|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Why are you asking an internet forum on how to argue with a friend instead of just outright mocking said friend? Pay 51% of the rent, then start stealing your roommates poo poo. When he complains tell him he can just go find another apartment but since you hold the majority stake in the apartment your will is law. Ed - Sorry, tell him your new religion requires you to take all of his stuff and to not flush the toilet.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
So, how valid are the arguments for using Title VII to protect a woman's healthcare options instead of the contraceptive mandate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
So I've been arguing on Facebook with some members of my extended family about Hobby Lobby ruling. Dumb, I know, but they commented on a post I made on my wall, so I defended myself. Got sucked into it. But anyway, I'm probably 5-7 comments deep into it when I realize that two of these people literally think this ruling is about preventing the government from forcing women to use contraception including the morning after pill. As in, if you got raped they would force you to take the pill, and they're glad the Supreme Court protected a woman's choice. edit: when I asked her to tell me exactly what she thought this ruling was about, suddenly she said she was done with the debate and that navigating the new health laws is "mind-boggling" but assured me that my doctors' hands are now tied. OK. dakana fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:He's not normally this much of a shithead, I swear. I don't know why today has become lovely Opinion Day in our apartment. A corporation is a piece of paper that we give certain legal rights for the sake of convenience, and to encourage certain behaviors (like investment) by limiting liability. Corporations can be formed for religious reasons, but that's not why Hobby Lobby exists - it's a for-profit corporation, so it exists to turn a profit for its owners, not to advance a religious purpose. Regardless of the noises that Hobby Lobby's owners might make about serving Jesus, that's not why Hobby Lobby exists. If they really wanted to make a religious corporation, then they could make a non-profit corporation that actually does exist for a religious purpose and gives its proceeds to missionary work, feeding the poor, or whatever other religious beliefs the owners actually wanted to advance, rather than a corporation that exists for the sake of turning a profit and returning that profit to its owners. The corporation doesn't have a religion other than "make money," by definition, so it shouldn't have any religious rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:He's not normally this much of a shithead, I swear. I don't know why today has become lovely Opinion Day in our apartment. You can tell him that the supreme court does not agree with his first amendment reasoning, insofar as that is not what they based the decision on and declined to address the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:You can tell him that the supreme court does not agree with his first amendment reasoning, insofar as that is not what they based the decision on and declined to address the issue. Uh yes they do, that's a major piece of the opinion's reasoning. quote:As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA's definition of "persons." But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people. For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations' financial well-being. And protecting the free-exercise rights [*14] of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies. esquilax fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
You could always call him an idiot and laugh at his rebuttals or tell him to shut the gently caress up about politics. Not every encounter has to be a political debate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? The business owner doesn't need to own a business either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Uh yes they do, that's a major piece of the opinion's reasoning. The RFRA is not the First Amendment. They punted on the First Amendment question, as far as I understand. I think this is noted in Ginsbergs dissent, and in any case was mentioned on SCOTUSblog as well. I'm on a phone, otherwise I'd try to track it down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:The RFRA is not the First Amendment. They punted on the First Amendment question, as far as I understand. I think this is noted in Ginsbergs dissent, and in any case was mentioned on SCOTUSblog as well. I'm on a phone, otherwise I'd try to track it down. You're right, my bad. I thought you were talking about individual/corporate rights not the differentiation between RFRA rights/1A rights esquilax fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:A corporation is a piece of paper that we give certain legal rights for the sake of convenience, and to encourage certain behaviors (like investment) by limiting liability. Corporations can be formed for religious reasons, but that's not why Hobby Lobby exists - it's a for-profit corporation, so it exists to turn a profit for its owners, not to advance a religious purpose. Regardless of the noises that Hobby Lobby's owners might make about serving Jesus, that's not why Hobby Lobby exists. If they really wanted to make a religious corporation, then they could make a non-profit corporation that actually does exist for a religious purpose and gives its proceeds to missionary work, feeding the poor, or whatever other religious beliefs the owners actually wanted to advance, rather than a corporation that exists for the sake of turning a profit and returning that profit to its owners. I asked this in the GBS thread but that got lovely quickly. Let's say the government decided to mandate certain companies should make the drugs for lethal injections. The owners of a pharmaceutical company objects and says that their religious beliefs prevent them from supporting the death penalty. Do they not have a right to object to the government's mandate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I asked this in the GBS thread but that got lovely quickly. Let's say the government decided to mandate certain companies should make the drugs for lethal injections. The owners of a pharmaceutical company objects and says that their religious beliefs prevent them from supporting the death penalty. Do they not have a right to object to the government's mandate? You'd have to get past the legality of the government forcing a company to produce X before you even got to the question of religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering does this ruling conflict with the establishment of religion? This ruling has stated that this specific religious belief is valid, but others like blood transfusion and vaccines are not. Correct? It appears that the court is deciding which religious beliefs apply and which do not arbitrarily. How is that not showing a religious preference?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I was wondering does this ruling conflict with the establishment of religion? Of course it's showing a religious preference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:This ruling has stated that this specific religious belief is valid, but others like blood transfusion and vaccines are not. Correct? No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been asked before, but does this mean basically that any company that has to give ACA quality healthcare can now deny stuff to employers based off "religious beliefs" pretty much invalidating any gains employees got from the ACA in the first place? Or does this only count in the case of contraceptives? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I asked this in the GBS thread but that got lovely quickly. Let's say the government decided to mandate certain companies should make the drugs for lethal injections. The owners of a pharmaceutical company objects and says that their religious beliefs prevent them from supporting the death penalty. Do they not have a right to object to the government's mandate? Let's say the sky was purple and gravity repulsed things while we're making hypotheticals with tenuous connections to the case at hand. Boy that'd be a pickle. Can we cut to the chase of what your point is going to be related to this case rather than walking through some elaborate logic example where we have 20 replies back and forth before we get to that point? If you think for-profit companies should or shouldn't be able to express the religious objections of their owners over the interests of the employees / the government just lay that out and explain why. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
This poo poo doesn't even piss me off anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
I thought that the argument qualified this to just these specific BC drugs and for just a specific type of company. Is that incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Let's say the sky was purple and gravity repulsed things while we're making hypotheticals with tenuous connections to the case at hand while we're at it. Boy that'd be a pickle. The point of the hypothetical was that the government was forcing a corporation to pay for something which was against the religious beliefs of its owners. I was simply trying to put it in terms of something most people here would probably consider immoral.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:The argument qualified this to just these specific BC drugs and for just a specific type of company. This statement is correct. It could be expanded in future cases, however.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This statement is correct. It could be expanded in future cases, however. Ok. Thank you. Which would seem that they are specifying a head of time what religious beliefs apply. That appears to conflict with that the government can not establish religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Ok. Thank you. The rationale focusing on the specific provisions in question is apparently a mess. I'd recommend seeing what other folks in the thread have already written, or look to the scotusblog coverage. I can't comment on or study this stuff too much since I'm now beginning my bar exam review. Pray for me. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The point of the hypothetical was that the government was forcing a corporation to pay for something which was against the religious beliefs of its owners. I was simply trying to put it in terms of something most people here would probably consider immoral. To generalize, I think most people here understand the objection being raised by Hobby Lobby already but simply disagree with it. I myself don't find it acceptable (and further don't believe it should be legal) for the owners of a for-profit corporation to exercise their religious beliefs through said separate legal entity to not follow laws that serve a compelling government interest. Especially not when those objections have negative consequences on the health and well-being of employees who may or may not have the same beliefs. How do you stand on the issue? Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The point of the hypothetical was that the government was forcing a corporation to pay for something which was against the religious beliefs of its owners. I was simply trying to put it in terms of something most people here would probably consider immoral. They weren't being forced to pay for anything against their religious beliefs. They were forced to pay for insurance. When they pay the insurance company, the money from them and from all others goes into a big pool of money. Once someone covered by the insurance submits a claim, the insurance company removes money from that pool and pays it to the healthcare provider on behalf of the person insured. Once the money enters the pool, the distinction of whose dollar was whose before becomes literally meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
I just wanted to thank you guys for your skilled analyses on everything today, and indeed, forever. It comes in handy when I get bored and want to call out friends on Facebook.A Fancy 400 lbs posted:They weren't being forced to pay for anything against their religious beliefs. They were forced to pay for insurance. When they pay the insurance company, the money from them and from all others goes into a big pool of money. Once someone covered by the insurance submits a claim, the insurance company removes money from that pool and pays it to the healthcare provider on behalf of the person insured. Once the money enters the pool, the distinction of whose dollar was whose before becomes literally meaningless. As I recall, Hobby Lobby self-insures. There's no 'others' in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Dystram posted:You'd have to get past the legality of the government forcing a company to produce X before you even got to the question of religion. Is there any case law on the right of corporations to be free from bills of attainder?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:I thought that the argument qualified this to just these specific BC drugs and for just a specific type of company. Is that incorrect? It was limited in that way because those were the facts of the case. Expanding it to more companies involves other issues that weren't argued. Other medical procedures didn't have the non-profit accommodation already in place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It was limited in that way because those were the facts of the case. Expanding it to more companies involves other issues that weren't argued. Other medical procedures didn't have the non-profit accommodation already in place. They specified what this applied to, in advance. They have established that yes religion is an argument for (some) companies to make in court. Then stated, but this only applies to a certain religious belief. I assume because they had the self awareness to understand they just opened a line of argument that could negate virtually any law. So, ahead of time, they had stated what applies and what does not. How is that not establishing religion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:They specified what this applied to, in advance. They have established that yes religion is an argument for (some) companies to make in court. Then stated, but this only applies to a certain religious belief. I assume because they had the self awareness to understand they just opened a line of argument that could negate virtually any law. Because that's not what they said. There was nothing about relative validity of religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Farking Bastage posted:This poo poo doesn't even piss me off anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:They specified what this applied to, in advance. They have established that yes religion is an argument for (some) companies to make in court. Then stated, but this only applies to a certain religious belief. I assume because they had the self awareness to understand they just opened a line of argument that could negate virtually any law. They specifically refused to evaluate whether the HHS exemption policy itself was valid. They just ruled that, given its existence, closely held for-profit corporations must also qualify.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:That was one of the arguments. The other one was Two of the people who concurred in part and dissented in part in a seperate, linked case held that: quote:The Court has demonstrated the public need for a weekly surcease from worldly labor, and set forth the considerations of convenience which have led the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to fix Sunday as the time for that respite. I would approach this case differently, from the point of view of the individuals whose liberty is - concededly - curtailed by these enactments. For the values of the First Amendment, as embodied in the Fourteenth, look primarily towards the preservation of personal liberty, rather than towards the fulfillment of collective goals. They then merely cited this case in dissent, their clear reasoning being that the blue laws burdened Orthodox Jews as individuals in any profession. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It sounded as if you were implying there was some pre-existing statutory scheme that extended RFRA-like religious rights based on nonprofit status. Unless the courts decided that only corporations organized under a nonprofit provision of their state law had free exercise rights, which would be bizarre. No. I am saying the legal fiction exists for a reason, and you must understand the reason it exists to understand when it does and does not apply. Your analysis starts and stops with the legal fiction and at no time deals with why the law says something we all know is false - that a non-profit organization has a religion - and at no point understands it. Someone posted earlier in the thread where the majority opinion at least recognizes this is a fiction, but then simply ignores the differences between a for-profit corporation and a not for profit organization as it applies to if the organization should be said to have a religion. You're mindlessly repeating a legal fiction at me and telling me that you don't understand why it applies to A and not B. It's because of why the legal fiction exists in the first place: that once you understand why we pretend some organizations have a religion you understand why it doesn't apply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:They specifically refused to evaluate whether the HHS exemption policy itself was valid. They just ruled that, given its existence, closely held for-profit corporations must also qualify. Ok. So my understanding the ruling was incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:How is that not establishing religion? While I'm usually pretty leftist I find myself squarely in agreement with majority on this one. Health and Human Services already had grandfathered in insurance plans to the ACA which did not cover contraception and allowed non-profits an exemption, there was no reason for-profit companies should not have the same protections. The court had already given for-profit businesses (specifically Kosher butchers) legal standing in past cases about the free exercise of religion. Further, a lot of religious lobbying groups don't operate as non-profits to let themselves engage in political activism, but they are clearly religious groups. I will remind people that the RFRA was a creation of Ted Kennedy and was a bi-partisan effort. It's what prevents states from creating laws that businesses should be closed on Sundays and driving Jewish businesses out of business when they can't open any days on the weekend, it was intended to address the injustice of Native Americans being arrested for peyote use. Upholding the RFRA is something leftists should be dedicated to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
OK.... so, I agree that the decision was not just wrong, but based on idiotic and weak reasoning, but... ... why is this being treated as such huge earth-shaking news, and why are we devoting hundreds of posts to it? This ruling impacts almost no one. (If you are a largish private company aside from Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A, you won't do this, and if you are a small employer, you wont be big enough for the insurance companies to cater to your weird contraception requests) In the bigger picture, yes this will be inconvenient for a very small number of women, but democrats are probably going to hold the white house for the forseeable future and as soon as one of the old conservatives die, this will be reversed. This morning I was more focused on the labor union decision. I was mildly annoyed at the SCOTUS making a dumb decision about this contraception thing, but I'm shocked at how big of a deal this is becoming in the news.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Ironically if they had noticed earlier they were covering objectionable forms of contraception, their plan wouldn't have needed to be changed and thus ineligible for grandfathering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:OK.... so, I agree that the decision was not just wrong, but based on idiotic and weak reasoning, but... To me, it's a big deal because it's the first time the door has been opened to grant for-profit corporations 1st Amendment religious freedoms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Two of the people who concurred in part and dissented in part in a seperate, linked case held that: And Douglas did not. The point is that there was at least some for-profit invocation of the Free Exercise Clause, and it wasn't dismissed as frivolous. quote:No. I am saying the legal fiction exists for a reason, and you must understand the reason it exists to understand when it does and does not apply. Your analysis starts and stops with the legal fiction and at no time deals with why the law says something we all know is false - that a non-profit organization has a religion - and at no point understands it. Someone posted earlier in the thread where the majority opinion at least recognizes this is a fiction, but then simply ignores the differences between a for-profit corporation and a not for profit organization as it applies to if the organization should be said to have a religion. I understand the fiction just fine. There's no coherent reason to distinguish between the two: quote:Is it because of the corporate form? The corporate form alone cannot provide the explanation because, as we have pointed out, HHS concedes that nonprofit corporations can be protected by RFRA. The dissent suggests that nonprofit
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:19 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:In the bigger picture, yes this will be inconvenient for a very small number of women, but democrats are probably going to hold the white house for the forseeable future and as soon as one of the old conservatives die, this will be reversed. As the court points out it likely will actually affect no one, provided the current administration doesn't try and make it deliberately harm women to make a point. They were passing the cost of the contraceptive care of employees of nonprofits with exemptions onto the insurers, no reason the federal government couldn't do that here. One of the amicus briefs even points out that it actually saves money for most employers not to offer any care rather than apply for an exemption, in which case the federal government would be providing the ACA coverage anyway. I kind of doubt any women will be affected directly by this ruling. Now if RFRA had been overturned, that we would all be lamenting in a few years as more conservative states passed laws that harmed minority religious groups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 04:24
|
|