New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Sliding Down the Hobby Lobby Slope

Arkady

President
The Hobby Lobby decision relied on an extremely aggressive reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, such that even merely being required to buy health insurance that an employee might choose to use to buy certain forms of contraception was treated as an improper imposition on the employer's religious freedom. The court didn't provide much guidance for how it will decide which beliefs trump federal law and which don't, so now we'll get a bunch of litigation by those who think they ought not to have to follow the law because of their beliefs.

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/

Basically, if your religious beliefs should be able to get you out of providing some federally required employee benefits, shouldn't they also let you get out of having to sit through abortion counseling? The anti-abortion laws that require people to receive anti-abortion propaganda before they're allowed to have the medical procedure have been tolerated in the past, by the courts, but what if you claim that such material is against your religion? Should you still have to sit there and listen to it, before you can exercise your right to terminate your pregnancy? Should a doctor who has religious objections to that material have to provide it to his patients? Should a hospital owner that objects to the material have to allow the distribution of the material in his hospital?

There will doubtless be many more such challenges. And they're going to put the courts in the unseemly position of deciding whether someone's religious views are sincere or not, and of deciding how various people's religious views weigh against various governmental goals. Those aren't jobs I want courts to be engaged in.

Here is the statement of faith on which the argument relies:

"I regard any information required by state statute to be communicated or offered to me as a precondition for an abortion (separate and apart from any other medical procedure) is based on politics and not science (“Political Information”). I regard Political Information as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by compelling my consideration of the current and future condition of my fetal or embryonic tissue separate and apart from my body. I do not regard Political Information to be scientifically true or accurate or even relevant to my medical decisions. The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs."​
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
The Hobby Lobby decision relied on an extremely aggressive reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, such that even merely being required to buy health insurance that an employee might choose to use to buy certain forms of contraception was treated as an improper imposition on the employer's religious freedom. The court didn't provide much guidance for how it will decide which beliefs trump federal law and which don't, so now we'll get a bunch of litigation by those who think they ought not to have to follow the law because of their beliefs.

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/

Basically, if your religious beliefs should be able to get you out of providing some federally required employee benefits, shouldn't they also let you get out of having to sit through abortion counseling? The anti-abortion laws that require people to receive anti-abortion propaganda before they're allowed to have the medical procedure have been tolerated in the past, by the courts, but what if you claim that such material is against your religion? Should you still have to sit there and listen to it, before you can exercise your right to terminate your pregnancy? Should a doctor who has religious objections to that material have to provide it to his patients? Should a hospital owner that objects to the material have to allow the distribution of the material in his hospital?

There will doubtless be many more such challenges. And they're going to put the courts in the unseemly position of deciding whether someone's religious views are sincere or not, and of deciding how various people's religious views weigh against various governmental goals. Those aren't jobs I want courts to be engaged in.

Here is the statement of faith on which the argument relies:

"I regard any information required by state statute to be communicated or offered to me as a precondition for an abortion (separate and apart from any other medical procedure) is based on politics and not science (“Political Information”). I regard Political Information as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by compelling my consideration of the current and future condition of my fetal or embryonic tissue separate and apart from my body. I do not regard Political Information to be scientifically true or accurate or even relevant to my medical decisions. The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs."​
In truth, the slippery slope is formed by the imposition of mandates by the state. Every other condition, caviat, and exception/exemption is downstream of this state usurpation.
For some reason, you focus only on the downstream symptoms of a predecessor root cause.
This is what we get when we collectivize. It necessarily impels us toward monolithic sensibilities. It is a direct assault on human liberty (in the name of security - as usual).
 
The Hobby Lobby decision relied on an extremely aggressive reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, such that even merely being required to buy health insurance that an employee might choose to use to buy certain forms of contraception was treated as an improper imposition on the employer's religious freedom. The court didn't provide much guidance for how it will decide which beliefs trump federal law and which don't, so now we'll get a bunch of litigation by those who think they ought not to have to follow the law because of their beliefs.

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/

Basically, if your religious beliefs should be able to get you out of providing some federally required employee benefits, shouldn't they also let you get out of having to sit through abortion counseling? The anti-abortion laws that require people to receive anti-abortion propaganda before they're allowed to have the medical procedure have been tolerated in the past, by the courts, but what if you claim that such material is against your religion? Should you still have to sit there and listen to it, before you can exercise your right to terminate your pregnancy? Should a doctor who has religious objections to that material have to provide it to his patients? Should a hospital owner that objects to the material have to allow the distribution of the material in his hospital?

There will doubtless be many more such challenges. And they're going to put the courts in the unseemly position of deciding whether someone's religious views are sincere or not, and of deciding how various people's religious views weigh against various governmental goals. Those aren't jobs I want courts to be engaged in.

Here is the statement of faith on which the argument relies:

"I regard any information required by state statute to be communicated or offered to me as a precondition for an abortion (separate and apart from any other medical procedure) is based on politics and not science (“Political Information”). I regard Political Information as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by compelling my consideration of the current and future condition of my fetal or embryonic tissue separate and apart from my body. I do not regard Political Information to be scientifically true or accurate or even relevant to my medical decisions. The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs."​
Good luck with your case!
 

Arkady

President
In truth, the slippery slope is formed by the imposition of mandates by the state. Every other condition, caviat, and exception/exemption is downstream of this state usurpation.
For some reason, you focus only on the downstream symptoms of a predecessor root cause.
This is what we get when we collectivize. It necessarily impels us toward monolithic sensibilities. It is a direct assault on human liberty (in the name of security - as usual).
It's true that state mandates require tough decisions for accommodating the individual. That's even true for the most minimally invasive state mandates, like the invention and policing of the concept of private property. But once we decide that a collectivized approach is more efficient and mutually beneficial, we should try to be as even-handed about the rules as we can. If, for example, we're going to say that an employer can't require his employees to have sex with him as a condition of employment, we shouldn't say, "unless his religion calls for that." Similarly, if we're going to say that an employer must provide his employees with health insurance that covers certain things, we shouldn't say, "unless his religion has a problem with those things."
 

Bo-4

Senator
The Hobby Lobby decision relied on an extremely aggressive reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, such that even merely being required to buy health insurance that an employee might choose to use to buy certain forms of contraception was treated as an improper imposition on the employer's religious freedom. The court didn't provide much guidance for how it will decide which beliefs trump federal law and which don't, so now we'll get a bunch of litigation by those who think they ought not to have to follow the law because of their beliefs.

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/

Basically, if your religious beliefs should be able to get you out of providing some federally required employee benefits, shouldn't they also let you get out of having to sit through abortion counseling? The anti-abortion laws that require people to receive anti-abortion propaganda before they're allowed to have the medical procedure have been tolerated in the past, by the courts, but what if you claim that such material is against your religion? Should you still have to sit there and listen to it, before you can exercise your right to terminate your pregnancy? Should a doctor who has religious objections to that material have to provide it to his patients? Should a hospital owner that objects to the material have to allow the distribution of the material in his hospital?

There will doubtless be many more such challenges. And they're going to put the courts in the unseemly position of deciding whether someone's religious views are sincere or not, and of deciding how various people's religious views weigh against various governmental goals. Those aren't jobs I want courts to be engaged in.

Here is the statement of faith on which the argument relies:

"I regard any information required by state statute to be communicated or offered to me as a precondition for an abortion (separate and apart from any other medical procedure) is based on politics and not science (“Political Information”). I regard Political Information as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by compelling my consideration of the current and future condition of my fetal or embryonic tissue separate and apart from my body. I do not regard Political Information to be scientifically true or accurate or even relevant to my medical decisions. The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs."​
Yep, it goes on and on and on. They pretend that this was a narrow decision but it's not. It's one that holier-than-thous will come to HATE with a passion.

Just wait until Muslims chime in. Christian Scientists and Scientologists and Mormons?

Oh my!
 

Bo-4

Senator
Yup, it's going to be hilarious to see you supporting it then...
Geeze Marv, you and your twin are in a real battle today to see who can post the most utterly meaningless and thought-free responses.

Right now, i believe you have her by a pube. Don't let it get away! :D
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
It's true that state mandates require tough decisions for accommodating the individual. That's even true for the most minimally invasive state mandates, like the invention and policing of the concept of private property. But once we decide that a collectivized approach is more efficient and mutually beneficial, we should try to be as even-handed about the rules as we can. If, for example, we're going to say that an employer can't require his employees to have sex with him as a condition of employment, we shouldn't say, "unless his religion calls for that." Similarly, if we're going to say that an employer must provide his employees with health insurance that covers certain things, we shouldn't say, "unless his religion has a problem with those things."
Hence your multiple top posts about Obama's executive grants of exception and exemptions, right? :-/

Let's face it, at issue is that exemption was granted for a value or priority that you personally do not share. Just as you've admitted that the Second Amendment is personally of lesser value to you than some other protections, so it is with this decision. This fact, coupled with general lefty fealty to Obamawhim on executive implementation details and exemptions pretty much whittles credibility down to nada.

Offer the state giant shoes, more protections for citizen toes becomes necessary. Causation lays with the grant of new reach.
 

Arkady

President
Hence your multiple top posts about Obama's executive grants of exception and exemptions, right? :-/

Let's face it, at issue is that exemption was granted for a value or priority that you personally do not share. Just as you've admitted that the Second Amendment is personally of lesser value to you than some other protections, so it is with this decision. This fact, coupled with general lefty fealty to Obamawhim on executive implementation details and exemptions pretty much whittles credibility down to nada.

Offer the state giant shoes, more protections for citizen toes becomes necessary. Causation lays with the grant of new reach.
I have, in fact, faulted Obama for supporting exemptions -- including the exemption for religious organizations. And I've posted multiple times in the first tier to support the idea of a lawsuit against Obama for improper use of executive power, relative to him not enforcing certain laws. You assume that because you're a knee-jerk attacker of Obama on everything, that anyone who isn't that way must be a knee-jerk defender of Obama on everything. But many of us are more intellectually honest and independent than you.
 

Bo-4

Senator
I have, in fact, faulted Obama for supporting exemptions -- including the exemption for religious organizations. And I've posted multiple times in the first tier to support the idea of a lawsuit against Obama for improper use of executive power, relative to him not enforcing certain laws. You assume that because you're a knee-jerk attacker of Obama on everything, that anyone who isn't that way must be a knee-jerk defender of Obama on everything. But many of us are more intellectually honest and independent than you.
They've never been able to see that. Make fun of Republican intransigence and hatred of this president.. then you're an Obama apologist. Doesn't matter whether you eviscerate him on another issue 5 minutes later.

Blinders!

 
Last edited:

RickWA

Snagglesooth
I have, in fact, faulted Obama for supporting exemptions -- including the exemption for religious organizations. And I've posted multiple times in the first tier to support the idea of a lawsuit against Obama for improper use of executive power, relative to him not enforcing certain laws. You assume that because you're a knee-jerk attacker of Obama on everything, that anyone who isn't that way must be a knee-jerk defender of Obama on everything. But many of us are more intellectually honest and independent than you.
No, I don't assume it - you do it. Merely because there are a few stark raving lunatics who post Obama transcripts on this board doesn't mean the rest of you sycophants hold him accountable in any meaningful way.

And...as I said...your personal devaluation of faith - much like your admitted devaluation of the Second Amendment - preemptively frames any otherwise rational assessment. You have a default position which serves as container to your "liquid" analysis.
 

Arkady

President
No, I don't assume it - you do it. Merely because there are a few stark raving lunatics who post Obama transcripts on this board doesn't mean the rest of you sycophants hold him accountable in any meaningful way.

And...as I said...your personal devaluation of faith - much like your admitted devaluation of the Second Amendment - preemptively frames any otherwise rational assessment. You have a default position which serves as container to your "liquid" analysis.
You like to think of yourself as independent, but you're not. Your position is handed to you by Obama. Whatever he is for, you are against. I, on the other hand, sometimes post in support of him, and sometimes against him, because I'm driven by principle, not partisan hatred of a politician.

Anyway, I wouldn't say I devalue faith. That suggests I think it's inconsequential. Rather, I think faith has significant negative value. It is one of the fundamental sins. If people could rise out of the mire of faith, I believe human kind would be in a much better situation.
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
I've yet to see Arkady argue a point where he doesn't assign "hatred" or "partisanship" or "being stupid" to the person who opposes him.

Quite an intellectual indeed.
 

gigi

Mayor
The Hobby Lobby decision relied on an extremely aggressive reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, such that even merely being required to buy health insurance that an employee might choose to use to buy certain forms of contraception was treated as an improper imposition on the employer's religious freedom. The court didn't provide much guidance for how it will decide which beliefs trump federal law and which don't, so now we'll get a bunch of litigation by those who think they ought not to have to follow the law because of their beliefs.

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/satanists_want_hobby_lobby_style_religious_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/

Basically, if your religious beliefs should be able to get you out of providing some federally required employee benefits, shouldn't they also let you get out of having to sit through abortion counseling? The anti-abortion laws that require people to receive anti-abortion propaganda before they're allowed to have the medical procedure have been tolerated in the past, by the courts, but what if you claim that such material is against your religion? Should you still have to sit there and listen to it, before you can exercise your right to terminate your pregnancy? Should a doctor who has religious objections to that material have to provide it to his patients? Should a hospital owner that objects to the material have to allow the distribution of the material in his hospital?

There will doubtless be many more such challenges. And they're going to put the courts in the unseemly position of deciding whether someone's religious views are sincere or not, and of deciding how various people's religious views weigh against various governmental goals. Those aren't jobs I want courts to be engaged in.

Here is the statement of faith on which the argument relies:

"I regard any information required by state statute to be communicated or offered to me as a precondition for an abortion (separate and apart from any other medical procedure) is based on politics and not science (“Political Information”). I regard Political Information as a state sanctioned attempt to discourage abortion by compelling my consideration of the current and future condition of my fetal or embryonic tissue separate and apart from my body. I do not regard Political Information to be scientifically true or accurate or even relevant to my medical decisions. The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs."​
Why would a doctor have a religious conviction that proscribes making sure a patient is aware of all of her options?

Clearly you don't know anything about where preabortion counseling originated or how it has changed so drastically in past years. IF you were a true advocate of women's rights, and you truly understood the evolution of the "counseling" offered at the clinics, you'd be glad for preabortion counseling laws.
 

Arkady

President
Why would a doctor have a religious conviction that proscribes making sure a patient is aware of all of her options?

Clearly you don't know anything about where preabortion counseling originated or how it has changed so drastically in past years. IF you were a true advocate of women's rights, and you truly understood the evolution of the "counseling" offered at the clinics, you'd be glad for preabortion counseling laws.
People have all sorts of insane religious convictions. Some people are convinced that priests have the magical power to turn wine and bread into blood and flesh, and that believers are supposed to make a weekly cannibalistic feast of that gory meal. Next to that, a religious belief that says that it would be wrong to disseminate misleading medical propaganda, or even a religious belief that says it would be wrong to try to discourage someone who didn't want a baby to carry her pregnancy to term, seems pretty reasonable, by comparison.

Now, we can argue whether that kind of material is good or bad. That's a legitimate question of public policy, which can be worked out through the usual political process, just like the question of whether it's a good or bad idea to require employers to offer insurance for their employees that covers contraception. But the point of Hobby Lobby was that even if the usual political process came down in favor of something, a court could trump that by giving a special exemption to individuals who didn't think they should have to obey federal law for religious reasons. The issue, in this case, is whether that same principle would apply to a doctor or patient or hospital that had a religious problem with pre-abortion counseling laws. Or is the principle only available to state-favored religious beliefs? And, if so, how should the state decide which religious beliefs to favor?
 

Arkady

President
I've yet to see Arkady argue a point where he doesn't assign "hatred" or "partisanship" or "being stupid" to the person who opposes him.

Quite an intellectual indeed.
I believe there are many topics on which reasonable people can differ, and I regularly argue them without assigning anything negative to the other side. For example, reasonable people can disagree about whether carbon taxes or cap-and-trade is the better approach to addressing global warming. When, however, I see someone being an idiot, or a hateful bigot, I like to point that out.
 
Top