Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Verdict

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      Last edited by Zinja; 03 Jul 14,, 20:16.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
        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.
        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #34
          These must be the same folks who advocate that their belly is all theirs and noone should interfere in their decisions.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            Trust me?
            I'm an economist!

            Comment


            • #36
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                , 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.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by kato View Post
                  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

                  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.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DOR View Post
                    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.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                          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).
                          "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            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.

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            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?

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            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.

                            Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            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.
                            “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                            ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                              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"
                              “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                              ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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!".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X