Flat Earth Birth Control
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can someone answer me how the employer is dictating anything to the employee in anyway. Sorry but I was merely getting at the person you quoted, curious how not paying or providing something is dictating anything to anyone. Agree with it or not, I certainly don't but their refusal to provide something is not an imposition on me or anyone. To imply they imposed on anyone in this case is to imply that the employees of the company had some ownership of said company that was being wrongfully withheld. Whats funny is people are talking about the employer enforcing beliefs on the employees but coercive force is only being applied on behalf of he employee not the employer. If the state mandates something its pulling out a gun and saying do it or else. Whether you think that's justified or not, you still have to admit the employer is not the one resorting to coercive force in throwing around their religious beliefs.mega lenin said:
It's not so much a women's issue as the company having backwards ass beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of life. They didn't even refuse to allow all contraceptives, just like four that they made a bad case for basically being the same thing as abortion. However it's their company, their stupid religious beliefs, and they pay their workers quite well outside of all this mess. It's not screwing over anyone really unless you were absolutely required to need Hobby Lobby to pay for four specific forms off contraception and through no fault of your own couldn't get it outside of the company even with your better than average income for that kind of work, to maybe get some on your own.The Lunatic said:
On it's own the ruling doesn't really do a whole lot in this regard since it did not say that a closely held corporate entity can ignore a government regulation based on religious protection via RFRA. They merely can't be compelled to pay their own money to fund it's implementation within their own company, the feds have to find a way to do it themselves. The court didn't really explicitly acknowlege that religiously influenced organizations closely held or non profit have full protection as individuals under RFRA, either. They ducked that question and instead looked at the fact that the Obama Administration already created an exception for non profit religious organizations to circumvent paying for the implementation of this portion of Obamacare and said that the same ought to be extended to Hobby Lobby et. al.
The court will deal with the latter question in the Wheaton University since that essentially is the heart of the matter. Can a religious non profit institution use RFRA to ignore government regulation to deny benefits to employees based on religious freedom rights. It will be very interesting how this will turn out. The ruling on Hobby Lobby generally points that it is unlikely that the court will rule in Wheaton's favor as that ruling will be quite sweeping. Not only would it apply to all religious non profit institution, but by extension of Hobby Lobby being placed in the prior ruling in a similar category to them to closely held for profit companies as well. The government will likely argue that RFRA's purpose was not to protect institutions from general government regulation, but to protect individuals and their religious institutions from freely observing their religious beliefs without undue government interference. They will also argue the hazards of the slippery slope and advocate for employees who though they work for Wheaton Universities and Hobby Lobby's of the world don't necessarily share their institutions' religious beliefs. It's easy to see when looking at this issue how muddy this can get and why the conservative majority of the court tried to sidestep ruling on as much of that as possible in the Hobby Lobby case.
It's "affect". Not "effect".
America and religion always had a strange relationship. I doubt that will change any time soon. But I'm not sure how many US citizens actually support this measure.
On a side note, I'm still surprised how many people still defend Islam in general as a "religion of peace". Especially feminists. Seriously, what the hell (and for the record, I'm not an atheist, or a Christian).
America and religion always had a strange relationship. I doubt that will change any time soon. But I'm not sure how many US citizens actually support this measure.
On a side note, I'm still surprised how many people still defend Islam in general as a "religion of peace". Especially feminists. Seriously, what the hell (and for the record, I'm not an atheist, or a Christian).
Thank you for being the sole voice of reason on this awful thread of rage.Robyrt said:
I'm disappointed in the comic. Again.
I must be the only one who is bewildered by any law that requires businesses to pay for the employees' contraception?
Granted, the USA works differently in that health benefits from your job make up for the horrendous health insurance system, but come on...
There's no specific mentions of only women's contraception because the law they are required to cover that contraception under is inherently sexist and only demands coverage of contraception for women (and demands coverage of all FDA-approved contraception for women if a doctor prescribes it, even things like diaphragms and cervical caps). There is no legal mandate to cover male contraceptive options. Literally, even if the contraceptive mandate were entirely revoked, it would only put women on a level playing field with men on that item.The Lunatic said:
wetfart said:
Only if you believe life begins at conception - that's the issue here. The court has essentially given corporations permission to decide when life begins according to the personal beliefs of their owners. Their religion is against abortion - those forms of contraception are not medically classified as abortifacients but Hobby Lobby says they are, and the Supreme Court has allowed them to make that decision.
We live in a country where your employer is the one who provides you health care. If we want their medical needs taken care of than sorry: It needs to be their employers, and unless you want more STDs and unwanted pregnancies spreading I'm pretty sure we want their reproductive contraception paid for.th3dark3rsh33p said:
I mean I would love if we went single payer, your boss shouldn't be involved in your medical coverage and your medical coverage shouldn't get more expensive if you leave your job (when you're more financially vulnerable anyway due to lack of income), but in the mean time while we have this dumb system : I don't want more STD prevalence and I don't want more unwanted pregnancies.
$9.50 is good pay? Really? That's barely over minimum wage. Who exactly is making less than $15 and is able to afford contraceptives other than condoms? $31,000 a year fulltime. The median wage is $55k a year. And it's pretty irrelevant if the pay is good for what the work is :If you're working full time you're probably trying to live off of it.
Hey, haven't seen the boss in awhile. 
Just a note though, it would unlikely this would be able to happen. Hobby Lobby was able to get away with it because it is a family owned company that doesn't have any public stock. The ruling seems to indicate that if even one stock is public, the religious argument goes straight out the window.
Just a note though, it would unlikely this would be able to happen. Hobby Lobby was able to get away with it because it is a family owned company that doesn't have any public stock. The ruling seems to indicate that if even one stock is public, the religious argument goes straight out the window.
Hell, mates, the best contraceptive is not to fuck everything that moves. One doesn't have to convert to Wahabbi Islam to know this. There's a certain irony in people wanting to knock each other up and then throwing a fit when someone else refuses to protect them from the consequences.
I'm not sure I understand enough about this issue to give an educated opinion, but I'd just like to say that so-called "pro-life" groups bug me. I mean, there's something wrong with being so against contraception methods that don't even come CLOSE to killing a fertilized egg let alone an unborn child (because morals), only to flip-flop and declare it's not your job to so much as pay for school lunches for hungry children, all under the banner of "pro-life".
If you want to argue that life starts at or before the fertilized egg, that's fine, but don't fucking turn around and act like it ends at birth because you don't want to pay taxes or w/e.
If you want to argue that life starts at or before the fertilized egg, that's fine, but don't fucking turn around and act like it ends at birth because you don't want to pay taxes or w/e.
Prior to the hobby lobby ruling the way health insurance worked was largely up to the worker in question - if you wanted to use it for a form of birth control that your boss didn't like, that was your decision.mega lenin said:
Your health insurance was part of your cost-to-company, and largely your business.
Now your boss can go to your insurance company and say "Well, I don't approve of this, so I am not paying."
It is no longer your health insurance - it is no longer your health, it is your owner's health insurance.
It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are - it matters what your boss's religious beliefs are.
As to claiming that for example, insurance companies can just absorb the cost - they're much more likely to just not cover it because why pay for something they don't have to?
Edit:
Oh, and the specific workaround you are pointing to was disallowed by an emergency order that evening.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/wheaton_college_injunction_the_supreme_court_just_sneakily_reversed_itself.single.html
A few things wrong with this reasoning. 1st in employee based health care your options are tied to whatever plans your employer decides to purchase from the insurance company. That has always been the case, because they are paying the lions' share for that benefit. That's why your premiums as an employee are generally lower than the personal private market. Essentially you and the employer are splitting the cost with the employer acting as gatekeeper because they own the place. Occasionally unions are involved in this process, but generally if a company's management doesn't want to purchase a plan with x, y, or z coverage their was no law to compel them to do so before Obamacare. So in short, your boss prior to Obamacare already could and did push his religious views on its employees via healthcare. You think hobby lobby had an employer health care plan that covered abortion priorly?Bruce said:
Absorbing the cost is what Obama convinced insurers to do on behalf of religious non-profits to prevent them from paying it. Insurers were fine with it, because in the grand scheme of things it isn't a lot of employees out of the entire economy. Secondly as I previously stated they have a profit motive to offer contraceptive coverage because it is vastly cheaper than paying for hospital cares for pregnancies. More money paid in and less payments paid out is how insurance companies make money.
Third an injunction does not equal the alternate provision being struck down. Wheaton College has a pending court case on this matter and asked for the injunction over concerns that complying through Obama's form would be approval of the statute and a violations of their rights under RFRA. Injunctions are temporary orders to stabilize situations that are matters before a court. Not a binding ruling meant for permanence. It doesn't say anything other than Wheaton College doesn't have to apply for the Obamacare exception until after the courts hear their case. The supreme court could side with them and strike down the provision but it's really unlikely. As I said earlier this will be the case to watch because it will have to deal with the heart of the matter that they tapdanced around in Hobby Lobby. I say this because it would seem sort of silly for the Supreme court to recommend that Hobby Lobby be granted an exemption provided in a statute, only to strike down that very statute in their very next case. It seems to me the SCOTUS is simply going out of the way to show Wheaton College fairness before they politely tell them they can't have what they want. I would be very surprised if the Court ruled for Wheaton and essentially nullified the exemption at this point.
"Eden Foods" is already in the process of getting it's case to deny ANY birth control coverage ("abortive" or not) approved because of this decision. And it's just the first in a legion of companies that will follow suite.wetfart said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/companies-birth-control-hobby-lobby_n_5546155.html
How long until one of these companies uses "sincerely held religious beliefs" as an excuse to not hire LGBT people or people who don't follow their particular religion/denomination? Why should company owners be compelled to respect the rights of people they believe are "damned sinners" after all?
By "prior to the Hobby Lobby ruling" you mean the stretch of time after the Affordable Care Act was passed but before the Hobby Lobby ruling. Because before the ACA was passed, employers weren't required to have health insurance that covered birth control (or anything else in specific), or health insurance at all. They could freely negotiate to with the insurance company over what they wanted to pay for coverage (or not) of. Unless of course you have a personal health insurance plan rather than a company plan in which case it has always been, and still is, no one's business but your own.Bruce said:
I just want to point out that Hobby Lobby are not anti-contraception and still provide 16 forms of contraception including condoms and the pill. I just feel the need to say that because I hadn't heard that in all the outrage until Politifact did a piece on it. So anyone who wants to practice safe sex, prevent STDs or use the pill for its other health benefits is still free to do so. This isn't anti-woman, this isn't a company telling its employees not to have sex before marriage and it isn't a corporation looking to nickel-and-dime their employees as much as possible to save some pennies (Hobby Lobby actually have an excellent record regarding employee pay). The actual effects of this ruling will be pretty negligible, especially since the missing contraceptives will still be provided by the insurance companies who want to save money on paying for pregnancy.
Now I know what you're thinking: "it's not about the direct effects, it's about the precedent it sets, what if McDonalds suddenly decide they want to be Muslim and make all female employees wear burkhas or what if GM make up their own religion that says paying minimum wage is wrong? Where does it all end!?"
But that's also not going to happen. This ruling was incredibly specific, and it was decided to be allowed because Hobby Lobby are a privately-held company run on actual Christian-based policy and whose owners all demonstrably hold these beliefs. The number of companies run on religious policy with over 50 employees is tiny, they're virtually non-existent and employers trying to prevent things like blood transfusions is unheard of. It's very unlikely anyone could use this as a precedent for anything and even if it somehow does, it certainly won't be common by any means.
Just to be clear, I still don't really think this should have happened, but it really doesn't matter like the leftist media are hyping it up. This is pretty much a complete non-issue that hurts nobody.
Now I know what you're thinking: "it's not about the direct effects, it's about the precedent it sets, what if McDonalds suddenly decide they want to be Muslim and make all female employees wear burkhas or what if GM make up their own religion that says paying minimum wage is wrong? Where does it all end!?"
But that's also not going to happen. This ruling was incredibly specific, and it was decided to be allowed because Hobby Lobby are a privately-held company run on actual Christian-based policy and whose owners all demonstrably hold these beliefs. The number of companies run on religious policy with over 50 employees is tiny, they're virtually non-existent and employers trying to prevent things like blood transfusions is unheard of. It's very unlikely anyone could use this as a precedent for anything and even if it somehow does, it certainly won't be common by any means.
Just to be clear, I still don't really think this should have happened, but it really doesn't matter like the leftist media are hyping it up. This is pretty much a complete non-issue that hurts nobody.