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.
Xenomancers wrote: We all know why info wars was banned. It wasn't because Alex Jones is anymore crazy than probably 100k equally crazy people who have twitter accounts and say crazy things. He was banned because he was a popular far right figure. I don't think that should be legal. There should be protections like the ones I described above - for everyone on social network platforms.
What's your point? We know why he was banned, and it was not because of membership in a protected class. Twitter is free to decline to publish political material they disagree with, just like conservatives are free to make Chirper or whatever as an explicitly conservative social media platform and decline to publish left-wing political comments. That's how the free market works, the market will decide which media sources provide desired entertainment and which are too boring or objectionable to bother with. You are openly advocating for government seizure of private property and converting it into a state-run organization. How do you rationalize this with the supposed conservative belief in private property rights?
I don't believe Alex believes anything he says anyways. If he does. His paranoia has been confirmed. This is about the most descrutive thing you can do to a paranoid person. He - and his entire following just got stronger. Congrats twitter. Remember Wako?
If Alex Jones is getting to the point of violence then there is a simple solution: prison. The fact that he's a nutcase from one part of the political spectrum does not change how you deal with criminal behavior, should his actions cross that line.
Personally - contraception is not health related in the sense that it is an optional life style.
Nope. Not only is it often prescribed for health reasons (even to people who are not having sex at all) it's no more of an "optional life style" than other things that are routinely covered. This is 100% about religious employers wanting to decide what their employees do with their insurance benefits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 20:17:09
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Vaktathi wrote: There's an argument that Google and Facebook own far too large a share of the internet right now, and that market power does bear scrutiny, but thats more a Trust thing than a speech thing.
A pretty good one too. Google, or rather Alphabet Inc., more than Facebook imo. They own Twitch, YouTube, several internet ad services, several internet analytical services, the internet’s largest search engine, cloud services, email, and so on. Google basically did with internet services what Microsoft did with operating systems and while I don’t see any market benefit to have a dozen operating systems on the market digital services can afford to be less centralized.
I like Google. We need more companies with a strong sense of corporate citizenship in the world and I respect the hell out of the company founders for basically tying their financial state to the company’s stock rather than taking the ludicrous six or even seven figure salaries they could have gotten. Google is a better company than a lot of those out there but on matter of principal I don’t like services being so dominated by a single player and even as the lesser evil Google Fiber raises my hackles because I don’t think there should be crossover in internet providers and digital services.
Their stance on copyright could use improvement too while I’m rattling off.
Personally - contraception is not health related in the sense that it is an optional life style.
Nope. Not only is it often prescribed for health reasons (even to people who are not having sex at all) it's no more of an "optional life style" than other things that are routinely covered. This is 100% about religious employers wanting to decide what their employees do with their insurance benefits.
Aye. Women with really bad PMS are often told - by certified and professional gynecologists - that birth control pills will, if not remove all discomfort, at least smooth it out considerably. And in any case one would think an employer would be pleased if his employees took care of their own health! STDs aren't nice, and an unwanted baby could remove a key worker at the most inconvenient time.
As for the anti-vaxxers I sure can't see any left or right pattern here in cozy Finland. Many are what you'd call "conservative" as in often lower-educated religious people from certain splinter cults, but there's also many often highly educated city-green "liberals". The common factor seems to be that they distrust medical companies and trust the right sort of "alternative health professionals".
If being a member of a political party or ideology isn’t important enough to prevent gerrymandering, why should it be important enough not to get banned from a private website?
Bran Dawri wrote: I thought anti-vaxxing was more of an extreme-left idiocy, or at least spread on both sides of the spectrum (albeit for different reasons).
Sadly, it's spreading even here in Europe, although here literally all political parties agree it's a bad thing.
I threw it out there because it was the first one I generally associate with the left wing, it got popular because of a bunch of popular loud liberal idiots, but it floated around a good while on both sides and has fans on both sides.
Xenomancers wrote: The thing is - this is going to have a negative consequence. I don't believe Alex believes anything he says anyways. If he does. His paranoia has been confirmed. This is about the most descrutive thing you can do to a paranoid person. He - and his entire following just got stronger. Congrats twitter. Remember Wako?
If censoring someone only makes them stronger, why are right-wingers so frightened of being censored and so concerned with censoring leftists?
Personally - contraception is not health related in the sense that it is an optional life style.
Nope. Not only is it often prescribed for health reasons (even to people who are not having sex at all) it's no more of an "optional life style" than other things that are routinely covered. This is 100% about religious employers wanting to decide what their employees do with their insurance benefits.
Women who have endometriosis are usually prescribed birth control. I don't think it's very optional.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Personally - contraception is not health related in the sense that it is an optional life style.
Nope. Not only is it often prescribed for health reasons (even to people who are not having sex at all) it's no more of an "optional life style" than other things that are routinely covered. This is 100% about religious employers wanting to decide what their employees do with their insurance benefits.
Women who have endometriosis are usually prescribed birth control. I don't think it's very optional.
I know the Catholic diocese's healthcare plan will pay for birth control meds for treating endometriosis. So... it isn't always black and white ya'll.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/29 21:58:20
Vaktathi wrote: There's an argument that Google and Facebook own far too large a share of the internet right now, and that market power does bear scrutiny, but thats more a Trust thing than a speech thing.
A pretty good one too. Google, or rather Alphabet Inc., more than Facebook imo. They own Twitch, YouTube, several internet ad services, several internet analytical services, the internet’s largest search engine, cloud services, email, and so on. Google basically did with internet services what Microsoft did with operating systems and while I don’t see any market benefit to have a dozen operating systems on the market digital services can afford to be less centralized.
Minor correction, but Twitch is owned by Amazon, and Amazon Web Services may be a much bigger chunk of the cloud than Google. I guess I'm basically arguing that Amazon is also as big a presence in the internet as Google and Facebook, even if they're not as visible about beyond their storefront.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: I know the Catholic diocese's healthcare plan will pay for birth control meds for treating endometriosis. So... it isn't always black and white ya'll.
But why should they have any choice? Your employer doesn't get a say in any other health care choices you make, you just see a doctor and the doctor files the insurance paperwork. And your employer pays a fixed price to offer the plan, they don't get billed for each separate item used by each of their employees. So why does "Jesus says so" get special treatment? Why, in this one case, does the employee have to justify their decision to their employer beyond submitting insurance paperwork that a doctor has given them a service and a prescription?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: But why should they have any choice? Your employer doesn't get a say in any other health care choices you make, you just see a doctor and the doctor files the insurance paperwork. And your employer pays a fixed price to offer the plan, they don't get billed for each separate item used by each of their employees. So why does "Jesus says so" get special treatment? Why, in this one case, does the employee have to justify their decision to their employer beyond submitting insurance paperwork that a doctor has given them a service and a prescription?
I sure am hearing a lot of good arguments for single payer
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: I know the Catholic diocese's healthcare plan will pay for birth control meds for treating endometriosis. So... it isn't always black and white ya'll.
But why should they have any choice? Your employer doesn't get a say in any other health care choices you make, you just see a doctor and the doctor files the insurance paperwork. And your employer pays a fixed price to offer the plan, they don't get billed for each separate item used by each of their employees. So why does "Jesus says so" get special treatment? Why, in this one case, does the employee have to justify their decision to their employer beyond submitting insurance paperwork that a doctor has given them a service and a prescription?
We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
Peregrine wrote: But why should they have any choice? Your employer doesn't get a say in any other health care choices you make, you just see a doctor and the doctor files the insurance paperwork. And your employer pays a fixed price to offer the plan, they don't get billed for each separate item used by each of their employees. So why does "Jesus says so" get special treatment? Why, in this one case, does the employee have to justify their decision to their employer beyond submitting insurance paperwork that a doctor has given them a service and a prescription?
I sure am hearing a lot of good arguments for single payer
That, indeed, would solve that particular problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 22:17:11
whembly wrote: We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Vaktathi wrote: There's an argument that Google and Facebook own far too large a share of the internet right now, and that market power does bear scrutiny, but thats more a Trust thing than a speech thing.
A pretty good one too. Google, or rather Alphabet Inc., more than Facebook imo. They own Twitch, YouTube, several internet ad services, several internet analytical services, the internet’s largest search engine, cloud services, email, and so on. Google basically did with internet services what Microsoft did with operating systems and while I don’t see any market benefit to have a dozen operating systems on the market digital services can afford to be less centralized.
Minor correction, but Twitch is owned by Amazon, and Amazon Web Services may be a much bigger chunk of the cloud than Google. I guess I'm basically arguing that Amazon is also as big a presence in the internet as Google and Facebook, even if they're not as visible about beyond their storefront.
whembly wrote: We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.
I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?
Xenomancers wrote: We all know why info wars was banned. It wasn't because Alex Jones is anymore crazy than probably 100k equally crazy people who have twitter accounts and say crazy things. He was banned because he was a popular far right figure. I don't think that should be legal. There should be protections like the ones I described above - for everyone on social network platforms.
What's your point? We know why he was banned, and it was not because of membership in a protected class. Twitter is free to decline to publish political material they disagree with, just like conservatives are free to make Chirper or whatever as an explicitly conservative social media platform and decline to publish left-wing political comments. That's how the free market works, the market will decide which media sources provide desired entertainment and which are too boring or objectionable to bother with. You are openly advocating for government seizure of private property and converting it into a state-run organization. How do you rationalize this with the supposed conservative belief in private property rights?
Why not contribute there if one feels oppressed on "liberal" platforms. Besides, Twitter doesn't even fit that description. Jack Dorsey (CEO) follows people like Cernovich and Peterson and the platform has repeatedly allowed the harassment of minorities while protecting alt-right goons.
whembly wrote: We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.
Take it how you will... I'm not conceding gak. I'm just not interested in engaging your obvious anti-religious bent on this. It. Would. Be. The. Exact. Same. Arguments. We've. Had.
whembly wrote: We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.
I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/29 23:49:01
It's not anti religion, it's anti bs. There's no reason religious businesses nd organizations shouldn't be held to the same laws as every other business or organization. They should pay taxes, they should cover all healthcare expenses (and not pick and choose which expenses are and are not "valid"). Instead they get this weird preferential treatment where they can scream "religious intolerance" and everyone has to tiptoe around them while giving them whatever demands they seem to want.
Note, there is a huge difference between suppressing religion and holding them to the same rules and laws as the rest of the country.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Note, there is a huge difference between suppressing religion and holding them to the same rules and laws as the rest of the country.
To many out there, those two things are the same thing: a "war on Christianity".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/30 00:31:59
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.
I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?
For me it should be a simple case of: sole proprietorship = religious protections, corporations = no protections.
In the case of Hobby Lobby: if I slip and fall in their store, I can’t sue the Green’s because they filed the paperwork separating themselves legally from their business. I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I can’t sue them. If they don’t pay their bills, their creditors can go after Hobby Lobby, but they can’t go after the family. If you take advantage of the laws letting you create a legal barrier between yourself and your business, then that barrier should extend both way. If you can’t be sued because I fell in your business, then your business should also not be able to refuse something because it goes against your religion. You and your business are either one and the same, or you aren’t.
That’s my simple approach to Hobby Lobby, bakers, photographers, etc.
Note, there is a huge difference between suppressing religion and holding them to the same rules and laws as the rest of the country.
To many out there, those two things are the same thing: a "war on Christianity".
Sadly true, but I think here we all should understand the difference... But then again we have people arguing that Alex Jones was wrongly banned from Twitter becuase he wasnt a liberal, and the big, evil government needs to step in and protect him.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
whembly wrote: We've been over this Peregrine and nothing you or I can say anything that'll change each other's minds. If you want to scratch that itch... just go back to prior US Politics threads.
I'll take that as your concession of defeat on the subject, that you know you don't have a convincing argument.
I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?
For me it should be a simple case of: sole proprietorship = religious protections, corporations = no protections.
In the case of Hobby Lobby: if I slip and fall in their store, I can’t sue the Green’s because they filed the paperwork separating themselves legally from their business. I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I can’t sue them. If they don’t pay their bills, their creditors can go after Hobby Lobby, but they can’t go after the family. If you take advantage of the laws letting you create a legal barrier between yourself and your business, then that barrier should extend both way. If you can’t be sued because I fell in your business, then your business should also not be able to refuse something because it goes against your religion. You and your business are either one and the same, or you aren’t.
That’s my simple approach to Hobby Lobby, bakers, photographers, etc.
I don’t disagree. The protections afforded to individuals should be accompanied by the liabilities for which individuals are responsible. It doesn’t make sense to apply one without the other. If SCOTUS has drawn the line at sole proprietorship instead of closely held corporations I wouldn’t have taken issue with the decision. Limiting the scope of what the State can compel an individual to do is of critical importance and I’d much rather the courts err on the side of too much limitation than too little. The principle behind the ruling is sound, the application was flawed.
Wolfblade wrote: It's not anti religion, it's anti bs. There's no reason religious businesses nd organizations shouldn't be held to the same laws as every other business or organization. They should pay taxes, they should cover all healthcare expenses (and not pick and choose which expenses are and are not "valid"). Instead they get this weird preferential treatment where they can scream "religious intolerance" and everyone has to tiptoe around them while giving them whatever demands they seem to want.
Note, there is a huge difference between suppressing religion and holding them to the same rules and laws as the rest of the country.
Every other business and organization? It’s not like benefits are universal. All employees don’t get benefits, only full time employees, part time employees are excluded. Not all full time employees get benefits because contractors and seasonal workers who work full time hours are excluded. And there are additional exceptions that allow employers to not offer benefits to certain employees. Secular businesses aren’t all regulated the same, some businesses get loopholes that others don’t qualify for, religious organizations have some loopholes that secular organizations don’t.
Wolfblade wrote: It's not anti religion, it's anti bs. There's no reason religious businesses nd organizations shouldn't be held to the same laws as every other business or organization. They should pay taxes, they should cover all healthcare expenses (and not pick and choose which expenses are and are not "valid"). Instead they get this weird preferential treatment where they can scream "religious intolerance" and everyone has to tiptoe around them while giving them whatever demands they seem to want.
Note, there is a huge difference between suppressing religion and holding them to the same rules and laws as the rest of the country.
Every other business and organization? It’s not like benefits are universal. All employees don’t get benefits, only full time employees, part time employees are excluded. Not all full time employees get benefits because contractors and seasonal workers who work full time hours are excluded. And there are additional exceptions that allow employers to not offer benefits to certain employees. Secular businesses aren’t all regulated the same, some businesses get loopholes that others don’t qualify for, religious organizations have some loopholes that secular organizations don’t.
Religious organizations get a crazy amount of leeway, I.e. any "church" that receives donations gets it totally tax free so long as it's used "for the church" or the ability to simply not pay for certain medical care/prescriptions so long as it is against their beliefs. On top of that, this isn't about the workers being treated differently, that's an entirely different matter you're trying to use to distract from what I was talking about.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
This week the Inspector General (IG) of the General Services Investigation (GSA) issued a report which found that, despite previous denials, President Trump was personally involved in the decision to overturn years of planning for the relocation of the FBI headquarters. That decision has a significant impact on Trump’s financial interests, given the proximity of the current headquarters to the Trump International Hotel.
The report also found that Administration officials misled Congress and refused to reveal to investigators the nature of Trump’s involvement in that decision. Rep. Don Beyer issued the following statement:
“Last year, the Trump Administration inexplicably overturned years of work to move the FBI out of its structurally deficient headquarters and into a new location, wasting thousands of staff hours and millions of taxpayer dollars. The Inspector General’s report makes it clear that Trump was personally involved in this decision, raising the specter of major mismanagement of a multi-billion-dollar federal procurement project motivated by the President’s business interests.
The report also revealed that officials who were present or aware of these discussions repeatedly misled Members of Congress about the President’s involvement. Further, Administration officials say they were told by the White House Counsel’s office ‘not to disclose any statements made by the President.’ This looks like a cover-up.
Given the findings in the IG’s report and the President’s conflicts of interest, evidence of Trump’s culture of corruption is staring us in the face. Congress must immediately launch a full investigation to establish what happened with the FBI headquarters project and what influence the President exerted. Given the IG report’s finding that Administration officials lowballed Congress on the costs of the project and the President’s conflicts of interest, GSA and FBI should return to the original plan to build a fully consolidated FBI headquarters in the region.”
The IG report, requested and subsequently released by Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), reviewed GSA’s sudden decision to overturn years of planning for a suburban location and instead demolish the current FBI headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., and build a new headquarters at the same location.
That decision was made, according to the report, after two meetings at the White House on January 24, 2018, one of which involved President Trump. Officials who took part in or were aware of those meetings were asked several times in House and Senate hearings whether the President had been a party to any discussions regarding the future of the FBI headquarters, and gave what the IG report repeatedly characterizes as a “misleading impression” by failing to answer in the affirmative.
The report also found that the GSA had significantly underestimated the cost of the rebuilding project to Congress by excluding key considerations in its analysis, which allowed the Administration to project that its plan would be less costly than the previous plan to build a new headquarters, when the opposite was true.
Whelp vested interests in making money off moving government placings? You don't say....
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Prestor Jon wrote: I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?
I also know that the facts of the situation are a blatant double standard where right-wing Christians get away with things that would be unacceptable if other religions tried it. Labeling it a "religious conviction" is not a blanket justification for anything someone wants to do, and in no other situation do we allow an employer to tell their employees what they're allowed to do with their money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Every other business and organization? It’s not like benefits are universal. All employees don’t get benefits, only full time employees, part time employees are excluded. Not all full time employees get benefits because contractors and seasonal workers who work full time hours are excluded. And there are additional exceptions that allow employers to not offer benefits to certain employees. Secular businesses aren’t all regulated the same, some businesses get loopholes that others don’t qualify for, religious organizations have some loopholes that secular organizations don’t.
The whole point of the insurance reforms was to make it so that benefits are universal. Different insurance plans can cover different dollar amounts (with matching differences in costs), but they can't exclude specific items (like covering pre-existing conditions). Your employer can't decide "sorry, we don't cover cancer treatment because we believe that doctors are immoral" and leave you with no viable options. And this is a point that is recognized by requiring secular employers to provide coverage. The only question is why certain people should be allowed to opt out of the requirement by yelling "JESUS" loudly enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: For me it should be a simple case of: sole proprietorship = religious protections, corporations = no protections.
In the case of Hobby Lobby: if I slip and fall in their store, I can’t sue the Green’s because they filed the paperwork separating themselves legally from their business. I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I can’t sue them. If they don’t pay their bills, their creditors can go after Hobby Lobby, but they can’t go after the family. If you take advantage of the laws letting you create a legal barrier between yourself and your business, then that barrier should extend both way. If you can’t be sued because I fell in your business, then your business should also not be able to refuse something because it goes against your religion. You and your business are either one and the same, or you aren’t.
That’s my simple approach to Hobby Lobby, bakers, photographers, etc.
This is also an important point. Making a corporation creates a distinct legal entity, separate from any of its owners or employees, and a corporation can not possibly have religious beliefs. These companies want to have the best of both worlds, all of the separation of a corporation when it benefits them but all of the personal stake when they'd rather have that means of control. I don't think I'd agree with a sole proprietorship getting as much ability to exempt themselves from the law as you support, but it's ridiculous for a large company like Hobby Lobby to be treated the same way as a small local shop owner hiring a single employee to help out part time.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/30 03:16:51
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Prestor Jon wrote: I know we spent several pages discussing the Honby Lobby case when it happened and the circumstances under which closely held corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the merits of the State needing a compelling reason to require people to violate their religious convictions and the standard upheld by SCOTUS. Do you really not remember any of that? We can go around with it again but it does t seem worthwhile when you seem primarily interested in this thread for the purpose of ego stroking far more than actual political discourse but that’s just US politics in a nutshell isn’t it?
I also know that the facts of the situation are a blatant double standard where right-wing Christians get away with things that would be unacceptable if other religions tried it. Labeling it a "religious conviction" is not a blanket justification for anything someone wants to do, and in no other situation do we allow an employer to tell their employees what they're allowed to do with their money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Every other business and organization? It’s not like benefits are universal. All employees don’t get benefits, only full time employees, part time employees are excluded. Not all full time employees get benefits because contractors and seasonal workers who work full time hours are excluded. And there are additional exceptions that allow employers to not offer benefits to certain employees. Secular businesses aren’t all regulated the same, some businesses get loopholes that others don’t qualify for, religious organizations have some loopholes that secular organizations don’t.
The whole point of the insurance reforms was to make it so that benefits are universal. Different insurance plans can cover different dollar amounts (with matching differences in costs), but they can't exclude specific items (like covering pre-existing conditions). Your employer can't decide "sorry, we don't cover cancer treatment because we believe that doctors are immoral" and leave you with no viable options. And this is a point that is recognized by requiring secular employers to provide coverage. The only question is why certain people should be allowed to opt out of the requirement by yelling "JESUS" loudly enough.
What non Christian religious organizations, universities or narrowly defined for profit companies were prevented from exercising their religious objection to providing specific health insurance coverages? The laws and court decisions don’t specify a limitation that they only apply to Christians. I’m interested in hearing about these other non Christian religious objections that were denied please tell me about them.
What insurance reforms? The ACA? The purpose of the ACA was to lower the cost of health insurance by mandating that everyone buy it and have government run exchanges provide subsidized health insurance plans for the tens of millions of people who didn’t have coverage through employment. The ACA didn’t require all employers to provide health insurance to all employees and it didn’t require all labs to be the same. Unions were exempt from having health insurance plans that matches the government requirements.
The exemption granted to Hobby Lobby only applies to a very specific narrowly defined type of corporation it does not apply to all or even most corporations. You’re using hyperbole and exaggeration to obscure the actual facts of the matter.
