PDA

View Full Version : Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Verdict



bigross86
01 Jul 14,, 21:14
So, I hadn't even heard about Hobby Lobby until someone posted something about it on Facebook. Here are two opinions on the verdict:

For the Verdict: (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/152185-hear-hobby-lobbys-ultra-offensive-abortion-argument-supreme-court-decision-tomorrow/)


Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will be announcing its decision on one of the biggest religious freedom cases of recent years: Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.

No doubt, tomorrow’s decision will be an emotional and controversial one, both for the Justices and for the rest of the country. From New York Daily News:


The Supreme Court is poised to deliver its verdict in a case that weighs the religious rights of employers and the right of women to the birth control of their choice.

The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those that Hobby Lobby and furniture maker Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvania, say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women’s health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions.

Many who side with the Obama administration on this case have denounced Hobby Lobby’s position as appalling, but it seems that they, in large part, misunderstand what the company is really asking for.

However, as Hobby Lobby’s Mandi Broadfoot explains, the company is not refusing to pay for its employees’ birth control coverage – only emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices.

It’s important that those who so loudly oppose the company get the facts straight: Hobby Lobby’s founders are not asking to deny women of birth control; they are simply asking for the freedom to not pay for those few, specific and controversial methods which violate their religious beliefs.

Doesn’t sound so controversial, does it?

Against the Verdict: (http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/hobby-lobby-aint-church-its-profit-business)


HOBBY LOBBY AIN’T A CHURCH, IT’S A FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.

"Religious Freedom" Run Amok: How The U.S Supreme Court Believes Corporations Are People, Yet Treats Women Inhumanely

July 1, 2014
By George Takei

A 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court (comprised of all men) delivered a stunning set-back for women’s reproductive rights in the Hobby Lobby case yesterday. The conservative majority ruled that a crafts chain store (here, one with over 500 outlets) whose owners espouse “sincere religious beliefs” can refuse to provide insurance covering contraception to its female employees.

The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion. Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).

In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.

As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.

We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others. Our personal beliefs stop at the end of our noses, and your should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms.

While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscious should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts–in their pocketbooks. I won’t be shopping there, and women everywhere should exercise their right of protest and refuse to shop there as well.

-George Takei

So, having read short pieces by both sides, I honestly have to say that I fall with those that support the verdict. Hobby Lobby's insurance does cover birth control, but it doesn't cover Plan B pills and the type. Now, if I'm not mistaken, different insurance plans cover different things, no? So why is this issue worth taking to the Supreme Court, only because of the reason they don't provide Plan B, for religious reasons? When you take into account the fact that Hobby Lobby pays its employees $14 an hour (nearly double the minimum wage), and part time employees $9.5 an hour, to me it seems like the chain really isn't such a bad place to work, and that this is all just a bunch of hullabaloo.

But that's just me. What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter?

antimony
01 Jul 14,, 21:59
It would be interesting to see of some employer deny insurance with maternity coverage. Lets see what the "freedom" folks have to say about that

I agree with those against, this allows someone with asinine beliefs impose them on us

tbm3fan
01 Jul 14,, 22:35
With the against side. This business in not operating in a private vacuum but in the public sphere. The potential for a Pandora's box of exemptions could be mind boggling.

SteveDaPirate
01 Jul 14,, 23:02
Iím inclined to take issue with the ruling. Much of it hinges around the idea of a corporation as a person (I donít think they are). Corporations are being given the same freedoms of speech, freedom of religious expression, etc. as citizens. Yet they donít have the same responsibility as citizens. When corporations violate the law, they are immune from most of the punishments a citizen would face. Corporations donít go to jail when they break the law, they are fined or they dissolve and form a new corporation.

Who determines what ďdeeply held religious beliefsĒ a corporation has? Presumably the owner/board of directors does. Yet these same owners/boards of directors who are responsible for exercising a corporationís rights are rarely held personally responsible when a corporation violates the law. Until the supreme court finds a way to hold corporations to the same level of responsibility for their actions as a citizen, they should not be treated as such.

Tamara
01 Jul 14,, 23:26
So, I hadn't even heard about Hobby Lobby until someone posted something about it on Facebook. Here are two opinions on the verdict:
..............But that's just me. What are your thoughts and opinions on the matter?

That the discussion ought to in places like here and NOT on Facebook.

I've been going through and cutting and tossing the "ability" of people who insist putting their activism, their political comment on my FB. I use FB for my theater arts side of life, to keep up with the fun things friends are doing. I hate going there and finding someone using it to promote their political agenda, mar my enjoyment with what they think is wrong in the world and something ought to be done!

As to the subject, generally anything that strips power from the ACA I would go for......................................I'm willing to sleep in that bed.

zraver
02 Jul 14,, 00:35
The lefties and feminist are screeching about this ruling making it something its not.

1. Obama issued a MANDATE through HHS that said employers must provide emergency contraception.
2. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products said we wont do it and claimed protection under the LAW known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
3. RFRA says the government must use the least intrusive method to achieve its goals after it met the compelling interest threshold.
4. Obamacare already provided exemptions for religious non-profits and had provided ways for women working for them to get the contraception from other sources.
5. The Supreme Court decided two things-
5a. 5-2 with 2 abstaining that a Federal LAW trumps an executive agency MANDATE.
5b. 5-4 That less intrusive means existed for the government to achieve its goals see number 4).
6. It was never a constitutional question, not directly. The only real constitutional issue was which trumps law or mandate.
7. It is a very narrow ruling applying only to individuals, sole proprietorship and closely held companies. It does not mean corporations can have religious beliefs, but that family owned businesses can.
8. Hobby Lobby is a progressive employer for a retailer. paying near double the minimum wage and providing health care long before required to do so. It was also run on what its owners felt were Christian principles like closing on Sunday.

antimony
02 Jul 14,, 00:44
The lefties and feminist are screeching about this ruling making it something its not.

1. Obama issued a MANDATE through HHS that said employers must provide emergency contraception.
2. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Products said we wont do it and claimed protection under the LAW known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
3. RFRA says the government must use the least intrusive method to achieve its goals after it met the compelling interest threshold.
4. Obamacare already provided exemptions for religious non-profits and had provided ways for women working for them to get the contraception from other sources.
5. The Supreme Court decided two things-
5a. 5-2 with 2 abstaining that a Federal LAW trumps an executive agency MANDATE.
5b. 5-4 That less intrusive means existed for the government to achieve its goals see number 4).
6. It was never a constitutional question, not directly. The only real constitutional issue was which trumps law or mandate.
7. It is a very narrow ruling applying only to individuals, sole proprietorship and closely held companies. It does not mean corporations can have religious beliefs, but that family owned businesses can.
8. Hobby Lobby is a progressive employer for a retailer. paying near double the minimum wage and providing health care long before required to do so. It was also run on what its owners felt were Christian principles like closing on Sunday.

Non sequiter arguments. what does their paying above minimum wages have anything to do with this?

As I said, I wish someone comes with something as asinine (like not paying claims for maternity) and see if the law applies. Legal cover for one stupid position can provide legal cover for other stupid provisions.

tbm3fan
02 Jul 14,, 00:57
Non sequiter arguments. what does their paying above minimum wages have anything to do with this?

As I said, I wish someone comes with something as asinine (like not paying claims for maternity) and see if the law applies. Legal cover for one stupid position can provide legal cover for other stupid provisions.

Right and here is my stupid request. Since no one is born with religious beliefs they need to acquire at a later age through indoctrination in one form or the other.

So here is mine and it falls under behavioral indoctrination which is just as strong with a strong emotional component. I am 4 years old and witness my home being broken into by a black male who kills my father in a struggle. I am now conditioned to fear all black men the same way I can condition a pigeon never ever to touch that green spot again. I am now an adult and operate a medium size business and don't want to deal with black males. It is a strongly held belief and fear. Is a religion a more strongly held belief than mine? Should the religious belief get preferential treatment over my strongly held belief and fear? Should I be told to not have a business because I feel that way and that is it? If I am told tough then why isn't a religion told tough? Same premise but different group now and does the group change the application?

antimony
02 Jul 14,, 01:39
Right and here is my stupid request. Since no one is born with religious beliefs they need to acquire at a later age through indoctrination in one form or the other.

So here is mine and it falls under behavioral indoctrination which is just as strong with a strong emotional component. I am 4 years old and witness my home being broken into by a black male who kills my father in a struggle. I am now conditioned to fear all black men the same way I can condition a pigeon never ever to touch that green spot again. I am now an adult and operate a medium size business and don't want to deal with black males. It is a strongly held belief and fear. Is a religion a more strongly held belief than mine? Should the religious belief get preferential treatment over my strongly held belief and fear? Should I be told to not have a business because I feel that way and that is it? If I am told tough then why isn't a religion told tough? Same premise but different group now and does the group change the application?

Wonderful, lets put this argument before the court.

zraver
02 Jul 14,, 01:58
Non sequiter arguments. what does their paying above minimum wages have anything to do with this?

Lefties are claiming this is an attack on women... Hobbly Lobby who employs a lot of women pays them a living wage. They've been increasing wages and hours even as other retailers sought to reduce labor costs.


As I said, I wish someone comes with something as asinine (like not paying claims for maternity) and see if the law applies. Legal cover for one stupid position can provide legal cover for other stupid provisions.

In this case, only if government has done something that targets a religion in a manner that is not the least intrusive. People keep saying Jehovah's Witness and blood transfusion. I find this comparison to be bunk. Blood transfusions are not a prescription or simple procedure but are part of complex treatments for cancer, traumas and other medical emergencies. There is not way to separate out blood transfusion from other covered services. ie there is no less intrusive method.

TopHatter
02 Jul 14,, 03:54
Lefties are claiming this is an attack on women... Hobbly Lobby who employs a lot of women pays them a living wage. They've been increasing wages and hours even as other retailers sought to reduce labor costs.Indeed, and I'm trying to figure out where Hobby Lobby is holding these women to involuntary servitude.


In this case, only if government has done something that targets a religion in a manner that is not the least intrusive. People keep saying Jehovah's Witness and blood transfusion. I find this comparison to be bunk. Blood transfusions are not a prescription or simple procedure but are part of complex treatments for cancer, traumas and other medical emergencies. There is not way to separate out blood transfusion from other covered services. ie there is no less intrusive method.

It is indeed bunk but actually because no Jehovah's Witness business owner would say a single word about what the healthcare service he/she offers is providing to their employees. They would provide healthcare or not as their business model allowed. What happens after that is up to the government via Obamacare and of course the employee.

So while Justice Ginsberg probably has a point about other religious groups, her comparison to Jehovah's Witnesses is just plain wrong.

Bigfella
02 Jul 14,, 10:10
A curious observer here. If government mandates that you treat a particular race or gender equally - equal pay etc, and your religion says that a given race or gender is inferior, why are you compelled to provide equal treatment?

Doktor
02 Jul 14,, 10:40
Which religion would that be? ;)

Bigfella
02 Jul 14,, 10:45
Which religion would that be? ;)

Which one wouldn't it be? :biggrin:

Doktor
02 Jul 14,, 10:51
Which one wouldn't it be? :biggrin:

I don't recall the priests here having hollier then tho moment. Then again, not much of a believer guy myself.

Do recall however that they exchange visits on religious holidays and that they always call for respect of the others.

Bigfella
02 Jul 14,, 11:20
I don't recall the priests here having hollier then tho moment. Then again, not much of a believer guy myself.

Do recall however that they exchange visits on religious holidays and that they always call for respect of the others.

All the big religions can be/have been/are used to discriminate against different groups. Always justified with reference to conveniently chosen quotes or 'traditions'. That was sorta my point - why stop at birth control.

Albany Rifles
02 Jul 14,, 14:55
I fall squarely in the camp that these corporations are operating within the public sector and are required to follow the laws of the public sector.

Period.

I also believe that Catholic hospitals (yes, I am Catholic), or any other hospitals run by faith based organizations, should also be held to the same standards.

Period.

To operate in the public sector means you follow public sector rules.

But I will offer a compromise on this....okay, you want to claim a right to refuse a service based on faith. Fine.

But you lose all tax breaks by being a religious based organization which is not follwoing all of the public sector rules.

A very slippery slope has just been made steeper for no good reason.

Doktor
02 Jul 14,, 15:03
But you lose all tax breaks by being a religious based organization which is not follwoing all of the public sector rules.

Hmmm...

You gonna close all the religion and become a commie :biggrin:

GVChamp
02 Jul 14,, 19:02
A curious observer here. If government mandates that you treat a particular race or gender equally - equal pay etc, and your religion says that a given race or gender is inferior, why are you compelled to provide equal treatment?

You'd get told to pound salt. The key factor is whether this is narrowly tailored and not accomplishable by other means. The government can pay for the medication themselves, meaning this is NOT the least intrusive method possible. There's not much else you can do to stop discrimination other than banning discrimination.

Bigfella
02 Jul 14,, 22:30
You'd get told to pound salt. The key factor is whether this is narrowly tailored and not accomplishable by other means. The government can pay for the medication themselves, meaning this is NOT the least intrusive method possible. There's not much else you can do to stop discrimination other than banning discrimination.

The government could make up the pay differential for the employee being discriminated against too. Where do you draw the line on employer's religious beliefs impacting on employees & why?

GVChamp
02 Jul 14,, 23:01
The government could make up the pay differential for the employee being discriminated against too. Where do you draw the line on employer's religious beliefs impacting on employees & why?

I wish I could have a good answer for you, but I don't. This will probably be used as precedent in a wide number of cases and it's not entirely clear how the Court will rule until the Cases are actually presented. However, the Court has generally tried NOT to be too "activist," for lack of a better word. It's not designed to create policy, and Chief Justice Roberts is more focused on keeping up the court's legitimacy than being a right-wing culture warrior.

So it's highly unlikely that he will rule to over-turn five decades of discrimination law, as much as, say, Justice Thomas might want him to.

DOR
03 Jul 14,, 03:29
zraver,

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was held unconstitutional as it applied to the states, in 1997. It continues to be applied to the Federal Government, as Congress has broad powers to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations.

= = = = =

TopHatter,

Would you advocate requiring someone to quit their job because they didn’t want to follow their employer’s religion?

Imagine that instead of the issue being an employer objecting to certain health insurance, the Supreme Court was ruling on whether employees could be compelled to follow proper Islamic law (sharia).

Or, what if it was a company that was founded and run by someone who follows the principles of Christian Science?

= = = = =


Bigfella,


Yes, the law requires that companies not discriminate in their treatment of employees, suppliers and customers.


= = = = =


Doktor,

When did closing a loop hole necessarily lead to communism?

zraver
03 Jul 14,, 04:28
zraver,

The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was held unconstitutional as it applied to the states, in 1997. It continues to be applied to the Federal Government, as Congress has broad powers to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations.

and? There was no state level issue here.

Doktor
03 Jul 14,, 07:07
Doktor,

When did closing a loop hole necessarily lead to communism?

Was referring to banning religion.

Triple C
03 Jul 14,, 12:33
I see 2 problems with the SCOTUS ruling.

1. Employer health insurance is provided by deducing from the worker's paycheck. It does not come from the employer's cut of the pie, but from the worker's, which is held in trust by the company to provide care that must meet legal standards. I don't see how the company can decide what it will and will not do with other people's money.

2. Legal personhood exists for accounting purposes to protect the owners from liability. There is a veil between the owners and the corporation (Note this is a second hand impression and feel free to correct me if there are corporate lawyers among you). Now, the Court is saying owners can impart their religious beliefs to the company. This appears problematic, because now owners of a corporation get double religious freedom--one as private citizens, the other derived from the their corporate personhood. The veil is lifted specifically for abortion. To me this appears arbitrary.

Doktor
03 Jul 14,, 12:47
Just thinking loud here, but can you turn the tables around.

The employees know which kind of plan they can expect in the said company.

Can they buy additional coverage if they want to?

Triple C
03 Jul 14,, 17:09
Just thinking loud here, but can you turn the tables around.

The employees know which kind of plan they can expect in the said company.

Can they buy additional coverage if they want to?

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-job-based-health-insurance/

Yes, but the system is not set up to encourage people to do this. It is highly likely that employees who go this route will pay more for a comparable package purchased on the "marketplace".



With most job-based health insurance plans, an employer pays part of your premiums. If you pick a Marketplace plan instead, the employer doesn’t contribute to your premiums. You should consider this carefully before comparing Marketplace plans.

TopHatter
03 Jul 14,, 18:24
Would you advocate requiring someone to quit their job because they didn’t want to follow their employer’s religion? Of course not. And that is not the issue here but merely a strawman.


Imagine that instead of the issue being an employer objecting to certain health insurance, the Supreme Court was ruling on whether employees could be compelled to follow proper Islamic law (sharia)Cannot and will not happen here. I'm afraid that's another strawman.


Or, what if it was a company that was founded and run by someone who follows the principles of Christian Science?
Ditto.

The issue here is whether or not an employer, specifically a family owned business, should be required to provide a benefit that the employer feels violates their religious conscience.

The Supreme Court ruled that, no, such a business cannot be required to do so.

My comment about involuntary servitude referred to the freedom that every American has to choose their place of employment, based on their own financial needs and conscience etc.
A person who works at Hobby Lobby and requires contraception has to acquire at their own expense. If they feel the employer should provide them with benefits that pay of contraception, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. If I feel the health insurance at my current employer is similarly lacking, I am free to seek employment elsewhere.

Yes I know you're pointing to the slippery slope that this ruling implies but the jump to Sharia Law is, again, a very tall strawman argument to put forth.

bigross86
03 Jul 14,, 18:52
Moreover, when you look at the wages being offered by Hobby Lobby, they are paying $15 an hour, over double the federal minimum wage. A Plan B pill costs between $35 and $60.

Now, I don't care how promiscuous you are, considering that on an average 8 hour work day, you are earning $62 MORE than you'd earn working a minimum wage job, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using the birth control pills supplied by the insurance, and buying your own goddamned Plan B pill if you were irresponsible enough to not use the birth control offered.

Gun Grape
03 Jul 14,, 19:35
Moreover, when you look at the wages being offered by Hobby Lobby, they are paying $15 an hour, over double the federal minimum wage. A Plan B pill costs between $35 and $60.

Now, I don't care how promiscuous you are, considering that on an average 8 hour work day, you are earning $62 MORE than you'd earn working a minimum wage job, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using the birth control pills supplied by the insurance, and buying your own goddamned Plan B pill if you were irresponsible enough to not use the birth control offered.


So the more I pay my employees, the less insurance coverage I need to provide?

kato
03 Jul 14,, 19:41
I see more at issue with the fact that contraceptives are wanted to be covered at all. I'm moderately sure no continental European (yes, explicitly excluding our island friends) state-regulated health insurance plan includes contraception for adults within its coverage portfolio (although there are some groups in France lobbying for it). Emergency contraception or in general abortion isn't covered either.

Our courts over here have pretty consistently decided that sex in whatever way, shape or form it takes is a personal luxury, not an entitlement of any kind.

Zinja
03 Jul 14,, 21:11
This judgement is exactly the reason i have problems with the legal system. I think the way the legal system works is fundamentally flawed.

It seems the way the legal system works depends on what the people making the decision at the time want the law to say or mean NOT what the authors of the law intended to convey. RFRA/SRFRA when the authors wrote it meant to protect persons in their 'persons' capacity from unwarranted burden that infringe on their free exercise of belief and religion, I bet my bottom dollar the authors had no corporates in mind when the law was penned. What the courts now are doing is stretching something that was meant for one thing to cover something completely different. This makes the standing of law so fungible, its words become almost meaningless and difficult to trust, all that one needs is a clever enough lawyer that can play around with words. This exactly my major contention with same sex marriages as well. So as far as this judgment is concerned I am in the camp of dissenters but for different reasons.

On the other hand I am also in the camp of those celebrating but for another different reason.
I don't buy the lefts' ruckus about so called right to 'women's health' or popularly called 'war on women', i think its absolutely total nonsense. Since when is a person's choice to have sex a right that should be paid for by someone else? Since when is not having sex such a dreaded disease that employers should prevent by paying for people to have it (sex)? I would 'perhaps' sympathise with women if this was about sanitary towels. I would argue there is more reason for employers to provide food for their employees than this silliness about 'women's health' to act irresponsibly. I find the government's activism to subsidise people's life style wholly unacceptable.

bigross86
03 Jul 14,, 23:36
So the more I pay my employees, the less insurance coverage I need to provide?

No, I think in this case, the entire lawsuit was stupid. Those demanding the Plan B pill were those that were in a better position to buy it on their own. They got selfish, and ended up having the USSC tell them they were stupid for filing the lawsuit (in slightly different words). At least, that's how I see it.

Doktor
04 Jul 14,, 00:31
These must be the same folks who advocate that their belly is all theirs and noone should interfere in their decisions.

DOR
04 Jul 14,, 03:42
Doktor,


Was referring to banning religion

And, when did closing a loop hole equate to banning religion?

= = = = =

TopHatter,

Straw man? If I read your comment correctly, it implied “if you don’t like this employer, go somewhere else.” Sorry if I misunderstood.

Re Sharia law or Christian Science: OK, it cannot and will not happen in the US. No argument there, but you artfully missed the point.

The principle stands: should an employer be allowed to impose his religious beliefs on employees? I say, no, and don’t really care if the business is family owned or publicaly listed. Labor laws are there to protect workers, regardless of such conditions.

If every American had the right to chose their place of employment, there would be no such thing as involuntary unemployment. Since that is not the case, pushing someone out of a job because of a bigoted boss is not OK.

zraver
04 Jul 14,, 04:50
In reading and researching various arguments relating to this issue I came across this interesting fact. Thanks to ACA/ Obamacare, the average woman of child bearing age is now saving $269 per year thanks to no cost (to her) contraception. Lets think about this for a moment.... In an insurance discussion about birth control there are only 3 payer groups as employer matches should be considered as part of individual compensation. For a woman of child bearing age to save $269, men (all ages) and menopausal women have to pay more or get less for what they do pay. Given the massive imbalance in health care spending both in direct care and research that favors women even older women the only real class who is paying more/ getting less is men. So a system that already spends 2 of every 3 dollars on womens' health needs now tilts even farther in that direction.

War on women my ass

Average health care premiums in the US are about $4000 per person. minus 8% profit (ACA cap) That means 3680 spent on health care per person per captia. x2 one man one woman (for comparison) totals $7360 2/3 of that on women. So women are getting $4857.6 to a mans $2502.4. Now swap over the birth control money and the woman gets $5126.6 in health care benefits per year on $4000 paid. The man gets $2233.4 on $4000 paid.

Bigfella
04 Jul 14,, 05:16
, i think its absolutely total nonsense. Since when is a person's choice to have sex a right that should be paid for by someone else? Since when is not having sex such a dreaded disease that employers should prevent by paying for people to have it (sex)? I would 'perhaps' sympathise with women if this was about sanitary towels. I would argue there is more reason for employers to provide food for their employees than this silliness about 'women's health' to act irresponsibly. I find the government's activism to subsidise people's life style wholly unacceptable.

The bolded is a succinct description of what follows. What on earth are you babbling about? Employers are not paying for people to have sex, they are contributing to the cost of contraceptives designed to prevent pregnancy. Some of these contraceptives can also have other medical uses. You might have missed this, but pregnancy is actually a major medical issue as well as impacting on every other aspect of a woman's life. The ability to regulate when she falls pregnant is one of the more fundamental needs for most women of child bearing age. In short, pregnancy is expensive and potentially dangerous.

It never ceases to fascinate me that the moment the issue of contraception comes up men start jumping up & down about women having sex, 'promiscuity' & a bunch of other absolute BS. There is an implicit standard of behaviour being discussed here which is rarely if ever applied to men. Then they wonder why 'the left' finds it so easy to depict a whole segment of the polity as borderline or actively opposed to women's rights.

Bigfella
04 Jul 14,, 05:19
I see more at issue with the fact that contraceptives are wanted to be covered at all. I'm moderately sure no continental European (yes, explicitly excluding our island friends) state-regulated health insurance plan includes contraception for adults within its coverage portfolio (although there are some groups in France lobbying for it). Emergency contraception or in general abortion isn't covered either.

Our courts over here have pretty consistently decided that sex in whatever way, shape or form it takes is a personal luxury, not an entitlement of any kind.

Feel free to chase down the details, but this map suggests you are wrong:

Here's a map of the countries where the pill is fully subsidized (it includes Iran) - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/30/5857904/where-the-pill-is-free)

Most of Western Europe offers some sort of subsidy or even free contraceptive pills. So does a fair proportion of the rest of the world. For example, in Australia the contraceptive pill is subsidized by government. Not just one type, but a variety. I'm not assuming the map is 100% accurate, but it gives a broad idea.

Doktor
04 Jul 14,, 06:24
Doktor,



And, when did closing a loop hole equate to banning religion?

= = = = =

TopHatter,

Straw man? If I read your comment correctly, it implied “if you don’t like this employer, go somewhere else.” Sorry if I misunderstood.

Re Sharia law or Christian Science: OK, it cannot and will not happen in the US. No argument there, but you artfully missed the point.

The principle stands: should an employer be allowed to impose his religious beliefs on employees? I say, no, and don’t really care if the business is family owned or publicaly listed. Labor laws are there to protect workers, regardless of such conditions.

If every American had the right to chose their place of employment, there would be no such thing as involuntary unemployment. Since that is not the case, pushing someone out of a job because of a bigoted boss is not OK.

DOR,

How you gonna close a loophole when USSC has a verdict?

Bigotted bosses will have to choose, too - the best worker for the job or religiously correct one.

zraver
04 Jul 14,, 06:26
For example, in Australia the contraceptive pill is subsidized by government. Not just one type, but a variety.

Oh, kind of like Hobby Lobby offering 16 of 20...

There are two types of male contraception. Do you know how many of them the ACA covers? Zero- no free condoms and no free vasectomies.

But there is a real simple solution go to a gender based risk pool. Men on one side, women on the other with totally separate premiums. Men can STFU about women's health issues and women can fund what ever critical issue of the moment they desire.

tbm3fan
04 Jul 14,, 09:25
It never ceases to fascinate me that the moment the issue of contraception comes up men start jumping up & down about women having sex, 'promiscuity' & a bunch of other absolute BS. There is an implicit standard of behaviour being discussed here which is rarely if ever applied to men. Then they wonder why 'the left' finds it so easy to depict a whole segment of the polity as borderline or actively opposed to women's rights.

Oh, is that ever so true as I am watching it on another forum of colleagues! Over there they are complaining why am I paying for women to have sex. Ludicrous.

GVChamp
04 Jul 14,, 14:28
It never ceases to fascinate me that the moment the issue of contraception comes up men start jumping up & down about women having sex, 'promiscuity' & a bunch of other absolute BS. There is an implicit standard of behaviour being discussed here which is rarely if ever applied to men. Then they wonder why 'the left' finds it so easy to depict a whole segment of the polity as borderline or actively opposed to women's rights.
This sounds like the Left is judging a legitimate religious belief because they disagree with it. Many religious groups frown upon pre-marital sex or feel that contraception is a disruption to a natural process, and it's not my place to judge that.
In this case, though, it's not really relevant, because Hobby Lobby is only restricting medications they feel function as abortificients (sp, too lazy to correct on this stupid laptop).

TopHatter
04 Jul 14,, 19:58
Straw man? If I read your comment correctly, it implied “if you don’t like this employer, go somewhere else.” Sorry if I misunderstood.That's exactly what I meant. I've been working for nearly 24 years and if there something I didn't like about an employer, I went elsewhere, in good times and bad. There are other places to work other than small family-owned businesses. And just as an aside, I've found those small family-owned businesses are usually "nuts" regards of which end of the politico-religious spectrum they fall on.


U]Re Sharia law or Christian Science[/U]: OK, it cannot and will not happen in the US. No argument there, but you artfully missed the point.I assume you were pointing out a slippery slope or comparing Hobby Lobby's belief system to Sharia. If I'm incorrect, would you care to artfully explain your point?


The principle stands: should an employer be allowed to impose his religious beliefs on employees? I say, no, and don’t really care if the business is family owned or publicaly listed. Labor laws are there to protect workers, regardless of such conditions.I don't see how Hobby Lobby withholding an element from its benefit packing is "imposing" their religious beliefs on their employees. Proselytizing during working hours would be more like it. I've worked for employers that believed, fervently (even religiously you might say) that certain things like unemployment benefits and and bonuses were bullshit (small family-owned business!) and took drastic, even underhanded action, to deny or attempt to deny such things to their employees. All legal. I expressed my contempt for that by finding another job at the height of the Wall Street collapse.


If every American had the right to chose their place of employment, there would be no such thing as involuntary unemployment. Since that is not the case, pushing someone out of a job because of a bigoted boss is not OK.I fail to see how Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs are "bigoted" but if that's how you feel, great. And nobody promised anybody the "right" to choose their place of employment. You do your best and you can make a living. Even a zero-college loser like me can do well enough to find a decent employer, buy a house and be financially stable. And I managed to do without whining that my employer doesn't provide me with condoms or a 100% company-subsidized vasectomy.

TopHatter
04 Jul 14,, 20:00
This sounds like the Left is judging a legitimate religious belief because they disagree with it. Many religious groups frown upon pre-marital sex or feel that contraception is a disruption to a natural process, and it's not my place to judge that.
In this case, though, it's not really relevant, because Hobby Lobby is only restricting medications they feel function as abortificients (sp, too lazy to correct on this stupid laptop).That is the liberal Left in a nutshell: "Be tolerant and don't judge anybody...as long as they toe our ideological line, then you can judge and condemn them into compliance"

zraver
04 Jul 14,, 23:21
This whole thing reminds of the "check your privilege" conversation going around the net a couple months ago. At least there, there is good evidence that whites do in fact have many institutional advantages. In this case, not so much. Women live longer, get their health care subsidized by men, are a protected class under the law, go to schools designed to effectively teach their gender, are the majority of college students, make more than men (until they leave the work force to raise kids), have reproductive rights (men don't), have a sympathy card they can use at least occasionally, rarely get charged for domestic violence... Yet because 90% of the 1% is male, the Other 99% of men are somehow guilty and so deserve to pay...

That is what the Left's argument basically boils down to- a claim that there is a war on women despite the evidence to the contrary. Why? To cover up the fact that the real issue in all this was Obama's claim that his MANDATE trumped duly passed LAW. Its scary that this was only 5-4 instead of being 9-0#13. Still a win is a win and at least for now the President shall not be greeted with "Hail Caesar!".