Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Contraceptive Case (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11   
Author Topic: Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Contraceptive Case
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
I think its interesting too, that neither of you noted that this undercuts your argument. If HL intended to dictate how employee's spent their money, which the retirement amounts in a 401(k) clearly are (even to the point that they can be withdrawn at will), they would be restricting the investment options.
This has some merit, with a couple of caveats. First, Hobby Lobby could not contribute any matching funds to the 401(k). If they do, then they would be directly buying stock in these companies that directly provide supposed abortificants.
That doesn't follow. HL's choice would be to change the funds in the plan available to ones that they think are ethical. Something they may or may not in fact have the power to do.

What does it matter if they are paying the cash for the 401(k) to the employee has direct comp or as matching funds when both would be used in the 401(k) they set up?

I think you are misusing "direct" as well. Investing in mutual funds that happen to hold securities in those questions is the very essence of "indirect."
quote:
If they don't want to make a "gift" (by your reasoning) of membership in a company that provides "abortions," then how could they make an actual gift of part ownership in a company that provides the means for "abortions?" [Smile] If one is immoral to them, I would think the other would be, too.
Not sure what reasoning that is, but it's not mine. I can't even parse that to make sense, can you try restating?
quote:
If they divested from that 401(k), it would be a tacit admission that they had been providing money to an "immoral" company, which means that they are willing to restrict their employees' investment options.
Sort of. Like I said as it is now it undercuts your point, subtly. If they do change the mix of plans in the 401(k) (they can't "divest" it because its not their assets, they may however be able alter what investment options are available in the plan within the limits of being a fiduciary), that would demonstrate that it was an oversight on their part.
quote:
quote:
Its also interesting that you'd essentially claim that indirect investments in large drug companies that make millions of dollars of life saving products, are irrevocably tainted because they also make products that a person wouldn't buy directly.
But this is essentially Hobby Lobby's argument, not mine. They are the ones who believe a life-saving product (health insurance) is irrevocably tainted because it makes a product (or provides a service) that they would never buy directly (and that their employees might never use).
No that's not accurate. They dispute the mandatory bundling of a product that is not life saving, is available on the free market individual and is religiously objectionable with the thousands and thousands of products that they wish to provide that would actually be potentially life saving for their employees.

I don't see why political ideology should be allowed to force that bundling when it violates freedom of religion.
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Interestingly, you seem to be artificially extending HL's moral responsibility to the decisions that it's employees make, but not to its trading partners.

Sigh. Is that really a nuh-uh criticism? HL hasn't attempted to control anyone else's decisions. Show me a single place where they attempt to prevent their employees from obtaining these products on their own?
quote:
You do this by redefining part of the employees' compensation - the insurance product - as different from cash in some meaningful way.
We actually have a different word for them, we call them "benefits". And we treat them differently on any number of basis, yet I'm the one "redefining" them.
quote:
But that distinction you are trying to make falls flat - that is a complete non sequitur.Whether they use it as cash or whether the employee, with their doctor, chooses on a certain treatment because their insurance company agrees to pay for it, it is still the employee that makes the decision about purchasing the product.
And HL hasn't tried to interfere with that choice, they've just refused to pay for it directly. It's the employee's responsiblity to pay for it if they want it. Health insurance is a defined set of terms, not a pile of medical bucks with unlimited use.

If I want homepathic remedies and my company chooses a plan that doesn't cover them should that be illegal too?
quote:
And here's where you "had to recharaterize what's really happening" with the purchase of insurance.
Not really, just had to describe what actually occurs not what you guys seem to wish was occuring.
quote:
Even if one incorrectly accepts that the company 'owns' the employees' compensation,
Since no one made this assertion or believes it, logically the rest of your sentence fails.
quote:
the company is not purchasing abortifacients, here;
The company is being required at law to include abortificants in a plan it is paying for or face a punitive tax, either by having an "inadequate plan" defined essentially as exactly the same plan minus the abortificants (notwithstanding that all but IUDs are available at trivial cost, and that there are alternatives available to the government), or by dropping the plan entirely and paying that fine. Really, this is nothing more than a case of believing you have the right to tell someone esle their religion is wrong, notwithsanding the Constitutional prohibition on that.
quote:
the premiums are used to buy coverage for thousands of possible treatments, not any particular treatment.
It's more correct to say the premiums pay for all of those treatments, than "not for any particular treatment." I assume you do understand that if the treatments are used the money will be paid to the manufacturer thereof by the pool sponsor correct?
quote:
They are no more paying for abortifacients than they are paying for blood transfusions or heart surgery.
They are paying for those as well. You're really asserting that because the premiums are set by the expected costs to the pool, that they're not paying the expenses of the pool from the premiums? That's quite an esoteric point, and when you confront it against a reglious objection, what I hear, is you telling other people either their religion is wrong or they don't understand it. It's highly patronizing.

So while I get it, that you think they are "not really" paying for any service, they have an honestly held belief that they would be, and that's what the Suppreme Court has to look at.
quote:
The decision on how to use the coverage, the moral responsibility, is completely in the hands of the employees, in exactly the same way as are the decisions on how to use their cash compensation.
There's some truth there, but not enough to settle the matter when the company is arguing that this is an impermissable bundling.

Let's make it simple. If the government decided that it was important that every woman's employer provided a policy that only provided abortificants and no other benefit, would your position change?
quote:
Conflating the purchase of insurance coverage with the purchase of all the possible treatments covered by the policy is just silly; if that were the case, then my company bought me multiple amputations, a blood transfusion, chemotherapy and a hair lip removal just this past year - but of course, my company did not compensate me (via insurance premiums) with even a significant fraction of the cost of all of those procedures.
Your company compensated you with an insurance product, that's how insurance works, that's why its both more and less than its cash value and fundementally different from just recieving the cash.
quote:
Except, as in this case, where the 'specific' benefit is actually a fungible commodity:
You should look up what a fungible commodity is and try again.
quote:
or are you suggesting that the insurance policies in question are limited to covering only abortifacients or that they require the employees to use the coverage to purchase and use abortifacients in order to use the rest of the coverage?
Donald, if I'm being so unclear that you remotely think this is what I'm saying I apologize. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.
quote:
And no, that is not a fact: giving someone a 'fungible commodity' and taking away from someone that same 'fungible commodity' might be opposites, though.
That doesn't even make sense.

[ April 04, 2014, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
or are you suggesting that the insurance policies in question are limited to covering only abortifacients or that they require the employees to use the coverage to purchase and use abortifacients in order to use the rest of the coverage?

Donald, if I'm being so unclear that you remotely think this is what I'm saying I apologize. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.
Well, it might make more sense to you if you didn't excise the first part of the sentence, as well as your sentence to which the full statement was responding. The full interaction actually began as follows
quote:
Seriati:
The fact is, and this is a real fact, giving someone a specific benefit is the opposite of giving them a fungible commodity

DonaldD
Except, as in this case, where the 'specific' benefit is actually a fungible commodity: or are you suggesting...

Maybe it would be best to first clarify what you mean by "specific benefit": do those two words in this case mean "insurance policy partly funded by company contributions" or do you mean something else by them?

If so, then the effect of having an insurance policy is in no way the opposite of having cash - the fungible commodity in question; in practice, far from being opposites, the two are almost identical, with the exception that cash could also be used to purchase goods and services that are unrelated to health care, whereas the cash that insurance companies collect, itself completely fungible, can only be used to purchase health related products. But again, it is the insurance company's money being used to pay for the product, where contractually required by the agreement with the employee/patient, and the decision to purchase the product itself belongs to the employee/patient.

The distinction between the two processes, from the perspective of moral agency, is negligible.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Yes it is. I still think there is next to no relevant weight to the accounting/tax treatment point. But showing they are not treated the same in tax or accounting still moots it completely.

The accounting end of it is relevant because it demonstrates that, at the last involvement HL has with the process at all, it is delivering money earmarked for a given employees health plan to an insurance company on behalf of the employee to by a plan that will belong to that employee. At not point, in it's entire handling of the process, has HL paid for any objectionable procedure, even if the plan happens to allow the employee to opt to receive that procedure.

quote:
It's one of these things where you confuse a common term like "compensation" with its technical version and end up getting it wrong when you try and rehabilitate the argument.
Compensation is the net sum of all individual salary/wages, benefits, gift, and bonuses provided to a specific employee. (It doesn't include collective perks that are incidental to employment, such as access to workplace facilities, office food, or other such environmental amenities, but those are out of scope of the issue, we're talking about a benefit, that while procured at a group rate, is very explicitly provided on an individual level. Each employee gets their own personal plan directly from the insurance provider)
quote:
It does fundementally alter what the "compensation" is. The employee is entitled to the benefit, not the fungible value of the benefit. Deciding what the benefit is, is not in fact the same as deciding how its used.
Sure- deciding what the benefit is (and what the overall compensation package looks like) are functions of the employee/employer negotiation process to procure that employee's services in the first place.

And, in fact, HL would be on much firmer ground if there was a direct requirement that they provide the cash value of the plan to any employee hat declined it, because then the employee would have the necessary freedom to use it to purchase more acceptable coverage rather than being at the mercy of their employer and this needed explicit protection from said employer using that position of power to impinge on their freedom.
quote:
And since last I checked, HL is not in court trying to prevent it's employees from obtaining these products on their own, so your claim that HL is trying to control how it's "used" is nothing but hyperbole.
It' is trying to create a special legal exception to allow it to restrict its employees from using their health benefits for a function that's federally defined as a minimum standard for considering them to be health benefits in the first place. Also note that the employee's ability to afford anything else by direct payment is also directly determined by their employment agreement from HL, since HL also provides that cash portion of their compensation. Odds are, for the vast majority of employees, all of their pay is already tied up in regular day to day expenses, meaning hat they explicitly only have access to the health services that their plan provides. You can declare "let them eat cake" all you like. That doesn't make it a realistic solution. You don't need to get a court ruling to do something that you can handle completely within the payroll department.

quote:
quote:
If someone wants that kind of authority, then they should register as a religious organization and limit themselves to only hiring members of their religion who have consented to allowing such limitations on their behavior.
Again a false argument, no one has suggested any behavioural limitation.
Creating a special legal exception to prevent people from privately using a service or item they own that they have access to in a way that the would otherwise be entitled to use it is very much a restriction on their actions.

quote:
And what about sole proprietorships and partnerships? They engage in the market, are free to do so, and are not required to comply with purchasing these products for their employees on the exact same grounds that HL as a tightly held company is asserting.
If under a certain size. IF HL wants to reduce itself to less than 50 or 100 employees such that it's no longer required to provide a qualifying health plan as part of its compensation plan, then it could certainly take that route. It doesn't matter what it's organizational structure is, it wants to be able to benefit from the public hiring pool and that means it must respect the religious liberties of that pool and not enact any company policy that seeks to limit or modify their overall freedom and legal protections on legal grounds, and that includes a legal protection that ensures a baseline level of care being required to qualify a health coverage product as a minimally functional offering.
quote:
Of course by that standard virtually anyone with principals, standards and a retirement account is a hypocrite, since virtually none of us even know what's being held in the typically hundreds or even thousands of securities in that are in the portofolio of an average mutual fund.
Or it means that the very nature of money means that such indirect funding does not imply directly paying for such.

quote:
If HL intended to dictate how employee's spent their money, which the retirement amounts in a 401(k) clearly are (even to the point that they can be withdrawn at will), they would be restricting the investment options. Yet they are not in fact doing so. Whether that's an oversight, or actually reflects an opinion that they don't in fact have the right to control their employee's spending decisions remains to be seen.
But HL's decision to try to cut contraceptive support out of its health plans (which previously had been an unremarkable feature of them) as a reaction to federal minimum standards that just say that a health plan needs to provide them to count as a qualifying product for regulatory considerations doesn't stand as amy kind of evidence of bad faith regarding their employees?

quote:
Its also interesting that you'd essentially claim that indirect investments in large drug companies that make millions of dollars of life saving products, are irrevocably tainted because they also make products that a person wouldn't buy directly.
You're going deeper into begging the question here. The point is just the opposite. The fact that a given insurance plan happens to provide a benefit that you wouldn't personally use does not make allowing access to it morally equivalent to directly paying for such a service. In fact, the entire structure of medical health privacy laws explicitly serve to block you from any knowledge or responsibility for its use , whereas a company you invest in has to give a fairly detailed disclosure to you on just how it has spent its money on its operations, including those services you may object to.

They have no more business stripping contraceptive coverage out of their employees health plans than a Christian Scientist owned organization would have stripping out coverage for transfusions, a Jewish owned company would have for requiring that the plan not cover any non-kosher hospital meals, or a new-age operation would in providing their employees with a fancy crystal and claiming that it would serve to meet all their health needs.

quote:
If you're opposed to veal, does that mean you won't purchase meat from any store that sells it, or any meat producer that doens't refuse to produce it? Or does it mean you'd don't buy Veal?

And now you've hit exactly on the point that makes HL's position absurd. If the owners find contraceptive coverage morally objectionable, they should not use their health plans to pay for it. They should not be trying to dictate how other people might use their own health plans, including their employees using health plans bought on their behalf as part of their compensation package. HL's moral culpability begins and ends with honoring the contract to procure the plan- it is explicitly firewalled away from how the plan is used.

quote:
No I addressed it. HL's morality does not extend to telling others what to do. They are not telling their trading partners that they have to have HL's morality, anymore than they are attempting to prohibit their employees from getting these treatments on their own. HL is making its own ethical judgments, not other peoples.
Making their own ethical judgements would be not using the coverage. Telling other people they can't have the coverage on moral grounds is very directly limiting the freedom of choice of those that are dependent on them for access to that coverage.

quote:
So yes if they buy a product from a company that doesn't have the exact same morality they do, it's possible that part of the money will be used for a purpose they would object to. Exactly in the same way that if a food kitchen feeds the poor, its very likely that some of those calories provided will be used to perform activities that the proprietors don't agree with. I would not be at all surprised to find that HL's owners have a genuine religious belief in not judging others. But that does not mean that they feel free to engage in the same conduct as those others.
And yet, all of that goes away when it comes to their employees health insurance, where now, suddenly, they should have the power to use just such potential as a moral wedge to dictate terms to them. They're forwarding money on behalf of their employees to purchase a product promised to them in their employment contract. The fact that the employee might then use the product to pay for veal or pork instead of chick is none of their business, never mind their moral responsibility.

quote:
And again, this is where you've strained your description of the "facts" to fit your opinion. Buying someone an abortificant is very different than paying them for working for you, where they use that comp to buy it themselves.

At some fundemental level you must understand that we'd hold an employer responsible if they bought employees cocaine, but not if they paid employees who used their salaries to buy cocaine.

Indeed- which is why no one is suggesting that HL provide contraceptives directly. Only that it not prevent its employees from using their personal health plans to gain private access them, since such an event occurs completely out of the scope of the companies authority and moral responsibility.

If these were plans that _compelled_ the employees to use contraceptives, the matter would be different. But so long as those are simply something that the employee could choose to spend their benefit on, HL has not moral skin in the game. (keep in mind that abortifacients are completely irrelevant here, despite HL's active ignorance of what actually qualifies as such)

quote:
The fact is, and this is a real fact, giving someone a specific benefit is the opposite of giving them a fungible commodity, not 'exactly' the same thing as you guys keep trying to stretch it. The fact that they both operate to compensate people for services does not override every other consideration and difference that they have.
No, the fact is that you're trying to conflate a number of different arguments and then try to apply mutually exclusive elements of them.

Fungibility is only relevant to the money being paid for the plans itself. The last time HL has any moral responsibility for the money, it's in upholding its contractual obligation to purchase a qualifying plan for a given employee. Once the money is forwarded to the insurance company, the disposition of that money is out of HL's hands and moral scope, because it simply goes into the insurance company's overall accounts. There's no way to say what exactly it gets used for from that point out, because to the insurance company it's all just interchangeable numbers.

The benefits themselves certainly aren't fungible. No one has argued that they are. Rather, the benefits are _negotiable_ as part of the overall employment contract (though some employers are able to use high unemployment levels to prevent their employees and prospective hires from negotiating on equal terms, to the point of being able to simply dictate take-it-or leave-it terms, even if it means that the employee is effectively force to sell their services at a loss.) An employee that turns down health coverage is, theoretically, in a good position to as for more pay or some other form of compensation to replace it, unless suppressive tactics are employed to discourage proper negotiation. There are some federal minimum standards on the process, however to at least ameliorate some of that imbalance, and H: is explicitly asking for such a protection to be waived in favor of being allowed to inject their religious bias into what is otherwise supposed to be a secular employment contract.

[ April 05, 2014, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't see any other outcome without challenging the Citizen's united ruling. After all if a corporations has personhood then of course they have the right to religious protection.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is so bizarre. Next we'll see a battle over whether a corporation can have an abortion or can refuse to give up documents to the IRS or SEC because it would be an invasion of privacy.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fifth Amendment [DOH]
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Amazing Criswell predicts that we'll soon see a lot of companies converting to Christian Scientists and denying all health care to their workers! [Big Grin]

Thanks, SCOTUS. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd like to see a debate on corporate citizenship - maybe provide two options: you can be a corporate institution or you can be a corporate person. If the latter, the Corporation has freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice. Of course, it will also be obligated to pay individual income taxes, it will need to register with the selective service, it will need to serve on juries, etc.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This ruling apparently doesn't apply to corporations with public shareholders because the religious view has to be shared without contradiction among the owners. That's not likely to be the case in most private companies, but there are some biggies out there that might try to pull a stunt like this, such as Koch Industries with 125,000 employees.

The real danger of this ruling is that it allows almost anything to be claimed as a religious exemption from federal laws. Even things like minimum wages could be claimed to violate the tenets of the Goofy Sect. Most will likely get struck down, but each one will have to be fought on its merits.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, government has to justify its regulations where it impinges on freedom of citizens?! What a travesty!

[Roll Eyes]

I'm sure Hobbylobby will go bankrupt from all those angry customers who don't want them to have this freedom and will boycott them accordingly right?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not their fault the SC made the wrong call. Not that I have cause to shop at Hobby Lobby anyhow...

Boycotting the SC seems like it wold be a lot of trouble. Maybe if I ran for president I could pull it off. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Not their fault the SC made the wrong call.
Um, whose?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just out of curiosity, reading the last two posts. What were your options?

I was referring to Hobby Lobby. Is there some other way to interpret my statement?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Not their fault the SC made the wrong call. Not that I have cause to shop at Hobby Lobby anyhow...

Boycotting the SC seems like it wold be a lot of trouble. Maybe if I ran for president I could pull it off. [Smile]

Who suggested boycotting the supreme court?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To expand on what I meant: I don't blame HL for trying to inflict their morals or faith on others. Religions have a long history of attempting to impose their rules on non believers when they are in power.

I will say I'm surprised that they felt they had that power and picked this fight. Not that they had much to loose really. I'm shocked, that they were correct. Or "correct enough" for a 5/4 decision.

So I don't blame them, I blame the S.C. so a boycott against H.L. would be silly in my opinion. I mean even if it was possible to run them out of business based on what I feel is morally wrong (and they believe is morally right) the decision opens the door for countless other business to implement the same practice.

Religious condemnation of birth control is only self-preservation after all. I get it and don't fault them for trying to stop anything that will decrease their rate of growth / indoctrination. Outreach to non-believing or alternate faith adults is considerably more expensive and all the costs of unwanted pregnancy is... someone else's problem. Well better than that, the extra strife inflicted on both the parent(s) and child could very well drive them into the waiting arms of religion.

I opted for the snarky less confrontational tact first. But I guess that was too vague and not easy to place in one hyper-partisan box or the other. Hopefully the above parses better. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Not their fault the SC made the wrong call. Not that I have cause to shop at Hobby Lobby anyhow...

Boycotting the SC seems like it wold be a lot of trouble. Maybe if I ran for president I could pull it off. [Smile]

Who suggested boycotting the supreme court?
I did...
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Just out of curiosity, reading the last two posts. What were your options?

I was referring to Hobby Lobby. Is there some other way to interpret my statement?

I meant, if not their fault whose fault is it? The SC could have ruled the other way, but chose not to in a narrow ruling.
quote:
Religious condemnation of birth control is only self-preservation after all. I get it and don't fault them for trying to stop anything that will decrease their rate of growth / indoctrination. Outreach to non-believing or alternate faith adults is considerably more expensive and all the costs of unwanted pregnancy is... someone else's problem. Well better than that, the extra strife inflicted on both the parent(s) and child could very well drive them into the waiting arms of religion.
Then they should be in favor of abortion and sternly instruct their members never to use it. So I don't think you are right about that. Instead I think it is anachronistic thinking that this old bible tells them how to think and their church leaders maintain their hold over their members. I'm not Christian (and barely Jewish), but it was my understanding that the relationship between a believer and God is a direct connection. Why do people let a small leadership clique of their religious establishment tell them how to think and behave?

[ June 30, 2014, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I apologize in advance for the following which I must concede is little more than a rant. I guess the ruling bothers me more than a little.

quote:
Then they should be in favor of abortion and sternly instruct their members never to use it. So I don't think you are right about that.
My point was this isn't about "their members". This is a strategy, masked by morality, to drive people into their ranks, and more importantly, give their members something to rally around.

A common cause, such as "saving babies" is a far easier sell then telling people why your brand of how to interact with your creator is correct and all the others are wrong.

In my opinion when anyone claims to speak for the divine or the more common tact of telling you their way is the only way to have a relationship with God, is corrupt and/or deluded at best and quite possibly evil and exploitative. You should never behave or act in a way just because another mortal person tells you they "know" what is right. Particularly if it doesn't strike you as an obvious good. Anything counter intuitive to your moral compass you are taught to do "because God wants you to", is quite likely a very mundane type of power grabbing.

I'm all for a lot of the teachings of religion and feel it is a positive influence in many situations. Probably even to the point it's worth putting up with their faults, though I'm not sure. It's when they covet power and squabble jealously over the believers of other faiths that they sicken me.

I hope God is forgiving or even indifferent because a lot of people are wielding power in his name for personal reasons and I think at best we can hope he finds it amusing or pities them.

So yes, I agree that the relationship between a believer and God is a direct connection. As soon as someone can grasp the concept of a creator, and accepts it on faith, organized religion is a social club and a way to leverage common causes. But they are also dangerous and susceptible to abuse by those who desire that power for themselves.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A couple of problems - what about people who use the medicines commonly used for birth control, only they use it for treating other ailments?

What about other medicines that can cause abortions, like a number of types of chemotherapy - can coverage for those be prohibited?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe this case only involved two specific "emergency contraception" drugs, as well as two types of IUDs, and not typical hormonal birth control that may be prescribed for other medical purposes.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
as well as two types of IUDs, and not typical hormonal birth control that may be prescribed for other medical purposes.
Hormonal IUDs have many of the same medical effects as ingested birth control. My wife cannot digest "the pill," so she has been required, for most of her life, to seek other forms of birth control, in order to prevent fainting from the strength of her period.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was sent this article this morning highlighting Ginsburg's dissent to the ruling. My favorite is the last line.

quote:
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
The article is short since the quotes speak for themselves.

Ginsburg Dissent

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
To expand on what I meant: I don't blame HL for trying to inflict their morals or faith on others. Religions have a long history of attempting to impose their rules on non believers when they are in power.

Which is not what occurred here in the least. HL has not - at any point - attempted to impose their beliefs on others. Unless by "impose their beliefs on others" you mean refuse to fund directly behavior they believe is morally wrong, for which the government had reasonable alternatives to fund that it had already used for innumerable others on the same objections?
quote:
Religious condemnation of birth control is only self-preservation after all.
You do realize HobbyLobby pays for birth control, voluntarily and deliberately as part of its health care package? That they did so before this decision and will do so afterwards?

You realize that a purchase of Plan B is not cost prohibitive for anyone, and in most cases you can get it for free from clinics?

I grant the IUD not being available is a pain.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati - My contention which seems to be matched by 4 of the members of the court is that when the owner(s) of a company choose to incorporate they are drawing a line of separation between themselves and that business. While they still own it they are in fact agreeing to severe certain rights in order to gain the protections afforded by incorporation. This case (as well as Citizen's United) hangs by a single vote. Any shift left will likely bring a challenge either/both with a different outcome.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which is not what occurred here in the least. HL has not - at any point - attempted to impose their beliefs on others. Unless by "impose their beliefs on others" you mean refuse to fund directly behavior they believe is morally wrong, for which the government had reasonable alternatives to fund that it had already used for innumerable others on the same objections?
Yes, that is exactly what I meant by impose their beliefs.
quote:
You do realize HobbyLobby pays for birth control, voluntarily and deliberately as part of its health care package? That they did so before this decision and will do so afterwards?
Right up until the point where they feel the public and courts MIGHT accept them denying this as well.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Seriati - My contention which seems to be matched by 4 of the members of the court is that when the owner(s) of a company choose to incorporate they are drawing a line of separation between themselves and that business. While they still own it they are in fact agreeing to severe certain rights in order to gain the protections afforded by incorporation. This case (as well as Citizen's United) hangs by a single vote. Any shift left will likely bring a challenge either/both with a different outcome.

Can you reasonably distinguish the rights of a family limited partnership that could operate identically to the corporation here, yet be exempt from compliance on the religious grounds? What about the corporations registered at 501(c)(3)'s that were also granted exemptions, was their corporate form just not a relevant consideration? This is a closely held corporation.

The fact is, one really shouldn't have to choose to be in an ineffective business model to protect their religious freedom's. Unless you'd argue, like Pyrtolin has, that just engaging in public business means you can't be religious.

I see D.W. I really hate it that we let people impose their elitist beliefs on me by refusing to buy my lunch, don't they know that money is a communal right? I also think that its egregious that when people send me gifts they get to pick what they are and how much they want to spend, it's clear that this imposition of their views on me should not be tolerated and I should be entitled to pick my own gifts on your credit.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I see D.W. I really hate it that we let people impose their elitist beliefs on me by refusing to buy my lunch, don't they know that money is a communal right? I also think that its egregious that when people send me gifts they get to pick what they are and how much they want to spend, it's clear that this imposition of their views on me should not be tolerated and I should be entitled to pick my own gifts on your credit.
So the rest of the nation all operates under a system where every employer, as part of a compensation package to their employees was forced to pay a lunch stipend with pre-tax dollars into a system where every employee was issued a diners card. All or most local restaurants offered lunch selections and required no payment other than tracking your diners card then submitting to this system for reimbursements. There were federal guidelines as to quantity and quality of food as well as nutritional benchmarks. Several business owners happen to feel that eating a particular type of food is sinful. Not unhealthy mind you but just against their morals. Maybe they are strict vegans. They set up a parallel system where no purchases that include meat or dairy items will be reimbursed.

Would I have a problem? Yep.

If part of the national standard for compensation suddenly included gifts and (here’s the important part) those gifts were counted against a benchmark of what is “a fair wage” for work preformed I would absolutely have a problem with being given “gifts” I did not want or had no use for.

Employer provided healthcare is important because you are leveraging the purchasing power and risk mitigation of a large pool of people. When it works, you get lower costs for the individuals than many could achieve on their own. Not just because of risk pool but you can exert more pressure on the insurance company and they on the health care industry because of how many people are involved as one group. That employee pool represents a large amount of potential profits for everyone up the food chain and securing them as a block is advantages to all. So yes, specific items may be able to be covered by others but some leverage is lost. Opting out of an employer provided coverage option, taking additional wages in compensation (I think it’s standard to receive such when you decline insurance?) and going out on your own to purchase a plan that includes these employer objectionable items will almost certainly end up costing the employee more in the long run.

I’m for nationalized healthcare so when I see the private sector trying to screw with the individual and their healthcare needs, even if it is just harassment for publicity gains, I try to convince myself that it’s just one more thing to convince people to move in the direction I favor.

But that's just me wishing my own elitist beliefs on the nation.

[ July 01, 2014, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But that's just me wishing my own elitist beliefs on the nation.
Yes, in today's political world it is elitist to want people to operate on an even-handed basis. It's just some people's bad luck they ended up working as a stockroom clerk or cashier for someone who will penalize them for not sharing the owners' religious beliefs.

The contemporary conservative definition of "freedom" demands that people have the right to punish you for being different. If not for the legal precedents that have piled up, I wonder if race discrimination would be allowed back to sit alongside gender, sexual orientation, disability or ethnic discrimination, all of which may be claimed by different religions.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.-While I tend to agree with your posts above I think it is unfair to accuse HL and Conestoga of playing a political game here without evidence. I am not really familiar with HL other than seeing their stores but the owners of Conestoga are local and have long term ties to the Prolife movement. They feel rightly or wrongly that providing IUDs and Plan B is directly supporting abortion.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They feel rightly or wrongly that providing IUDs and Plan B is directly supporting abortion.
How do their employees feel about it? It's a relevant question because belief and practice often are at odds. What if 10% of the company's employees who do their jobs well sign a petition asking the owners to provide insurance for those contraceptive methods?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al-It wouldn't matter. To the owners abortion is murder. Employee opinion doesn't matter. At least in this case I have some sympathy for the owners even if I don't agree with this ruling.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So not being able to force your employer into giving you certain kinds of compensation is bring punished... wow.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So not being able to force your employer into giving you certain kinds of compensation is bring punished... wow.
Compensation that you have a legal right to have for employment, yes.

I mean, if someone says, "This is something every single worker in the country gets, except you, because your employer doesn't like it," how would you describe it?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think it is unfair to accuse HL and Conestoga of playing a political game here without evidence.
True it is unfair. I suspect this is the case but don't know it is.

Maybe they believe that their God will punish them as being an enabler to infantacide if they provide the health coverage but give them a pass if they just paid the employee the money used by them to purchase these services?

My friend, who is broke, asks me to buy him a $5 bottle of rat poison so he can murder his wife. I refuse because murder is wrong! (Also illegal in this case but lets ignore that.)

He says, "Oh, ok, sorry to put you on the spot pal. Umm, can I borrow 5 bucks?"

Sure man, here you go...

The whole excercise is no less rediculous. You cannot impose your religious morals on the actions of others. We have a legal system which is separate from religion to achieve a civil society. Let them do their job and my boss can stay out regulating my morality.

This ruling has taken the concept of religious freedom and turned it on it's head. It is an anti-religious decision which gives those with economic power over us, moral athority as well. It's pretty dangerous stuff.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al-It wouldn't matter. To the owners abortion is murder. Employee opinion doesn't matter. At least in this case I have some sympathy for the owners even if I don't agree with this ruling.
In a paternalist culture that sort of ruling logic can fly, but this is a corporation with unaffiliated workers. They're not their children, committed members of their religious establishment, not even their neighbors since I'm sure the owners don't live nearby the workers.
quote:
So not being able to force your employer into giving you certain kinds of compensation is bring punished... wow.
You are very predictable. You're on record wanting to force *every* business to let you carry guns into their stores, but now you're all about corporate rights to deny health services to their employees. It's not only predictable, it's a valueless contribution to the discussion.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W. and AL- There is a difference between defending someones rights to a given belief system and believing that system is right. I think it is unfair to attach underhanded motives without proof.

Al-Don't be sure that the owners of Conestoga are not neighbors with many of their workers. I would even venture to say that they attend the same churches, go to the same schools, shop in the same stores. Lancaster County is not the big city.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was thinking of HL, but will see what I can learn about the owners of Conestoga.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree it's unfair. I do so despite this frequently. Good for you if you do not indulge in these mental short cuts at all, or as often as I.

My larger point was even if their belief and objection is genuine, I find it foolish. But that's nothing strange when referring to religions one does not accept as a whole infallible doctrine. Other than drawing attention to their faith they acomplish nothing other than a belief they are not liable for the actions of others. Why this belief is not satisfied without these insurance exceptions I cannot grasp.

The material world reprecusions are all I'm basing my evaluation on. They acomplish no "good" by even their own standard and inflict emotional, social or economic hardship on some employees. All so they can rationalize that at least they weren't enablers to sin/murder through what I consider convoluted logic.

I try to bite my tongue when people do things I don't agree with because of their beliefs. The moment they cause even the slightest burden upon someone outside their faith however my displeasure becomes harder to mask.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't read every single post in this thread, so this may already have been answered:

If there is no difference between paying someone in money, or paying them in contraceptives, then why was the idea for business's to pay for employees contraceptives ever brought up?

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You cannot impose your religious morals on the actions of others
Or impose your lack of them on others as well.

Which is why, IMO, and in the opinion of many others, this ruling is good. You pay me money, what I do with that money is my business.

It's a little more freedom than you buying me anything; food, a car, insurance, whathaveyou, directly instead of just giving me money.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1