Hobby Lobby vs obamacare

[Darwin333]

Only if it is necessary for the physical health of the woman.

I would consider that requirement the same as outlawing human sacrifice say.

If we were to EVER see that law passed our health system in this country would be wildly and severely fucked. A rather large percentage of our hospitals are owned and operated by the Catholic church and imho they will never perform them. If that means shutting down all of their hospitals in the US, I would personally wager they would before they started performing abortions. For the record, their hospitals also provide some of the very best care in the nation as well.

And personally, even though I disagree with them on the stance, I wouldn't blame them one bit. They aren't trying to restrict anyones access to anything (well, they do support legislation to but not in the scope of this discussion), they simply refuse to do it themselves. I see nothing wrong with that, sort of like a doctor who refuses to administer the lethal injection, he should not be forced to do so either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If anyone had the wit to look they would find that oral contraceptives are cheap. $20 or less, sometimes half that. This isn't a matter of either it's provided or it can't be had. It isn't a matter of employees not being able to take it. It's about the desire of some to use the force of the state to intercede in the religious beliefs of others in an authoritarian way, and you embrace that. Please don't cry about the Republicans or Conservatives controlling things. Ever.

 

[child of wonder]

Your post is moot due to this small fragment.

No one is stopping the employees from doing anything. The employers are being forced to disregard their religious beliefs.

My new religion says that black people are evil. I'm going to start a business and refuse to hire or serve anyone I think is "black." My religious freedom trumps civil rights, correct? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything only exercising my religious beliefs.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that freedom of religion extends to your own skin and stops there. The moment a person's religious freedom affects those around them in a negative way then it's out of line.

Is refusing to cover $20 birth control a big deal? No. The principle of it, however, is that the employer is using their religious beliefs to deny a benefit to someone that may or may not share that belief. That's not their job as an employer nor do they have the right to do so.

The Founding Fathers carefully worded the First Amendment so that religious freedoms would be sustained but they would not be allowed to impose. We are all free to think what we will about any god, gods, or lack thereof but we are not free to use those beliefs as a means to alter or influence the lives of others.

No one is denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious freedom if they're forced to cover contraceptives or the morning after pill. The owners are free to choose not to use those products themselves. When they attempt to intercede in the lives of their employees, even to a small degree, because of their personal beliefs, then they've overstepped their freedom.

 

[Pens1566]

My new religion says that black people are evil. I'm going to start a business and refuse to hire or serve anyone I think is "black." My religious freedom trumps civil rights, correct? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything only exercising my religious beliefs.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that freedom of religion extends to your own skin and stops there. The moment a person's religious freedom affects those around them in a negative way then it's out of line.

Is refusing to cover $20 birth control a big deal? No. The principle of it, however, is that the employer is using their religious beliefs to deny a benefit to someone that may or may not share that belief. That's not their job as an employer nor do they have the right to do so.

The Founding Fathers carefully worded the First Amendment so that religious freedoms would be sustained but they would not be allowed to impose. We are all free to think what we will about any god, gods, or lack thereof but we are not free to use those beliefs as a means to alter or influence the lives of others.

No one is denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious freedom if they're forced to cover contraceptives or the morning after pill. The owners are free to choose not to use those products themselves. When they attempt to intercede in the lives of their employees, even to a small degree, because of their personal beliefs, then they've overstepped their freedom.

Much better job stating exactly my thoughts.

 

[werepossum]

My new religion says that black people are evil. I'm going to start a business and refuse to hire or serve anyone I think is "black." My religious freedom trumps civil rights, correct? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything only exercising my religious beliefs.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that freedom of religion extends to your own skin and stops there. The moment a person's religious freedom affects those around them in a negative way then it's out of line.

Is refusing to cover $20 birth control a big deal? No. The principle of it, however, is that the employer is using their religious beliefs to deny a benefit to someone that may or may not share that belief. That's not their job as an employer nor do they have the right to do so.

The Founding Fathers carefully worded the First Amendment so that religious freedoms would be sustained but they would not be allowed to impose. We are all free to think what we will about any god, gods, or lack thereof but we are not free to use those beliefs as a means to alter or influence the lives of others.

No one is denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious freedom if they're forced to cover contraceptives or the morning after pill. The owners are free to choose not to use those products themselves. When they attempt to intercede in the lives of their employees, even to a small degree, because of their personal beliefs, then they've overstepped their freedom.

If an employer is interceding in the lives of his employees by not buying them something they want, then we are well and truly fucked as a society. No society can long exist if its citizens have a right to anything they want at others' expense. Not even Cuba or North Korea goes that far, they simply eliminate the private sector and then impose the government's will on everyone. There is a huge, huge, monumentally huge gap between preventing someone from having something and simply not providing it to them. If we don't recognize that fact, we are unable to have even the most casually capitalistic society and must instead all be wards of the state, which will decide what we need and give it to us.

Many of us don't believe trading freedom for "free" birth control is a morally or even pragmatically acceptable trade.

 

[CountZero]

You, as an employer, do not get to use your religion to bypass the legal requirements of being an employer. The only possible exception to this should be churches and only churches.

If the owner of Hobby Lobby thought blood transfusions were evil and refused to cover them this wouldn't even be up for discussion. Only because it involves birth control/abortions is it even getting news coverage and that is merely to froth up the evangelical base with indignation about those "evil liberals ruining America".

 

[xBiffx]

And the winner for posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread is ...

Actually, if this is the case then you did it first. You equate an employer not choosing to pay for a certain benefit and them enforcing their rights on their employee. You used health benefits and birth control. My example fits the same principle, but with different things.

This simply isn't the case. No one is forcing any beliefs on anyone by choosing not to do something, or more to the point, not to pay for something.

So yes, you are right, this doesn't have anything to do with this thread. Well done.

 

[xBiffx]

My new religion says that black people are evil. I'm going to start a business and refuse to hire or serve anyone I think is "black." My religious freedom trumps civil rights, correct? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything only exercising my religious beliefs.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that freedom of religion extends to your own skin and stops there. The moment a person's religious freedom affects those around them in a negative way then it's out of line.

Is refusing to cover $20 birth control a big deal? No. The principle of it, however, is that the employer is using their religious beliefs to deny a benefit to someone that may or may not share that belief. That's not their job as an employer nor do they have the right to do so.

The Founding Fathers carefully worded the First Amendment so that religious freedoms would be sustained but they would not be allowed to impose. We are all free to think what we will about any god, gods, or lack thereof but we are not free to use those beliefs as a means to alter or influence the lives of others.

No one is denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious freedom if they're forced to cover contraceptives or the morning after pill. The owners are free to choose not to use those products themselves. When they attempt to intercede in the lives of their employees, even to a small degree, because of their personal beliefs, then they've overstepped their freedom.

Pointless, yet again. My freedom/rights of anything stops the moment that it prevents or interferes with someone else's freedom/rights. Something that you obviously fail to understand.

In your obviously trollish example, yes you have the freedom/right to believe that black people are evil. But this does not allow you to use this to interfere with a black person's rights.

As has been stated ad nauseam, no employee's rights are being violated by their employers choosing, as is there right, to not provide that employee medical coverage for something that is against the beliefs of the employer.

 

[xBiffx]

Much better job stating exactly my thoughts.

Yet he failed just as badly. At least you didn't waste the time. :thumbsup:

 

[nehalem256]

My new religion says that black people are evil. I'm going to start a business and refuse to hire or serve anyone I think is "black." My religious freedom trumps civil rights, correct? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything only exercising my religious beliefs.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that freedom of religion extends to your own skin and stops there. The moment a person's religious freedom affects those around them in a negative way then it's out of line.

Is refusing to cover $20 birth control a big deal? No. The principle of it, however, is that the employer is using their religious beliefs to deny a benefit to someone that may or may not share that belief. That's not their job as an employer nor do they have the right to do so.

The Founding Fathers carefully worded the First Amendment so that religious freedoms would be sustained but they would not be allowed to impose. We are all free to think what we will about any god, gods, or lack thereof but we are not free to use those beliefs as a means to alter or influence the lives of others.

No one is denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious freedom if they're forced to cover contraceptives or the morning after pill. The owners are free to choose not to use those products themselves. When they attempt to intercede in the lives of their employees, even to a small degree, because of their personal beliefs, then they've overstepped their freedom.

So having your employer pay for your contraceptives is a "civil right" now? 😵

 

[CountZero]

As has been stated ad nauseam, no employee's rights are being violated by their employers choosing, as is there right, to not provide that employee medical coverage for something that is against the beliefs of the employer.

Except the one that the law specifically tries to address which is that as long as healthcare in this country is an employer sponsored benefit then there should be a bare minimum level of coverage provided no matter where you work. That's the point of the law to make that bare minimum of coverage a right.

 

[xBiffx]

Except the one that the law specifically tries to address which is that as long as healthcare in this country is an employer sponsored benefit then there should be a bare minimum level of coverage provided no matter where you work. That's the point of the law to make that bare minimum of coverage a right.

404 right not found. Neither is anything even close to it within the bill/law.

It simply does not do that. I am actually laughing out loud hard that you think this was even the intention, given how its been enacted.

I am just waiting for when Hobby Lobby says, "Fuckit", and drops everyone from their coverage, pays the fines, and lets them get shittier coverage under Obamacare. Wouldn't that be ironic.

 

[child of wonder]

If an employer is interceding in the lives of his employees by not buying them something they want, then we are well and truly fucked as a society. No society can long exist if its citizens have a right to anything they want at others' expense. Not even Cuba or North Korea goes that far, they simply eliminate the private sector and then impose the government's will on everyone. There is a huge, huge, monumentally huge gap between preventing someone from having something and simply not providing it to them. If we don't recognize that fact, we are unable to have even the most casually capitalistic society and must instead all be wards of the state, which will decide what we need and give it to us.

Many of us don't believe trading freedom for "free" birth control is a morally or even pragmatically acceptable trade.

As I said, the religious freedom of the business owners are not being traded away. The ability for them to impose their religious beliefs on their employees is.

Would you support an atheist who starts a business and refuses to cover any medical care from religious based hospitals and clinics?

 

[child of wonder]

So having your employer pay for your contraceptives is a "civil right" now? 😵

Reading fail.

 

[CountZero]

404 right not found. Neither is anything even close to it within the bill/law.

It simply does not do that. I am actually laughing out loud hard that you think this was even the intention, given how its been enacted.

I am just waiting for when Hobby Lobby says, "Fuckit", and drops everyone from their coverage, pays the fines, and lets them get shittier coverage under Obamacare. Wouldn't that be ironic.

If the employer provides insurance the employee has the right to a particular minimum set of coverage including birth control. Is that not exactly what Hobby Lobby is fighting?

 

[child of wonder]

Pointless, yet again. My freedom/rights of anything stops the moment that it prevents or interferes with someone else's freedom/rights. Something that you obviously fail to understand.

In your obviously trollish example, yes you have the freedom/right to believe that black people are evil. But this does not allow you to use this to interfere with a black person's rights.

As has been stated ad nauseam, no employee's rights are being violated by their employers choosing, as is there right, to not provide that employee medical coverage for something that is against the beliefs of the employer.

And, as others have said, your position on this argument would be quite different if the employer was an atheist denying religious benefits or if he/she was of a religion outside your own denying something you felt was unjust.

Yes, the employee's rights are being violated -- their right not to have the religious beliefs of others jammed down their throat. That's one of the core reasons we have this country today.

Naturally, since you probably agree with Hobby Lobby's stance on contraceptives, you gleefully find nothing wrong with any of this. I'm not going to come down to your level to try explaining it to you anymore.

 

[xBiffx]

If the employer provides insurance the employee has the right to a particular minimum set of coverage including birth control. Is that not exactly what Hobby Lobby is fighting?

I think you need a little education on the definition of a right, first of all. Go ahead and work that out.

Second, I think you need to understand that Hobby Lobby is simply stating that it is a violation of their rights to be required to provide and pay for something that is against their religious beliefs.

The employee has a right to nothing. They get what is provided, no more no less. The might have an expectation to something more or less but they have a right to nothing. Like I said, Hobby Lobby could just as easily pull the plug on their entire medical coverage.

 

[xBiffx]

And, as others have said, your position on this argument would be quite different if the employer was an atheist denying religious benefits or if he/she was of a religion outside your own denying something you felt was unjust.

Yes, the employee's rights are being violated -- their right not to have the religious beliefs of others jammed down their throat. That's one of the core reasons we have this country today.

Naturally, since you probably agree with Hobby Lobby's stance on contraceptives, you gleefully find nothing wrong with any of this. I'm not going to come down to your level to try explaining it to you anymore.

I love how you propose to know what my position would be if.....

Please explain to me this right not to have religious beliefs jammed down their throat. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also, you still haven't come close to proving they are forcing anything. How can they being doing anything by doing/providing nothing?

I'm not siding with either side except the constitution. I have little use for birth control and I don't work or even shop at Hobby Lobby. I just don't want someone telling me what I have to do with my business and for my employees, especially if it violates my rights to do so.

I am not religious, far far from it, but this principle goes far beyond the freedom of religion and healthcare. This has many more consequences.

 

[CountZero]

I think you need a little education on the definition of a right, first of all. Go ahead and work that out.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement.

Or

noun
18.
a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19.
Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20.
adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21.
that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22.
a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

You see the word legal in those definitions. When you are legally entitled to something it is a right. You are the one that doesn't understand what a right is apparently.

 

[werepossum]

As I said, the religious freedom of the business owners are not being traded away. The ability for them to impose their religious beliefs on their employees is.

Would you support an atheist who starts a business and refuses to cover any medical care from religious based hospitals and clinics?

You have that backward. The employee had and still has the right to purchase the morning after pill or not; he or she still has every right she had before. Before and after, the employee enjoys complete religious freedom. The employer is having his rights taken away; whether or not he morally supports the morning after pill, he is being forced to buy it. The employer has had his freedom of religion removed; his moral compass is now set by the government. Freedom of religion does not mean someone has a responsibility to give you whatever you find morally acceptable.

Right now an atheist has a right to negotiate an insurance plan which covers only certain health facilities, so he can exclude religious-based institutions as he wishes except for emergency care and situations where needed medical care is only available out of network. I fully support that. Work is a contract between employer and employee, and both work conditions and compensation must be those conditions which both parties find acceptable. Obamacare is subverting that.

This is merely a step toward destroying private sector health insurance and eventually, private sector health care. Everyone knows government has the ability and the will to demand more of employers than employers can afford. It's the perfect progressive system - Obama gets to give people gifts for which others must pay. As Obama himself said, he can't politically abolish private sector health care all at once, but he can force it out of existence over time. Obamacare is perfectly designed to do just that, because one no longer needs a majority of Congress to enshrine new benefits, one can have the bureaucracy mandate them. Even more than with normal government spending, this is power without responsibility; government gives gifts, employers pay without the need for politically unpopular higher taxes. Within a decade there will probably be little private sector health insurance; within three there will probably be little private sector health care. The exceptions will be large employers who use contributions to get waivers or, as we've seen with the UAW, to directly get government funding.

 

[werepossum]

Or



You see the word legal in those definitions. When you are legally entitled to something it is a right. You are the one that doesn't understand what a right is apparently.

This is in my opinion one of the biggest factors in our decline, when we began to confuse entitlement with rights. Rights are given by G-d and guaranteed by man; they may cost to protect, but not to provide. Entitlements by contrast are given by man and cost wealth no matter what. My right to free speech costs no one anything, although government may have to spend wealth to protect it if someone is trying to prevent me from exercising that right. My "right" to free contraception is not a right, but an entitlement; even if every human being (indeed, every creature and construct) agrees I should have that entitlement, wealth must be taken from someone else to provide it. The two are fundamentally completely different, and conflating them in our greed will be the downfall of our nation.

 

[Rainsford]

The first amendment says so? Whether you think they are made up or not is irrelevant. Whether you think these people are crazy is irrelevant. One of the basic principles of this country has been the freedom of people have/practice their religious beliefs. Don't like it, amend it out, get out, or accept it and move on.

This has every bearing on how our laws should be written or adhered to. Here I will make it easy for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As with the other cases, it's quite a stretch to say that regulations covering health care my business provides to employees are related to my religious freedoms. Or to put it another way, it's not at all obvious that I'm freely practicing my religious beliefs by determining what medical coverage is made available to my employees.

This was basically the argument in the various Catholic business cases a while ago, and I don't remember ever seeing a good justification for a solid 1st amendment connection. I think we can probably all agree that the 1st amendment doesn't automatically protect you in every single case just because you claim religious freedom.

 

[Darwin333]

My new religion says that black people are evil. I'm going to start a business and refuse to hire or serve anyone I think is "black." My religious freedom trumps civil rights, correct? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything only exercising my religious beliefs.

What you and your ilk don't understand is that freedom of religion extends to your own skin and stops there. The moment a person's religious freedom affects those around them in a negative way then it's out of line.

Is refusing to cover $20 birth control a big deal? No. The principle of it, however, is that the employer is using their religious beliefs to deny a benefit to someone that may or may not share that belief. That's not their job as an employer nor do they have the right to do so.

The Founding Fathers carefully worded the First Amendment so that religious freedoms would be sustained but they would not be allowed to impose. We are all free to think what we will about any god, gods, or lack thereof but we are not free to use those beliefs as a means to alter or influence the lives of others.

No one is denying the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious freedom if they're forced to cover contraceptives or the morning after pill. The owners are free to choose not to use those products themselves. When they attempt to intercede in the lives of their employees, even to a small degree, because of their personal beliefs, then they've overstepped their freedom.

No you may not discriminate against people because of their color/race.

I have some really earth shattering news for you, employers can still decide which benefits you are offered/receive/who pays for them etc... Yes the .gov can set minimum requirements for these "benefits" such as minimum wage. This is nothing even resembling that.

This is not some new made up religion or even a new made up tenant of that religion. It has been a long standing belief.

They are not "interceding" into their employees lives by denying them the morning after pill.

If the employees do not like that their employers insurance does not cover a $20-$40 item that a person likely needs very seldom they are absolutely free to seek employment elsewhere. I doubt many will though. Wanna make a friendly wager on the over/under? How about $50 to the winners favorite charity since the results will be quite hard to quantify. If we call it a draw we both donate to the others charity of choice and since I have no religious views to speak of you can even make it "gasp" planned parenthood. My choice is and shall forever remain the Childrens Hospital located in New Orleans, they do truly amazing and unbelievable work for kids there.

What say you?

 

[Darwin333]

You, as an employer, do not get to use your religion to bypass the legal requirements of being an employer. The only possible exception to this should be churches and only churches.

If the owner of Hobby Lobby thought blood transfusions were evil and refused to cover them this wouldn't even be up for discussion. Only because it involves birth control/abortions is it even getting news coverage and that is merely to froth up the evangelical base with indignation about those "evil liberals ruining America".

Can you list a major religion that has longstanding moral objection to blood transfusions because they honestly believe that it is literally murder and have acted on those beliefs?

The fact that you consider exceptions shows that you understand the true issue and not the fictional one you posted following.

 

[sactoking]

The ACA requires treatment for mental health and substance abuse. It also requires those treatments to be made at parity with physical medical benefits. Where are the Scientologists and their apologists with the lawsuits about their religious freedoms?