Hobby Lobby

[Arkady]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Hobby Lobby reasoning is meant to work. It seems to stand for the idea that some types of businesses shouldn't have to contribute money that could ultimately indirectly pay for things that offend certain state-supported religious beliefs, if they don't want (e.g., if your religion objects to IUDs, the state defers to that faith, but if your religion objects to the use of blood products, you deserve no such deference). But businesses have ALWAYS had to contribute money that could ultimately indirectly pay for things that offend the religious beliefs of their owners. For example, taxes go to make war, even if you have a religious objection to war. Even when it comes to birth control, this is true. Your taxes indirectly pay for various kinds of birth control -- for example, condoms distributed to our soldiers. So, why is it OK for religious people to have to fund things they object to if the money flows through Uncle Sam but not if it flows through a private insurer?

And why doesn't this work the other way. I mean, the money that goes to the insurer isn't really the business's money, anyway. It's money that's mandated for an EMPLOYEE'S benefit, by law. It's the employee's money. It may be handed from the employer to the insurer, but the employer effectively just held it in trust for the employee, much in the same way as employee earnings that get direct deposited by the employer into the employee's retirement account. So, if it is, by law, money earmarked for the employee's benefit, why isn't it the employee's faith that counts, rather than the employer's?

 

[fairsheet]

Contrast this one with their D.C. v Heller. Like that decision or not The Court made it plain that the "state" is free to legislate reasonable gun restrictions as it sees fit, within the context of their relatively simple ruling. They did NOT say that every gun restriction should be brought before them for their review.

Hobby Lobby's the opposite. The Court is essentially challenging thousands of people and entities to bring their cases before them, so they can adjudge their merit. That's as ANTI-Constitutional as it gets.

 

[Arkady]

Contrast this one with their D.C. v Heller. Like that decision or not The Court made it plain that the "state" is free to legislate reasonable gun restrictions as it sees fit, within the context of their relatively simple ruling. They did NOT say that every gun restriction should be brought before them for their review.

Hobby Lobby's the opposite. The Court is essentially challenging thousands of people and entities to bring their cases before them, so they can adjudge their merit. That's as ANTI-Constitutional as it gets.

They're afraid of framing the decision in a principled way, since any neutral principle they could enunciate might be used to favor religious beliefs they don't support. Let's remember that the case was decided by five old, Catholic men, and so they want to make sure the ruling only helps out those with the kinds of scruples old, Catholic men respect -- you know, like objecting to certain female birth control methods. They wouldn't want the case to be used by some Muslim to get a special exception for himself that old, Catholic men don't see the need for.

 

[PhilFish]

They're afraid of framing the decision in a principled way, since any neutral principle they could enunciate might be used to favor religious beliefs they don't support. Let's remember that the case was decided by five old, Catholic men, and so they want to make sure the ruling only helps out those with the kinds of scruples old, Catholic men respect -- you know, like objecting to certain female birth control methods. They wouldn't want the case to be used by some Muslim to get a special exception for himself that old, Catholic men don't see the need for.

and you know this how. let's wait and see when a muslim brings a case.

 

[Bo-4]

and you know this how. let's wait and see when a muslim brings a case.

Phil, there were 50 pending lawsuits that were in limbo awaiting the Hobby Lobby decision. Trust me, they are ALL moving forward now and many of them are WAY more radical in terms of vaginal oversight.

 

[PhilFish]

Phil, there were 50 pending lawsuits that were in limbo awaiting the Hobby Lobby decision. Trust me, they are ALL moving forward now and many of them are WAY more radical in terms of vaginal oversight.

nope. no traction here. women are free to pursue their own oversight still..

 

[Bo-4]

nope. no traction here. women are free to pursue their own oversight still..

Yeah, if they wanna spring for a month's worth of take home pay at minimum wage for the highly reliable IUD.

Hide and watch, many of these lawsuits will take EVERYTHING away.. not just 4 out of 20 options.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Hobby Lobby reasoning is meant to work. It seems to stand for the idea that some types of businesses shouldn't have to contribute money that could ultimately indirectly pay for things that offend certain state-supported religious beliefs, if they don't want (e.g., if your religion objects to IUDs, the state defers to that faith, but if your religion objects to the use of blood products, you deserve no such deference). But businesses have ALWAYS had to contribute money that could ultimately indirectly pay for things that offend the religious beliefs of their owners. For example, taxes go to make war, even if you have a religious objection to war. Even when it comes to birth control, this is true. Your taxes indirectly pay for various kinds of birth control -- for example, condoms distributed to our soldiers. So, why is it OK for religious people to have to fund things they object to if the money flows through Uncle Sam but not if it flows through a private insurer?

And why doesn't this work the other way. I mean, the money that goes to the insurer isn't really the business's money, anyway. It's money that's mandated for an EMPLOYEE'S benefit, by law. It's the employee's money. It may be handed from the employer to the insurer, but the employer effectively just held it in trust for the employee, much in the same way as employee earnings that get direct deposited by the employer into the employee's retirement account. So, if it is, by law, money earmarked for the employee's benefit, why isn't it the employee's faith that counts, rather than the employer's?

I honestly don't get why you don't get it.

Hobby Lobby is offering other alternatives.
Women aren't restricted from buying IUD's.

The SCOTUS saw that and decided 4 types of abortion isn't a huge deal compared to a major infringement on someone's religion.

Meanwhile, your blood reference makes no sense as there's only one type of blood for every human and one way to do the procedure. Plus, that sort of operation is essential to help the human body function. IUD's are results of outside-of-work activity...

 

[PhilFish]

Yeah, if they wanna spring for a month's worth of take home pay at minimum wage for the highly reliable IUD.

Hide and watch, many of these lawsuits will take EVERYTHING away.. not just 4 out of 20 options.

i dont have to hide..

plenty of options available.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Yeah, if they wanna spring for a month's worth of take home pay at minimum wage for the highly reliable IUD.

So the truth comes out.

It's not about rights, it's all about economics for those who wish to use IUD's.

Man, the majority of the pro-abortion crowd is rabid these days.

 

[Bo-4]

So the truth comes out.

It's not about rights, it's all about economics for those who wish to use IUD's.

Man, the majority of the pro-abortion crowd is rabid these days.

Birth control is NOT abortion. Talk to a doctor about that, and they'll fill ya in Frisky.

 

[PhilFish]

Birth control is NOT abortion. Talk to a doctor about that, and they'll fill ya in Frisky.

so, the only option is IUD?

is this your position?

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

So the truth comes out.

It's not about rights, it's all about economics for those who wish to use IUD's.

Man, the majority of the pro-abortion crowd is rabid these days.

It wa$ ALWAY$ about the $. Never about a woman'$ 'freedom to choo$e'.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Birth control is NOT abortion. Talk to a doctor about that, and they'll fill ya in Frisky.

If your religious beliefs say life begins at conception, it does, no matter what your personal views are.

The SCOTUS quite frankly should have seen that there were 16 other options and laughed at the government's outcry and attempt to mandate.

 

[Bo-4]

so, the only option is IUD?

is this your position?

It is the most RELIABLE option.

 

[PhilFish]

It is the most RELIABLE option.

but this isnt a discussion on reliability..

it's a make believe that womens choices are being made for them. they are not.

 

[Arkady]

I honestly don't get why you don't get it.

Hobby Lobby is offering other alternatives.
Women aren't restricted from buying IUD's.

The SCOTUS saw that and decided 4 types of abortion isn't a huge deal compared to a major infringement on someone's religion.

Meanwhile, your blood reference makes no sense as there's only one type of blood for every human and one way to do the procedure. Plus, that sort of operation is essential to help the human body function. IUD's are results of outside-of-work activity...

There was NO infringement on anyone's religion involved. Zero. Nada. Zip. The Hobby Lobby plutocrats were welcome to practice their religion any way they saw fit. They simply had to provide certain benefits to their employees, as required by federal law. That doesn't implicate religious freedom.

 

[PhilFish]

There was NO infringement on anyone's religion involved. Zero. Nada. Zip. The Hobby Lobby plutocrats were welcome to practice their religion any way they saw fit. They simply had to provide certain benefits to their employees, as required by federal law. That doesn't implicate religious freedom.

and if their practice of religion led to the voicing of a moral objection to said provision....concerning the specific forms in question...

?

 

[Hmmmm]

and if their practice of religion led to the voicing of a moral objection to said provision....concerning the specific forms in question...

?

Then a decision needs to be made. Either stick to your faith and get out of a non-religious business where you would have to deal with people in a strictly non-religious way or go with the law using the same logic that allows you to do business with the likes of China.

 

[BobbyT]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how the Hobby Lobby reasoning is meant to work. It seems to stand for the idea that some types of businesses shouldn't have to contribute money that could ultimately indirectly pay for things that offend certain state-supported religious beliefs, if they don't want (e.g., if your religion objects to IUDs, the state defers to that faith, but if your religion objects to the use of blood products, you deserve no such deference). But businesses have ALWAYS had to contribute money that could ultimately indirectly pay for things that offend the religious beliefs of their owners. For example, taxes go to make war, even if you have a religious objection to war. Even when it comes to birth control, this is true. Your taxes indirectly pay for various kinds of birth control -- for example, condoms distributed to our soldiers. So, why is it OK for religious people to have to fund things they object to if the money flows through Uncle Sam but not if it flows through a private insurer?

And why doesn't this work the other way. I mean, the money that goes to the insurer isn't really the business's money, anyway. It's money that's mandated for an EMPLOYEE'S benefit, by law. It's the employee's money. It may be handed from the employer to the insurer, but the employer effectively just held it in trust for the employee, much in the same way as employee earnings that get direct deposited by the employer into the employee's retirement account. So, if it is, by law, money earmarked for the employee's benefit, why isn't it the employee's faith that counts, rather than the employer's?

What interests me is that abortion is a constitutionally protected right. If Hobby Lobby thinks that the four methods of contraceptive are, in effect, abortifacients, then they are denying women their constitutionally protected right to obtain an abortion within the protected timeframe. Do the religious beliefs of business trump women's constitutional rights? Apparently they do.

As I have noted elsewhere, if a business is concerned that its financial contributions to an insurance company may lead a woman to have a (constitutionally protected) abortion, then it should be equally concerned that its financial contributions to a woman's paycheck may lead her to have an abortion; how do they reconcile that?

The arguments I've read here (not necessarily in this thread, but overall at PJ) eventually devolve to one central point, alluded to by Friscus above, which is that women should simply refrain from sex except under absolute ideal conditions (i.e., they want to get pregnant or they have 100% certain birth control). I never see discussions of men's sexuality that declare men should simply refrain from having sex.