Unintentional consequence of ruling for religious business against Obamacare

[ivwshane]

The silver lining in this could be that people have to put their money where their mouth is. If a company back an idea that is unpopular, people can vote that company out by not buying their products. I believe that they would lose money, and change views. Then again, I could be wrong and people may actually enjoy that view. Democracy through capitalism!

I agree on principal but the reality is that that will never happen.

 

[glenn1]

Actually they do. After reading up on it Satanists basically embrace free will, rationalism, and individualism. Saying you shouldn't be forced to jump through various hoops before doing something with your body clearly falls within that. Additionally, how old a religion is is totally irrelevant under US law. If a religion is 5,000 years old or 5 seconds old it is afforded the same protections.

By the way I want them to lose too, but I want them to lose because the fundamental logic behind the Hobby Lobby ruling is flawed and should be overturned.

It's completely in line with plenty of religious conscience exemptions like vaccinations, the military draft, smoking peyote, and others. You should just admit that Democrats passed that part of the law based on their own moral compass without any regard to others who might object. Whether that was due to ignorance or malice doesn't matter. Plus there's an easy way around the problem if you really think free birth control is a moral imperative for the nation - have it subsidized directly from taxpayers or provided outright.

 

[realibrad]

I agree on principal but the reality is that that will never happen.

Its happening now to an extent. The trend seems to be moving toward more religion. For a good long while, the US was moving toward secularism, but the last 10-15 years we flipped it seems.

 

[glenn1]

I agree on principal but the reality is that that will never happen.

Pro-Obamacare people can donate to Planned Parenthood or other charitable causes whose main business is womens' fertility, you don't need to conscript businesses against their will to do the work for you.

 

[Retro Rob]

How?



What made-up beliefs?

Because anyone who has a shred of intellectual honesty knows that they're just trolling SCOTUS on this one.

Again, you're above this.

 

[nehalem256]

A dog cannot consent in any possible way

Not an issue in Canada.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=

Also, not an issue in various countries that allow marrying children. And of course unlike marrying children no PERSON is harmed by marrying a dog.

Your argument is "marrying a dog isn't marriage" therefore we shouldn't allow. Essentially the simplistic strawman argument liberals mock conservatives for holding on same-sex marriage.

 

[realibrad]

It's completely in line with plenty of religious conscience exemptions like vaccinations, the military draft, smoking peyote, and others. You should just admit that Democrats passed that part of the law based on their own moral compass without any regard to others who might object. Whether that was due to ignorance or malice doesn't matter. Plus there's an easy way around the problem if you really think free birth control is a moral imperative for the nation - have it subsidized directly from taxpayers or provided outright.

My GF paid for her IUD 100% by herself. She then had to go on the pill to regulate her period. I call it the pill, because it was not to stop pregnancy. There a lot of women out there who are on the pill to regulate periods, and not to stop pregnancy. Once your moral compass gets mixed in with science, there becomes a problem. Why is Viagra covered when its used for sexual health, and not the pill, which can be for even more health reasons, sexual being one of them?

 

[nehalem256]

My GF paid for her IUD 100% by herself. She then had to go on the pill to regulate her period. I call it the pill, because it was not to stop pregnancy. There a lot of women out there who are on the pill to regulate periods, and not to stop pregnancy. Once your moral compass gets mixed in with science, there becomes a problem. Why is Viagra covered when its used for sexual health, and not the pill, which can be for even more health reasons, sexual being one of them?

If viagra and the pill are comparable why didn't the Democrats mandate that viagra be free too?

 

[ivwshane]

Pro-Obamacare people can donate to Planned Parenthood or other charitable causes whose main business is womens' fertility, you don't need to conscript businesses against their will to do the work for you.

You mean regulate? Yeah actually that's one of governments many duties.

 

[nehalem256]

You mean regulate? Yeah actually that's one of governments many duties.

Democrats: Lets let banks make irresponsible loans and crash the financial system. But corporations not giving women free birth control. Now that is where we draw the line :hmm:

 

[realibrad]

If viagra and the pill are comparable why didn't the Democrats mandate that viagra be free too?

Depends on what you mean by free.

 

[realibrad]

Democrats: Lets let banks make irresponsible loans and crash the financial system. But corporations not giving women free birth control. Now that is where we draw the line :hmm:

How are the Democrats any more responsible for the mortgage crash than Republicans?

Both parties helped create the situation and both parties did very little to help remedy the inherent problem.

Also, its not free as in you can just ask for it and get it. Its paid for as part of your insurance costs. Having something be a part of coverage is not the same as free.

 

[nehalem256]

Depends on what you mean by free.

Free in exactly the same way as the pill in under Obamacare.

If they are really comparable they should be treated the same.

It seems rather disingenuous to go "BUT VIAGRA!!!!!!!!" when in actuality you don't consider them to be comparable.

 

[fskimospy]

Because anyone who has a shred of intellectual honesty knows that they're just trolling SCOTUS on this one.

Again, you're above this.

Working to undermine the HL ruling has a real and positive effect on US law. That's not trolling.

 

[ivwshane]

Democrats: Lets let banks make irresponsible loans and crash the financial system. But corporations not giving women free birth control. Now that is where we draw the line :hmm:

Corporations aren't giving free anything and neither is the health insurance that they and their employee pay for. It's the health plans that are regulated. It's you who supports allowing other companies to tell another company what services to provide.

Once again you show how utterly fucking stupid you are with regards to history and current events.

 

[fskimospy]

How are the Democrats any more responsible for the mortgage crash than Republicans?

Both parties helped create the situation and both parties did very little to help remedy the inherent problem.

Also, its not free as in you can just ask for it and get it. Its paid for as part of your insurance costs. Having something be a part of coverage is not the same as free.

Additionally, the CRA had basically nothing to do with the financial crash.

Like zero.

 

[nehalem256]

How are the Democrats any more responsible for the mortgage crash than Republicans?

Didn't say they were. But you don't see Republicans trying to push little micromanage regulations on businesses to force them cover whatever drugs they view as special.

Also, its not free as in you can just ask for it and get it. Its paid for as part of your insurance costs. Having something be a part of coverage is not the same as free.

You are completely ignoring the point. Why isn't viagra subject to the same special set of rules?

 

[nehalem256]

Additionally, the CRA had basically nothing to do with the financial crash.

Like zero.

Did you read what I said?

I said the issue was FAILING to regulate financial companies.

 

[nehalem256]

Corporations aren't giving free anything and neither is the health insurance that they and their employee pay for. It's the health plans that are regulated. It's you who supports allowing other companies to tell another company what services to provide.

Once again you show how utterly fucking stupid you are with regards to history and current events.

When I say Obamacare required free BC you and everyone else knows exactly what I mean.

You are just once again showing you don't actually have an argument against what I said.

Let the butt-hurt flow I guess.

 

[ivwshane]

Didn't say they were. But you don't see Republicans trying to push little micromanage regulations on businesses to force them cover whatever drugs they view as special.



You are completely ignoring the point. Why isn't viagra subject to the same special set of rules?

No instead they push meaningless regulations at the state level to completely close down businesses, such as women's health clinics. You'd know that if you weren't so mentally retarded.

 

[ivwshane]

When I say Obamacare required free BC you and everyone else knows exactly what I mean.

You are just once again showing you don't actually have an argument against what I said.

Let the butt-hurt flow I guess.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still not free, people pay for it via the insurance they pay for.

 

[Retro Rob]

Working to undermine the HL ruling has a real and positive effect on US law. That's not trolling.

I echo something I believe HR was saying -- this doesn't give people with religious convictions the ability to disregard laws with impunity...that's why I think is just an asinine strawman you're making.

Correct if I am wrong, as I am too lazy right now to look at the language, but I was under the impression that abortive forms of BC aren't being forced upon religiously-owned businesses to pay for.

 

[fskimospy]

I echo something I believe HR was saying -- this doesn't give people with religious convictions the ability to disregard laws with impunity...that's why I think is just an asinine strawman you're making.

It is a perfectly logical use of the HL ruling. SCOTUS acknowledged that the government had a compelling interest in the service of a generally applicable law. HL asked for, and was granted, the ability to deny their employees birth control based on religious grounds, exempting them from generally applicable laws. That's what the satanists here want.

Correct if I am wrong, as I am too lazy right now to look at the language, but I was under the impression that abortive forms of BC aren't being forced upon religiously-owned businesses to pay for.

Not exactly. HL wanted to be exempted from forms of birth control that they religiously believed to be abortive despite actual factual evidence that said they were wrong. Even in that case they weren't being forced to pay for anything, as a third party would have paid for it. They said even having to have someone else pay for it was an impermissible infringement on their religious liberty.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is a perfectly logical use of the HL ruling. SCOTUS acknowledged that the government had a compelling interest in the service of a generally applicable law. HL asked for, and was granted, the ability to deny their employees birth control based on religious grounds, exempting them from generally applicable laws. That's what the satanists here want.

Understood, but that isn't infringing on anyone's right or abilities to access birth control...they (HL) just don't want to allegedly "pay" for it.

Secondly, I don't think its unreasonable given the reason (concern for what they believe is a human life). However, Satanists have no reason...they seem pissed off by the simple fact that HL exempt for religious reason.

It's all about religion.

Not exactly. HL wanted to be exempted from forms of birth control that they religiously believed to be abortive despite actual factual evidence that said they were wrong. Even in that case they weren't being forced to pay for anything, as a third party would have paid for it. They said even having to have someone else pay for it was an impermissible infringement on their religious liberty.

Well, if they want to be universally excluded from BC coverage, then yeah, I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think that's their right as well.

It seems to me that you believe that this exemption should be based entirely on what the scientific "evidence" says....but this isn't a scientific objection -- it's a moral one. We really don't need our morality legislated. As long as other's rights aren't being violated, then concessions can be made, IMO.

 

[werepossum]

Shades of Dan Rather - Let us all debate this fake but accurate story.

My GF paid for her IUD 100% by herself. She then had to go on the pill to regulate her period. I call it the pill, because it was not to stop pregnancy. There a lot of women out there who are on the pill to regulate periods, and not to stop pregnancy. Once your moral compass gets mixed in with science, there becomes a problem. Why is Viagra covered when its used for sexual health, and not the pill, which can be for even more health reasons, sexual being one of them?

Viagra is not provided for free; it's a covered benefit (if that) which is valid after one has met one's deductible. Birth control used to be much the same and was not an issue until Obamacare forced employers to provide it for free. Many people make a big logical distinction between what they do with their money and what others do with money given to them.

In any case, the Hobby Lobby case was not Constitutional, but rather statutory. That provision violated a standing federal law (passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton) disallowing the federal government to force actions that unduly violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

EDIT: The issue was not whether the federal government can force this type of action - it cannot under existing law - but rather whether that particular action violated that law.