StrangeSox

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.

jenks, I thought you hated legislation and rulings that led to increasing numbers of court cases? Allowing for-profit companies to claim RFRA exemptions is going to lead to a boatload of such cases.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 02:43 PM) I'm sure Greg would be happy to give up his religion if his employer wanted him to. You have wonder how soon we'll see a case like when Louisiana thought it'd be great to funnel public school money to private religious schools, but quickly realized that that included more than just Christian schools and freaked out.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:43 PM) I heard on the radio that the Supreme Court clarified today via the denial of cert for a few other cases that this ruling applies to all contraceptives, not just those Hobby Lobby objected to. some more context: http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-h...GlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x The Hobby Lobby case involved some contraceptives that the owners erroneously believe cause abortions, but now it's clear that this ruling already isn't as limited as just the facts in the the Hobby Lobby case.

freedom of religion shouldn't be a "get out of legal responsibilities free" card.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) I don't really see why. The owners of the company aren't taking away money from an individual employee, the company is providing a different type of insurance coverage. I mean, if Hobby Lobby owners tell its managers not to hire black people, that's going to be a basis for liability against the company. It's not like we ignore what the owners do/don't do when it comes to liability. They are depriving their employees of compensation that they are otherwise legally entitled to because of their personal beliefs which they have argued permeate everything they do when selling art supplies. So why shouldn't their liability extend to that level? If they cannot possibly separate the actions of their payroll department from their personal religious beliefs, then why should I separate their liability as well? Why should they get all of the legal protections of incorporation but be able to skirt some of the legal requirements?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) Sorry, you're right. What I meant was that they didn't take away the constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion which was bolstered by the RFRA. This was upholding those rights over the PPPCA and the HHS mandates. This was one statute over another. Constitutional rights were not involved. If they were, then the RFRA wouldn't even need to be brought up.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) That happens when the owners are directly involved in the act....most frequently in....closed held, private corps!! If their religion pierces into the cashier ringing up your felt and hot glue gun at some random store they've never set foot in, then their liability should pierce that far as well. In other words, if their religion permeates the entire company, then their liability should as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) And the court determined that the statutory requirements were not constitutional so... ...no they didn't. Have you read the decision? They explicitly did not rule on any constitutional issues. This is strictly an RFRA ruling.

I heard on the radio that the Supreme Court clarified today via the denial of cert for a few other cases that this ruling applies to all contraceptives, not just those Hobby Lobby objected to.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) Just as the employees could work somewhere else, they could shut down their company just as readily if they don't like the requirements. Hey, if you want to claim your personal beliefs pierce the corporate veil into the everyday operations and payroll functions of your arts and crafts store, then you shouldn't have any objection to the veil being pierced from the other side when it comes to personal liability.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) They who? Churches and other not-for-profit corporations did/do. That was the point - why are we allowing exemptions to some corps but not others like Hobby Lobby. The non-profit distinction is one important part. The Catholic church is obviously in the "business" of the Catholic faith. Hobby Lobby is in the business of selling arts and crafts for profit. Still, this ruling didn't say that the PPACA exemptions are expanded to every form of corporation. What it said was that Hobby Lobby has an RFRA exemption. That's an important distinction if you're going to try to argue that they didn't have a legal obligation to their employees under the PPACA to provide health insurance which includes contraceptive care.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) Still doesn't get around the fact that you're making an awful argument that the owners of a company shouldn't have the right to operate THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit, but must instead abide by the demands of the employees. Every single employee in this country disagrees with SOMETHING their employer does or does not do. They must abide by statutory requirements and regulations, not whatever their employees decide. They have the right to operate their corporation, which is solely a creation of the state, within the confines of the law. They should not be able to get exemptions from that law because they have some weird religious hangups about sex and objectively wrong beliefs about certain types of medical treatments.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) Again, that's not the law. The RFRA is a separate law. They had no exemption under the PPACA.

Hobby Lobby gets a tax break for compensating employees with health care benefits. Since they're refusing to meet the statutory minimums for the quality of those benefits, should they still be entitled to the tax breaks?

stop being a scab and join the union so that you can stand together instead of undermining each other

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) Why are you stuck on this? The employee doesn't have to abide by anything. They just have to pay for it themselves. You keep bringing this up as if Hobby Lobby is slapping chastity belts on women. Right, they've lost something that is otherwise legally required of employers because their employer thinks its icky. Why is that a good thing? Why should my employers' religious beliefs be able to be used to deprive me of compensation I'm otherwise legally entitled to?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) So you're saying an employer shouldn't run the business per the wishes of the owners of the company. It must abide by the wishes and demands (and beliefs) of its employees? What world do you live in? Businesses should have to abide by the generally applicable laws and regulations that apply to all businesses without being able to get around the law because of religious beliefs.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 07:39 PM) They are separate in most respects, but corporations still only act through their owners/principals/officers. Some corporations (an S-corp for example) are treated the same as their owners for tax purposes. Until birth control and the morning after pill become a "right," all you're really doing is forcing a company to give a benefit to an employee. That in of itself is wrong, but when you trump a religious right on top of it I think you go too far. To be clear, both of the things at issue in this ruling were statutes, not constitutional rights. The RFRA is no more or less of a right than the regulatory requirement on the minimum standards that health insurance benefits must meet.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 07:41 PM) When it's in direct contradiction to your religion, it's substantial. But they contribute to 401k plans that include the companies that make drugs they incorrectly insist are abortifacients. And their old plan covered it anyway. It's a form of compensation to employees for their labor. It's no infringement on their actual religion. This whole idea that it is is absurd.

That this even rises to the level of a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the owners is absurd anyway.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 06:25 PM) Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation. I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here? What's great is that this framing completely ignores that what we are talking about here is earned compensation for an employee, not some of random handout. I don't see it as a diversion from liberalism because private regimes of power can be just as controlling if not more so.

Ginsburg makes the point in her dissent: Whether or not RFRA should apply in those hypotheticals is both a policy and a legal question, but the majority did a disservice by refusing to offer guidance on anything other than objections to (what some people claim are) abortifacients.

I'm not sure how it works in Illinois, but I don't think you're required to actually join the union necessarily. The union can still collect some amount of fees from you for services rendered on your behalf, though. When they're negotiating the IT dept. contract, they're representing everyone. If you have a grievance, they'll represent you even if you're not a member. In return, in non-RTW states, they can collect some amount of money from you because of that. It's less than full union dues and excludes political funding.