StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:53 PM) 4) No, they're still not being FORCED to BELIEVE something they don't want to believe. They may be inconvenienced by this, they may have to get a new job or pay for their own birth control, they are not being FORCED to BELIEVE that contraception = abortion. Interestingly enough, the Greens aren't FORCED to BELIEVE in the moral correctness of abortions or contraceptives by being required to pay for an insurance plan, either.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) Jesus, I missed this. Balta 2.0. No one is forcing these employees to believe anything. Nobody forces the owners of Hobby Lobby to believe in abortion (or what they think causes abortion) by requiring them to offer a health insurance plan as part of their employee compensation that includes contraceptives.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:41 PM) Jenks, 1) Im not sure you understand the ruling. Hobby Lobby does not have to provide the following, regardless of Dr's advice: Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”) Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”) Copper Intra-Uterine Device IUD with progestin Important to note is that with some rulings/actions yesterday, they clarified that the RFRA "sluts and their birth control" exemption extends to any and all forms of birth control, not just the four that the owners of Hobby Lobby incorrectly claim cause abortions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) Probably not as well as you, that's true. ...is this some kind of a burn? Either way, I'm pretty sure that, because her employer offers a plan that complies with the mandatory minimums plus special "eww icky" exemptions, she would not be entitled to any subsidies. Your solution of buying an exchange plan would be no cheaper than paying $1000+ for an IUD out of pocket.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) So drop the employer plan you don't want and sign up for Obamacare. Problem solved. I'm guessing you don't understand how the exchange plan subsidies would work under that scenario.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) You act like dropping a grand on anything is feasible for your average Hobby Lobby employee Hey, it's not like the owners of Hobby Lobby were claiming that paying an insurance company to provide a plan that would pay for contraceptives if an employee needed them was a substantial burden....oh, right. Hey, at least when it comes to the actually substantial burdens that numerous states have imposed on abortion services providers that effectively eliminate them from the state, courts have swiftly and strongly declared that these represent substantial burdens on people seeking an abortion. Right?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) I'm sorry, you guys are really grasping at straws here to make this a much bigger deal than it is. That is an accurate description of the owners of Hobby Lobby's complaint.

Good Guy With Gun Needs To Know If Other Guy With Gun Is Good Guy With Gun Or Bad Guy With Gun So He Can Decide Whether Or Not To Shoot Him

no non-competes to worry about?

Should RFRA only apply to religious beliefs? What if I held the same sort of views on abortion on these particular contraceptives, but did so for secular moral reasons? Do I not get any RFRA protections? Wouldn't that then favor religion over nonreligion and run afoul of the Establishment Clause? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...constitutional/

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 12:37 AM) What are you talking about? The people can still get their abortions. Unfortunately for them this particular employer doesn't want to pay for the four contraceptives. 1) These contraceptives don't cause abortions. 2) They were otherwise legally entitled to having their employer pay for part of an insurance plan wherein the insurance company covered contraceptives as part of their compensation. It is unfortunate for them that their employers can get out of their legal obligations because of their religious beliefs. 3) The SC has already expanded their ruling to include objections to any and all contraceptives, not just those that some people incorrectly assert cause abortions.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 08:39 PM) And the employee is free to work somewhere else. I'm glad you oppose right to work laws. They can just find a job somewhere else if they don't to pay union dues.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) It's not about use, it's about funding. They're not forced to fund the 401(k) pharma companies, they are forced to provide (pay for) an insurance plan that covers contraception. That goes back to the entire suit being disingenuous. They were completely fine with providing this sort of plan before, and they're still fine with providing funds that invest in contraceptive companies (that's a more direct link than paying an insurance company who might pay for contraceptives), but because of the PPACA, they threw a fit and challenged based on their deep, deep religious principles. I have no doubt that they are anti-abortion at heart and that they incorrectly believe that these contraceptives cause abortions, but the timing of their challenge and their other actions with regards to their business belie just how much of a burden this is on those beliefs.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:41 PM) I'm not really stuck on the distinction like you though. I think it's consistent to say that owners/principals of a company run their company based on their beliefs because ultimately they own every bit of the company. They can run it and do with the money however they please. You're talking about of both sides of your mouth (or another orrifice) if you're telling me that, on the one hand, it's 100% their money and their religious beliefs but, on the other hand, it's the company that's not giving this benefit, not the individual owners. I think that if you want to say that you are so personally tied to the company that your religious beliefs get to override the legal obligations you have to your employees, you should also lose the personal liability shield for all debts and actions of the company. edit: just to be 100% clear though, I'm not saying that this is what the law currently requires, just that maybe it should be.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) You say "it's the law." Hobby Lobby just was backed by the highest court in the land. They are totally OBEYING the law here. You say it's a ridiculous stretch. That is offensive. The Hobby Lobby owners don't want to pay for this because of religious beliefs. Why can't we have our religious beliefs? It's no stretch. If I owned a company, I wouldn't want to pay for that, either. This is becoming borderline offensive to me. Why can't Hobby Lobby owners and thousands of gregs have religious beliefs that are respected? Freedom of Religion. Because you are not your corporation, and Hobby Lobby, Inc. does not have any religious beliefs.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) They are sincere. The Catholic church has been talking about this kind of stuff a long time and asking people to take a stand and write letters to congress people, etc. The Greens are not Catholics.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) You've claimed this before but in the stories i've read i haven't heard this. Can you throw me a link? But two responses if true: 1) You could argue there's a pretty big distinction between voluntarily providing it as part of insurance plans with options and being mandated by federal law to do it. I agree it undercuts their claims a bit, but perhaps the original plan had that as an employee option for an increased price. I have no idea. 2) And i've said before the 2nd part of that is consistent to me IF it's a 401k plan that provides the employee the choice of which fund to pick. That's entirely consistent. I think 2) sinks your whole argument. The employee has a choice of what, if any, contraceptives to use. They are not required to use them. It's possible that not a single HL employee would ever use that part of the insurance plan, just as its possible that not a single employee would ever invest in a fund that includes contraceptives manufacturers.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) It's the company providing the choice, and the company paying out the profit to the owners at the end of the day. "Their money" is a reference to the amount they're going to be paid after all expenses from the company. It's not inconsistent. Then it's the company's money and not theirs until its paid out of profits. It seems you've just washed their hands of their moral dilemma in a single sentence. This is a tangent, but is it fair to other companies (say, Jo-Ann Fabrics) if Hobby Lobby's profits are higher because they don't have to pay as much in employee compensation because they've been exempted based on religious beliefs? Religious exemptions for entities that are actually religious entities and not hobby stores or concrete suppliers are more palatable.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) How do you know they don't cause abortions? Those 4 contraceptives? Because actual doctors say that's not how they work. Because it's the law. If they don't want to comply with the law because they have a certain set of religious beliefs, they are free to either not incorporate for the legal protections or to not operate a business. Nobody has actually forced them to change their beliefs. The idea that paying for health insurance plans that include provisions for the insurance company to pay for contraceptives that your employees may or may not use is some gross infringement on your personal religious beliefs is a pretty ridiculous stretch anyway.

I disagree about the sincerity regarding the practices of the owners of Hobby Lobby. They previously provided a plan that covered contraceptives they now object to, and they still provide employee matching and administration for a 401k plan that includes investment options for the companies that develop and make those contraceptives.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Because it's 100% their money that is going to support something they don't believe in. That's why the distinction between Hobby Lobby and Wal-mart, to me, is key. You're talking about what basically amounts to a very large mom and pop shop. They don't share their revenue with anyone else. And if they all don't want to contribute towards something that offends or runs counter to their religious beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine for them to be exempted from it. But you just told me that it's not any individual that is refusing to provide this coverage, it's the company. Which one is it? Is it 100% the individual's money, or is it the company not providing the compensation that the employees are otherwise legally required to? I think this is a categorical difference between non-profit entities that exist explicitly to promote religion and a for-profit company that sells arts and crafts supplies or concrete (Ozinga) or any other random commercial good whose owners happen to have a certain set of religious beliefs.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:06 PM) What is so wrong with Hobby Lobby owner not wanting to pay for contraceptives that cause abortions when they are against abortion for religious reasons? Yes Catholic policy is against abortion. they don't actually cause abortions Employee compensation is not a "free lunch," though Hobby Lobby will still be getting tax breaks for providing their employees with health benefits even though they don't meet the minimum legal requirements. These people should be getting contraceptive coverage offered as part of their health benefits compensation just like everybody else does regardless of what their boss's personal religious beliefs are.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) I do, but I think this is a very narrow ruling. Even liberal court bloggers are telling people to stop freaking out. It's definitely not a flood gate situation. This is the first time a for-profit company was able to claim an RFRA exemption, right? And special pleading aside, you can't actually limit the court's argument strictly to (some versions of) Christianity's opposition to abortion and some drugs/devices they claim tangentially cause abortion (but don't actually).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 02:55 PM) Yeah, again, it's not the individual owner not paying an individual employee some form of compensation. It's the company not offering a specific type of insurance plan with coverage for contraception. I don't think that's equivalent at all to liability in tort or some employment matter, where the owners can and are held liable if they're actively involved. So how on earth is that individual owner's religious beliefs compromised by the company paying for an insurance plan that includes contraceptives? edit: this is what I'm trying to articulate here but I know I'm not doing a great job. They get to have it both ways this way.

Paul LePage, the tea party Republican Governor of Maine, has been meeting with sovereign citizen wackos. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lep...vereign-citizen What a weird bubble some people live in.