Hobby Lobby Ruling

[patrickaa317]

Yeh I could use them to pick vegtables in my garden Ahole

Hoping that wasn't meant to be near as racist as it sounds...

I am merely suggesting that if you think we should bring them here to take care of them, you can always do that individually. Individuals make the community. Lead by example rather than feel-good comments.

[a6mzero]

I would think taking care of a handicap child who is not your own instead of turning him over to the state is DAMN sure leading by example.

[patrickaa317]

I would think taking care of a handicap child who is not your own instead of turning him over to the state is DAMN sure leading by example.

I completely agree that you are doing a great thing by taking care of a handicap child (whether it is yours or not, it is a great act). However, you are vocal about bringing more illegal immigrants here and if everyone that was vocal about it, brought one or two into their home it would almost immediately solve the mess at the border.

Basically, I hear you say "yeah bring them all here, they deserve it BUT don't expect me to help do anything for them. I already have enough going on in my life so I'm exempt from having to do anything". Comes across very hypocritical, such as the flack given to the pro-life people who want nothing to do with ensuring there is proper care for those children.

[a6mzero]

I type a sentence and a half and suddenly i'm the vocal advocate for illegal immigrants.I guess if I had written 2 complete sentences on the subject I could have been president of the illegal immigrant society. Mainly I was stating that the outrage , slander, and conspiracy theories espoused by the right over this wave of human suffering was and is nowhere to be found over the millions of people displaced by the actions of the Bush administration.

[Phatscotty]

Yeh I could use them to pick vegtables in my garden Ahole

Hoping that wasn't meant to be near as racist as it sounds...

I am merely suggesting that if you think we should bring them here to take care of them, you can always do that individually. Individuals make the community. Lead by example rather than feel-good comments.

why do that when you can force someone else to pay for it, cuz land of the Free

[Phatscotty]

The US invasion of Iraq has created approx. 2 million refugees , just for karma's sake alone we should take care of the refugee kids at the border.

You can always invite a couple of them live with you.

I'm already taking care of a totally handicapped child so at this point in time that's not an option.

and of course nobody else in America has their hands full or is dealing with problems or just bad luck or got laid off or has an unexpected child on the way or got their car totaled by an illegal immigrant who doesn't have insurance and they can't sue or came down with an illness in the family.....just you. So by all means, go ahead and make that decision for everyone else while you claim you are exempt.

Just like Congress an the President passing Obamacare onto everyone else, except for themselves....

[Phatscotty]

patricka, those guys don't play fair. no matter what, you are always wrong, no matter what. They aren't here for conversation, they are here posting to irritate you.

Says the most dishonest poster I've ever seen in these fora.

That's the most dishonest thing I have ever heard. If I was dishonest, I would be saying and doing a lot of the stuff you do, like getting in the way of Zero's racist comments by changing the subject to me. The truth remains as it always has been, you sink so low trying to challenge me that you just end up making me look better; like that one time I tricked you into posting completely opposing opinions against yourself in the same thread because you were so deep in your trolling you abandoned and betrayed everything Spock stands for, and you got sloppy.

Another perfect example, you ignoring everything in my post and turning it into something completely unrelated and into a personal attack, based on nothing. Want to base it on something? How about the fact I admit when I'm wrong, just a few days ago even. How about the fact that's not the first time I've held myself accountable? Is that really what 'the most dishonest person you've even seen in the fora' do? See, that's how you out yourself as the one who is purposefully dishonest with an agenda, and whats more is terrible trolling at that. But who cares what you say, your credibility is shot and that's why you barely show your face around here anymore. You just pop up now and then, drop a huge steaming mess with a bunch of total BS, and then you leave again. Yet recalling your past has been my pleasure.

[Phatscotty]

Our Constitution undermines democracy on a daily basis as well. Good thing we instead have a republic that is supposed to be run under the Rule of Law (although the current president eagerly ignores it).

It's sad that most people don't know this....

My first response was to set you straight but i re read it , yes , the word democracy as it applies to the countries that "practice" it has different meanings , no two democracies are the same. We live in a republic and this president undermines it daily as well as reed , pelosi and hilary ,just to name a few. Put all the propaganda aside and that alone should make us nervous .

Of course! It's all the Democrats! Those Republicans would NEVER undermine it. And you have the gall to talk about putting the propoganda aside?

Wow, he named a couple of people (all perfect examples btw), Woodruff takes it to the absolute extreme and just makes it ALL Democrats, and somehow rationalizes it based on and even more baseless and extreme assumption that NO Republicans would EVER! And then Woodruff has the gall to minimize and diminish a post based on Woodruff's own extreme BS propaganda. And the clincher? Nobody before Woodruff even used the word Democrat or Republican...dishonest indeed

The irony is orgasmic

[Phatscotty]

Let Hobby Lobby put their moral money where their mouth is and help the undocumented refuge children stranded in the USA.

wut? How is that where Hobby Lobby's mouth is? Sure seems to be where your mouth is, doesn't it? Oh, since Hobby Lobby takes one thing seriously, they have to take everything else just the same way, because if they are not perfect, that makes them hypocrites and therefore they must cover abortions and morning after pills. Maybe you should hand over all your money, so you can put it where your mouth is?

refugee: (noun) a person who has been forced to leave their country
in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
"tens of thousands of refugees fled their homes"
synonyms: émigré, fugitive, exile, displaced person, asylum seeker

Refugees....what is the reason? You named a bunch of reasons people could possibly be refugees, but what are all these children wearing Obama shoes and Obama shirts fleeing from?

What happens to the refugee when they get from South America to Central America? These 6 year old and 8 year old and 10 year olds decide for themselves they are still a refugee and just keep going? What happens to refugee status when they get to Mexico from Central America? Are you saying the numerous countries they traveled through all denied them exile and asylum? If you are saying they are refugees, that must mean they tried to get asylum etc at every country along the way? Why didn't they keep going to Canada? Is the USA really the only country in the entire Western hemisphere that can grant refugees asylum?

No, they went out and bought Obama shoes and Obama shirts, and they put on their Obama shoes and their Obama shirts, and their family paid incredible amounts of money to send their children to America, amounts that are more than the average American has saved up.

There are a lot of things that don't seem to add up. Maybe you can address some of them and back up your post a little bit?

[Phatscotty]

If guys got pregnant, contraceptives wouldn't just be part of basic healthcare, they would be subsidized by our government...just saying

What do you base that on?

[Metsfanmax]

If guys got pregnant, contraceptives wouldn't just be part of basic healthcare, they would be subsidized by our government...just saying

I suspect that if men could get pregnant, a very large fraction of the gender gap would never have developed.

[Night Strike]

Actually, you do bring up a good point in my wording...My problem isn't actually the RULING ITSELF - rather, it is Hobby Lobby's position that led to the ruling.

It was just another angle at a law that was deemed constitutional. They only challenged a statute. Lets face it , if it was about dentures it never would have made the news.

The difference is that Hobby Lobby went about it as if religion was the issue. If they had simply stated that their insurance would not pay for those four birth control methods, there likely would never have been an outcry. Their mistake was in making it a religious issue unnecessarily and frankly stupidly. Religion didn't have a place in it because they're a business, not a religious organization.

If they had only stated their insurance wouldn't pay for those birth control methods, the government would have simply said "screw you, we mandated it be covered so cover it now". And since they can apparently mandate that we buy anything, the government would have won the case. However, since a person doesn't lose their first amendment rights, including the freedom of religion, simply because they run a business, the people sued the government for infringing on their religious freedoms. Just because you don't believe in the religion doesn't mean religious beliefs stop as soon as a person enters the public sphere.

The idea that this is a "freedom of religion" issue is ridiculous. NOBODY'S freedom of religion was being impinged. A BUSINESS IS NOT A PERSON. HOBBY LOBBY IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Therefore, this is not a freedom of religion issue.

The owner's of Hobby Lobby are religious people who do not lose their religious freedoms simply because they run a business. If they're not allowed to run their business on religious principles, why aren't they forced to be open on Sundays? The only reason they close on Sundays is for religious reasons, so why aren't you forcing them to be open? By the way, the owners of Hobby Lobby also own a chain of stores called Mardel's. Those stores ARE all for Christian merchandize, so I guess they should be forced to close because they don't have the religious freedom to sell those items?

[Metsfanmax]

The owner's of Hobby Lobby are religious people who do not lose their religious freedoms simply because they run a business. If they're not allowed to run their business on religious principles, why aren't they forced to be open on Sundays? The only reason they close on Sundays is for religious reasons, so why aren't you forcing them to be open?

This is nonsense. Hobby Lobby can be closed on Sundays because business owners get to decide when their business is open. For whatever reason they please. There's no law saying otherwise. It has absolutely zero to do with religious freedom.

[BigBallinStalin]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,


Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

Read narrowly, I cannot find fault with the ruling made by SCOTUS in this case: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act clearly says that the government has to use the least burdensome method for violating religious freedom if it is going to do so. More broadly, I strongly agree with the concerns of the minority on the court in the case that this opens the door to various religious exemptions from laws that everyone else has to obey. If your religion directs you to have a certain moral code, that does not give you the right to override society's moral code at large, as defined by the system of laws that realize those morals. Freedom of religion would never mean that religious beliefs can justify rape. This is one of the many instances in our society where rights conflict, and the precedent has always been that a moral structure that everyone has to follow cannot be nullified by a person's religious preference. We could instead review why we have the employer mandate to begin with. But if we removed the employer mandate, that wouldn't solve the underlying issue. What if there was an insurance company that believed providing coverage for birth control was against its religious principles? Ultimately if we're going to mandate that people receive certain services, someone's going to pay for something they don't want to, whether it be an employer, an insurer, or a taxpayer. If we judge the right to obtain that service to be more important than the violation of a person's religions beliefs, then we have to follow that action through. And I do believe it's more important.

But I'm an atheist, so what do I know.

[BigBallinStalin]

We could instead review why we have the employer mandate to begin with. But if we removed the employer mandate, that wouldn't solve the underlying issue. What if there was an insurance company that believed providing coverage for birth control was against its religious principles?

Then, it doesn't provide that in the contract, and people would have to compare Christian Insurance Co.'s plans with Evil Atheist Insurance Co.'s plans which may or may not offer such coverage. I'm not seeing a problem that requires government action here.

Ultimately if we're going to mandate that people receive certain services, someone's going to pay for something they don't want to, whether it be an employer, an insurer, or a taxpayer. If we judge the right to obtain that service to be more important than the violation of a person's religions beliefs, then we have to follow that action through. And I do believe it's more important.

To sidestep a little:

1. Are you confident that some bureaucracy and a circus of politicians have the knowledge and correct incentives to properly mandate people's trade-offs of various goods when taking a job? In other words, instead of burning money and mental resources on which goods should be lumped into a labor contract, why not let people earn an otherwise higher wage and spend their money as they wish?

2. What I don't understand is the existence of such a mandate. If some people want birth control pills, they can go to the store and buy them. If price is a problem (which it isn't), then it can be subsidized. Ultimately, as government dumps more mandated goods into an employer's price of hiring someone, then (a) the price of labor increase, so on some margin, labor becomes more expensive than capital, thus less labor is employed. Also, (b) the employee still pays for the mandated good because the employer passes on the additional price of hiring onto the employee (recall the mistaken view of employers 'paying' half of the employees' social security tax--it's ultimately all paid by the employee).

[Metsfanmax]

We could instead review why we have the employer mandate to begin with. But if we removed the employer mandate, that wouldn't solve the underlying issue. What if there was an insurance company that believed providing coverage for birth control was against its religious principles?

Then, it doesn't provide that in the contract, and people would have to compare Christian Insurance Co.'s plans with Evil Atheist Insurance Co.'s plans which may or may not offer such coverage. I'm not seeing a problem that requires government action here.

I have three responses.

1) When the market has something resembling perfect competitiveness, then I would agree. However, there are some (very large) regions of the country where people receive very few insurance plans to choose from (even under the ACA). And many of those regions coincide with exactly the types of regions where I would most expect an insurance company to be owned by a committed Christian person. So for your argument to apply, we would need to solve this market failure that leads to a monopoly in some cases. (Is this the fault of other government policy related to insurance? I do not know.)

2) Here and below, I think that you seriously underestimate the importance of price. For example, I know from a (unfortunate) personal experience that medication like the Plan B morning after pill can be pretty damn expensive for someone who makes as little money as I do (which is a very substantial fraction of the population). Price is only irrelevant when we're talking about condoms. When it comes to prescription medication and services (like implantation of a IUD), the price can go up quite a bit. This is non-trivial for people of lower income. So if you believe that access to birth control is a fundamental right, then you have to have some mechanism to guarantee that everyone can afford or otherwise easily obtain the birth control.

3) This is also a question of equality. Women are essentially being asked to pay for extra services that they incur simply because they are a woman. Now, it is factually true that their health care costs more. But those added costs are for things that are purely based on an accident of circumstances. For whatever reason, almost all of the methods of birth control that currently exist are designed for women, placing the onus on them to deal with birth control. In an equal society, men and women would both be equally responsible for the consequences of the activities they they want to engage in (i.e. sex). But the technology does not yet exist to make this possible. Given the barriers women already face in society by generally being lower money-earners, we should be cautious before we place an extra burden squarely on them for an activity that both sexes participate in. So avoiding the extra rates women would inherently have to pay for this in an open market does require government intervention (perhaps by subsidy, as you mention below).

1. Are you confident that some bureaucracy and a circus of politicians have the knowledge and correct incentives to properly mandate people's trade-offs of various goods when taking a job? In other words, instead of burning money and mental resources on which goods should be lumped into a labor contract, why not let people earn an otherwise higher wage and spend their money as they wish?

This is why I too am seriously skeptical of the employer mandate. I just did not want to get into that discussion for the reason I mentioned: that I don't think this question of religious freedom goes away if we do away with the employer mandate.

2. What I don't understand is the existence of such a mandate. If some people want birth control pills, they can go to the store and buy them. If price is a problem (which it isn't), then it can be subsidized. Ultimately, as government dumps more mandated goods into an employer's price of hiring someone, then (a) the price of labor increase, so on some margin, labor becomes more expensive than capital, thus less labor is employed. Also, (b) the employee still pays for the mandated good because the employer passes on the additional price of hiring onto the employee (recall the mistaken view of employers 'paying' half of the employees' social security tax--it's ultimately all paid by the employee).

This is one reason why I don't really disagree with the SCOTUS ruling. Basically, what happened is that non-profits who object to the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds can now notify the government in writing, and the government will simply mandate that the insurance plan received by the employee has contraceptive services included at no extra (direct) cost to the insured. This is, in effect, a government subsidy for the services. I don't believe there's any government funds for that, but there's also some question of whether insurance company costs will actually go up with universal birth control coverage (due to the avoided opportunity cost of more unintended pregnancies and abortions). Without knowing too much about the specifics, I do wish the government had gone for the other route of direct subsidy of this service for women. This would be much more transparent.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,


Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

I'm against mandating that employers are responsible for health insurance. Even if they are legally responsible, I don't see that an optional practice like birth control is their responsibility, either. In the same fashion, I would not support an employer being mandated to cover condoms for male employees.

Arguing that it's a constriction on women's rights is just false, unless they were actively denying their female employees from purchasing those "evil" birth control methods (e.g. they fired an employee for using them). I'm sure you're aware of the difference between negative and positive rights.

And in general, I think playing into the health insurance scam is bad for the long run. It is probably the greatest scam in the last 100 years.

-TG

[Woodruff]

My father raised 4 kids.We had a stay at home mom. Lived in nice houses. He retired with a generous pension and health benefits. Guess what he worked for Southern Bell. Union.

My wife and I have two kids, and she has always been a stay-at-home mom. We've lived in pretty nice houses, though admittedly, some of them were owned by the military. I have already retired with a generous pension and extremely good health benefits, and I'm working on a second one. Those possibilities have not gone away, though I'll be the first to admit they're much less common these days.

[Woodruff]

the scope of family leave laws. This assault on women should come as no surprise,.

Wow, you finally said something i may agree with, women should be paid for a said period of time to nurture a newborn child. Yet again an outline needs to be established so that career babymakers cannot exploit.

Career babymakers? Where do you people get these stupid ideas?

Is this sarcastic ? Or are you just naive to how the system is gamed ?

It absolutely isn't sarcastic, but I'm going to go ahead and say that YOU don't understand how the system is "gamed" by these massive numbers of "career babymakers".

Did i coin the term career babymaker? Children are multipliers. If you are not in fear of being called a racist , we can certainly discuss how each demographic games the system.

I'm certainly not in fear of being called a racist, though I'm not sure why I would be, given my perspective of what you believe to be the egregious problem of the rampant babymaking career.

[Woodruff]

Let Hobby Lobby put their moral money where their mouth is and help the undocumented refuge children stranded in the USA.

You heard it here first , they are now refugees

You don't seem to understand what a refugee is. Well, possibly you do...in which case, you don't really understand what's going on in Mexico.

[Woodruff]

patricka, those guys don't play fair. no matter what, you are always wrong, no matter what. They aren't here for conversation, they are here posting to irritate you.

Says the most dishonest poster I've ever seen in these fora.

That's the most dishonest thing I have ever heard.

I've long been convinced that you don't listen to yourself speak - thanks for admitting it.

If I was dishonest

There really is no "if" to the matter.

I would be saying and doing a lot of the stuff you do, like getting in the way of Zero's racist comments by changing the subject to me.

I've already called out Zero - there you go again, being dishonest while trying to claim that you're not dishonest.

The truth remains as it always has been

That is certainly true - it would be nice if you could trip over it once in a while on your way to your sermons about freedom and responsibility.

you sink so low trying to challenge me that you just end up making me look better

The sad thing is that nobody does need to "sink low at all" in order to challenge you, Phatscotty - hell, you contradict yourself so often that you just make it easy.

like that one time I tricked you into posting completely opposing opinions against yourself in the same thread because you were so deep in your trolling you abandoned and betrayed everything Spock stands for, and you got sloppy.

Ah, more dishonesty from you - how sad. But hey, go ahead and continue with the distractions - I know it's all you've got.

Another perfect example, you ignoring everything in my post and turning it into something completely unrelated and into a personal attack, based on nothing.

If it were based on nothing, it wouldn't fit you so well.

Want to base it on something? How about the fact I admit when I'm wrong, just a few days ago even.

If you did admit to being wrong once, it sure hasn't been as often as you've BEEN PROVEN wrong in these fora.

How about the fact that's not the first time I've held myself accountable?

Honestly, I've never seen you actually hold yourself accountable. I imagine I would be very surprised to see such a thing. The surprise would
sadly only last as long as the accountability, so it would be gone in a flash.

Is that really what 'the most dishonest person you've even seen in the fora' do?

Yeah, probably - you were probably desperately trying to prop yourself up from one of your massive gaffes.

See, that's how you out yourself as the one who is purposefully dishonest with an agenda

Oh, I'll readily admit to an agenda. No question about that...pointing out hypocricy is my agenda. That's why you're such a common target. The difference between you and I is that I will admit what my real agenda is, whereas you try to play coy all the time about yours (which is odd, when everyone can see it for themselves).

But who cares what you say

You seem to.

your credibility is shot and that's why you barely show your face around here anymore.

Ah, this is more of your "honesty", Phatscotty?

Yet recalling your past has been my pleasure.

It doesn't surprise me at all to find out that you're a masochist.

[Woodruff]

Our Constitution undermines democracy on a daily basis as well. Good thing we instead have a republic that is supposed to be run under the Rule of Law (although the current president eagerly ignores it).

It's sad that most people don't know this....

My first response was to set you straight but i re read it , yes , the word democracy as it applies to the countries that "practice" it has different meanings , no two democracies are the same. We live in a republic and this president undermines it daily as well as reed , pelosi and hilary ,just to name a few. Put all the propaganda aside and that alone should make us nervous .

Of course! It's all the Democrats! Those Republicans would NEVER undermine it. And you have the gall to talk about putting the propoganda aside?

Wow, he named a couple of people (all perfect examples btw), Woodruff takes it to the absolute extreme and just makes it ALL Democrats, and somehow rationalizes it based on and even more baseless and extreme assumption that NO Republicans would EVER! And then Woodruff has the gall to minimize and diminish a post based on Woodruff's own extreme BS propaganda. And the clincher? Nobody before Woodruff even used the word Democrat or Republican...dishonest indeed
The irony is orgasmic

I know it's difficult for you to discern the intricacies of public discourse, Phatscotty, but perhaps if you studied those names, you'll recognize their commonality and how that can lead someone to reasonably determine that the person was making a partisan statement, rather than one of compelling objectivity. Then again, I can't imagine that you'd be able to do that after all.

[Woodruff]

The idea that this is a "freedom of religion" issue is ridiculous. NOBODY'S freedom of religion was being impinged. A BUSINESS IS NOT A PERSON. HOBBY LOBBY IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Therefore, this is not a freedom of religion issue.

The owner's of Hobby Lobby are religious people who do not lose their religious freedoms simply because they run a business.

See, this is the problem - they don't get to run their business like a religion. Period. If they're going to run a business, then they're required to follow the law. If they're going to run it as a religion, then they should be applying for tax-free status.

If they're not allowed to run their business on religious principles, why aren't they forced to be open on Sundays?

Because it's not a law that a business must be open on Sundays. Is that really a difficult concept for you to grasp, Night Strike?

The only reason they close on Sundays is for religious reasons, so why aren't you forcing them to be open?

Because the law doesn't require them to be open on Sundays.

By the way, the owners of Hobby Lobby also own a chain of stores called Mardel's. Those stores ARE all for Christian merchandize, so I guess they should be forced to close because they don't have the religious freedom to sell those items?

Mardel's would still be a business. Is there a law saying that a business cannot sell Christian merchandise?

Seriously, Night Strike - this is pretty basic stuff. I don't really understand how you can be unintentionally confusing these basic points. Which leads me to believe it's intentional, and that doesn't make you look very good.

[Woodruff]

This thread has devolved nicely. UC is about to drop some creationist arguments denying that devolution is possible or it's designed by god. Anyway,

Mets, TG, patrick, etc., in less than 300 words, what's your stance on this issue?

To reiterate my stance (300 words or less...egad!):
The Supreme Court ruling makes sense to me, based on the idea that a business can determine what health insurance they will provide. However, a business should NOT be granted considerations based on religion, as that is irrelevant to the business. I further put forth that anyone who believes that abortion is a bad thing should be PRO-contraception by any means as that averts potential abortions.