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.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.

This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?

No, I was attempting to show through a ridiculous comparison the fault of your argument....perhaps it was ungentlemanly to do so.

I certainly do not agree with you. IMO, religion is whatever the person with religious beliefs says it is...tennis without a net...anything goes...what you say is objectively not any more believable than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, because there is no way to dispute unfalsifiable claims. The fact that religiously-run corporations, who make money off of the back of their employees who don't share their beliefs, are successfully procuring exemptions from federal law on the basis of their version of the "Spaghetti Monster's will" is on its face abhorrent.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.

This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?

Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will. As an individual though one cannot fund legal representation for themselves to get "exempt" from laws of this caliber

I don't know what this is meant to mean: not being snarky, I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

 LordofHats wrote:
Realistically, I doubt someone will be able to claim "I don't believe in taxes because of my religion, so I shouldn't ahve to pay them" and get it. The issue of abortion is one of the longest standing religious conflicts in the US, and there aren't that many like it, so I think being worried that this will lead to great and terrible things is jumping the gun a little. Religion can get away with this because it's abortion. Who knows if it'll go farther than that.

Is a fair point, though I'd counter that 'corporations as people' had a limited basis for years, until all of a sudden it started being given a much greater expanded meaning.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.

This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?

Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will. As an individual though one cannot fund legal representation for themselves to get "exempt" from laws of this caliber

I don't know what this is meant to mean: not being snarky, I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

My fault. I should have bold this

The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.

 Jihadin wrote:

Federal Government does not have a list of recognize religion. The US Military does how ever. I think an off the wall religion would not stand a chance but a main line religion will.

The only difference between an off-the-wall religion and a mainstream religion, in essence, is the passage of time and the number of people who follow it. This differentiation is more easily typed in a sentence than argued in court. The fact that the courts or the federal government are getting in the game of ruling on whether some religion is "off-the-wall" (my God is his own dad), or "mainstream" (my God is his own dad) s something that should scare the gak out of all of us.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.

This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?

No, I was attempting to show through a ridiculous comparison the fault of your argument....perhaps it was ungentlemanly to do so.

I certainly do not agree with you. IMO, religion is whatever the person with religious beliefs says it is...tennis without a net...anything goes...what you say is objectively not any more believable than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, because there is no way to dispute unfalsifiable claims. The fact that religiously-run corporations, who make money off of the back of their employees who don't share their beliefs, are successfully procuring exemptions from federal law on the basis of their version of the "Spaghetti Monster's will" is on its face abhorrent.

Ah. So it was less ironic agreement then agreement through example: that is to say that the divide is so great, you can't even understand the other side.

Not to be too provocative, but if you fundamentally disagree with the exercise of that right the founders saw fit to enshrine in the First Amendment, perhaps you have greater argument with both this nation's jurisprudence and your fellow citizens then the straightforward application of RFRA, eh?

 sebster wrote:


Is a fair point, though I'd counter that 'corporations as people' had a limited basis for years, until all of a sudden it started being given a much greater expanded meaning.

Yes it happens with a lot of things and it doesn't happen with a lot of other things. A single passage doesn't form a trend at all, so there's no reason to believe that more ridiculous things will come of religion because of this. On the other hand, this itself does continue the long trend of corporate personhood getting worse, though I'd consider this a blip compared to other recent decisions.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Liberty though, that's the government of the United States telling employers that the government understands the tenants of their faith better then they do.

This isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The Spaghetti Monster on Alpha Numaris, my own God, has been telling me and my wife for 13 years that I don't need to pay federal taxes, and neither does anyone under my employ...so I will kindly stop paying my taxes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you really feel that expressing contempt for what gives meaning to others lives undermines my point about a "fundamental disagreement", or was that your attempt at ironic agreement?

No, I was attempting to show through a ridiculous comparison the fault of your argument....perhaps it was ungentlemanly to do so.

I certainly do not agree with you. IMO, religion is whatever the person with religious beliefs says it is...tennis without a net...anything goes...what you say is objectively not any more believable than anything I can come up with off the top of my head, because there is no way to dispute unfalsifiable claims. The fact that religiously-run corporations, who make money off of the back of their employees who don't share their beliefs, are successfully procuring exemptions from federal law on the basis of their version of the "Spaghetti Monster's will" is on its face abhorrent.

Ah. So it was less ironic agreement then agreement through example: that is to say that the divide is so great, you can't even understand the other side.

Not to be too provocative, but if you fundamentally disagree with the exercise of that right the founders saw fit to enshrine in the First Amendment, perhaps you have greater argument with both this nation's jurisprudence and your fellow citizens then the straightforward application of RFRA, eh?

My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
At least God doesn't mind them making money of what they don't like...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Yeah, that was raised in the ACA thread as well. And it's what makes such a ridiculous joke of Hobby Lobby's claim that their religious liberty has been offended.

Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.

And I think it's more than a bit ridiculous to claim someone has breached their religious standards when they weren't even aware of what a third party was doing. But then, that's exactly why Hobby Lobby's claim in this case is so fething ridiculous.

I mean, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church said he'd go to jail to stop having to pay for contraception for any of his staff. Only to be quietly told that actually under California law he'd been providing those benefits to his staff for years without ever knowing about it.

If it can happen without you even knowing about, then it really, really isn't a breach of your religious liberty.

if it's important enough for you to end up at the Supreme Court then you would think that at some point they would have made it a point to tell the plan administrators about their personal morals to ensure that they are not giving their money to something that conflicts with their religion.

 jasper76 wrote:
...

My main argumet against the RFRA is in respect to the constitution: "Congress shall make no law (a) respecting the establishment of religion, or (b) prohibiting the free exercise thereof" speaks for itself. The RFRA violates the plain language and simple meaning of (a).

Again, not put too fine a point on it, but you seem to have no real understanding of what RFRA does. RFRA imposes a specific test standard (Strict Scrutiny), it doesn't provide an absolute shield against Federal Law.

Moreover, RFRA has been disproportionately invoked by non-Christian minorities: "Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of religious membership in the U.S., make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion."

Snippit from Fox News

In reality, Hobby Lobby already provided health care for its employees. Additionally, the company’s insurance covers 16 of the 20 contraceptives required under the HHS mandate.

So found

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Am I missing something?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.

On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?

Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?

Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.

On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?

Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?

Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court

That's a big leap there Hotsauce

I would rather posit there aren't that many issues other than this one that would make it to the supreme court like this. The Abortion/Contraception debate isn't purely Christian, but in the US the two are inextricably linked, so there is a ring of truth that another issue that is less 'Christian' is unlikely to have gotten this.

 Jihadin wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.

On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?

Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?

Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court

That's a big leap there Hotsauce

I dont think so. If a Muslim lead company tried something like this.
Can you imagine the uproar from Conservative outlets? "at 11, A Muslim Business man is forcing his beliefs on his good god fearing employees"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.

On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?

Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?

Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court

That's a big leap there Hotsauce

I dont think so. If a Muslim lead company tried something like this.
Can you imagine the uproar from Conservative outlets? "at 11, A Muslim Business man is forcing his beliefs on his good God fearing employees"

Fixed. Though I find the comment a little funny

Edit

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

I am though looking at this and seeing why SCOTUS decision more on the right then wrong

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
At least God doesn't mind them making money of what they don't like...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Yeah, that was raised in the ACA thread as well. And it's what makes such a ridiculous joke of Hobby Lobby's claim that their religious liberty has been offended.

Thing is, Hobby Lobby probably didn't even know that some of the companies they invested in made abortion and contraception materials... because investing involves putting money in a lot of companies, and you can't be expected to know absolutely every facet of each of the companies you invest in. Anyone who's ever looked in to ethical investments knows it is a lot harder than you'd think. It's basically just a reality of the modern world - any action you take will have all sorts of unknown knock on effects that you'll never be aware of.

And I think it's more than a bit ridiculous to claim someone has breached their religious standards when they weren't even aware of what a third party was doing. But then, that's exactly why Hobby Lobby's claim in this case is so fething ridiculous.

I mean, Rick Warren of Saddleback Church said he'd go to jail to stop having to pay for contraception for any of his staff. Only to be quietly told that actually under California law he'd been providing those benefits to his staff for years without ever knowing about it.

If it can happen without you even knowing about, then it really, really isn't a breach of your religious liberty.

if it's important enough for you to end up at the Supreme Court then you would think that at some point they would have made it a point to tell the plan administrators about their personal morals to ensure that they are not giving their money to something that conflicts with their religion.

What makes you think that investing in companies like TEVA pharmaceuticals "conflicts with their religion"?

The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products. This seems silly on it's face: by that standard Hobby Lobby would seem to bare moral responsibility for any immoral actions of their employees, since you are describing a moral system where payment of any sort carries moral weight.

Please note that Hobby Lobby does not endorse this notion: they claim moral responsibility only for those things over which they have direct control, such as the elements of their health plans.

This is a very small and silly point, but it also exemplifies the larger point I made above: here Hobby Lobby is being condemned by people who seem remarkably disinterested in the moral system that would either permit or condemn these actions. Instead a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a Muslim owned corporation refused liver treatments because it was caused by booze would that fly? If a jeopardy witnesses did no blood because it's against their religion would that fly? What ticks me off is two thing 1: it Is only allowed because they are christian. And 2: is because see is Involved the treatment is I'm moral or something.

On what basis do you make claim 1 "it Is only allowed because they are christian"? Do you really believe that Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists etc that possess similar objections would not be covered under this ruling, or that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently had the plaintiffs been, for example, Sharia-compliant investment fund managers?

Or are you alleging that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote, applies only to Christians?

Because, If any other religion tried to pull that it would not get anywhere near the Surpreme Court

That's a big leap there Hotsauce

I dont think so. If a Muslim lead company tried something like this.
Can you imagine the uproar from Conservative outlets? "at 11, A Muslim Business man is forcing his beliefs on his good god fearing employees"

I would suggest you scroll up to my post where I point out that non-Christian minorities are over-represented in RFRA suits.

Beyond that... what the heck? Did you not even read the bit about "which was instigated to protect the right of Native Americans to use peyote,"? The entire law comes out of a case involving Native Americans. As an attorney, I can personally attest that lots of cases spring out non-Christians getting harmed by laws passed by Christians, and those laws then getting trimmed back.

The notion that sinister Christian forces are in control of our legal system is so divergent from reality as to border on paranoid conspiracy.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes it happens with a lot of things and it doesn't happen with a lot of other things. A single passage doesn't form a trend at all, so there's no reason to believe that more ridiculous things will come of religion because of this. On the other hand, this itself does continue the long trend of corporate personhood getting worse, though I'd consider this a blip compared to other recent decisions.

My issue is more with the precedent that an employer can now say 'I will give you money for this, but not for this, because that's how I think Jesus thinks you should spend your money'. I agree that as currently stated its pretty limited, but any chance of expansion should be seen as a dangerous thing, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
if it's important enough for you to end up at the Supreme Court then you would think that at some point they would have made it a point to tell the plan administrators about their personal morals to ensure that they are not giving their money to something that conflicts with their religion.

They might have. And for all I know their plan administrators might have even tried to do that, and got it wrong. If you go look at the ethical funds available out there you'll see it happens all the time, they're constantly getting called on investments that turn out to use to child labour for some supply, or whatever else.

Point being, it makes no sense to feign any kind of great and serious breach of one's personal religious liberty when a third party takes an action. If you provide health care and an employee uses that to get the morning after pill, or you pay an employee in cash and they use that to purchase a morning after pill, you won't even fething know, and so to claim that either of those cases is a breach of your personal religious liberty is beyond ridiculous.

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes it happens with a lot of things and it doesn't happen with a lot of other things. A single passage doesn't form a trend at all, so there's no reason to believe that more ridiculous things will come of religion because of this. On the other hand, this itself does continue the long trend of corporate personhood getting worse, though I'd consider this a blip compared to other recent decisions.

My issue is more with the precedent that an employer can now say 'I will give you money for this, but not for this, because that's how I think Jesus thinks you should spend your money'. I agree that as currently stated its pretty limited, but any chance of expansion should be seen as a dangerous thing, IMO.

Congress can still amend RFRA to exclude for-profit companies... if they have the political will.

Obviously, the SC chose not to touch that with even a borrowed dick.

Here's an exercise:
If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment, gender/racial quota or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement. Its just pure, unadulterated for-profit motive... period.

Right?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products. This seems silly on it's face: by that standard Hobby Lobby would seem to bare moral responsibility for any immoral actions of their employees, since you are describing a moral system where payment of any sort carries moral weight.

Yep, it is silly on its face, and I completely agree that having money available that a third party chooses to use on something you find immoral does not mean you have breached your own personal religious convictions.

Which is why, of course, the Hobby Lobby complaint that paying for specific forms of contraception to be available to their stuff was so fething stupid in the first place.

The majority concedes that a "corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.” What ends do human beings, “including shareholders, officers, and employees,” come together to pursue under the form of a for-profit corporation? In Dodge v. Ford, the Court ruled that a "business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." Given the diversity of interests and values among owners, the Court realized that one corporate goal must trump all others (even if there may be others). Such diversity is presumed non-existent by the majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby because the corporations at issue are closely held. In reaching its ruling, the majority undermines Dodge v. Ford concerning closely-held, for-profit corporations, giving examples of how such corporations forego substantial profits in order to perpetuate the religious values of their owners. The perpetuation of religious values may therefore be legally equally valid to the pursuit of profit.

At the same time, the majority feigns ignorance as to the distinction between religious organizations and non-profit corporations on one hand and for-profit corporations on the other. But surely the distinction is similarly a matter of diversity of interests and values: all members of the former category are presumed to share the same values at issue concerning their membership and, whether this is actually true or not, the same certainly cannot be said even hypothetically about the latter. The majority never considers that employees, which is to say, the subjects of health care benefits under the ACA, work for a corporation not to perpetuate any religious values (including their own) but rather to make a living. This at least is in keeping with Dodge v. Ford, which eschews the interests and values of non-owners altogether. It appears that the majority evokes the “rights and obligations” of employees merely to brush them off, which seems odd in light of the underlying subject matter of employee health benefits.

But it is not odd at all, given the jurisprudence flowing from Dodge v. Ford. The majority is not concerned with who receives (or does not receive) health benefits but rather who pays for them. This is simply because the burden imposed by the law is paying for benefits.

^ Nice summary Manchu.

This case does nothing for organizations such as Sisters of the Poor, which I believe there's still a case pending?

 whembly wrote:
Here's an exercise:
If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment, gender/racial quota or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement. Its just pure, unadulterated for-profit motive... period.

Right?

No, not even a little bit. I would argue that a company can be free to act under its religious beliefs or whatever other beliefs it might have, but what it doesn't have is religious protections.

Oh, and of course my original argument is that no-one's religious protections should allow them to dictate what an employee can spend their remuneration on.

If for-profit corporations can be exempted in order to perpetuate their owners' religious values, I don't think the Sisters have anything to worry about.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's an exercise:
If corporations can’t have religious beliefs, then it follows that they can’t believe in climate change, sustainable investment, gender/racial quota or any other beliefs embraced by the corporate social responsibility movement. Its just pure, unadulterated for-profit motive... period.

Right?

No, not even a little bit. This ruling is about whether a company can be exempt from a federal law for religious reasons, no matter how that was decided it wouldn't impact the ability of companies to balance profit making with corporate responsibility.

Two things:
A) The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Employees remain free to use their wages to purchase those other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby will not cover. They remain free to find other jobs, too, if they want employer-provided insurance coverage that includes the abortifacients(sp?) to which Hobby Lobby objects.

B) There are absolutely *costs* associated of business that chooses to participate in any elective corporate responsibility activities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
If for-profit corporations can be exempted in order to perpetuate their owners' religious values, I don't think the Sisters have anything to worry about.

Yeah... good point. Just curious of the courts will still use the RFRA act...

Anyone who says corporations can only pursue profit under US law is legally wrong. They would be wrong in 1919, when the Court said that is the primary purpose of "business corporations," and wrong today.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The objection you are raising seems to be that the extremely limited relationship that Hobby Lobby enjoys with these pharma companies through its investment funds are the moral equivalent of distributing the forbidden products.

Hobby Lobby is not distributing any products under the health care plan.

Please note that Hobby Lobby does not endorse this notion: they claim moral responsibility only for those things over which they have direct control, such as the elements of their health plans.

The fact that they refuse to take responsibility for something does not mean that they are not responsible for it. And if the elements of their health plans are under their direct control then so are the elements of their investment plans.

Instead a game of cheap "gotcha" seems to be in play, where understanding the worldview of these people is a distant second to making the cheap point of "these people are bad/hypocrites/etc, and they should be mocked".

I don't give a about the fine details of their "worldview". They're wrong, and they need to STFU.

 whembly wrote:
A) The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Employees remain free to use their wages to purchase those other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby will not cover. They remain free to find other jobs, too, if they want employer-provided insurance coverage that includes the abortifacients(sp?) to which Hobby Lobby objects.

1) There is no substantial burden. There is only the usual whining and crying from the religious right about how unfair it is and how they're all poor little oppressed martyrs if everyone else doesn't do what Jesus tells them to do.

2) There is no less-burdensome way. "They can spend their own money" is not an alternative, just like it wouldn't be an alternative if a company refused to allow their health care plan to cover blood transfusions. Nor is "they can find another job". Those two excuses could cover literally any demand for exemption, which means that any sensible interpretation of the requirement has to take a more limited scope when defining what an alternative is.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) There is no less-burdensome way. "They can spend their own money" is not an alternative, just like it wouldn't be an alternative if a company refused to allow their health care plan to cover blood transfusions. Nor is "they can find another job". Those two excuses could cover literally any demand for exemption, which means that any sensible interpretation of the requirement has to take a more limited scope when defining what an alternative is.

Really they can, as opting out of an employer health plan is nearly always an option. Often times, from what I've seen thus far, you may save a bit of coin on the surface by having your employer plan in place, but people are generally not covered as well, as compared to a similar health plan under their own personal insurance plans.

 whembly wrote:
Two things:
A) The act says that religious objectors must be exempt from a government policy that imposes a substantial burden on their beliefs if the government has a less burdensome way of advancing a compelling interest. Employees remain free to use their wages to purchase those other contraceptives that Hobby Lobby will not cover.

And that's the comedy of this very silly situation. Hobby Lobby hands over pay, employee goes and spends it on kinds of contraception that the owners of Hobby Lobby find objectionable to their religion, Hobby Lobby knows nothing about it and the possibility that this could be happening with Hobby Lobby pay does not bother the religious principles of the owners at all. But if Hobby Lobby hands over money to fund insurance coverage, and then an employee uses that insurance coverage to access specific kinds of contraception that Hobby Lobby owners find objectionable, Hobby Lobby knows nothing about it... but the possibility that it could be happening with insurance provided by Hobby Lobby is a grave infringement of their religious principles.

B) There are absolutely *costs* associated of business that chooses to participate in any elective corporate responsibility activities.

Yep. Not sure what your point is, though.

Anyhow, I edited my answer to something much better, but you got in too fast

Anywhere, here it is again,
"I would argue that a company can be free to act under its religious beliefs or whatever other beliefs it might have, but what it doesn't have is religious protections.

Oh, and of course my original argument is that no-one's religious protections should allow them to dictate what an employee can spend their remuneration on."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
2) There is no less-burdensome way. "They can spend their own money" is not an alternative, just like it wouldn't be an alternative if a company refused to allow their health care plan to cover blood transfusions. Nor is "they can find another job". Those two excuses could cover literally any demand for exemption, which means that any sensible interpretation of the requirement has to take a more limited scope when defining what an alternative is.

I think the argument is that the the less burdensome way for government to provide the compelling interest of subsidised contraception would be for government to directly subsidise it themselves. Which to be honest is an argument I've got a lot of time for - if government decides that subsidised contraception meets its overall population health goals (as it should) then it should be government stumping up the cash for that program.

 sebster wrote:
I think the argument is that the the less burdensome way for government to provide the compelling interest of subsidised contraception would be for government to directly subsidise it themselves. Which to be honest is an argument I've got a lot of time for - if government decides that subsidised contraception meets its overall population health goals (as it should) then it should be government stumping up the cash for that program.

Why should citizens be forced to use their money to pay for the bad deeds of bad actors breaking laws based on something as esoteric and mutable as religious convictions? Where does it stop?