Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.

As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.

Mannahnin your killing me with this one! So am I to take it you are implying that Christians may only do with their property, something that the Government tells them they may? Is it not true that the Greens own the hobby lobby companies? Is it not also true, by reason of logical inference, that you are saying something to the effect of "well the greens arent being forced to remain in control of their company, if they dont like the law, they can leave the public forum and hide in their backwards hole!" ?!!

No, you're making a silly argument. They are in control of their company, but the law (as it always has, and must for many reasons, as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire amply demonstrates) limits some ways in which they may exercise that control. Generally to help provide for the safety and just treatment of their workers, or of the general public. Do you freak out about laws against dumping toxic waste into rivers and watersheds? Or laws requiring that overtime be paid to hourly employees who work over 40 hours in a week? By your logic, those laws = the Greens having control of their company taken away from them.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, is IMMEDIATELY followed by "Render unto God, that which is Gods." Now tell me, what do you think falls where; the taxes that the hobby lobby company pays, as well as the money the Green family pays; and the lives of unborn children who have done nothing more than to be conceived. Lemme tell you my position

Taxes= Governments, Babies= Gods

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of when life begins (although the real argument is over whether a woman has a right to end that life when ever she wants (as long as its in her uterus) ) the fact of the matter is the Green family believes that it is protected and precious life and ending it is a direct affront to God and violates His intentions. What gives the Government the right to dictate to them how they should run their company on an issue such as this? Are you so put off by Christianity in the public square, that you are oblivious to the steam rolling of your fellow citizens constitutionally declared rights over the sustainment of some invented right? Because it seems that way to me.

A) The right of women to control over their own reproductive process has been the law of the land since the 1970s. I strongly suspect that if men could also get pregnant this right would have been a blanket assumption going back at least to the founding, if not further. There are MANY, MANY limitations on how this right is exercised, and many restrictions in place currently on tax revenue being spent on abortion.
B) The ACA doesn't require them to cover abortions, and their objection to Plan B is founded on, at best, outdated science (as the medical professional in the thread has explained), or at worst, a simple desire to control their employees' reproductive lives and a disingenuous smokescreen of an argument as to why.
C) If Christians or other religious business owners can make up excuses to break the law by saying "I think babies = God's", therefore, since I know God's will, I am allowed to defy the law, where does that get us? Hey, the Amish believe that hard work is the path of godliness! Since "work = God's", does that mean than an Amish employer can ignore any labor regulation that it wants? Can they deny their employees overtime pay on the basis that working overtime will be rewarded in heaven?

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
[I find it so ammusing that he, a member of our rule of the majority style government, is mad the the majority. Not only that, he thumbs his nose at the "political preachers" i.e. vocal majority, and tells them to effectively "STFU AND BE HAPPY WE DONT THROW YOU IN PRISON YOU PRETENTIOUS PRICKS!" Such a beacon of legislative neutrality and unbiased representation he is.... ( if I could poor condensed sarcasm onto my keyboard right now I would)

You've got it backwards. Political preachers are not and were not the vocal majority. They are a (frequently obnoxious) minority, one Goldwater experienced attempting to bully legislators and impose their personal doctrines as the word of god and the exclusive path of morality.

 Vulcan wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
If my religion believes that a person with cancer should be left to die, does my business have to cover cancer related stuff? Its unnatural to preserve the dying, after all. I don't want to be forced by the liberal government to fund something immoral, heaven forbid.

And THAT'S why this is a bad idea.

There's a reason we have laws in place to separate religion from government.

It doesnt separate religion from government. It separates Government from religion. (loosely paraphrased) Government shall make no law that favors one religious sect above another. Nor establish for itself, a religion beholden to it.

The whole idea of "separation of church and state" doesn't even appear in our constitution (the document that tells us how to structure, operate, and interpret our laws, and our government) It is something atheists and the ACLU have harped on from a letter by one of the founding fathers.

The case for seperation of c&s is even more hairy when you look at historical context. Our founding fathers were well aware of the reason the puritans came over in the first place and their issues with the national church of England (headed by the king of england) and its abuses led to the clause about Governments and religions.

There were two things we are expressly warned about by the founding fathers. Banks and Governments (well that and this system of government only working if supported and ran by God fearing, christian principled citizens) Not religion in and of itself

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

It doesnt separate religion from government. It separates Government from religion. (loosely paraphrased) Government shall make no law that favors one religious sect above another. Nor establish for itself, a religion beholden to it.

Yes, so no 'established religion', that includes 'Christianity' (which, btw, only started calling it's self 'Christianity' in the latter half of the 20th century as the various factions allied to fight abortion and other issues, it's a relatively recent construct as far as the US is concerned.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

The whole idea of "separation of church and state" doesn't even appear in our constitution (the document that tells us how to structure, operate, and interpret our laws, and our government) It is something atheists and the ACLU have harped on from a letter by one of the founding fathers.

In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

The case for seperation of c&s is even more hairy when you look at historical context. Our founding fathers were well aware of the reason the puritans came over in the first place and their issues with the national church of England (headed by the king of england) and its abuses led to the clause about Governments and religions.

Your statement here is self defeating. It proves they were determined not to facilitate the 'heavenly mandate' or rule of church. That's the very reason they were so adamant about the separation of the church and matters of legislation and governance. You and your religion have no place on or in public areas unless equally shared with EVERY other religious and theocratic philosophy in the nation.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

There were two things we are expressly warned about by the founding fathers. Banks and Governments (well that and this system of government only working if supported and ran by God fearing, christian principled citizens) Not religion in and of itself

Wrong. Religion influencing government as it had in the Old World was the very thing they railed against and set measures against.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...

This is typical....Where did I say that the greens cause was equivalent to the cause of Gandhi, MLK..etc? I didn't.

Straw man arguments are easy to win... and that's why people resort to them.

I was trying to point out the error of quoting out of context of "having no desire to defy their own govt" when the context was... that they don't desire to defy the just laws of their govt.

And I was merely saying that some laws are unjust... and civil disobediance, such as that of MLK, Gandhi can be used, and also that civil disobedience doesn't necessarily violate scripture.

GG

GG, it does seem like bad writing or inconsistency for them to say in one sentence their commitment to defy the government, and in another sentence that they don't want to defy the government.

It just comes off a bit strange. I can certainly see your point about civil disobedience, though.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
The whole idea of "separation of church and state" doesn't even appear in our constitution (the document that tells us how to structure, operate, and interpret our laws, and our government) It is something atheists and the ACLU have harped on from a letter by one of the founding fathers.

Thomas Jefferson, the guy who wrote the Declaration, and who was a big advocate for the Bill of Rights and worked with Madison on it. Yeah, that guy is the one who explained so patiently to the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment creates a "wall of separation" between church and state.

MGS covered the rest of the historical context, but I was not comfortable letting you dismiss the separation as if it's some obscure triviality.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...

This is typical....Where did I say that the greens cause was equivalent to the cause of Gandhi, MLK..etc? I didn't.

Straw man arguments are easy to win... and that's why people resort to them.

Calm down, you're very quick to cry strawman. I was merely pointing out that comparisons drawn with people who have obviously had far more noble causes isn't a good place to start any sort of argument...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You can't seriously put the Greens up there on a pedestal with the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Schindler. The last one in particular is a bit unfortunate because he saved people from the holocaust and the Greens probably think they are saving lives by interfering in the provision of abortions. Probably best to avoid those sorts of comparisons before someone Godwins the thread...

This is typical....Where did I say that the greens cause was equivalent to the cause of Gandhi, MLK..etc? I didn't.

Straw man arguments are easy to win... and that's why people resort to them.

Calm down, you're very quick to cry strawman.....

Because you have done it to me before. You love the straw man argument.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I like this...

The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government.

...followed by this...

The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity.

Yeah.....how dare all those NAACP....... Martin Luther King...Gandis, underground railroad, Oskar Shindler types of the world break unjust laws....

The Bible declares we must obey every law even if it breaks God's Moral laws......errrr...wait.....no it doesn't.

I am more than capable of inserting my own foot into my own mouth, I do not need your help; and it is not appreciated. I never claimed that the Bible requires Christians to obey all of the laws of men.

The point I was attempting to make was that the Greens very clearly want to defy the law in question, as did MLK, Gandhi, Oskar Schindler, and (at times) the NAACP.

Claiming that your desire to adhere to your general understanding of Christian teachings does not eliminate the specific desire to refrain from doing a thing as a result of the genreal desire.

I see..you appeared to be calling them hypocrites. If i misunderstood you.. my apologies.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
I see..you appeared to be calling them hypocrites. If i misunderstood you.. my apologies.

No, I am calling the author of the relevant piece an idiot.

 Easy E wrote:
Seaward should be coming in now to tell us an employer should be able to do whatever they want with no governmental repercussions.

Sorry, apparently I'm quite late. And while I don't think I've ever said employer should be able to do whatever it wants, I certainly agree that Hobby Lobby should be able to offer whatever insurance plan it likes to its employees - or not. Want to guess my feelings on the ACA?

Why health insurance, in particular?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why health insurance, in particular?

Was that directed at me? If so, I don't understand the question.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why is it against the word of God to provide health insurance for company staff?

Deuteronomy 3:11 and the Lord didth useth Blue Shield and payeth the copay for Eve's medical visit.

 Mannahnin wrote:

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.

As soon as you add "with accordance to the law of course", you make your question meaningless. Coverage for contraception IS the law. The employer is no longer permitted to withhold coverage for it any more than they're allowed to lock employees in without access to fire exists (Triangle Shirtwaist factor), or they're allowed to make hourly employees work more than 40 hours without paying them overtime.

Mannahnin your killing me with this one! So am I to take it you are implying that Christians may only do with their property, something that the Government tells them they may? Is it not true that the Greens own the hobby lobby companies? Is it not also true, by reason of logical inference, that you are saying something to the effect of "well the greens arent being forced to remain in control of their company, if they dont like the law, they can leave the public forum and hide in their backwards hole!" ?!!

No, you're making a silly argument. They are in control of their company, but the law (as it always has, and must for many reasons, as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire amply demonstrates) limits some ways in which they may exercise that control. Generally to help provide for the safety and just treatment of their workers, or of the general public. Do you freak out about laws against dumping toxic waste into rivers and watersheds? Or laws requiring that overtime be paid to hourly employees who work over 40 hours in a week? By your logic, those laws = the Greens having control of their company taken away from them.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, is IMMEDIATELY followed by "Render unto God, that which is Gods." Now tell me, what do you think falls where; the taxes that the hobby lobby company pays, as well as the money the Green family pays; and the lives of unborn children who have done nothing more than to be conceived. Lemme tell you my position

Taxes= Governments, Babies= Gods

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of when life begins (although the real argument is over whether a woman has a right to end that life when ever she wants (as long as its in her uterus) ) the fact of the matter is the Green family believes that it is protected and precious life and ending it is a direct affront to God and violates His intentions. What gives the Government the right to dictate to them how they should run their company on an issue such as this? Are you so put off by Christianity in the public square, that you are oblivious to the steam rolling of your fellow citizens constitutionally declared rights over the sustainment of some invented right? Because it seems that way to me.

A) The right of women to control over their own reproductive process has been the law of the land since the 1970s. I strongly suspect that if men could also get pregnant this right would have been a blanket assumption going back at least to the founding, if not further. There are MANY, MANY limitations on how this right is exercised, and many restrictions in place currently on tax revenue being spent on abortion. ( red herring)
B) The ACA doesn't require them to cover abortions, and their objection to Plan B is founded on, at best, outdated science (as the medical professional in the thread has explained), or at worst, a simple desire to control their employees' reproductive lives and a disingenuous smokescreen of an argument as to why. (Granted, and you are now engaged in character assassination? You have no way of knowing that they are being disingenuous or dishonest, OR that they desire to control their employees reproductive lives. Their ignorance is blatant on the issue of the "abortion pills" but you CANNOT therefore infer, that they are guilty of what you insinuate they are. Toit, I hardly feel that telling my child I am not going to pay for their condoms and birth control is "controlling their reproductive rights!" They have a right to have sex, the outcome of penis+vagina+male orgasm= baby. Its not MY problem if my daughter has sex and gets pregnant. That is HER right. BUT it is NOT her right, to reach into MY wallet and pay to rewrite the equation above ^ into penis+vagina+male orgasm =/= baby. The same goes for employee-employer relations. The employee can drop their flies and get freaky, but THAT is their right. NOT dropping their flies, making an oopsie (or not wanting to start a family just yet) and forcing their employer (who objects to the practice of ending that oopsie) to end it.)
C) If Christians or other religious business owners can make up excuses to break the law by saying "I think babies = God's", therefore, since I know God's will, I am allowed to defy the law, where does that get us? Hey, the Amish believe that hard work is the path of godliness! Since "work = God's", does that mean than an Amish employer can ignore any labor regulation that it wants? Can they deny their employees overtime pay on the basis that working overtime will be rewarded in heaven?( equating pay to abortion and birth control is the WORST kind of equivocation fallacy ive seen in a long time. Basic concepts like paying your employee a decent and reasonable wage, providing safe working conditions etc.. are biblical principles you may be amused to know, but also conditions of employment that we as a nation have deemed (thanks to unionized labor no less) basic and proper. The employer must provide a certain level of care for its employees. But how do you then jump to the ridiculous "you gotta pay for my indiscretions/ family planning/ stupidity/ tragic incident!" ?! I dont see how this even remotely falls into the realm of employer responsibility)

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
[I find it so amusing that he, a member of our rule of the majority style government, is mad the the majority. Not only that, he thumbs his nose at the "political preachers" i.e. vocal majority, and tells them to effectively "STFU AND BE HAPPY WE DONT THROW YOU IN PRISON YOU PRETENTIOUS PRICKS!" Such a beacon of legislative neutrality and unbiased representation he is.... ( if I could pour condensed sarcasm onto my keyboard right now I would)

You've got it backwards. Political preachers are not and were not the vocal majority. They are a (frequently obnoxious) minority, one Goldwater experienced attempting to bully legislators and impose their personal doctrines as the word of god and the exclusive path of morality.

I was hoping you would say that, because that leads me to my next question. Simply because they are a minority, and are threatening to take their votes elsewhere, that means they should STFU and remove themselves from the public square? Simply because you dont like what they are saying? They are trying to get their voices heard, and feel as if their views and cherished beliefs are being trampled on, ridiculed, and demonized.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:

I was hoping you would say that, because that leads me to my next question. Simply because they are a minority, and are threatening to take their votes elsewhere, that means they should STFU and remove themselves from the public square? Simply because you dont like what they are saying? They are trying to get their voices heard, and feel as if their views and cherished beliefs are being trampled on, ridiculed, and demonized.

That is quite a wall of quote you have going on there, and a pretty nice False Choice fallacy to boot.

So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.

This has been a pretty entertaining thread all around. Don't spoil it Aht.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.

Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.

Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?

The First Church of Doomrider?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.

Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?

The First Church of Doomrider?

On a Choppa?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.

Ooooooooo... what's your Deity's name? Where can I join this saintly religion?

The First Church of Doomrider?

Got it in one!

As far as the separation of church and state goes, I cite the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate, in which the government of the United States clearly states that the US is not founded on the tenets of Christianity.

The Senate wrote:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I've determined I must obey my god too! My god commands me to amass a massive mountain of cocaine and start running the largest brothel I can build.

Is your prophet Snowflame?

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why health insurance, in particular?

Was that directed at me? If so, I don't understand the question.

What I mean is, I am sure you would agree that in general, companies should obey the law.

Why should a company be allowed to evade the law or not be subject to it on the specific issue of certain items in a health insurance plan conflicting with the religious conscience of the owners?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

What I mean is, I am sure you would agree that in general, companies should obey the law.

Why should a company be allowed to evade the law or not be subject to it on the specific issue of certain items in a health insurance plan conflicting with the religious conscience of the owners?

In general I agree, yes.

I also think the ACA is terrible law that never should have been passed, and I think Roberts was legacy-hunting or outright out of his mind when he decided to call it constitutional.

So comapnies can choose which laws are terrible and selectively ignore the ones they choose themselves as being terrible?

Companies have to obey the law because not all employees are going to be martyrs and refuse to follow a law, especially a law that benefits them.

Individual employees and the Greens are free to exercise their right as individuals to sue the government and protest peacefully over the law and ignore it for themselves and themselves alone so long as it legal to do so.

 Easy E wrote:
So comapnies can choose which laws are terrible and selectively ignore the ones they choose themselves as being terrible?

That happens all the time... 'tis why there's always litigation / fines being thrown out.

We can brainwash them or something...

My favorite thing to do with news stories like this is to look to the people so to say. I love seeing the reactions people have on the social medias. I saw #HobbyLobby hashtag trending on twitter, and clicked. It was split down the middle of people, "Pray for HobbyLobby" etc... the other was things like, "Glad HobbyLobby is going to incur some fines starting today. That's what you get for being a fascist company "

The first made some what sense, the second type of comments made go Like wtf? I get that you might not agree with their policies, but they're still providing health insurance to their employees, which is a lot better than what some companies are offering their employees. *shrugs* I think the Greens have some of their wires crossed about the "abortion pills" and what not, but remember, the only type of "Safe Sex Practices" for Christians is no sex