|
Evilweasel, thanks for your corporate personhood effortpost in the last thread, that was helpful  Does the argument that health insurance is compensation for work done, and thus the property of the employee and not the employer? The government is fully within its rights to regulate what employment contracts are appropriate and what are not, and religion is not an excuse to flout OSHA regulations. A company could just as well complain that the employee is spending his salary on birth control, but statute forbids paying in scrip and religious employers can't claim that the Free Exercise clause gives them the right to pay people in scrip redeemable at the company store, which sells only Bibles, bottles, baby formula, and maternity wear. Or just pay them in Bibles and food directly. How does this not also apply to health insurance? The government can say "Money is an acceptable renumeration and scrip or Bibles are not" without paying attention to anyone's religion, so do you know if "This health insurance is acceptable compensation, and this is not" would work the same way? The company has the option to pay the cost in cash instead and let employees go to the exchanges.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:You make it sound as though birth control opponents have any interest in the science behind birth control. Scientific proof that birth control doesn't work the way they say it does has never stopped them, because they don't care about science. The only reason they ever even bring it up is to apply a thin veneer of moral legitimacy to their opposition of women having sex when and how they want. They're literally not interested in the science. quote:"All they're asking for is a narrow exemption from the law that says they don't have to provide drugs they believe cause abortions," Hobby Lobby attorney Kyle Duncan, a general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNN affiliate KFOR in November. "Our basic point is the government can't put a corporation in the position of choosing between its faith and following the law." If you take Slactivist's interpretation of that claim at face value, Hobby Lobby is asking for an exception from the mandate and from biology while they're at it. I don't know if, in any of their court filings, they have actually attempted to argue that the law violates Free Exercise by forcing them to pay for something they believe causes abortions even if it doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
I understand that the RFRA makes it a trickier issue. I was just wondering whether the argument that "compensation is the property of the employee and not the employer so regulating what is acceptable compensation is not a burden on anyone's exercise within the meaning of the RFRA" is an argument anyone has used, or if legal-minded goons here think it's valid. On the rights of corporate persons, the judge in the Conestoga Wood case does also accuse the owners of conflating their own personhood with the corporation's and shifting back and forth depending on whatever is advantageous at the moment, so it seems at least some judges agree that it's not solely a question about which corporate rights are necessary to protect individual rights. Conestoga v. Sebelius posted:Since Conestoga is distinct from the Hahns, the Mandate does not actually require the Hahns to do anything. All responsibility for complying with the mandate falls on Conestoga. Conestoga "is a closely-held, family-owned firm, and [we] suspect there is a natural inclination for the owners of such companies to elide the distinction between themselves and the companies they own."....But, it is Conestoga that must provide the funds to comply with the Mandate--not the Hahns.... e: better quote VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
That OP has more Game of Thrones references than my last D&D session. Request that you compare Clarence Thomas to Eddard Stark.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I mean if any phrase describes the Supreme Court, it'd be "an incestuous, ultraviolent fuckfest full of archaic gender and racial politics and also bizarre ideas on how language should work." Oh come on: so wedded to notions of ancient tradition that he inadvertently allows the downfall of his own people when adherence to a rigid but outdated personal code gave unscrupulous enemies the opportunity to turn it against those he strived to protect, and subjugate them. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Like, yeah, sure, it's burdensome, but it's surely not substantial due to the numerous ways the owners can still express their religious disapproval of whatever. I'm fine with allowing them to express their disapproval of their employees' life choices in exchange for enforcing the mandate. I can see it now...  "Good morning, Eileen. How's that abortion? I'm going to need you to fill out this sinner's abortion leave request if you want time off to get your sinful abortion" "It's not an abortion. It's a birth control pill and I don't need leave to--" "You know I'm paying for all your sex-having and abortions, so if MY MONEY is going to your lady parts then I get to take them for a spin, get in on all your sex-having." "I have ovarian cysts, it's not even--" "Oh hey Ted, how's your new sportscar you bought with MY MONEY. I'm gonna go take it out for a spin after lunch." "What? No, you can't drive my--" "MY MONEY!!!!  We may sacrifice some professionalism in the workplace, but I think we can all agree it'd be worth it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I'm trying to find the phrase that I think Scalia used, saying that the strength of one's convictions can be determined by their actions. So since Hobby Lobby didn't drop contraceptive coverage from their plans until after the ACA mandate, can we discount their actions as indicating partisan spite against the law rather than a sincerely held belief?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine" talks about it a little bit, but I'm not sure if any book goes in depth on it. Because their objection is to abortion, not contraception. If a contraception method is not proven to cause abortions then mandating it isn't a substantial burden. Might as well argue that equal pay for women causes abortions and is a substantial burden if you're going to say that scientific evidence for physical consequences is irrelevant. Science can't prove whether their God exists or whether abortions make Him cry. It can prove whether this or that method of contraception can stop implantation or abort an implanted zygote. Free Exercise protects religious beliefs like the former, not scientific questions like the latter. That's the difference. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah I just noticed that was an op-ed. My bad. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA posted:Hobby Lobby’s insurance policies have long explicitly excluded – consistent with their religious beliefs – contraceptive devices that might cause abortions and pregnancy-termination drugs like RU-486.” The government does not dispute the sincerity of the Greens’ beliefs. Although I did find that the evangelical Wheaton college did actually admit that this happened to them. The Christian Post posted:"Wheaton doesn't know when or how its insurance coverage for emergency contraception came about. What we do know is that as soon as it was discovered Wheaton worked diligently with its insurer and plan administrator to exclude emergency contraception from its plans in order to be consistent with its long-standing sincerely-held religious convictions," Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund, told The Christian Post in an email..."The fact that emergency contraception was in the past included in its health plans – unbeknownst to Wheaton – does not change its longstanding and sincerely held opposition to these drugs as a religious matter," Smith wrote. It seems Wheaton College didn't consider it important to make sure their insurance coverage didn't violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs" until after it hit the news that the government was mandating that coverage because no gently caress you, dad now I want to go to that concert that I didn't know was even happening until you told me I couldn't!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Those "might cause abortions" medicines don't include all contraceptives, just a small subset of them. It's a small distinction, but fairly important. Yeah, but those few are the ones at issue here. Hobby Lobby covers contraception methods that are scientifically acknowledged to operate only by preventing fertilization without any realistic potential of preventing implantation of a single ensouled cell. 10th Circuit majority posted:There is an ongoing medical debate as to whether some of the contraceptive methods relevant to this case act by preventing implantation or fertilization. This is relevant because Hobby Lobby and Mardel object to forms of contraception that prevent uterine implantation, but they do not object to those that prevent conception. For purposes of this appeal, however, there is no material dispute. Both the government and the medical amici supporting the government concede that at least some of the contraceptive methods to which the plaintiffs object have the potential to prevent uterine implantation. See, e.g., Aple. Br. at 9 n.6 (noting that one of the three ways emergency contraceptive pills function is by “inhibiting implantation” (quoting 62 Fed. Reg. 8610, 8611 (Feb. 25, 1997))); Physicians for Reproductive Health et al. Amicus Br. at 16 (noting that some studies suggest the copper present in IUDs “can also alter molecules present in the endometrial lining,” which causes “alteration of the endometrial lining [that] prevents . . . implantation” (emphasis added)). Some of our colleagues suggest this debate extends only to intrauterine devices, not Plan B and Ella. See Briscoe Op. at 3. Whatever the merits of this argument, we need not wade into scientific waters here, given the above-noted agreement that some of the challenged devices function in a manner that Hobby Lobby and Mardel find morally problematic. Now I think it's ridiculous bullshit that the majority acknowledges that there's no real debate that Plan B doesn't cause abortions and just handwaves it away because some of the treatments do (and the dissent calls them out on this crap), but on the other hand since I don't agree that Hobby Lobby should have the right to restrict methods like RU-486 that do cause abortions, I would prefer that the case weren't decided on those grounds anyway. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Dec 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Like I said, part of "substantial burden". The RFRA carves out exemptions for individuals, it doesn't overturn laws because they substantially burden one person's exercise of religion. You're assuming that substantial burden in the bolded part: I'm saying this is something that is evidence something is not a substantial burden (or the belief is not sincere). Hobby Lobby is a craft store, not a medical research organization. It's not reasonable to expect them to know the detailed risks of every possible procedure before they're allowed to object to procedures with which they are aware of the scientific debate about the associated risks. I'd wager most people who aren't experts don't know that and it's a ridiculous standard to insist that a person have specialized knowledge in multiple fields in order to sincerely hold a belief. All Hobby Lobby has to say is "We didn't know that, we'll add that too, thanks." Congratulations, even less healthcare for women unless you get the judge to rule that amniocentesis is a compelling state interest so that's required. And in that case Hobby Lobby still wins with regard to the procedures they are suing over. The arguments that the other circuits used to deny the suit are better arguments. I don't know why this one matters to you so much, because even if it prevailed against Hobby Lobby it would set a precedent that other employers who excluded treatments you're talking about could still get exemptions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I am making this argument because twodot is suggesting it's not a valid one. I have no idea where you got "this is the only argument that matters to me" from this discussion, it is the argument I'm discussing because it is the one someone is objecting to. Whoops sorry, I just assumed that what I was quoting was by the original poster of that argument, didn't notice you had jumped in on the merits. Still, the argument doesn't seem to accomplish anything even if it were accepted, since Hobby Lobby can plausibly claim ignorance since they're not experts in a specialized field and thus it doesn't impact their sincere belief. And the courts have been reluctant to wade in on the scientific issues, content to simply note that there is at least some controversy over the claims in scientific circles, which is enough to keep them from throwing out the suit for being totally ridiculous (like they might if they claimed that, say, vasectomies caused abortions).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:If the class is disproportionately white, then it's a "white problem" by definition. I don't think we need to fear that the justice system won't pay enough attention to the concerns of white people. If we find that minority lawyers for such a class aren't doing a good enough job defending their disproportionately white clients from the rich powerful minority-run businesses that harmed them, then we can suggest that white lawyers would be better counsel for that case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:When did I even hint at something like this? You didn't hint at something like this. I was pointing out that the defendants in these suits are usually big businesses controlled by rich white men. It's reasonable to question whether a rich white lawyer would have the perspective to effectively represent a class disproportionately made up of minorities that are hurt by the businesses' actions and understand the extra burdens that the plaintiffs face which he does not when he shares the perspective of the defendants. If the class is disproportionately white, suing someone who is white, then a minority lawyer can represent them fine. The lawyer doesn't identify any more with the defendants than the plaintiffs here, and anyway there aren't "rich, white man problems" that aren't problems everyone faces. The extra problems minorities face are consequences of systemic racism. Minority and female lawyers will understand the problems of rich white men just fine because they face those problems too. The only time we'd have to worry about this is if the power dynamics of society have shifted such that some minority group has attained enough power to disadvantage whites, and one of those minority-owned companies has hurt whites in a way that a minority lawyer has no experience with. That's the only time we should seriously think about using this ruling to demand that counsel be white men, and this situation isn't really even a foreseeable danger on the horizon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
No national campaigns to give us straight white men special marriage rights either  VVVVVV Stop upstaging my jokes with way way better jokes 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:What circuit is Utah in? If it's the 9th, will they repeat the same reasoning as in Perry v. Schwarzenegger? 10th. Everything I know about it is:  Stultus Maximus!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Now instead of just using a fishy excuse (like dissipation of BAC) to compel a blood test without a warrant, it'll just make warrants the new throwaway step - instead of being able to claim you smelled weed after the fact in court, you just need to call a judge beforehand and say you smelled weed. Don't try to sell me on the idea that low level judges and the cops don't collude worse than family members on ebay. I can't tell if you're arguing that searches are never justified ever, or if warrants are worthless so might as well just save cops the step of calling a judge and let them search whenever they want.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I'm arguing that there ought to be a better structure around obtaining warrants so that when the cops and judges collude to gently caress with someone on a flimsy excuse it results in disbarment for the judge and a big ol' civil rights suit for the PD. Since the ability to just make poo poo up for a probable cause search has been complicated, the misbehavior moves up a step on the ladder, where cops are able to just call a friendly judge and tell them they smelled weed. How the hell you missed that is beyond me. I don't disagree that warrants should have stricter oversight or that judges should be disbarred for colluding with cops to issue warrants-on-demand. But you were complaining about a decision that upheld search warrant requirements, not one that weakened them. Given that the guy was drunk and failed several field sobriety tests, there's no way a warrant wouldn't have been justified here had a judge been awake. How else should Sotomayor have ruled, in your opinion?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:If all they have to do is prove that the government has a less restrictive means available of serving this government interest (which is, in this case, ensuring that individuals have birth control available), wouldn't taxpayer-funded birth control for everyone fit the bill? Yes yes, and the government could offer everyone free blood transfusions too so requiring a Jehovah's Witness to include it on the company health plan is an undue burden. Really the government could just give everyone a job so I guess labor law should be thrown out whenever someone has a religious objection. Sure the government doesn't do that and it would never happen, but they could so open and shut cases all around! Edit: Wait aren't you super-Republican? Are you really proposing universal birth control as the less-intrusive option? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Crain posted:Also if the argument is that not just the owners, but the business/corporation itself is religious, that doesn't solve anything by hiring non-jews. Since the corp would still be violating "its" own religious morals by being open on Saturday. Also, you'd be requiring the company to use a religious test for employment if they had to hire enough non-Orthodox Jews to operate. I like Stultus Maximus' argument. When it comes to operating on a Holy Day, distinguishing between the corporation and the members doesn't make sense. Requiring the store to be open requires specific performance from the members of the corporation as well. This doesn't exist with Hobby Lobby's situation. A major benefit of incorporation is separating the finances of the corporation from those of the members. If Hobby Lobby can't pay its bondholders or is bankrupted by a lawsuit, well, those are liabilities of Hobby Lobby the corporate person and the owners' accounts are wholly separate and can't be attached. It doesn't make sense to consider the finances of Hobby Lobby as seperate from the owners when it benefits them, but indistinguishable from their private accounts when it comes to following regulations that conflict with their faith. Although I'd go farther and say that compensation is the property of the employee, not the employer and the government is well within its rights to protect the employee's interests and health. No one is forcing birth control on workers against their will here and I don't see how it's any less "Hobby Lobby's money" when they cut a worker a check that she spends on birth control rather than when they cut a pharmacy a check that is spent on birth control. If we let a religious employer be exempt from regulations on compensation, we may as well go all the way and let them pay women in scrip redeemable for bibles, baby formula, and slippers at the company store. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What about Kosher pizza places? They will be required by law to add Plan B as a topping choice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The greatest thing Obama ever did with his presidency is troll the gently caress out of Samuel Alito on two separate occasions. Tell me more! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Has anyone mentioned that pre-ACA Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control? Sotomayor mentioned it briefly in the arguments as a "take that!" and she also pointed out that they could have grandfathered in their plan if they hadn't excluded more contraceptives. The government isn't arguing that in the case though because I think Conestoga can reply "well we've always been terrible so that doesn't apply to us!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Can you provide a quote? This is inconsistent with other sources I've seen. I'm on my phone or I would but it's at the bottom of page 31 of the transcript where Sotomayor says that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
esquilax posted:While you're not misinterpreting her remarks, I don't think they relevant in the context of that discussion, or are indicative of the sort of dishonesty as FlamingLiberal is implying. Hobby Lobby lost grandfathered status before the contraceptive requirement was even proposed, so Sotomayor's comment there is more of a jab than a relevant comment. Oh I agree that it shouldn't have any bearing on the case, and it was just a jab on Sotomayor's part. I'm sure there is some universe where it's possible that the Greens are passionately concerned about the all-importance of saving the lives of precious little babies, but for some reason it didn't warrant the effort to actually read through their health plan. Sure they could believe that the peril of abortion is so great that they must deny women not only methods proven to cause abortion, but also methods that have no evidence they cause abortions as long as it hasn't been definitively proven that it's undeniably impossible for them to ever cause an abortion. The risk is just too great...just not great enough to be worth reading the documents you sign apparently. And it's entirely possible that they just so happened to notice this when people were combing through everything they could to find an excuse to cry persecution and wedge their religion into exemptions from public policy. It's also entirely possible that the Arizona bill was really about suddenly protecting black bakers from having to cater KKK rallies too and had nothing to do with the coincidental timing of gay marriages becoming legal in more and more of the country too. I don't think suspicious timing or suddenly realizing that something you were doing for years contradicts your faith and you just didn't notice before should prevent anyone from seeking a legal remedy. There are plenty of good reasons to deny this case without making a judgment about Hobby Lobby's beliefs or imposing some kind of sincerity test, and that kind of test could unfairly shut someone out who has a legitimate complaint. I just, you know, privately think the Greens are full of poo poo and this is a manufactured crisis to let the religious right scream about persecution like they always do while they actively persecute women and minorities. So I was pretty chuffed when Sotomayor mocked them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Whether someone sincerely holds a positions, and whether I would take their position seriously are entirely unrelated things. There's been several examples of people who sincerely believe obviously false/stupid things. Yeah sure, but if say the argument for the religious use of peyote was "well we just realized that we'd been forgetting to smoke it all this time, but we totally would have if we'd remembered because it's a central tenet of our faith and a grevious sin to do otherwise" I think I'd be justified in doubting their sincerity. I'm sure it happens, but I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people who forget about dearly-held doctrines until they need to hunt up a reason to scream persecution or see a way to publicly advance their religion's control over the lives of others. esquilax posted:There should absolutely be a sincerity test! However they essentially automatically pass that test because the government has conceded the sincerity of Hobby Lobby in this case. They didn't question it because the examples that you're bringing up don't show what you think they show. No, I think the government was right to concede the sincerity of the belief, because it would take a mind reader to determine when someone genuinely just didn't notice they were violating a sincere belief. The Greens being full of poo poo is my private belief that extends no farther than me making fun of them on an internet forum. People have terrible sincere beliefs all the time, so as long as their professed belief has any credible way to be interpreted as sincere then I'd be uncomfortable with the court just dismissing it. There are plenty of other reasons to rule against Hobby Lobby here and I'd prefer that the court use one of those. I didn't mean courts should never, ever look at the sincerity of beliefs. Obviously if Exxon created a religion tomorrow that claims dumping toxic waste into rivers is a sacrament it shouldn't be taken seriously. I think you're reading a lot more into my mockery of Hobby Lobby than I'd intended. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I would also ask, are they refusing to cover Viagra? At least be consistent. To be fair (ugh) to Hobby Lobby, this really isn't an inconsistency. They do cover most methods of contraception. Their argument is if they imagine a method might abort a baby some day, they shouldn't have to. Women can get the standard birth control pill and presumably men could get Viagra because the Green family's imaginations don't contain instances of either one causing abortion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
That's why the court sticks to determining the burden on the belief so they have some cover when someone like Scalia wants to vastly privilege mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity. Employer fires you for testing hot for peyote? gently caress you and your primitive ways. Just stop smoking weed at your silly little ceremonies if you want to have a job, no big deal! A student at your religious school needs treatment for her ovarian cysts or she may become sterile, but you're afraid the pills will let her slut it up on the side? Hmm yes, it would be an awful burden for you to lay awake at night knowing some of her tuition might enable her to have sex you disapprove of. At least it has the benefit that exemptions for vaccines and blood transfusions won't follow even if Hobby Lobby wins because the conservatives will hopefully just quietly decide that since those beliefs are stupid in their opinion, the mandates aren't burdensome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
I'd still prefer that the ruling not be on empirical grounds because I don't want religious exercise extended to for-profit companies that want to make decisions for their employees. Even if a new study came out tomorrow that says IUDs or Plan B cause abortions 1% of the time, I still don't think an employer should have the right to control whether women who work for them can get coverage or not. That kind of decision should be between a woman and her doctor. I think the government was entirely right to concede Hobby Lobby's empirical claim and argue that Hobby Lobby should have to provide the contraception mandated by the ACA whether they believe it risks abortion or not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
The employees would probably benefit from government subsidies though, which would reduce the amount Hobby Lobby has to offer. That is one of the reasons for the tax: for the government to recover some part of the subsidies they'd be paying. But you're right there's no way to automatically know, which is why Hobby Lobby also argued that they believe their faith calls them to care for their employees' health (yes really!) and it would harm their beliefs if they stopped doing that (yes really!)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
esquilax posted:If a company didn't cover Viagra or nose jobs under their health plan, you wouldn't say they are telling their employees how their compensation could be used, would you? Yes, I would say that. The same as if they paid their employees in Hobby Lobby gift cards instead of money, which would restrict employees' private purchases to the Jesus-approved offerings of Hobby Lobby stores. The government says "No, you can't pay people in gift cards only. You have to pay them in money and it has to be at least this much. If you want to give people gift cards in excess of that, that's fine, but there is a minimum amount of money you must pay them." The government also says "If you want to take advantage of tax deductions and avoid the ACA surcharge, you may also pay your employees in health care as long as it meets these minimum standards. You may go beyond that at your option, but you may not limit their compensation in health care to less than these minimums." Trying to weasel out of that with a religious exemption is exactly as ridiculous as trying to argue they should get to pay workers in scrip so they're not indirectly funding their workers' sinful lifestyles esquilax posted:Implicit in that statement is a moral judgement - if you think that it's morally wrong to exclude ANY medical-related good or service from a health insurance plan then it's perfectly consistent to say that it's wrong to exclude contraception. I think that most people disagree though, and would like to draw a distinction between contraception and nose jobs. Nose jobs aren't an essential health service for women, so the government doesn't mandate them and it's not immoral to deny them. Just like the justification for minimum wage doesn't mean you have to pay your workers $Infinity or you're evil, the justification for health care mandate doesn't mean you have to give them infinite health care either. Frankly, one thing that makes me uncomfortable about your argument (and about the government's defense which concedes the same point) is the assumption that all the money belongs to Hobby Lobby the Glorious Job Creator. I reject that. Compensation belongs to the employee, who receives it in exchange for work they did as a part of the value they created for the company. If Hobby Lobby gives me a paycheck that I cash and spend on Plan B, that's just as much "their money" as if they cut that check directly to the pharmacy. It all comes from the same place, and it's ridiculous that the employer's religion should have a fundamental right to trump the workers' interest. Practically that often happens because the employer has better bargaining power, so his interests tend to win out, religion or no. An employer with a religious objection to nose jobs would likely win that negotiation, but it's because he has superior bargaining power, not because his religion gives him the inalienable right to restrict nose jobs. But here, the government has passed a law saying that workers with an employer health plan have a legal right to contraception coverage. To go on and say that an employer's religious belief should trump laws that protect the workers' interests and that the employer's fairy tales give him a unilateral right to dictate the employee's health care is a terrible imposition on the religious beliefs of workers, not to mention their health and well-being. Remember, employees aren't eligible for subsidies on the exchanges if their employer offers a qualified plan. If Hobby Lobby paid people fully in money rather than partially-money and partially-health-care, then those employees could go buy their own plan that works for them. By simultaneously effectively shutting them out of affordable plans on exchanges yet also refusing to cover essential health services on their own plan, Hobby Lobby is very much using its power as the employer to control their workers' health care choices to the detriment of the worker and that's wrong. No one is forcing the Greens to take Plan B here. All the law does is prevent employers who want to put their employees on a company health plan from denying essential coverage. Edit: esquilax posted:I take it that from this post that before covering contraceptives became part of the minimum requirements, you think that Hobby Lobby was not telling employees how they should be spending their money? Then after the regulations were released, even though the facts are the exact same, Hobby Lobby is now telling employees how they should be spending their money? If you agree with those and think that the government regulation causes a moral difference, then I think we just have a fundamental disagreement about the moral weight of regulations. Hobby Lobby was telling their employees how to spend their money before the ACA, and it was just as immoral then. It just so happened to be legal and employees don't have the market power to effectively resist these tactics. Currently the law doesn't require employers to cover another essential health service: abortion. Abortion can be necessary to save the woman's life or her mental well-being (in cases of rape, for instance), and yes I do think this is employers telling workers how to spend their money because they company has made other health care options unaffordable for them, leaving them no realistic alternative but to submit to the employer's religious beliefs. For a potentially life-saving procedure like abortion, this is cruel, and I have no problem calling employers who do this immoral even though this particular immoral act happens to be legal at the moment. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Which (using your analogy) would imply that giving a gift card to an employee is both "telling an employee how to use their compensation" and morally wrong. I provided the example to show that either (1) restricting a health plan isn't "telling an employee how to use their compensation" making it an incorrect characterization or (2) "telling an employee how to use their compensation" isn't wrong in and of itself, making it a useless argument. If gift cards make up such a large proportion of an employee's salary that they don't have enough left over to afford necessities on their own and have to rely on Bass-Pro-Shop-approved items, then yes it is immoral and exploitative. Scrip and company stores were outlawed for a reason. The immorality consists in the employer using his power to harm the employee. A gift card as a Christmas perk doesn't preclude the employee from buying the things she needs. Paying her largely in gift cards would. You're completely ignoring that fact that by making health care a significant portion of a worker's pay, it makes it unaffordable to buy insurance on the market with her remaining salary. And once again you're ignoring that the immorality mainly consists in the harm that's done to the employee. Denying her a nose job is not a health risk the way denying her contraceptives are, and there's no inconsistency between saying that putting up barriers to contraception is immoral esquilax posted:Therefore if we want to decide that excluding contraception from the plan is wrong, it must be wrong for other reasons than by virtue of being "telling someone how to use their compensation". You've posted many of those other reasons. I'm not arguing this, and I don't think Radish was either. I'm arguing that putting up barriers to workers' contraceptive access is wrong because that's harmful. That employers "really have no business telling their employees how their compensation for labor should be used" is an argument against the employer's claim of a religious exemption. Employers have the practical ability to control what employees do with their compensation obviously (especially in this economy where people are desperate for jobs), but they don't have an inalienable religious right to do so. An employee using her health care coverage that she is paid in exchange for the value she creates for the company is not at all the same thing as forcing the employer to buy birth control. The health care belongs to her, as payment for her work. If the company doesn't like the terms of the payment, they are free to pay their workers in money instead so they can buy their own health care. They shouldn't get to effectively exclude employees from the insurance market and then cry persecution when Congress won't let them deny essential health services to the workers left with no other option. Edit: I get that you don't think Hobby Lobby should win the case. I'm just explaining that an underlying assumption that you (and many people, including the government's advocate) make is that this is Hobby Lobby's money that they're spending and I counter that it's not, that the employee earned it and it belongs to her, and that the government is not forcing Hobby Lobby to spend its money, but merely setting the legal terms of the minimum employment compensation that she is entitled to receive. I'm sure there's probably case law that supports the view that it's Hobby Lobby's money because the courts are pretty terrible at privileging business over labor, but I think it's still worth talking about. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I'd go a step farther than I think you do and say that there can be no religious right to demand terms that require other people to act according to my own private religious beliefs. I also take the position that merely being involved in a commercial transaction where a third-party receives some sinful thing is not the same as being forced to violate my beliefs. How far does this proximate cause chain go anyway? The Green family never touches or sees the pills right now, their HR department just write a check to the pharmacy, same as a salary check and someone else gets the pills. Is the government forcing me to abort babies because some of my graduate school tuition goes toward the student health center where women can get murder pills? I think it's especially dangerous because the religious conservatives have been pushing to create just such a right. I mean look at Little Sisters. Obama gave them an exemption from the Act, not a single penny of theirs goes to contraceptives, and yet they're claiming that even signing a form acknowledging this fact violates their beliefs because it enables women to get birth control from a totally unrelated party. Conservatives are already trying to pass discrimination laws under the guise of Religious Liberty, and readying their case that Jesus was against unions and the minimum wage, so in VitalSign's dreamworld the court would stop this "tolerate my intolerance" poo poo right here and rule that the government isn't oppressing me when it stops me from oppressing others. But anyway, this has kind of strayed from your original disagreement with Radish, so if you want I'll shut up about my mostly uninformed opinions and let you get back to your discussion with him
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
 Holy poo poo that's worse than I imagined. I mean, I guess I'm not surprised since the fundies are right this moment suing because they don't even want to sign a paper that a woman can use to go get treatment from someone else but goddamn. Goddamnit. So if I understand you right, employers like Hobby Lobby could just refuse to pay any portion of the discounted rate and pay $0 for birth control that way, but instead they spitefully demand you deny the claim and force the worker to forgo the discount her premiums entitle her to and pay market rates instead? Holy poo poo. Thanks for posting. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Of course, the Supreme Court specifically asked them if they'd be okay with the same deal the government gave religious nonprofits or if they'd sue about that too because even acknowledging they object to contraception infringes on their beliefs if such acknowledgment helps a woman obtain Plan B anywhere else and their answer was "Oh uh I don't know we'll see." They wouldn't even agree that the remedy they are trying to claim as an alternative to prove the government has a non-infringing option to achieve the interest at stake under the RFRA is actually non-infringing. It's sophistry. Their legal argument is all about the money, but if you look at the real situation, it's not about money at all and all about the Greens getting to control the women who work for them. I agree that I'd rather the the case decided as you put it because that would protect women from sincerely conscientious employers as well as from bullshitters like Hobby Lobby, but that doesn't make the people pointing out Hobby Lobby's bullshit wrong. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Wait, people are actually claiming the regular birth control pill causes abortions? Is anyone actually arguing that in Court? You might as well start calling stairs Satan's Murder Steps at that point.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Nice strawman. No, they would follow the laws in the same manner as any other citizen, and practice privately instead of trying to exploit the legal system to force their beliefs onto others. Does this also presume a world where the majority won't hide behind "general applicability" to pass laws that gently caress with reigious minorities? "Look buddy, stop trying to get special treatment. I can't wear a turban into a federal building either, and you don't see me complaining about it. If your goofy hat is so important to you, then keep it on and give up any right to seek justice through the courts. Not hard."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
McAlister posted:The religious beliefs of the person who withheld $10 of my compensation and sent it to a PBM to secure my access to rebates/discounts are a matter of no consequence whatsoever. The idea that the PBM should be bullied into denying me personally rebates that *I've paid for access to* because of the church the errand boy/employer who walked my membership fee from here to there is beyond absurd. It's not about the money though; it's about women getting contraception at all. The goal is not to avoid paying for contraception: the goal is to keep their employees from getting it however they can. From Hobby lobby's point of view, even being the middle-man between rebates and customers is "supporting contraception" because it makes it easier for women to get it than forcing the PBM to reject it does. If they could legally fire women for being seen buying Plan B, they would. Remember, there is right now a court case by nuns who do not even want to opt out of the contraception mandate by submitting a statement saying "We object to covering contraception on reigious grounds" and nothing else, because the government will cover their employees' contraception as a result. Even though, obviously, it's the only way for the government to know they are refusing the mandate on religious grounds and thus are not subject to the tax penalty. They don't even want to tell HHS that they object to contraception because HHS will give those women contraceptives and we can't have that! They're basically suing to prevent the government from enforcing the contraception mandate at all, on anyone, by making it impossible to tell who has religious objections and who doesn't. Or alternatively, for the government to not give religious groups' employees contraception, I guess. I mean, they really want loose women to be stoned in the public square of course, but for now they're just yelling and screaming to stop the government from giving someone else contraception without any involvement of a religious objector at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
UberJew posted:That's the power of having defined corruption as quid pro quo agreements and only quid pro agreements. God, I love* how John Roberts' mind works. It's only corruption if you agree that this million dollars from ExxonPAC is explicitly in exchange for this specific law. If you just give a politician a million dollars and tell you hope you can count on his support, nope no indue influence there! It's like how voting laws can't be racist even if they were to revoke the franchise of every single black person in the state, just as long as you never say straight out that's why you're doing it. *For certain definitions of love
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Yeah, you would have to name it the American Committee for Responsible Citizens Who Hope You'll Consider Where Your Funds Come From When You Vote On Environmental Laws
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 21:41
|
|