OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

And the court determined that the statutory requirements were not constitutional so...

 

 

...no they didn't. Have you read the decision? They explicitly did not rule on any constitutional issues. This is strictly an RFRA ruling.

[Balta1701]

No, i'm saying that certain companies were exempted, by law, from this mandate. So the question was why them and not others. It was not about "why do companies get to pick and choose what laws they want to follow in the name of religion" as you're trying to make it out to be.

It's really interesting that your language has classified the catholic church as a company.

[StrangeSox]

That happens when the owners are directly involved in the act....most frequently in....closed held, private corps!!

 

If their religion pierces into the cashier ringing up your felt and hot glue gun at some random store they've never set foot in, then their liability should pierce that far as well. In other words, if their religion permeates the entire company, then their liability should as well.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, that is the liberal mantra. Also, conservatives have never disagreed with a court decision.

 

I disagree all the time! I DON'T immediately become a critic of the entire system and how broken it is. I don't jump off the ledge. I understand that these opinions gain HUGE responses and then are immediately chipped away and chipped away over the next several years.

 

This particular opinion especially was incredibly narrow. He didn't bring up gender, he didn't bring up homosexuality. It was very much limited to these contraceptives. I find it very difficult to believe that a future appellate court is going to expand this ruling in anyway.

[Jenksismyhero]

...no they didn't. Have you read the decision? They explicitly did not rule on any constitutional issues. This is strictly an RFRA ruling.

 

Sorry, you're right. What I meant was that they didn't take away the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion which was bolstered by the RFRA. This was upholding those rights over the PPPCA and the HHS mandates.

[StrangeSox]

Sorry, you're right. What I meant was that they didn't take away the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion which was bolstered by the RFRA. This was upholding those rights over the PPPCA and the HHS mandates.

 

This was one statute over another. Constitutional rights were not involved. If they were, then the RFRA wouldn't even need to be brought up.

[Jenksismyhero]

If their religion pierces into the cashier ringing up your felt and hot glue gun at some random store they've never set foot in, then their liability should pierce that far as well. In other words, if their religion permeates the entire company, then their liability should as well.

 

I don't really see why. The owners of the company aren't taking away money from an individual employee, the company is providing a different type of insurance coverage. I mean, if Hobby Lobby owners tell its managers not to hire black people, that's going to be a basis for liability against the company. It's not like we ignore what the owners do/don't do when it comes to liability.

[southsider2k5]

Hobby Lobby gets a tax break for compensating employees with health care benefits. Since they're refusing to meet the statutory minimums for the quality of those benefits, should they still be entitled to the tax breaks?

 

No.

[StrangeSox]

I don't really see why. The owners of the company aren't taking away money from an individual employee, the company is providing a different type of insurance coverage. I mean, if Hobby Lobby owners tell its managers not to hire black people, that's going to be a basis for liability against the company. It's not like we ignore what the owners do/don't do when it comes to liability.

They are depriving their employees of compensation that they are otherwise legally entitled to because of their personal beliefs which they have argued permeate everything they do when selling art supplies. So why shouldn't their liability extend to that level? If they cannot possibly separate the actions of their payroll department from their personal religious beliefs, then why should I separate their liability as well? Why should they get all of the legal protections of incorporation but be able to skirt some of the legal requirements?

[greg775]

maybe some of us don't want "GOD" in our country

I wish God could make a comeback. I don't know why people like Maher think it's so absurd that there is a higher power who created us. Are you atheists convinced we just popped onto this earth out of nowhere for no reason? Why can't there be a God who created everything?

 

Businesses should have to abide by the generally applicable laws and regulations that apply to all businesses without being able to get around the law because of religious beliefs.

It's called freedom of religion.

[StrangeSox]

freedom of religion shouldn't be a "get out of legal responsibilities free" card.

[Balta1701]

I'm sure Greg would be happy to give up his religion if his employer wanted him to.

[StrangeSox]

I heard on the radio that the Supreme Court clarified today via the denial of cert for a few other cases that this ruling applies to all contraceptives, not just those Hobby Lobby objected to.

some more context:

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling....Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-h...GlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x

 

The Hobby Lobby case involved some contraceptives that the owners erroneously believe cause abortions, but now it's clear that this ruling already isn't as limited as just the facts in the the Hobby Lobby case.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure Greg would be happy to give up his religion if his employer wanted him to.

 

You have wonder how soon we'll see a case like when Louisiana thought it'd be great to funnel public school money to private religious schools, but quickly realized that that included more than just Christian schools and freaked out.

[StrangeSox]

jenks, I thought you hated legislation and rulings that led to increasing numbers of court cases? Allowing for-profit companies to claim RFRA exemptions is going to lead to a boatload of such cases.

[Jenksismyhero]

They are depriving their employees of compensation that they are otherwise legally entitled to because of their personal beliefs which they have argued permeate everything they do when selling art supplies. So why shouldn't their liability extend to that level? If they cannot possibly separate the actions of their payroll department from their personal religious beliefs, then why should I separate their liability as well? Why should they get all of the legal protections of incorporation but be able to skirt some of the legal requirements?

 

Yeah, again, it's not the individual owner not paying an individual employee some form of compensation. It's the company not offering a specific type of insurance plan with coverage for contraception. I don't think that's equivalent at all to liability in tort or some employment matter, where the owners can and are held liable if they're actively involved.

[Jenksismyhero]

jenks, I thought you hated legislation and rulings that led to increasing numbers of court cases? Allowing for-profit companies to claim RFRA exemptions is going to lead to a boatload of such cases.

 

I do, but I think this is a very narrow ruling. Even liberal court bloggers are telling people to stop freaking out. It's definitely not a flood gate situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sure Greg would be happy to give up his religion if his employer wanted him to.

 

Lol, Jesus with this awful logic.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, again, it's not the individual owner not paying an individual employee some form of compensation. It's the company not offering a specific type of insurance plan with coverage for contraception. I don't think that's equivalent at all to liability in tort or some employment matter, where the owners can and are held liable if they're actively involved.

So how on earth is that individual owner's religious beliefs compromised by the company paying for an insurance plan that includes contraceptives?

edit: this is what I'm trying to articulate here but I know I'm not doing a great job. They get to have it both ways this way.

Edited July 1, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I do, but I think this is a very narrow ruling. Even liberal court bloggers are telling people to stop freaking out. It's definitely not a flood gate situation.

This is the first time a for-profit company was able to claim an RFRA exemption, right? And special pleading aside, you can't actually limit the court's argument strictly to (some versions of) Christianity's opposition to abortion and some drugs/devices they claim tangentially cause abortion (but don't actually).

[greg775]

I'm sure Greg would be happy to give up his religion if his employer wanted him to.

 

What is so wrong with Hobby Lobby owner not wanting to pay for contraceptives that cause abortions when they are against abortion for religious reasons? Yes Catholic policy is against abortion.

Yes there is freedom of religion in this country. Those people can still get those contraceptives, just have to find a way to pay for them. Sorry not everything is a free lunch around here.

 

I find it funny how in America over the last 20 years it's OK to mock Catholics and OK to mock those who believe in God good luck to you trying to mock some other groups. it's pretty sad that believers can be mocked openly by people like Maher and the general public. Let's see him mock some other groups.

Edited July 1, 2014 by greg775

[StrangeSox]

What is so wrong with Hobby Lobby owner not wanting to pay for contraceptives that cause abortions when they are against abortion for religious reasons? Yes Catholic policy is against abortion.

they don't actually cause abortions

Yes there is freedom of religion in this country. Those people can still get those contraceptives, just have to find a way to pay for them. Sorry not everything is a free lunch around here.

Employee compensation is not a "free lunch," though Hobby Lobby will still be getting tax breaks for providing their employees with health benefits even though they don't meet the minimum legal requirements. These people should be getting contraceptive coverage offered as part of their health benefits compensation just like everybody else does regardless of what their boss's personal religious beliefs are.

[Jenksismyhero]

So how on earth is that individual owner's religious beliefs compromised by the company paying for an insurance plan that includes contraceptives?

edit: this is what I'm trying to articulate here but I know I'm not doing a great job. They get to have it both ways this way.

 

Because it's 100% their money that is going to support something they don't believe in. That's why the distinction between Hobby Lobby and Wal-mart, to me, is key. You're talking about what basically amounts to a very large mom and pop shop. They don't share their revenue with anyone else. And if they all don't want to contribute towards something that offends or runs counter to their religious beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine for them to be exempted from it.

 

I mean, let's step back - do you agree that the Catholic Church or some other religious groups should lose their exemptions? Should they be required to provide that coverage even if their employees will, by choice, never use it?

 

[greg775]

they don't actually cause abortions

 

Employee compensation is not a "free lunch," though Hobby Lobby will still be getting tax breaks for providing their employees with health benefits even though they don't meet the minimum legal requirements. These people should be getting contraceptive coverage offered as part of their health benefits compensation just like everybody else does regardless of what their boss's personal religious beliefs are.

 

How do you know they don't cause abortions? Those 4 contraceptives?

I can't believe your second paragraph. How can you be against freedom of religion in this case? Why should employers have to pay when it is DIRECTLY against their religious beliefs?

 

And what do you mean they don't meet the minimum legal requirements, when the courts just said they don't have to pay for these things they don't believe in?

Edited July 1, 2014 by greg775

[StrangeSox]

Because it's 100% their money that is going to support something they don't believe in. That's why the distinction between Hobby Lobby and Wal-mart, to me, is key. You're talking about what basically amounts to a very large mom and pop shop. They don't share their revenue with anyone else. And if they all don't want to contribute towards something that offends or runs counter to their religious beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine for them to be exempted from it.

 

But you just told me that it's not any individual that is refusing to provide this coverage, it's the company. Which one is it? Is it 100% the individual's money, or is it the company not providing the compensation that the employees are otherwise legally required to?

 

I mean, let's step back - do you agree that the Catholic Church or some other religious groups should lose their exemptions? Should they be required to provide that coverage even if their employees will, by choice, never use it?

I think this is a categorical difference between non-profit entities that exist explicitly to promote religion and a for-profit company that sells arts and crafts supplies or concrete (Ozinga) or any other random commercial good whose owners happen to have a certain set of religious beliefs.