Flat Earth Birth Control

[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.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Oh, I know. I actually studied the story of the first Caliphates a bit and their presence in the Iberian peninsula, and though the term Kafir (which means non believer) dates to the Qu'ran, it was not necessarily derrogatory, at least not at first, and Islam was far less proselitist towards other faiths of the book than Christianity (partly because non muslims were numerous and a profitable source of taxable income). It wasn't until militant sects of both faiths arose that the term became derrogative.

Just thought all of this is a bit of a side note to the actual discussion, hence the simplified version.

You may just know more about it then I do, then. My expertise is in literature and history, and by extension the history of language. In any event, the word "Infidel" is darkly fascinating, kinda like the word "coolie." I am not aware of any other word where the meaning and true purpose remains as consistent, but the voice with which it is spoken changes so dramatically. It is like if Native Americans were portrayed as calling European Americans "redskins," with the intent of the fiction being to slander Native Americans. So overall, Cory and Grey are still cool guys, but they should take my advice and not use the word.

On Topic: I dislike this supreme court decision, as many have said, this gives some rather dangerous leeway to supposedly public corporations to pick and choose what to cover and what to not cover. Arguments can be made for strictly religious organizations to do this, as it tends to be better to err on the side of religious freedom, but allowing for this in corporations where people of all beliefs are supposed to be equal is dangerous, and clearly infringes on the rights of the individual. That being said, I still think that equal pay is a much more important issue for women right now, for whatever my opinion may be worth.

 

[weirdee]

It's funny, once you start reading the court opinions/scientific studies/essays instead of just the partisan comments on them, you start seeing just how dumb and sheepish everyone is. The Hobby Lobby opinion actually shifts the cost for birth control to the government/insurance companies rather than the companies themselves and only applies to closely held companies (companies that have (I believe the number is) 15 or less controlling shareholders, mostly family-owned companies). Even then, there has to be evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs to get the exemption, which is a pain to prove in court for anyone trying to skip in on it.

Bottom line is: if you want birth control and work for Hobby Lobby, you can still get it at the same cost to the end person, just the money for it comes from a different source. I will add that there is the slight wrinkle that there's some kind of sign up that's been referred to that makes it annoying, but not really harder.

If you have an issue with this case, the real "bad guy" ideology isn't Christianity or religion in general, but the doctrine of corporate personhood, which causes immense problems in the US, but would cause even worse problems were it to go away. One of the major catch-22s of the current state of law.

Then again, I heard there's an order that went out yesterday that might alter Hobby Lobby a bit, haven't read it yet.

The main issue I take is that the ruling exists in the first place. Already I am seeing politicians and evangelists trying to push for more religious exemptions to laws, and days after the ruling the main pushers of bigotry against minorities switched their platform focus towards this end (well, more so than they were before). Even as discrimination is slowly being outlawed throughout the country, they're gonna push as hard as they can to wriggle through this last loophole, and every inch handed to them will result in more pointless lawsuits, waste of time and money, and the chance that somewhere, a conservative judge will enact yet another boneheaded ruling that will take years to undo like all of the gay marriage bans. Meanwhile, many people will have harder circumstances just because somebody else decided that they should, for no reason besides belief.

The First Amendment has the two clauses pertaining to this case...the Free Exercise Clause protects religion from laws that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, and the Establishment Clause, which forbids making laws that respects a specific religion. Hobby Lobby requested an exemption to an existing law that applies to all businesses under it, and even though the law wasn't specifically discriminating against their beliefs and does not incur the Free Exercise Clause (even if we are making the ridiculous assumption that any for profit organization can claim to be an entity with religious rights equal to that of any individual), they were given this exemption even though this violates the Establishment Clause, because they are getting a free pass from the law specifically because they have a religious belief that the plaintiff doesn't.

Saying that people won't be able to do something just because they shouldn't be able to is inviting Murphy's law to dinner.

 

[Cerebrawl]

To be honest I expected an off-colour joke about using a different hole when having intercourse with a close family member.

Though I'm also reminded of a female comedian who made an observation along the lines of:

"2 out of 3 of these are persons in Oklahoma. A) Corporations. B) Fetuses. C) Women. Yeah women is the odd one out, can't make this shit up."

 

[weirdee]

Update: "hey, remember when we said it was narrow, well never mind, spread those cheeks"

http://m.thenation.com/blog/180509-supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling

 

[Edith The Hutt]

I realize this is a little naive but: Why is it considered reasonable for your employer to be responsible for your healthcare?

I'm British and I'm used to my taxes paying for my healthcare. If I'm sick I go to my doctor and I don't worry if my employer doesn't approve of whatever treatment I'm getting, it's none of their business. It's usually a lot easier on the paperwork too, no bills, no claim form, I just have an NHS number I take along to register with my General Practitioner.

My grandfather's generation set up a system whereby there was a common pool of resources for health, everyone pays in, everyone takes out. You don't get pampered, but you usually get what you need.

I'm just not understanding why your employer should have anything to do with it.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Apparently need is legitimate moral grounds to impose a duty on another. It's getting so odd that just wanting something enough is enough to impose a duty on others in society.

It's not abusing employees to not give them free things. It's just not. You don't have to work at Hobby Lobby and they already pay well over min wage to their full time employees and still over it to their part time. It's like 9.50 for part time and 14 for full time last I looked. They pay their employees well for the work they do.

If you don't like working for them, or their company policy you can always look for another job. I know for a fact they aren't the only opportunity out there right now by a good margin.

 

[The Lunatic]

So, wait... We're screwing over women, by disallowing contraception, with no specific mention of only women's contraception.


... What?

I mean, don't get me wrong, the whole thing is fucked up, but, to make this a "women's issue"? What does that serve exactly?

 

[mega lenin]

The ruling basically finds that your employers', sorry that was the wrong word, owners' religious views get to dictate your medical decisions provided you work for a closely held corporation.

No. Categorically wrong and already corrected earlier in the thread. The court ruled Hobby Lobby could not be compelled to pay for those particular pieces of the health plan. They then recommended that the regulators extend the same exemption (i.e. having to pay for that portion) that they extended to religious non profits. Essentially their employees get that coverage, it's just that Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for it. Generally the insurers are absorbing this hit from the exempted non profits themselves because they see long run it's cheaper than paying for pregnancies.

The real test will be Wheaton College who is challenging that being exempt from paying for that coverage is not enough to satisfy their religious rights under RFRA. They are arguing that allowing their employer insurance plan to offer those contraceptions for even free is forcing them to support this aberrant and immoral practice (from their perspective). That case will have the farther reaching implications on this issue.