Flat Earth Birth Control

[Spearmaster]

It is still an infringement of the separation of church and state, whichever way you want to look at it, and a way for those who hold a "sincerely held religious belief" to effectively wield power over their employees. Even if only some forms of contraceptive are denied,it is still an infringement of that principle, and a way to allow one group to actively enforce its practices over the other.

Wait...how is this an infringement of the separation church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm just not seeing it.

I was beaten to the punch to that one, but quite simply, this allows for an employer to deny healthcare coverage to an employee based on a religious tenet

No, it does not, it only keeps Hobby Lobby from paying for these certain forms of birth control. Nobody is denied health care coverage.

(never mind that it's scientifically wrong, as that seems par for the course when discussing religion),

Wait, What exactly is scientifically wrong?

effectively giving the employer the right to enforce his beliefs upon a third party.

Where is this happening?

Which, you know, violates the whole " shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" thing.

Well the Supreme Court decided that in Hobby Lobby's case that the ACA was "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religious beliefs and didn't meet the compelling interest requirement to do so.

 

[Requia]

I'm sure this comic has context, but I don't know what it is.

The US supreme court has ruled that companies (most notably Hobby Lobby) are not required to provide birth control to female employees due to religious grounds because they are a "closely-held company".

No, they held that closely held corporations couldn't be treated differently than other profit seeking entities when religion comes up. The real problem here is that congress saw fit to exempt non corporations.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Where do people keep getting this dumb idea that courts are awarding person-hood and first amendment rights to brick and mortar buildings? There is no physical entity called "Hobby Lobby". The court didn't rule to protect the free speech of some abstract company, they ruled to protect the free speech of a small group of people who own and run that company. You can still disagree with the ruling, just stop trying to say that it awards "person-hood" to a building, that's ridiculous.

 

[Worgen]

Where do people keep getting this dumb idea that courts are awarding person-hood and first amendment rights to brick and mortar buildings? There is no physical entity called "Hobby Lobby". The court didn't rule to protect the free speech of some abstract company, they ruled to protect the free speech of a small group of people who own and run that company. You can still disagree with the ruling, just stop trying to say that it awards "person-hood" to a building, that's ridiculous.

Because the court recently ruled that companies have the same rights as an individual when donating to political campaigns, they had the free-speech that a person had to use money to influence politics.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because the court recently ruled that companies have the same rights as an individual when donating to political campaigns, they had the free-speech that a person had to use money to influence politics.

The building here, of course, is meant to represent a corporation. But that's just an aside.

This isn't even a recent idea. The Citizen's United ruling was based in part on precedent dating back to the glory days of railroads. But in a more recent time frame, you've had many people support "corporate personhood."

And this is obligatory:


OF course, based on the context, he probably meant it in a different sense. But still, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a jab.

Just adding to your example.

 

[Jacco]

They're free to have their damn opinions, but so should their workers. That's exactly why church and state are separate and always should be.

No, you mean they are free to have their own opinions as long as they are similar to yours. THe company isn't actively banning birth control by saying they will fire employees for using it. The company is saying that it shouldn't have to pay for CERTAIN FORMS OF IT because of religious beliefs. How is that different from your belief that everyone should have open access to everything? It's not.

And separation of church and state has nothing to do with this. Like at all. I don't even know why you brought it up.

 

[Erttheking]

They're free to have their damn opinions, but so should their workers. That's exactly why church and state are separate and always should be.

No, you mean they are free to have their own opinions as long as they are similar to yours. THe company isn't actively banning birth control by saying they will fire employees for using it. The company is saying that it shouldn't have to pay for CERTAIN FORMS OF IT because of religious beliefs. How is that different from your belief that everyone should have open access to everything? It's not.

And separation of church and state has nothing to do with this. Like at all. I don't even know why you brought it up.

Because its their duty as a company to provide medical care to their employees. They shouldn't be able to just not do that because they disapprove of the drugs, they're denying the medical coverage to their employees because they don't want their employees using them, ergo, forcing their views on them.

Because religion should stay out of government legislation, and in here it's snaking its way in.

And don't accuse the other guy of saying he doesn't tolerate other poitns of view, it's a massive strawman argument.

 

[Jacco]

Because its their duty as a company to provide medical care to their employees. They shouldn't be able to just not do that because they disapprove of the drugs, they're denying the medical coverage to their employees because they don't want their employees using them, ergo, forcing their views on them.

Because religion should stay out of government legislation, and in here it's snaking its way in.

And don't accuse the other guy of saying he doesn't tolerate other poitns of view, it's a massive strawman argument.

They aren't denying them the drugs. Why is that such a difficult point to understand? They are simply not providing them. That is different than denying them. if they employees want those forms of contraception, they are welcome to get them of their own accord. Also, the employees are not being forced to work for Hobby Lobby and are free to go find a company that does offer the benefits they want. It's not different than an employer not offering dental insurance.

The government is not legislating. It is saying that the company, as a private entity, has the right to make its own rules regarding its religious beliefs. It's no different than the government legislating that people aren't allowed to believe what they want.

And if you're really going to point out a "strawman" argument in thread, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

snip

Corporations "are" people. Who or what do you believe filed for exemption in the hobby lobby case. Do you think an abstract entity formed into existence and filed for exemption? Do you think a Hobby Lobby store grew arms and legs and went to court? Humans! Human beings who are citizens of this country made those pleas for exemptions. The contributions that "corporations" make to political campaigns are signed, sealed and shipped by humans. Humans with free speech rights.

Look, if I asked you to point to who is making the political contributions or who files for health care exceptions, where would your finger point? It would point at people, CEOs and such. If you pointed to a brick building, you would be insane.

 

[Erttheking]

Because its their duty as a company to provide medical care to their employees. They shouldn't be able to just not do that because they disapprove of the drugs, they're denying the medical coverage to their employees because they don't want their employees using them, ergo, forcing their views on them.

Because religion should stay out of government legislation, and in here it's snaking its way in.

And don't accuse the other guy of saying he doesn't tolerate other poitns of view, it's a massive strawman argument.

They aren't denying them the drugs. Why is that such a difficult point to understand? They are simply not providing them. That is different than denying them. if they employees want those forms of contraception, they are welcome to get them of their own accord. Also, the employees are not being forced to work for Hobby Lobby and are free to go find a company that does offer the benefits they want. It's not different than an employer not offering dental insurance.

The government is not legislating. It is saying that the company, as a private entity, has the right to make its own rules regarding its religious beliefs. It's no different than the government legislating that people aren't allowed to believe what they want.

And if you're really going to point out a "strawman" argument in thread, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

They are not providing them, ergo they are not doing the job that they as a company, ergo, denying them to their employees. The reason that companies are supposed to do that is because, espically in America, medical care and drugs are expensive and without the company providing them employees may not be able to afford them. Yes, they can, just like how you can get water somewhere else if your pluming gets shut off. Both cases are far from ideal and the way things are supposed to work. In this economy? A thousand times easier said than done. They could be economically dependent on that company and have no where else to go. That comparison only works if it was offered when the employe was hired and then the company pulled the rug out from under them and taking it away.

Clearly the company was required by law to provide the drugs, ergo legislation. And now it's saying it doesn't, ergo changing the legislation. Because of religious views that may not reflect the employees views.

.............care to tell me what's so awful about that? Me calling you out when you made a baseless argument? Because it sounds like you're just trying to avoid the fallacy you made.

 

[Nurb]

snip

Corporations "are" people. Who or what do you believe filed for exemption in the hobby lobby case. Do you think an abstract entity formed into existence and filed for exemption? Do you think a Hobby Lobby store grew arms and legs and went to court? Humans! Human beings who are citizens of this country made those pleas for exemptions. The contributions that "corporations" make to political campaigns are signed, sealed and shipped by humans. Humans with free speech rights.

Look, if I asked you to point to who is making the political contributions or who files for health care exceptions, where would your finger point? It would point at people, CEOs and such. If you pointed to a brick building, you would be insane.

Then corporations cannot be owned because that would be practicing slavery. People cannot be owned.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Then corporations cannot be owned because that would be practicing slavery. People cannot be owned.

OK, you win. Corporations aren't people, and they don't have first amendment rights. David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, is a person with first amendment rights. He can donate his lawfully earned money to the political campaign of his choice, and he can file to make himself exempt from providing certain contraceptives to his employees.

But, you're right, corporations are not people. So if a Hobby Lobby store becomes sentient and starts writing checks to political campaigns, that money will have to be given back.

 

[Nurb]

Then corporations cannot be owned because that would be practicing slavery. People cannot be owned.

OK, you win. Corporations aren't people, and they don't have first amendment rights. David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, is a person with first amendment rights. He can donate his lawfully earned money to the political campaign of his choice, and he can file to make himself exempt from providing certain contraceptives to his employees.

But, you're right, corporations are not people. So if a Hobby Lobby store becomes sentient and starts writing checks to political campaigns, that money will have to be given back.

Good. They aren't people, they're this abstract concept called a "business", something that is comprised of people who produce goods or services. These are the people that get rights and do things in the name of the business because the business isn't a person who can walk or act on their own. A business is a concept created for legal purposes to establish ownership, taxation, and other such things some time ago.

The modern "person" has been created by corporate owners and their non-owned, but rather employed, lawyers because those individual humans didn't want to spend their own vast amounts of money. They wanted to pool the resources of their owned business (or "person") and pour money into politics regulation free, so this magical "person" was created with rights of speech, but not subject to rights like the 14th amendement that outlawed slavery. This "person" was then advertized to regular folk like yourself through cable news programs and talkshow hosts, and advertized to lawmakers by giving them lots of bribes, er, I mean lobbying. A "person" does not exist.

A person cannot be owned, they have all human rights and are subject to laws and go to jail if they personally exploit communist chinese children. A "person" does not exist.

Thankfully, we now agree

 

[Spearmaster]

No, it does not, it only keeps Hobby Lobby from paying for these certain forms of birth control. Nobody is denied health care coverage.

Having certain contraceptive measures effectively denied by their employers is denying coverage. I don't even think that it behooves upon employers to provide said coverage (I believe in fully nationalized Health coverage, in part for the very reason this example demonstrates), but if one company is obliged, then no one should be allowed exemption.

Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for certain birth control measures but nowhere in the decision did the Supreme Court say Hobby Lobby employees have to go without said coverage just that Hobby Lobby has the religious freedom to object by not funding certain methods of birth control they "feel" are abortive.

Wait, What exactly is scientifically wrong?

The notion that the IUD is abortive. You yourself defended that claim on the grounds of Hobby Lobby's beliefs. Which are not scientific fact.

Thats what I thought you meant, just wanted to be sure.

Where is this happening?

When a private company takes it upon themselves to deny provision to third parties of the same rights they would enjoy elsewhere. That is effectively imposing their belief system upon their employees. And much as you try and downplay the dangers of the precedent being established, it's there. A small catholic company with the same "family structure" who believes all sorts of contraception is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord can argue the same case not just for so called abortive methods but for all of them. And this precedent legitimizes such a claim. Which leads to

"deny provisions", nothing is being denied to anyone by the ruling, its just not being funded by Hobby Lobby.

Well the Supreme Court decided that in Hobby Lobby's case that the ACA was "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religious beliefs and didn't meet the compelling interest requirement to do so.

See freedom of religion is not an absolute, let alone the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution. It's the kind of subtle distinction that allows a muslim woman to freely wear a veil or a Burkha, but denies her husband the right to impose it on his wife. Or to go outside Judeo-christian-muslim fundamentalism, an Indian woman can accept an arranged marriage, but cannot be forced into one if she decides otherwise.

For a law to impose on someones religious freedom it has to meet the compelling interest requirement. In this case the Supreme Court felt the ACA did not meet said requirement thus had no compelling intrest in violating Hobby Lobby's religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby's owners can definietly choose whatever contraception or lack thereof for themselves, but they can not declare themselves exempt from providing the same coverage mandated by law because of their religious beliefs.

Apparently they can, seeing how the ACA didn't meet the compelling interest requirement to force them to provide it.

 

[Branindain]

Is this real? Can American corporations actually object to things on religious grounds? I don't like to be the America-basher, but if this has a factual basis then Americans, I'm sorry, your country is broken. Return it and try for a refund.

 

[Slackboy2007]

Is the "Seriously" youtube-link pointing to the right location?

It's just that it's pointing at the same youtube video (Run, Forrest, Run) as the previous comic, and I can't see how it's relevant to this one.

 

[Cybylt]

One day, one day they will rule that you are entitled to nothing due to your religion.

One day...

They didn't in the 80's. "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law."

"The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Scalia said that in reference to taking drugs as part of a religious practice. So I guess it only counts if it's not Christians.