they get the benefits of that monetary compensation? As in sex with you?

I guess I don't get why everyone thinks they are entitled to things from other people, just so they can do what they want in the first place.

As for the legal ruling, I'll have to read the arguments when they are posted to try and understand it better.

You know who benefits from rational public birth control options? The public, in the form of lower crime rates, lower welfare, less unwanted births, and a whole slew of other things.

[Whirlin]

You know who benefits from rational public birth control options? The public, in the form of lower crime rates, lower welfare, less unwanted births, and a whole slew of other things.
Lower carbon emmissions

[Warriorbird]

You know who benefits from rational public birth control options? The public, in the form of lower crime rates, lower welfare, less unwanted births, and a whole slew of other things.

Shocking! The Hobby Lobby people don't want to pay less for public assistance though because of Jesus, even though they likely vote for the party of wanting to pay less for public assistance. Sort of an unfortunate conflict there.

[Whirlin]

I'm not sure about this whole thing, but I guess I have never understood why it is anyone's responsibility to pay for another persons sex life.

Sex is optional. You can choose who to do it with, when to do it, and how to do it. No one else tells you those things.

So why someone should pay for the personal choices we make... I just don't get it.

You want to have sex... go buy birth control. You want to have sex... buy an insurance plan that covers your birth control. You want to have sex... and get pregnant? Why are others paying for the choice you made in the first place?

If someone is paying for you to have sex (free birth control), does that mean they get the benefits of that monetary compensation? As in sex with you?

I guess I don't get why everyone thinks they are entitled to things from other people, just so they can do what they want in the first place.

As for the legal ruling, I'll have to read the arguments when they are posted to try and understand it better.
You chose to never exercise, to eat shitty food, and yet everyone's supposed to help you get a heart transplant?

Everything in life comes down to the choices we make. Why should anyone cover you for the shitty choices you (or clearly your parents) made? Because we live in a society, and you take care of your own people.

[Dwaar]

You know who benefits from rational public birth control options? The public, in the form of lower crime rates, lower welfare, less unwanted births, and a whole slew of other things.

I'm not saying that society doesn't benefit from birth control. I'm all in favor of birth control. I wish everyone that had sex used about three different types of it at once, if they aren't ready for a kid.

Sex is an option though. It is not a requirement to live. Birth control is easily available in many ways, and quite cheap when compared to numerous other things in life. I just don't think any of us should have to pay for birth control that we don't use.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not saying that society doesn't benefit from birth control. I'm all in favor of birth control. I wish everyone that had sex used about three different types of it at once, if they aren't ready for a kid.

Sex is an option though. It is not a requirement to live. Birth control is easily available in many ways, and quite cheap when compared to numerous other things in life. I just don't think any of us should have to pay for birth control that we don't use.

Smoking, drinking, eating steak, and driving are also options. They're not requirements to live. We pay for the results of those too.

[waywardgs]

I'm not saying that society doesn't benefit from birth control. I'm all in favor of birth control. I wish everyone that had sex used about three different types of it at once, if they aren't ready for a kid.

Sex is an option though. It is not a requirement to live. Birth control is easily available in many ways, and quite cheap when compared to numerous other things in life. I just don't think any of us should have to pay for birth control that we don't use.

A minuscule expense for massive benefits? I'll take that charge any day. It's pure economics, man. You can yell about sex being optional all you like, but people aren't gonna stop fucking. It's pure naïveté to think otherwise. So what do we have left? Options for mitigating the consequences.

[Whirlin]

I'm not saying that society doesn't benefit from birth control. I'm all in favor of birth control. I wish everyone that had sex used about three different types of it at once, if they aren't ready for a kid.

Sex is an option though. It is not a requirement to live. Birth control is easily available in many ways, and quite cheap when compared to numerous other things in life. I just don't think any of us should have to pay for birth control that we don't use.
Technically, sex is a requirement for life.

I don't think you understand how a society works. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be offered. If you've never had a fire, can you magically opt out of fire department coverage, or police coverage? Eventually, you will reap the benefits, even if not directly, you'll save money from the lack of additional spawnlings being put into the child care systems.

[waywardgs]

Ounce of prevention, pound of cure, and all that. Simple math.

[Dwaar]

You chose to never exercise, to eat shitty food, and yet everyone's supposed to help you get a heart transplant?

Everything in life comes down to the choices we make. Why should anyone cover you for the shitty choices you (or clearly your parents) made? Because we live in a society, and you take care of your own people.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... but I don't think anyone should have to be responsible for me. You shouldn't have to pay for my heart transplant.

People do make choices... and why you or anyone else... should have to pay for my condoms so I can go out and have sex with who I want to... is absurd in my view. I can decide, and support, my own sexual activities. I wish everyone would be responsible for their own sexual acts. Is that considered extreme these days?

[Warriorbird]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... but I don't think anyone should have to be responsible for me. You shouldn't have to pay for my heart transplant.

People do make choices... and why you or anyone else... should have to pay for my condoms so I can go out and have sex with who I want to... is absurd in my view. I can decide, and support, my own sexual activities. I wish everyone would be responsible for their own sexual acts. Is that considered extreme these days?

We're not islands. We're a society.

[waywardgs]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... but I don't think anyone should have to be responsible for me. You shouldn't have to pay for my heart transplant.

People do make choices... and why you or anyone else... should have to pay for my condoms so I can go out and have sex with who I want to... is absurd in my view. I can decide, and support, my own sexual activities. I wish everyone would be responsible for their own sexual acts. Is that considered extreme these days?

Your heart transplant would be paid for through insurance, presumably, which is paid for by the premiums paid by others. Unless you can fork over the quarter mill + it would cost. We're all in this together. It's not commie math, it's just math.

[Dwaar]

Technically, sex is a requirement for life.

I don't think you understand how a society works. Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be offered. If you've never had a fire, can you magically opt out of fire department coverage, or police coverage? Eventually, you will reap the benefits, even if not directly, you'll save money from the lack of additional spawnlings being put into the child care systems.

I understand just fine how a society works. And actually there are places that do have Police and Fire Department taxes, and if you don't pay them... they will not help you.

My taxes pay for those services which can't normally be done by an individual.. ex. police/fire/EMT-city/state/national government. So actually you and I do pay for those services, even if we personally never have a need to use them.

So if that is your theory.. "you will reap the benefits.... from the lack of additional spawnlings being put into the child care system"... Does this mean we should just have Government funded sterilization then? Because that would really help us control the economic and social impact unwanted children cause upon a society. Using your logic... sterilization would be the best cost/benefit option that we could provide then... or?

[Dwaar]

Your heart transplant would be paid for through insurance, presumably, which is paid for by the premiums paid by others. Unless you can fork over the quarter mill + it would cost. We're all in this together. It's not commie math, it's just math.

That's fine then. I want to drink this weekend... and I just happen to be out of money. Mind sending me some and helping me out?

[Dwaar]

We're not islands. We're a society.

So you're implying you have a say in my sexual activities? Or that others do? Or that I have a say in yours? I don't think so... but from your reply, unless I misunderstand it, you seem to think you do.

And no, I'm not referring to child abuse, the sex trade or anything like that. So lets not go overboard with an argument like... "well society has laws that governs your sexual acts already".

[waywardgs]

I understand just fine how a society works. And actually there are places that do have Police and Fire Department taxes, and if you don't pay them... they will not help you.

Source?
Never heard of a blacklist for police/fire emergency services... At least not in the past 150 years in America.

[waywardgs]

That's fine then. I want to drink this weekend... and I just happen to be out of money. Mind sending me some and helping me out?

No, but thanks to the system we have, when you crash you can send me a thank you card for helping to pay the police officer who yanks your broken body out of the wreckage. You're welcome!

[Dwaar]

No, but thanks to the system we have, when you crash you can send me a thank you card for helping to pay the police officer who yanks your broken body out of the wreckage. You're welcome!

So you will not help me drink (I would drink responsibly I swear), but you'll help me have sex and pay for my condoms? Then when the condom breaks, and an unwanted kid is brought into the world.... you're just fine giving me your money to pay for the kid? Cause I would definitely thank you for that.

See what I did there? :)

[Dwaar]

Source?
Never heard of a blacklist for police/fire emergency services... At least not in the past 150 years in America.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

http://money.msn.com/insurance/will-firemen-let-your-house-burn-wsj.aspx

As for the Police.. I would just point to the situation in Detroit. Plenty to read there.

[Back]

What happened to the "read foreign news" mantra? You keep posting Yahoo, NBC, and MSM links.

[waywardgs]

So you will not help me drink (I would drink responsibly I swear), but you'll help me have sex and pay for my condoms? Then when the condom breaks, and an unwanted kid is brought into the world.... you're just fine giving me your money to pay for the kid? Cause I would definitely thank you for that.

See what I did there? :)

I'll help pay for your condoms and I'll help pay for education regarding drunk driving. Hell, I'd even give you a lift home, because you're going to drink and fuck anyway. Ounce of prevention. Pound of cure.

[waywardgs]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

http://money.msn.com/insurance/will-firemen-let-your-house-burn-wsj.aspx

As for the Police.. I would just point to the situation in Detroit. Plenty to read there.

That's fucked. I'd love to see the litigation when the fires leap to a home that had paid the fee and it got out of control.

[Dwaar]

I'll help pay for your condoms and I'll help pay for education regarding drunk driving. Hell, I'd even give you a lift home, because you're going to drink and fuck anyway. Ounce of prevention. Pound of cure.

HAHA... I like your reply.

Now send me your phone number, so I can call you for a lift... after I drink a fifth, snort some lines off a hooker while banging her on the hood of a police car. I might need it after that. :)

[Jeril]

Yeah. It's referred to as the morning after pill, but it's still inherently preventing ovulation. Sperm can live within a woman's body for 3 days, where it travels up the fallopian tubes to fertilize the egg. Since any ovulation within 3 days of sex can result in fertilization, it'll still reduce the chances.

Plan B One-Step works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. The drug acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg.

If fertilization does occur, Plan B One-Step may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb.


Plan B prevents ovulation. It is not effective post ovulation, or post egg fertilization.


I just got this off web MD, while I think they don't present their answer in the correct manner it does give answers on what plan b does. And we went over the primary reason for plan b in another thread, remember?

[Thondalar]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

http://money.msn.com/insurance/will-firemen-let-your-house-burn-wsj.aspx

As for the Police.. I would just point to the situation in Detroit. Plenty to read there.

I really have no problem at all with them privatizing all of these things.

Think about it...either way, the money comes out of your pocket. Whether you pay taxes or pay a "fire bill", you're paying for the service. The only difference is, under the current system, your tax money goes off somewhere to get split up by a bunch of fat cats, with the few cents left over trickled back down to the service providers. My way, you cut out the middle man...municipal services could be using their money more effectively. Better equipment, better training...I don't see why anyone would be against this.

[Dwaar]

What happened to the "read foreign news" mantra? You keep posting Yahoo, NBC, and MSM links.

This is a specific thing with regards to our Nation. You want to see something really messed up?

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said the enemies of Islam confront Islam in the name of the religion.
Addressing a group of Qur’an reciters on Sunday, the Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution said that ‘the enemies’ intelligence apparatus plays a role in fueling civil conflicts in a number of Islamic communities, including Iraq.
Praising the deep insight of the Islamic Ummah, Ayatollah Khamenei underscored, “The enemies of Islam are afraid of this fact and try to confront Islam in the name of Islam and under the cover of Islam.”
The Leader also insisted that religious experts are making significant and valuable efforts to familiarize the people with Qur’anic concepts.
“The planning should be so that all people become familiar with the concepts and meanings of the Qur’an,” the Leader added.
Ayatollah Khamenei also highlighted the difference between American Islam and true Islam.
“The American Islam, despite having Islamic appearance and name, complies with despotism and Zionism… and totally serves the goals of despotism and the US,” stated the Leader. On Saturday, the Leader warned against enemy plots to incite sectarian conflicts among Shia and Sunni Muslims in the region to undermine the wave of Islamic Awakening.
“Today, the enemy is investing in civil wars in the region and pins hope on a Shia-Sunni war to relieve itself of the concern of Islamic Awakening,” the Leader said.
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the ongoing crisis in Iraq and stated that remnants of the ousted regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and a bunch of ignorant people are perpetrating crimes in that country.

http://www.iran-daily.com/Newspaper/Page/4823/1/12921/0

That's how they spin it over there. And by the way... we're the "enemies".

**This one works.. http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/ ... easy to use especially if looking for English translations of foreign papers.

[waywardgs]

HAHA... I like your reply.

Now send me your phone number, so I can call you for a lift... after I drink a fifth, snort some lines off a hooker while banging her on the hood of a police car. I might need it after that. :)

The difference is, if I buy you a beer I'm helping you drink, if I buy you a condom, unless I get you a hooker too, I'm not helping you have sex, just helping you have safe sex, which also helps me by not having to pay for the negative results of unsafe sex.

[Dwaar]

The difference is, if I buy you a beer I'm helping you drink, if I buy you a condom, unless I get you a hooker too, I'm not helping you have sex, just helping you have safe sex, which also helps me by not having to pay for the negative results of unsafe sex.

Hmmm... so with that logic.. would you mail me a fifth? I'll stay at home, and by you mailing it to me, you allow me to drink safely.

I'm going to keep trying until you buy me a drink! :)

[TheEschaton]

I'm glad to see in the turmoil of my recent life, some things don't change: crb continues to be a fucking retard. I see he has new friends now as well.

[Warriorbird]

So you're implying you have a say in my sexual activities? Or that others do? Or that I have a say in yours? I don't think so... but from your reply, unless I misunderstand it, you seem to think you do.

And no, I'm not referring to child abuse, the sex trade or anything like that. So lets not go overboard with an argument like... "well society has laws that governs your sexual acts already".

No. I'm implying you and I have an interest in assisting in the prevention of unwanted or foolishly conceived children. Just like we have an interest in saving the steak loving, whiskey drinking, cigar smoking guy because he might have important connections to a lot of other folks.


I really have no problem at all with them privatizing all of these things.

Think about it...either way, the money comes out of your pocket. Whether you pay taxes or pay a "fire bill", you're paying for the service. The only difference is, under the current system, your tax money goes off somewhere to get split up by a bunch of fat cats, with the few cents left over trickled back down to the service providers. My way, you cut out the middle man...municipal services could be using their money more effectively. Better equipment, better training...I don't see why anyone would be against this.

Because we can always always trust corporations to not mess up or suddenly critically go out of business or cut costs in important areas. They're even less reliable than the government is.

[Jarvan]

I would think it's simple really.

If a person needs a medication because it is medically necessary. It's covered. if the medication is a choice, it isn't.

If a woman wants BC to regulate periods or such. Yes

If a woman wants BC so she can have unprotected sex and not worry about the consequences. No.

[Thondalar]

Because we can always always trust corporations to not mess up or suddenly critically go out of business or cut costs in important areas. They're even less reliable than the government is.

I really don't understand where you get this corporate distrust from. It makes absolutely no sense for businesses to do these things you talk about. If you're missing the self-preservation gene, rest assured that most of us are not.

The only difference between a business running at a loss and a government running at a loss is if the business runs at a loss the effects come a lot sooner and can be fixed more quickly. The government can do so for generations and generations before it finally fails.

But rest assured, in the end, they both fail if mismanaged.

[Aluvius]

I had a thought.

Isn't having a child a choice, too? I mean the woman could go somewhere and have an abortion. Its also caused by someone making the decision to have sex.

So by the logic in this thread, employer provided medical insurance shouldn't cover any pregnancy related costs, should it?

What about heart attacks caused by getting angry with threads on the internet? I mean you could have chosen simply to not post. Should it be covered?

These questions really aren't any crazier than what's in the other 15 pages. :)

[Warriorbird]

I really don't understand where you get this corporate distrust from. It makes absolutely no sense for businesses to do these things you talk about. If you're missing the self-preservation gene, rest assured that most of us are not.

The only difference between a business running at a loss and a government running at a loss is if the business runs at a loss the effects come a lot sooner and can be fixed more quickly. The government can do so for generations and generations before it finally fails.

But rest assured, in the end, they both fail if mismanaged.

Because they do them. They're even less accountable than government and that's by design. They not only do them they do them comparatively frequently. Since you're guided by anecdotes I live near a Superfund cleanup site and the former shoe company that made all sorts of promises to employees and a sweet no tax deal with the city (Those are just so smart! No.) and then promptly went bankrupt while leaving the city with the bill, no jobs for the employees, and allowing Jerry Falwell's thrilling church to acquire even more of the community.

These are both nothing compared to Enron and Worldcom (the second of which I worked near too). I also worked for Tyco while Dennis Kozlowski's wife was getting $140 million dollar birthday parties. Just because you think it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't happen and happen really fucking frequently.

Before you go "You hate corporations! Rawr! Communism!" let me make it clear that I don't. I'm part of two (in spite of wrangling after my grandfather's passing) and I'm invested in a number of others. I just understand what they can do and that they exist to limit liability.

[Sorcasaurus]

Fail of the day: Comparing new made up religions to Catholicism and thinking NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!

You also have a broader common fail that nearly every opponent of freedom of religion and the 1st amendment has. You're seeing the employer as pushing a belief on the employee, forcing them to do something. That is inaccurate. The employee was trying to force the employer to do something: buy birth control (and in the hobby lobby case specific types of birth control they consider abortive). Now if you're a jebus loving christian, thats a sin. You don't have to agree with them, you just have to understand that in their mind, they were being forced by their government to pay for abortions. SCOTUS said no, you can't force someone to go against their religion. They didn't say "If you work for Hobby Lobby, you can't get these pills." There will be no police at pharmacies checking who your employer is. Nothing is forced on the employee (as opposed to every last one of your strawman examples). They simply must deal with birth control as women have since it was invented, buy it themselves. They're not forced to buy it, or forced to use it, they're not forced to do anything, they have the option and freedom to do as they wish.

If the case was Hobby Lobby wanted to do a blood test on all employees to make sure they didn't use birth control, then your examples wouldn't be ridiculously stupid strawmen, but that wasn't the case here.

Hahaha oh you...


1) After Scientology became officially recognized I thought we would realize the US would accept damn near anything as a religion. The ruling wasn't Catholic companies don't have to follow the rules, it was a company that claims X is against their religion can get an exception. It doesn't matter what religion I compared it to.

2)The owners weren't paying out of pocket, the company paid for insurance that included the federally required coverage. In exchange for all of the wonderful legal benefits granted to a for-profit company, they give up certain benefits of individuals and have to abide by federal regulations. It has always been an option to go the non-profit route if they wanted to have religion effect their policy and federal regulations. This section should be past tense I guess, but it's so ridiculous to me that I've yet to change it to current internally.

If this had been a case to change the regulation itself, I likely would have supported it. My issue is that they are granting a for profit corporation exception to a law/regulation on the grounds of religion.

Someone posted clips from a response one of the dissenting judges made. I find it to largely sum up my side of the argument, and even takes further than I had. I would love to see your take on it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Lastly, for clarification.

SCOTUS said no, you can't force someone to go against their religion.
The government can in some cases, it just has to be the least invasive manner possible. It was actually part of the core argument used, that the policy mandating birth control wasn't the least invasive route possible for the 4 drugs they contested.

[waywardgs]

This ruling wasn't even based on the constitution, it was based on an interpretation of the Definitions Act passed by congress, which defined corporations as persons (erroneously IMO) and can be changed at any time by a simple majority vote. To me this indicates nothing that was going on prior was not constitutional, no fundamental constitutional rights were being trampled; rather, a quirk of some stupid act was revealed.

[Buckwheet]

I would think it's simple really.

If a person needs a medication because it is medically necessary. It's covered. if the medication is a choice, it isn't.

If a woman wants BC to regulate periods or such. Yes

If a woman wants BC so she can have unprotected sex and not worry about the consequences. No.

Sounds like some new form of death panel everyone was worried about with the creation of Obamacare. Who makes the decision if it is medically required? There are a decent number of people who get medical marijuana because they have "anxiety" and a similar number of people claim it is all bullshit and just a way for people to get marijuana.

The statement is not conclusive when it comes to stopping the implantation. It says "may". It means they haven't done a conclusive enough study for them to say it does or doesn't. Until they change the language to say "AND it also prevents a fertilized egg from implanting" the reason the egg doesn't implant could be a decent number of reasons.

So. Lets look at cancer. There are a decent number of drugs and things you "can" do that "may" solve your cancer problem. One doctor might say that "X" treatment does nothing for a particular type of cancer where a different doctor says it might. So now you are saying you just jump around to different doctors that give you the answer you want to hear. Is that really what you are advocating?

Hi Doc, I want to have recreational sex so give me birth control! - Nope not allowed for recreational sex. However...do you get ANY cramping with your period?
Yes.
Great news! I can give you this medication that "may" reduce the severity of your issues.

[Whirlin]

Having Sex is just like eating at Five Guys Burger and Fries.

Both are a personal choice. Both may cause your stomach to swell. Both may require medication afterwards.

Cholesterol lowering Statin drugs (according to consumer reports) range from $53 to more than $600 a month.
Birth control costs $15 to $50 a month (according to planned parenthood).

According to transplants.org, the cost of a heart transplant is $1m
According to webmd, an uncomplicated cesarean section runs about $15,800.

Yet everyone flips out over people wanting to have sex... which is quite literally the only purpose for a species' existence.

[waywardgs]

It seems odd to me that sex is being dismissed as some bullshit way to recreate, by the way. It's well established that a healthy sexual life is part of general well being, particularly in relationships. The advent of face-to-face sex is credited with things like the development of love in human beings as a species. Why are we so quick to brush it off as some silly fancy? You're all a bunch of prudes, I think.

[waywardgs]

And don't get me started on Jarvan's characterization of all women on birth control as just a bunch of whores who want to sleep around.

[Androidpk]

I've refrained from saying anything until I could think this over. I'm slightly torn over it but ultimately I think this was another poor decision by the supreme court. As Ginsburg said, the supreme court has ventured into a minefield.

[Atlanteax]

Somewhat related and interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

SWAT being immune from open records requests? Because they are a corporation?

[Warriorbird]

Somewhat related and interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

SWAT being immune from open records requests? Because they are a corporation?

I believe we had a thread on it. It seems like a really bad idea due to voiding sovereign immunity.

[Androidpk]

Not only is it a bad idea it doesn't even seem legal.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91004-Massachusetts-SWAT-teams-claim-they%92re-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records

[Parkbandit]

Yet everyone flips out over people wanting to have sex... which is quite literally the only purpose for a species' existence.

So, infertile people literally have no purpose?

Gay people literally have no purpose?

Old people literally have no purpose?

What happened prior to 2010 when Obamacare came into law... it's like we're discussing this SCOTUS decision as a return to the stone age. People still have full access to all the contraception they want to have.

The sky isn't falling people.

[Atlanteax]

I believe we had a thread on it. It seems like a really bad idea due to voiding sovereign immunity.


Not only is it a bad idea it doesn't even seem legal.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91004-Massachusetts-SWAT-teams-claim-they%92re-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records

Yep, I missed spotting this thread.

[Aluvius]

So, infertile people literally have no purpose?

Gay people literally have no purpose?

Old people literally have no purpose?

What happened prior to 2010 when Obamacare came into law... it's like we're discussing this SCOTUS decision as a return to the stone age. People still have full access to all the contraception they want to have.

The sky isn't falling people.


I think the point is that the sky isn't falling because some plans won't cover contraceptives, its because that now your employer who provides your healthcare insurance has control over your healthcare choices based on their religious beliefs. Not only do their beliefs trump yours, but they also override governmental health laws.

There's no telling where this will end up.

I just hope there's some sort of notification requirement that you can see when looking for employment in the near future. Something along the lines of: This is a Christian Scientist corporation, our healthcare insurance does not cover any medications or most treatments. It does offer healing through the power of prayer 24/7 though.

[Latrinsorm]

Technically, sex is a requirement for life.Uuuugh. You mean... fluid transfer?! Vir-sex has been proven to produce higher orders of alpha waves during digitized transference of sexual energies.
So you're implying you have a say in my sexual activities? Or that others do? Or that I have a say in yours? I don't think so... but from your reply, unless I misunderstand it, you seem to think you do.

And no, I'm not referring to child abuse, the sex trade or anything like that. So lets not go overboard with an argument like... "well society has laws that governs your sexual acts already".This is the fundamental problem with your argument, and you couldn't have illustrated it better. What you like is the status quo. Obamacare changes that, so you don't like it. That's all there is to it.
I really have no problem at all with them privatizing all of these things.

Think about it...either way, the money comes out of your pocket. Whether you pay taxes or pay a "fire bill", you're paying for the service. The only difference is, under the current system, your tax money goes off somewhere to get split up by a bunch of fat cats, with the few cents left over trickled back down to the service providers. My way, you cut out the middle man...municipal services could be using their money more effectively. Better equipment, better training...I don't see why anyone would be against this.Surely you agree that history did not begin with centralized government. Indeed, history does not even demonstrate a monotonic trend towards centralized government. People try the decentralized route, become fed up with its flaws, demand centralization, become fed up with its flaws, repeat. The seaweed is always greener in somebody else's lake. You tink about cutting out the middle man so as to create a more efficient and equitable system of governance, but dat is a big mis-take.

"Localize it" is as bad an argument as "legalize it".
It makes absolutely no sense for businesses to do these things you talk about.I think you will find that humans quite often do things that make absolutely no sense, whether in the bedroom or the boardroom. We have more redress against this government than a corporation, so the former should have more power (but not too much more).

[Atlanteax]

I think you will find that humans quite often do things that make absolutely no sense

Like your posts that are intended to troll?

[Thondalar]

Because they do them. They're even less accountable than government and that's by design. They not only do them they do them comparatively frequently. Since you're guided by anecdotes I live near a Superfund cleanup site and the former shoe company that made all sorts of promises to employees and a sweet no tax deal with the city (Those are just so smart! No.) and then promptly went bankrupt while leaving the city with the bill, no jobs for the employees, and allowing Jerry Falwell's thrilling church to acquire even more of the community.

These are both nothing compared to Enron and Worldcom (the second of which I worked near too). I also worked for Tyco while Dennis Kozlowski's wife was getting $140 million dollar birthday parties. Just because you think it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't happen and happen really fucking frequently.

Before you go "You hate corporations! Rawr! Communism!" let me make it clear that I don't. I'm part of two (in spite of wrangling after my grandfather's passing) and I'm invested in a number of others. I just understand what they can do and that they exist to limit liability.

Sorry, I was trying to stay in the context of privatized municipal services, since that's what I thought we were talking about. I'm fully aware that there are bad people who do bad things because they get greedy, but you will find them in both sectors. The entire reason this is coming up is because local governments around the country are starting to charge people for these services anyway, on top of the property taxes they already pay, because government has spent so long over-compensating itself that it's finally starting to catch up.

I don't understand how you can defend this in one breath, and lambast private industry in the second breath for violating the exact same principle.

[Warriorbird]

Sorry, I was trying to stay in the context of privatized municipal services, since that's what I thought we were talking about. I'm fully aware that there are bad people who do bad things because they get greedy, but you will find them in both sectors. The entire reason this is coming up is because local governments around the country are starting to charge people for these services anyway, on top of the property taxes they already pay, because government has spent so long over-compensating itself that it's finally starting to catch up.

I don't understand how you can defend this in one breath, and lambast private industry in the second breath for violating the exact same principle.

There's some interesting theories here. I especially find it telling that you think governments are charging because they "overcompensate" themselves.

Privatized municipal services are a lot like charter schools. They sound great until they're suddenly out of business and you realize all the dangers of people who's primary interest is their shareholders taking care of things.

[Jarvan]

And don't get me started on Jarvan's characterization of all women on birth control as just a bunch of whores who want to sleep around.

Oddly enough, I did not say that.

I said there is a difference between medically needed BC and BC that is only BC. Plan B is ONLY BC. There is NO medical need for it.

Or another way to look at like OXYCONTIN.

It is a valid drug that is prescribed for medical necessary reasons. You don't get it just because you want it.

Why is BC any different?

Hell, you could look at ANY drug in the same way. ONLY BC is deemed "free to all Women by right". Who deemed it such?

[Kembal]

Science killed god a long time ago, but there is no asterisk in the 1st amendment saying it only applies if your religious beliefs coincide with modern science, I mean seriously dude?

You know I'm a raging atheist, and the one thing I hate is the idea that a government could be powerful enough to force me to worship jebus. But what I realize, is that if the government has enough power over religion to force the jebus people to go against their religion, then it has enough power to force me to go with their religion.

It doesn't matter what YOU think of their religious beliefs, and it sure as shit doesn't matter what SCIENCE thinks of their religious beliefs. It only matters what they think, because they are their beliefs. Creationism is nonsense, but we can't force homeschooling fundamentalists to stop teaching it, because they believe it, and freedom of religion means you have that right. Like it means I have the right NOT to believe it.


Hell no. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean that empirical evidence is thrown out the window for policy making. this ruling is an imposition by conservative Christians to legislate their beliefs on the rest of the American populace. If Muslim/Hindu/atheist owners of a closely held corporation had attempted to do something similar, they would have been thrown out on their ear.

[Kembal]

Oddly enough, I did not say that.

I said there is a difference between medically needed BC and BC that is only BC. Plan B is ONLY BC. There is NO medical need for it.


<sigh>

It does not appear that you know that after delivering a baby by C-section, standard medical advice is to wait at least 12 months before getting pregnant again b/c a woman's body takes a while to recover and it can cause complications if she were to get pregnant earlier. if there's a slip-up, Plan B is the last resort to prevent a pregnancy.

therefore yes, plan B can be medically necessary.

[waywardgs]

<sigh>

It does not appear that you know that after delivering a baby by C-section, standard medical advice is to wait at least 12 months before getting pregnant again b/c a woman's body takes a while to recover and it can cause complications if she were to get pregnant earlier. if there's a slip-up, Plan B is the last resort to prevent a pregnancy.

therefore yes, plan B can be medically necessary.

At this point the woman has served her procreative purpose and should not be having sex again until she's ready to get pregnant again. Birth control is just for women who want to "fuck a bunch of people."

That about right, Jarvan?

[Tenlaar]

Plan B is ONLY BC. There is NO medical need for it.

Even not counting what Kembal correctly pointed out, how the hell have you come to the conclusion that pregnancy itself is not a medical issue? Plan B is preventative medical care in the case of an "accident" in the same way that getting a tetanus shot is preventative medical care in the case of stepping on a rusty nail.

[waywardgs]

Even not counting what Kembal correctly pointed out, how the hell have you come to the conclusion that pregnancy itself is not a medical issue? Plan B is preventative medical care in the case of an "accident" in the same way that getting a tetanus shot is preventative medical care in the case of stepping on a rusty nail.

Tetanus shots are just for people who enjoy shoving rusty nails into their flesh. They shouldn't be covered by insurance either.

[Parkbandit]

I think the point is that the sky isn't falling because some plans won't cover contraceptives, its because that now your employer who provides your healthcare insurance has control over your healthcare choices based on their religious beliefs. Not only do their beliefs trump yours, but they also override governmental health laws.

There's no telling where this will end up.

I just hope there's some sort of notification requirement that you can see when looking for employment in the near future. Something along the lines of: This is a Christian Scientist corporation, our healthcare insurance does not cover any medications or most treatments. It does offer healing through the power of prayer 24/7 though.

So, to you, the sky really is falling? What did everyone do WAY back before getting free contraception?

This is an extremely narrow ruling.. I don't think the long term implications are as bleak as you are attempting to make them.

[Parkbandit]

Hell no. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean that empirical evidence is thrown out the window for policy making. this ruling is an imposition by conservative Christians to legislate their beliefs on the rest of the American populace. If Muslim/Hindu/atheist owners of a closely held corporation had attempted to do something similar, they would have been thrown out on their ear.

I don't see it like that at all.. it simply reaffirms the Religious Restoration Act... and even then, it does so in a targeted fashion.

[Atlanteax]

I wonder if SCOTUS play EVE.

[Latrinsorm]

Oddly enough, I did not say that.

I said there is a difference between medically needed BC and BC that is only BC. Plan B is ONLY BC. There is NO medical need for it.

Or another way to look at like OXYCONTIN.

It is a valid drug that is prescribed for medical necessary reasons. You don't get it just because you want it.

Why is BC any different?

Hell, you could look at ANY drug in the same way. ONLY BC is deemed "free to all Women by right". Who deemed it such?Can you cite a case where a company refused to pay for the insurance that covered painkillers?

edited to add: case as in occurrence, not (necessarily) a court case.

[Elantari]

So, infertile people literally have no purpose?

Gay people literally have no purpose?

Old people literally have no purpose?

What happened prior to 2010 when Obamacare came into law... it's like we're discussing this SCOTUS decision as a return to the stone age. People still have full access to all the contraception they want to have.

The sky isn't falling people.

You're obviously trolling Whirlin here.

[Buckwheet]

So, to you, the sky really is falling? What did everyone do WAY back before getting free contraception?

This is an extremely narrow ruling.. I don't think the long term implications are as bleak as you are attempting to make them.

Used animal intestines as condoms.

[Jarvan]

Can you cite a case where a company refused to pay for the insurance that covered painkillers?

edited to add: case as in occurrence, not (necessarily) a court case.

Can you show me a case where a company refused to pay for insurance that covered BC for medical purposes? (Hobby Lobby successfully argued these were NOT purely BC)

[Latrinsorm]

Can you show me a case where a company refused to pay for insurance that covered BC for medical purposes? (Hobby Lobby successfully argued these were NOT purely BC)Many things that are not birth control have medical purposes. For instance... painkillers. :)

[Tgo01]

If corporations were smart they would all become Christian Scientists so they wouldn't have to provide any health insurance at all to their employees.

[Aluvius]

So, to you, the sky really is falling? What did everyone do WAY back before getting free contraception?

This is an extremely narrow ruling.. I don't think the long term implications are as bleak as you are attempting to make them.

Yes, because its not the contraceptive part that is alarming me. I don't think it will be applied narrowly due to Establishment Clause issues, this opens up litigation based on all sorts of religious beliefs. It won't be the end of the world or anything, I'm simply alarmed that the Supreme Court thinks this is a road we should go down.

Dang, my plan to stop paying taxes by converting is thwarted though ... apparently the ruling specifically exempts tax laws. :)

[Jarvan]

Many things that are not birth control have medical purposes. For instance... painkillers. :)

Didn't think you could.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, because its not the contraceptive part that is alarming me. I don't think it will be applied narrowly due to Establishment Clause issues, this opens up litigation based on all sorts of religious beliefs. It won't be the end of the world or anything, I'm simply alarmed that the Supreme Court thinks this is a road we should go down.

Dang, my plan to stop paying taxes by converting is thwarted though ... apparently the ruling specifically exempts tax laws. :)

Prior to the ruling, I too had my concerns. Someone pointed out to me that my concerns were unwarranted.. the "Slippery slope" objection that I had could easily be used the other way with an opposite ruling. I was actually relieved that the ruling was this narrow and that it was specific in it's targeting.

[Jarvan]

<sigh>

It does not appear that you know that after delivering a baby by C-section, standard medical advice is to wait at least 12 months before getting pregnant again b/c a woman's body takes a while to recover and it can cause complications if she were to get pregnant earlier. if there's a slip-up, Plan B is the last resort to prevent a pregnancy.

therefore yes, plan B can be medically necessary.

Actually, no its not. If she shouldn't have another kid for 12 months, she should be using another kind of BC.

Besides, if a Woman had a "slip up" and then went to the Dr to find out what she should do (apparently get plan B) it would likely be to late.

Plan B is an over the counter medication. Maybe I should let that sink in a moment.

So.. how many Over the Counter medications are covered by YOUR insurance. Do you go and pick up Nyquil and hand over your insurance card? Tylenol?

I really got to ask.. where has this all come from? Women have been able to buy BC for decades. Where has this sudden "My BC should be part of my insurance" come from? I can understand if it is medically necessary, yet you can't tell me 100% of women it's medically necessary, unless you want to consider pregnancy a disease we need to cure. (I do think there are to many people in the world, but I think a good old fashioned world war or plague is a better options)

I guess when you have a segment of the population telling you, "You know, you deserve this, you should even get it for free. Those people don't want you to have it at all!" You start to believe it.

[Tenlaar]

Actually, no its not. If she shouldn't have another kid for 12 months, she should be using another kind of BC.

There are only two methods of birth control that have less than about a 3% failure rate. Any guesses what those would be? That's right, IUDs and Plan B.

So just fuck those 3% of women who get pregnant while using birth control, right? That's what they get for being so irresponsible!

[Parkbandit]

There are only two methods of birth control that have less than about a 3% failure rate. Any guesses what those would be? That's right, IUDs and Plan B.

So just fuck those 3% of women who get pregnant while using birth control, right? That's what they get for being so irresponsible!

The top 2 are actually abstinence and sterilization.

Followed by implants, the "pill" and condoms. Plan B is 5th, with an effectiveness of 95% if taken within 24 hours or 89% if taken within 72 hours.

Both the IUD and Plan B do nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

[Latrinsorm]

Didn't think you could.I'm not sure you got what just happened, but I'm also not surprised.

[Tenlaar]

The top 2 are actually abstinence and sterilization.

Followed by implants, the "pill" and condoms. Plan B is 5th, with an effectiveness of 95% if taken within 24 hours or 89% if taken within 72 hours.

Both the IUD and Plan B do nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

You are correct that the implants are highly effective. The CDC disagress with everything else you're saying, though. (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm) And even you know how stupid the abstinence argument is. Here is a chart with pictures, if that makes it easier for you. (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/PDF/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf)

[Elantari]

The top 2 are actually abstinence and sterilization.

I know you got your sweet little daughter a promise ring. But guess what's in her mouth and twat right now? That's right, it's her boyfriends cock. Your daughter is a little animal. And like most little animals, she wants it, and she's getting it. But because her daddy is a dumbass, she's going to wind up barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. But maybe that's the way you like your women?

[Parkbandit]

You are correct that the implants are highly effective. The CDC disagress with everything else you're saying, though. (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm) And even you know how stupid the abstinence argument is. Here is a chart with pictures, if that makes it easier for you. (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/PDF/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf)

So, you don't consider abstinence and sterilization birth control methods. ok?

Even the CDC doesn't consider the Plan B pill a regular birth control measurement (directly from your link) and don't even include it on your picture (that you clearly couldn't read).

So where did you pull those "top 2" from again.. because it wasn't from the CDC.

From the chart you provided.. there are 15 methods of contraception. Guess how many are available to the employees of Hobby Lobby after this devastating ruling: OMG ONLY 14!!! OUTRAGE!! WARZ ON WOMANZ!! HOBBY LOBBY IS TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO HAVE SEX!! LET'S BURN DOWN THE STOREZ!!!!

[Tenlaar]

So, you don't consider abstinence and sterilization birth control methods. ok?
Sterilization is a "permanent" measure. It is not a regular form of birth control. And no, "just don't have sex" is not birth control in any world where people actually live.


Even the CDC doesn't consider the Plan B pill a regular birth control measurement (directly from your link) and don't even include it on your picture (that you clearly couldn't read).
I don't consider it a regular birth control measure either. Nobody here has made an argument that it is, that I have noticed. It is preventative medical care when needed. And it is mentioned in the notes on the bottom of the chart.


So where did you pull those "top 2" from again.. because it wasn't from the CDC.
I already admitted that I forgot about the implant, it would be #1 at 0.05% failure. Which puts IUD at #2 with either 0.2% or 0.8%, depending on the type. And that makes Plan B, with your own number of 5%, at #3.

[Androidpk]

Abstinence is working for me :(

[Tgo01]

The best form of birth control is actually free; the pull out method.

The problem is most men don't know how to properly do the pullout method. Or they're just douche bags. "Don't worry baby, I'll pull out...tee hee!"

[Kembal]

I don't see it like that at all.. it simply reaffirms the Religious Restoration Act... and even then, it does so in a targeted fashion.

This ruling itself is narrow, I'll grant that. (and they threw in a ton of caveats)

But the problem is the precedent. I'll take one from the opposite side of the aisle: Windsor v. U.S. was only supposed to end DOMA, but the logic of the ruling is now enabling the strike down of every state-level gay marriage ban in the country.

Narrow precedents sometimes develop into very big changes. This one has the potential to do so.

[Methais]

But guess what's in her mouth and twat right now? That's right, it's her boyfriends cock.

At the same time? That's a neat trick.

[Kembal]

Actually, no its not. If she shouldn't have another kid for 12 months, she should be using another kind of BC.


Fatal flaw in your argument: Other types of BC fail. (condom breaks) Or someone miscounts and realizes that a condom wasn't used when it should've been.

[Tgo01]

Or someone miscounts and realizes that a condom wasn't used when it should've been.

I would think that's something you would notice during the act.

But maybe that's just me.

[Kembal]

I would think that's something you would notice during the act.

But maybe that's just me.

I think it's quite possible for someone to not realize it was 9 days as opposed to 8 days until the day after.

[Tgo01]

I think it's quite possible for someone to not realize it was 9 days as opposed to 8 days until the day after.

Sorry, maybe I read your comment out of context; looks like you were saying someone might not have realized they weren't using a condom when they thought they were.

[Androidpk]

Sorry, maybe I read your comment out of context; looks like you were saying someone might not have realized they weren't using a condom when they thought they were.

Psychosis!

[Tgo01]

Psychosis!

I really gotta stop smoking marijuana :(

[Latrinsorm]

So, you don't consider abstinence and sterilization birth control methods. ok?

Even the CDC doesn't consider the Plan B pill a regular birth control measurement (directly from your link) and don't even include it on your picture (that you clearly couldn't read).

So where did you pull those "top 2" from again.. because it wasn't from the CDC.

From the chart you provided.. there are 15 methods of contraception. Guess how many are available to the employees of Hobby Lobby after this devastating ruling: OMG ONLY 14!!! OUTRAGE!! WARZ ON WOMANZ!! HOBBY LOBBY IS TRYING TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO HAVE SEX!! LET'S BURN DOWN THE STOREZ!!!!The odd thing about this sort of argument (and you're not the only one who makes it) is trying to figure out the intent behind it. You know there are women who feel marginalized by this decision, and your tack is to belittle their concerns. Doesn't that strike you as antagonistic and thus uneffective?

[Parkbandit]

This ruling itself is narrow, I'll grant that. (and they threw in a ton of caveats)

But the problem is the precedent. I'll take one from the opposite side of the aisle: Windsor v. U.S. was only supposed to end DOMA, but the logic of the ruling is now enabling the strike down of every state-level gay marriage ban in the country.

Narrow precedents sometimes develop into very big changes. This one has the potential to do so.

So, you believe in the slippery slope theory?

As did I until someone pointed out that the slippery slope is a 2 way street.. had the ruling gone the other way, it could have developed into very big changes. Like, when you form a company, your company is no longer protected by the constitution.. you gave up those rights when you formed the corporation.. and as such the government can force you to do anything they want by simply passing a regulation.

[Methais]

Fatal flaw in your argument: Other types of BC fail. (condom breaks) Or someone miscounts and realizes that a condom wasn't used when it should've been.

Which is why women should just give BJs. No birth control needed.

[Laviticas]

The odd thing about this sort of argument (and you're not the only one who makes it) is trying to figure out the intent behind it. You know there are women who feel marginalized by this decision, and your tack is to belittle their concerns. Doesn't that strike you as antagonistic and thus uneffective?

So there is no chance that perhaps there are women that are happy with this decision? Or women that may feel marginalized by the whole debate, as if their entire concern in life is birth control or are unable to afford $10 a month. Perhaps women business owners that want to be free to make their own decisions?

[Methais]

So there is no chance that perhaps there are women that are happy with this decision? Or women that may feel marginalized by the whole debate, as if their entire concern in life is birth control or are unable to afford $10 a month. Perhaps women business owners that want to be free to make their own decisions?

No, it's clear that women can't help but bang every dude they come into contact with and therefore they need to be on birth control and since they're incapable of handling money on their own in addition to their vaginas they need it for free.

[Elantari]

No, it's clear that women can't help but bang every dude they come into contact with and therefore they need to be on birth control and since they're incapable of handling money on their own in addition to their vaginas they need it for free.

It's clear that no woman with a brain would ever want to get within a mile of your disease-infested little cock.

[Latrinsorm]

So there is no chance that perhaps there are women that are happy with this decision? Or women that may feel marginalized by the whole debate, as if their entire concern in life is birth control or are unable to afford $10 a month. Perhaps women business owners that want to be free to make their own decisions?This is not how English works. For illustration:
"There are cars that are red."
"So there is no chance that perhaps there are cars that aren't red?"

See? Absurd. :)
So, you believe in the slippery slope theory?

As did I until someone pointed out that the slippery slope is a 2 way street.. had the ruling gone the other way, it could have developed into very big changes. Like, when you form a company, your company is no longer protected by the constitution.. you gave up those rights when you formed the corporation.. and as such the government can force you to do anything they want by simply passing a regulation.The First Amendment doesn't say that the government cannot force you to do something against your religious beliefs. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The only way to reasonably protect religion is to act as though it does not exist, otherwise you get sucked into trying to decide whether a particular religious belief is genuinely held, how long it has to have been held, etc. Silliness. Instead the government is designed to make laws and let religion exist in the gaps between those laws. "God told me to" is inadmissible for all law breaking, that's the only way to do it.

Now, I understand that some people don't have the absolutely ironclad respect I have for the Constitution as written, and that's a shame. I personally don't want to piss on the grave of George Washington, and while I respect your right to express beliefs that amount to that, I really think you should think twice. Just because you can soil the memory and legacy of our Founding Fathers doesn't mean you should.

[Methais]

It's clear that no woman with a brain would ever want to get within a mile of your disease-infested little cock.

Stop hitting on me. It's inappropriate.

[Whirlin]

So, you believe in the slippery slope theory?

As did I until someone pointed out that the slippery slope is a 2 way street.. had the ruling gone the other way, it could have developed into very big changes. Like, when you form a company, your company is no longer protected by the constitution.. you gave up those rights when you formed the corporation.. and as such the government can force you to do anything they want by simply passing a regulation.

The big problem I have though is that corporations are not people. And while two people may form a corporation and wish to keep their two individualistic views. What about when a third person joins that may have a difference of opinion from the first two? What about if you have 10 employees that don't share your sentiments, but you're the majority shareholder?

At what point is it imposing your upon others in your group, as defined my relativistic shareholder status?

I understand that we inherently disagree with the role of centralized government, however, fundamentally, they should be passing the laws that apply to all. Before we join individual churches, organizations, corporations, we're still all citizens.

I'm incredibly disheartened because the slippery slope that you highlighted in your 1st page post really has already come to light. While the original ruling on Monday highlighted a very specific aspect, there was another release on Tuesday where the supreme court opened up the flood gate by telling lower courts to review all lawsuits based regarding any contraceptive coverage. And supposedly new cases are popping up because companies are asking for exemptions from discrimination laws for religious beliefs.

[Daragon]

The big problem I have though is that corporations are not people. And while two people may form a corporation and wish to keep their two individualistic views. What about when a third person joins that may have a difference of opinion from the first two? What about if you have 10 employees that don't share your sentiments, but you're the majority shareholder?

At what point is it imposing your upon others in your group, as defined my relativistic shareholder status?

I understand that we inherently disagree with the role of centralized government, however, fundamentally, they should be passing the laws that apply to all. Before we join individual churches, organizations, corporations, we're still all citizens.

I'm incredibly disheartened because the slippery slope that you highlighted in your 1st page post really has already come to light. While the original ruling on Monday highlighted a very specific aspect, there was another release on Tuesday where the supreme court opened up the flood gate by telling lower courts to review all lawsuits based regarding any contraceptive coverage. And supposedly new cases are popping up because companies are asking for exemptions from discrimination laws for religious beliefs.

I don't get it either. This whole damn thing had nothing to do with religious rights. Next thing you know they will allow corporations to vote in elections...oh wait they pick the candidates for each party already so technically they already do.

[Back]

I don't get it either. This whole damn thing had nothing to do with religious rights. Next thing you know they will allow corporations to vote in elections...oh wait they pick the candidates for each party already so technically they already do.

Yeah. They passed "Citizens United" which means money is free speech. How much bullshit is that? Citizens united? Utter BS. Rich united. If money = free speech then the SCOTUS has said there are people in this country with more free speech than others.

Even the name is a joke. Citizens United??? Right. This wasn't passed in the interest of all the citizens. It was passed in favor of the rich. If we keep going down this road you bet your ass we are all going to turn into Duracells for the corporate machine.

[Daragon]

Yeah. They passed "Citizens United" which means money is free speech. How much bullshit is that? Citizens united? Utter BS. Rich united. If money = free speech then the SCOTUS has said there are people in this country with more free speech than others.

Even the name is a joke. Citizens United??? Right. This wasn't passed in the interest of all the citizens. It was passed in favor of the rich. If we keep going down this road you bet your ass we are all going to turn into Duracells for the corporate machine.

The whole system is a joke. The House and Senate do whatever the lobbyists for the corporations and special interest groups want, the SCOTUS and other courts are political and pass laws through judicial activism, the POTUS acts like a king(which isn't just Obama all Presidents in the last 100+ years), corporations get away with murder while the average citizen can't even get away with growing their own food, and State and Local Politics are corrupt as hell and no better then the Federal Govt. Sad.

[Thondalar]

There's some interesting theories here. I especially find it telling that you think governments are charging because they "overcompensate" themselves.

Being myself a government employee at one point, I do think very much that they overcompensate themselves. I went from the private sector, where you were paid what you were worth, to the public sector, where you were paid because they had to fill a budget. Here's what struck me, right off the bat, moving from private sector to public....in the private sector, you were paid what the business could afford. In the public sector, you were paid because you were there. My job was entirely superfluous...the DOC could have managed themselves just fine without me. When I tried to cut some costs and save money, I was brought into the Warden's office and bitched up and down because if I saved money on this year's budget, he couldn't ask for more money next year. It's a broken system because there is no bottom line. There is no oversight. You lambast the bottom line because it makes people want to cut corners....I'm telling you, the alternative is far worse in the long run.


Privatized municipal services are a lot like charter schools. They sound great until they're suddenly out of business and you realize all the dangers of people who's primary interest is their shareholders taking care of things.

Again...how is it in the shareholder's interest to go out of business? I get that there are occasions where individuals in large companies have defrauded their company and their investors to make a quick (mega)bucks...but that's not how business works. I guess it would be like Latrin always says...full communist or full capitalist, neither works, never has (although I will temper this by saying nobody has ever tried full capitalist, so who really knows)...has to be a mix...well right now, it's not that way. As much as I personally hate regulation, I realize it's a bit naive to expect people to learn from their mistakes and do things for the better of their community and themselves and their families on their own...so privatize it with heavy regulations. Would be better than sending your money to a bunch of money-changers who sit around and do nothing worthwhile other than redistribute your money.

[Thondalar]

The whole system is a joke. The House and Senate do whatever the lobbyists for the corporations and special interest groups want, the SCOTUS and other courts are political and pass laws through judicial activism, the POTUS acts like a king(which isn't just Obama all Presidents in the last 100+ years), corporations get away with murder while the average citizen can't even get away with growing their own food, and State and Local Politics are corrupt as hell and no better then the Federal Govt. Sad.

This.

This is where we're at.

Wake up, America.

[Parkbandit]

The big problem I have though is that corporations are not people. And while two people may form a corporation and wish to keep their two individualistic views. What about when a third person joins that may have a difference of opinion from the first two? What about if you have 10 employees that don't share your sentiments, but you're the majority shareholder?

At what point is it imposing your upon others in your group, as defined my relativistic shareholder status?

I understand that we inherently disagree with the role of centralized government, however, fundamentally, they should be passing the laws that apply to all. Before we join individual churches, organizations, corporations, we're still all citizens.

I'm incredibly disheartened because the slippery slope that you highlighted in your 1st page post really has already come to light. While the original ruling on Monday highlighted a very specific aspect, there was another release on Tuesday where the supreme court opened up the flood gate by telling lower courts to review all lawsuits based regarding any contraceptive coverage. And supposedly new cases are popping up because companies are asking for exemptions from discrimination laws for religious beliefs.

I would be equally disheartened if the reverse decision were to happen. I don't think that because you form a corporation that you automatically give up all constitutional rights to run that corporation.

The ruling is consistent with other decisions made by the SCOTUS.. if you wish to change that, then repeal the 1st Amendment, Religious Restoration Act of 1993 and overturn Citizens United vs. FEC.

[Parkbandit]

The whole system is a joke. The House and Senate do whatever the lobbyists for the corporations and special interest groups want, the SCOTUS and other courts are political and pass laws through judicial activism, the POTUS acts like a king(which isn't just Obama all Presidents in the last 100+ years), corporations get away with murder while the average citizen can't even get away with growing their own food, and State and Local Politics are corrupt as hell and no better then the Federal Govt. Sad.

Our government has worked this way from the get go. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Roosevelt, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Ford, etc...

I'm not saying it's right.. I'm saying that this is nothing new to politics, let alone US politics.

[Warriorbird]

Being myself a government employee at one point, I do think very much that they overcompensate themselves. I went from the private sector, where you were paid what you were worth, to the public sector, where you were paid because they had to fill a budget. Here's what struck me, right off the bat, moving from private sector to public....in the private sector, you were paid what the business could afford. In the public sector, you were paid because you were there. My job was entirely superfluous...the DOC could have managed themselves just fine without me. When I tried to cut some costs and save money, I was brought into the Warden's office and bitched up and down because if I saved money on this year's budget, he couldn't ask for more money next year. It's a broken system because there is no bottom line. There is no oversight. You lambast the bottom line because it makes people want to cut corners....I'm telling you, the alternative is far worse in the long run.



Again...how is it in the shareholder's interest to go out of business? I get that there are occasions where individuals in large companies have defrauded their company and their investors to make a quick (mega)bucks...but that's not how business works. I guess it would be like Latrin always says...full communist or full capitalist, neither works, never has (although I will temper this by saying nobody has ever tried full capitalist, so who really knows)...has to be a mix...well right now, it's not that way. As much as I personally hate regulation, I realize it's a bit naive to expect people to learn from their mistakes and do things for the better of their community and themselves and their families on their own...so privatize it with heavy regulations. Would be better than sending your money to a bunch of money-changers who sit around and do nothing worthwhile other than redistribute your money.

I've worked in both the public and private sectors. There are a lot of questionable things that get done in the school system as well. We have too much administrative and support bloat. There are programs of reform that don't do much. There isn't anything like the sheer naked self interest that got done in my private sector experiences and I felt far more overpaid in the private sector. There is frequent oversight and both the school board and the administration question everything.

It isn't in the shareholders's interest to go out of business. Their interest is certainly not the same as that of the public and the customer at all times though, especially in traditionally public sector activities. I don't think companies should be focused on raising profit at the expense of the public. Heavy regulations might make things work better but there's a party devoted to completely fucking up all regulations so you can't trust it. The "moneychangers" if we want to be biblical would actually be the private banking industry/Wall Street, a group of people who I trust far less than anything in the public sector because they are frequently the locus of recessions and downturns. They want to make bubbles. They want to unleash unlimited credit for temporary boosts in their bottom line with little concern for what it does to the rest of us.

[waywardgs]

I would be equally disheartened if the reverse decision were to happen. I don't think that because you form a corporation that you automatically give up all constitutional rights to run that corporation.

The ruling is consistent with other decisions made by the SCOTUS.. if you wish to change that, then repeal the 1st Amendment, Religious Restoration Act of 1993 and overturn Citizens United vs. FEC.


Wrong. The conservative majority of the supremes are not interpreting the First Amendment in their holding that closely held corporations have person-like religious rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); they are interpreting congressionally enacted statutes and definitions, namely, RFRA and the congressional Dictionary Act, which sets out definitions for general use in legislation.

The Dictionary Act, not the Constitution, defines corporations as people. No constitutional amendment is needed to overturn this decision; just simple majority votes in the House and Senate.

[Androidpk]

I don't think people starting corporations should lose all rights but some certainly need to be limited. 1st amendment for example.. a company cannot discriminate against employees or customers based on race, sex or religion.

[waywardgs]

I don't think people starting corporations should lose all rights but some certainly need to be limited. 1st amendment for example.. a company cannot discriminate against employees or customers based on race, sex or religion.

Again, I don't get this. Where do you see the people who started a corporation "losing rights?" They still have all their rights. The corporation they started, however, does not enjoy the same rights people do- or rather, they shouldn't, IMO. You shouldn't get to enjoy limited liability AND be able to claim all the rights an individual does. Individuals don't get to claim limited liability in their existance as individuals..

[Parkbandit]

Again, I don't get this. Where do you see the people who started a corporation "losing rights?" They still have all their rights. The corporation they started, however, does not enjoy the same rights people do- or rather, they shouldn't, IMO. You shouldn't get to enjoy limited liability AND be able to claim all the rights an individual does. Individuals don't get to claim limited liability in their existance as individuals..

They don't?

I have all sorts of insurance policies that allow me to claim limited liability as an individual.

What "rights" were lost because of this ruling exactly?

[waywardgs]

I didn't say rights were lost; in fact I specifically said no individual lost rights- I said rights are being applied inappropriately to a corporation based on some stupid quirk of the Dictionary Act passed by congress.

[AnticorRifling]

Take away: Don't start a company because everyone else will tell you how you're required to run it in order to make them happy based on what they want/believe.

[waywardgs]

Take away: Don't start a company because everyone else will tell you how you're required to run it in order to make them happy based on what they want/believe.

If you want to push your religion, start a church, don't start a corporation.

[Back]

Take away: Don't start a company because everyone else will tell you how you're required to run it in order to make them happy based on what they want/believe.

Or just start one in a country that doesn't give a fuck about it's people so you can pay them shit and treat them like shit while you laugh all the way to the bank.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure firing long time employees for pregnancy is a great policy but all of our thrilling at will employment states make it perfectly fine if it's through something like this.

[AnticorRifling]

If you want to push your religion, start a church, don't start a corporation.

It's not pushing...you're not forced to shop or work there. I don't think push means what you think it means.

[AnticorRifling]

Or just start one in a country that doesn't give a fuck about it's people so you can pay them shit and treat them like shit while you laugh all the way to the bank.

A country that doesn't give a fuck about it's people?

Move.

[Back]

A country that doesn't give a fuck about it's people?

Move.

You misunderstand me. I meant start a company in a country like China, Bangladesh, or Mexico.

[Sorcasaurus]

Take away: Don't start a company because everyone else will tell you how you're required to run it in order to make them happy based on what they want/believe.

Create a non-profit or church affiliate if you want to incorporate your religious beliefs in company policies or have them effect your federal regulations.

The for profit corporation fell into a different tax and regulatory group prior to this ruling. It's a choice they made to create and keep the company under this filing. No doubt because of all the legal protections they get. This ruling allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

With the current trend in rulings, we're creating a class system. Companies are becoming super citizens with more rights and protections than actual people.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm not sure firing long time employees for pregnancy is a great policy but all of our thrilling at will employment states make it perfectly fine if it's through something like this.

It's not a great policy. I don't think anyone is saying it's great are they? I'm just curious why the company HAS to accommodate light duty/limited duty/etc. when it means the person can't perform their job. The agreement between the employer and the employee is the employee does job X (which is defined as having these requirements) and in return the company pays and provides Y benefits right?

If I break both of my hands and can't type is my employer (a software development company) expected to find something for me to do while that heals?

[AnticorRifling]

Create a non-profit or church affiliate if you want to incorporate your religious beliefs in company policies or have them effect your federal regulations.

The for profit corporation fell into a different tax and regulatory group prior to this ruling. It's a choice they made to create and keep the company under this filing. No doubt because of all the legal protections they get. This ruling allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

With the current trend in rulings, we're creating a class system. Companies are becoming super citizens with more rights and protections than actual people.

Why do I have to be a non profit? Why can't I pay my taxes like a regular company? Why do you hate companies paying taxes?!

[Warriorbird]

It's not a great policy. I don't think anyone is saying it's great are they? I'm just curious why the company HAS to accommodate light duty/limited duty/etc. when it means the person can't perform their job. The agreement between the employer and the employee is the employee does job X (which is defined as having these requirements) and in return the company pays and provides Y benefits right?

If I break both of my hands and can't type is my employer (a software development company) expected to find something for me to do while that heals?

For at will states that is precisely the agreement and you are correct.

[waywardgs]

Create a non-profit or church affiliate if you want to incorporate your religious beliefs in company policies or have them effect your federal regulations.

The for profit corporation fell into a different tax and regulatory group prior to this ruling. It's a choice they made to create and keep the company under this filing. No doubt because of all the legal protections they get. This ruling allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

With the current trend in rulings, we're creating a class system. Companies are becoming super citizens with more rights and protections than actual people.

Yep. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for people to understand.

[AnticorRifling]

For at will states that is precisely the agreement and you are correct.

I guess I've always worked in at will states and it's always been fine because I do my job.

[Sorcasaurus]

It's not a great policy. I don't think anyone is saying it's great are they? I'm just curious why the company HAS to accommodate light duty/limited duty/etc. when it means the person can't perform their job. The agreement between the employer and the employee is the employee does job X (which is defined as having these requirements) and in return the company pays and provides Y benefits right?

If I break both of my hands and can't type is my employer (a software development company) expected to find something for me to do while that heals?

Hey! Take this over here: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91086-Supreme-Court-to-Rule-on-Rights-of-Pregnant-Employees&p=1676341#post1676341

[Androidpk]

Again, I don't get this. Where do you see the people who started a corporation "losing rights?" They still have all their rights. The corporation they started, however, does not enjoy the same rights people do- or rather, they shouldn't, IMO. You shouldn't get to enjoy limited liability AND be able to claim all the rights an individual does. Individuals don't get to claim limited liability in their existance as individuals..

That's basically what I just said.

[Warriorbird]

Hey! Take this over here: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?91086-Supreme-Court-to-Rule-on-Rights-of-Pregnant-Employees&p=1676341#post1676341

Whoops. Wrong thread.

[waywardgs]

That's basically what I just said.

You started out by saying "I don't think people starting companies should lose all rights..." I was just saying that they don't.

[Androidpk]

You started out by saying "I don't think people starting companies should lose all rights..." I was just saying that they don't.

A person can say he doesn't want homosexuals or minorities to attend his birthday party. A person owning a diner or bakery out whatever else kind of establishment cannot do the same.

[waywardgs]

A person can say he doesn't want homosexuals or minorities to attend his birthday party. A person owning a diner or bakery out whatever else kind of establishment cannot do the same.

We're agreeing.

[zzentar]

Let's take politics out of this, Lets say I am a follower of Zombumombu and my religion says I don't work every wednesday and it is against the great Mombu to eat with a fork. When you hire on with my company and are told my beliefs, don't you in essence agree to abide by the company policy?? Do you have the right to later claim you are being hindered as an American because of my rights as owner and the fact you agreed to these terms when hired?

That being said gov't forcing health insurance mandates, does throw a wrench in the gears. I still say you knew my religious beliefs when you hired on, Obamacare didn't change my beliefs. If you want something my religion won't allow me to provide, get another job. You knew my beliefs when you started.

~Zz

[Tenlaar]

I still say you knew my religious beliefs when you hired on, Obamacare didn't change my beliefs. If you want something my religion won't allow me to provide, get another job. You knew my beliefs when you started.

~Zz

Do you think Hobby Lobby's application had a section on it warning applicants that they are a christian corporation who would do whatever they could to make sure that their beliefs affected their employee health insurance? I'm betting it didn't.

[waywardgs]

Let's take politics out of this, Lets say I am a follower of Zombumombu and my religion says I don't work every wednesday and it is against the great Mombu to eat with a fork. When you hire on with my company and are told my beliefs, don't you in essence agree to abide by the company policy?? Do you have the right to later claim you are being hindered as an American because of my rights as owner and the fact you agreed to these terms when hired?

That being said gov't forcing health insurance mandates, does throw a wrench in the gears. I still say you knew my religious beliefs when you hired on, Obamacare didn't change my beliefs. If you want something my religion won't allow me to provide, get another job. You knew my beliefs when you started.

~Zz

You, like congress, have conflated two entities that should be seperate.

[zzentar]

Do you think Hobby Lobby's application had a section on it warning applicants that they are a christian corporation who would do whatever they could to make sure that their beliefs affected their employee health insurance? I'm betting it didn't.

you are throwing stuff in the mix that wasn't there before but I will run with that:

You hire on with my company and I provide health insurance as long as it goes with my beliefs, no visits on Mombu day (Wednesday) and no taking medicine by fork. I provide this insurance as a benefit to my employees and as an incentive to prospective employees. Once again, you hired on knowing my beliefs and were ok with it then.

I will shut down my company rather than go against my beliefs.

who wins?

~zz