5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

[fskimospy]

I'll see your quote and raise you two more:

"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

You realize that Orwell was a left wing socialist, right?

His first critique was of warmongering by people with no stake in the game. Who does that remind you of in recent US history?

His second quote was critiquing Stalinism and associated authoritarian ideologies, not liberalism or socialism, of which he was very much a fan.

It's very important to understand the context and the surrounding text for quotes you give.

 

[FerrelGeek]

nehalem256, why is this a men vs woman issue. Its health care, I also understand why you may not like the ACA. Why not shelve those issues and see that the real item that is troubling is how involved should a employer be in your health care?

Liberals made it a male vs female thing to stir up the young single woman vote. It's all politics. Liberals are the ones that coined the 'war on women' phrase. Don't wanna subsidize women's lifestyle choices, you must be a misogynist. Totally agree with the bolded text.

 

[CitizenKain]

Does it bother you that SCOTUS has basically specifically selected one religion for special treatment?

Not when its his religion. That is all that matters to people like him, he benefits, fuck everyone else.

Liberals made it a male vs female thing to stir up the young single woman vote. It's all politics. Liberals are the ones that coined the 'war on women' phrase. Don't wanna subsidize women's lifestyle choices, you must be a misogynist. Totally agree with the bolded text.

But women should have to subsidize your lifestyle choices though, right?

 

[cubby1223]

It doesn't seem like forcing anyone to pay for BC, seeing as the company isn't a charity and the benefits are given to employees in exchange for their labor. It just seems ridiculous that a corporation can now claim to hold religious beliefs. Buy I guess it will be narrowly tailored to only effect women and their personal health choices. Will the court stand by their decision if other closely held corporations want exemptions from other covering other medical treatments or other regulations?

You're in this mindset that corporations should provide benefits for people. The argument you make can even go either way. The employer either pays for birth control insurance, or they pay wages for individuals to purchase their own birth control products on an as-needed basis.

Get straight down to the basics. The greater argument is about whether people with larger incomes should be forced to pay out of their own pockets for people with smaller incomes to receive birth control products.

Health insurance is not confined within each individual company, they are spread out amongst much, much, much larger groups. When you involve "corporations" into the discussion, you get this picture of a cold, emotionless, evil-ish entity that we should put to use providing us everything we want at no cost to us. But what is a corporation? It is people, individuals, who receive income from running or operating or investing in a business. And their level of income is all over the place, from super-rich all the way down to barely eeking it out.

Should people with larger incomes be forced to pay for birth control for people with smaller incomes? As long as you are on the receiving end it is easy to say "of course". When you are on the donating end and know that you are still not anywhere near a comfortable life, still in need of every dollar to build up your own business into a success that can support jobs for other people, it's not so easy to say "I'm an open wallet for everyone who wants to vote Democrat."

 

[xBiffx]

You realize that Orwell was a left wing socialist, right?

His first critique was of warmongering by people with no stake in the game. Who does that remind you of in recent US history?

His second quote was critiquing Stalinism and associated authoritarian ideologies, not liberalism or socialism, of which he was very much a fan.

Butthurt much? Just because he was a left wing socialist doesn't mean those quotes aren't apropos. Glad you pointed out their background as if it takes away from their message.

 

[fskimospy]

Butthurt much? Just because he was a left wing socialist doesn't mean those quotes aren't apropos. Glad you pointed out their background as if it takes away from their message.

Huh? I can assure you I'm not hurt about it at all. You were trying to use a quote about jingoism and war to attack unrelated issues to which Orwell had no complaint about liberal thought. That's no good.

Orwell is one of my favorite authors, specifically because his ideology matches up well with mine; a fundamentally socialist one tempered by an attempt at understanding of the limits of imperfect people. He combined this with a strong stance against jingoism/totalitarianism, which we could also use a bit more of these days.

I just find it funny that you would quote his views on liberalism when you would likely consider him to be a communist if you knew his ideology.

 

[xBiffx]

I can assure you I'm not hurt about it at all. You were trying to use a quote about jingoism and war to attack unrelated issues to which Orwell had no complaint about liberal thought.

Sorry, no I wasn't. You are trying to say that quote only has meaning in regards to jingoism and war. That's not good.

Again, his ideology is irrelevant. But unlike you I can recognize that quotes aren't always literal or situational. I'm sure Orwell could recognize that as well.

Really no point in getting into a pissing match about it so w/e you want to think on that subject is fine with me.

 

[Shyatic]

You mean like the VA?

No, that is meant for a specific group of people, and when you have it only for a small portion of folks -- it is going to probably be prone to problems.

That said, if EVERYBODY has to use the *same* system... you can bet it will run well because everybody complains in unison. Vets don't complain, they were too busy fighting our wars for us.

 

[Knowing]

Keep going, you are on a roll :thumbsup:

Medical care isn't a right. It is actually impossible to make a service a right and the supreme court has ruled a number of times that no one has an individual right to police or fire service.

No matter how many times you repeat it, breaking your leg on top of Mt. Mckinley in a blizzard does not obligate anyone to come and save your hindquarters but you still retain your right to freely express yourself, have weapons, not have soldiers quartered in your home, not be killed by a drone strike if Obama hasn't declared you a terrorist, etc, etc.

 

[Atreus21]

Does it bother you that SCOTUS has basically specifically selected one religion for special treatment?

Loaded question, first.

Second, considering it's the overwhelmingly dominant religion of the nation, no.

 

[boomerang]

No, that is meant for a specific group of people, and when you have it only for a small portion of folks -- it is going to probably be prone to problems.

That said, if EVERYBODY has to use the *same* system... you can bet it will run well because everybody complains in unison. Vets don't complain, they were too busy fighting our wars for us.

I was once young with hopes and dreams too.

 

[Knowing]

You realize that Orwell was a left wing socialist, right?

"When there's a boot at your neck it doesn't matter if it's a right or a left" or something like that.

 

[HomerJS]

Liberals made it a male vs female thing to stir up the young single woman vote. It's all politics. Liberals are the ones that coined the 'war on women' phrase. Don't wanna subsidize women's lifestyle choices, you must be a misogynist. Totally agree with the bolded text.

State sponsored rape (forced vaginal ultrasounds) sounds like a pretty good war to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Loaded question, first.

Second, considering it's the overwhelmingly dominant religion of the nation, no.

It's not a loaded question, it's exactly what they said.

Second, you seriously think that religions in the US should be given rights based on popularity? Surely you can see how bad an idea that is.

 

[Brainonska511]

Second, considering it's the overwhelmingly dominant religion of the nation, no.

Christianity is hardly one religion of unified belief. http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

Second - so what if it is the dominant belief? Last time I checked, we had a secular government.

 

[fskimospy]

"When there's a boot at your neck it doesn't matter if it's a right or a left" or something like that.

Going to take a wild stab here and say that Orwell the socialist would laugh at the idea of the ACA as a boot on your neck.

 

[nehalem256]

It's not a loaded question, it's exactly what they said.

Second, you seriously think that religions in the US should be given rights based on popularity? Surely you can see how bad an idea that is.

Funny. In this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36481390

You were supporting the Supreme Court basing it decisions on popularity.

And yet now you think basing rights on popularity is a bad idea?

Can you make up your mind.

 

[Atreus21]

It's not a loaded question, it's exactly what they said.

Point me to where this decision clearly and exactly states that this only applies to Christians; that only Christians have a right to exemptions from this mandate on religious grounds.

 

[Knowing]

Going to take a wild stab here and say that Orwell the socialist would laugh at the idea of the ACA as a boot on your neck.

And I'd laugh at him for being an animated skellington.

 

[fskimospy]

Point me to where this decision clearly and exactly states that this only applies to Christians; that only Christians have a right to exemptions from this mandate on religious grounds.

The ruling explicitly states this exemption does not apply to other treatments that are widely known to be religiously objected to by other denominations, such as blood transfusions.

 

[Retro Rob]

Are you freaking kidding me?

"We will force you to provide this product you have a moral objection to."

"No."

"Don't be such a dictator."

Pretty much this.

Not forcing someone else to pay for your damn abortive drugs is infringing on the rights and choices of pro-choicers. 🙄

As the libby logic goes: "You can have the freedom choose to have abortions, but you don't have freedom from the consequences of choosing to have abortions".

 

[Atreus21]

The ruling explicitly states this exemption does not apply to other treatments that are widely known to be religiously objected to by other denominations, such as blood transfusions.

That's right. Because of RFRA.

The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest.

What less burdensome way does the government have in the case of blood transfusions?

 

[fskimospy]

That's right. Because of RFRA.



What less burdensome way does the government have in the case of blood transfusions?

Same answer as with contraception. Now the Feds pay for all blood transfusion coverage. Then someone else objects to anti-depressants (Scientology) now the Feds buy all mental health treatment. Then someone objects to organ transplants (Christian Science). Now the Feds pay for all organ transplants. Etc. etc.

 

[Knowing]

I can't help but notice as I catch up with the news that everyone is calling it "contraception" as if Hobby Lobby didn't cover 16/20 varieties of contraception and that if those methods are used properly then emergency contraception shouldn't be necessary.

 

[Brainonska511]

I can't help but notice as I catch up with the news that everyone is calling it "contraception" as if Hobby Lobby didn't cover 16/20 varieties of contraception and that if those methods are used properly then emergency contraception shouldn't be necessary.

IUDs aren't emergency contraception.