Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 07:24 AM) 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/ Using that logic the Court should be striking down affirmative action laws/practices and gender specific laws/practices because white males aren't being treated equally.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 08:27 PM) AT least you're able to give us a good, detailed discussion of women's health care issues. I just find it hilarious that you're blaming the company for causing "pain," like there aren't alternatives out there.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 2, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) That is the reality in this. If he wants to, one way shape or form they will figure it out, imo. That said, I still think Houston, while offering a 2nd rate city, provides Melo with more money (if they trade lin, they are starting at 17M / year) and that actually works out to a larger # when you adjust for state income tax. It is hard to be the favorite when you are offering the least amount of money which is why this all comes down to Melo telling Knicks I'll take less and then put a lot of pressure on the sign and trade so they can get something. They're in the West though. Would he really want to go through that gauntlet every year to get to the Finals?

Didn't I read somewhere that there was talk of a Boozer trade to the Lakers for Gasol? edit: eh maybe I was wrong if Gasol is a FA.

Lol.

The Heat are going to be terrible in 2 seasons. 4 more years for Wade? 5 for Bosh? Seriously? It'll be Lebron and scrubs for the forseeable future.

Call it part of the reparations she's owed.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) Jenks, didn't you know that corporations exist at the whim of the State and that the money they make isn't theirs to keep and use but the government's to use for it's own purposes because THEY know how to spend (your) money better than you do, and that any bit of money they are allowed to keep they should be grateful for? Come on, get with the times! Truth.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) 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. But what are the details of the plan? Was it, hey, we'll provide you with insurance coverage X, but if you want some type of coverage for contraception you'll have to pay the difference? And to the 401(k), my firm gives me money, I can then take that money and invest in a select group of funds. If I happen to choose the pharma fund, I'M the one making the choice to support the bad pharma company, not the company.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) 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. 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. Does fairness really matter? And how much money are we really talking about here? I can't imagine the differences in plans are going to be that significant. And an exemption is an exemption. Either you buy that there's an exception to the "legally owed compensation" that an employee should receive or you don't. That's pretty much Alito's point in his opinion - it's not consistent at all in existing law or in logic to differentiate between for-profit and not-for-profit companies if they both use the same religious belief to argue that they should exempt them from the federal mandate. Why does money matter if that right is allegedly so important?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:26 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) 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? 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. I don't get why that matters. They're still taking away "compensation" that their employees are legally entitled to, right? Based on what, their religious beliefs, which is bulls*** in your opinion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:03 PM) 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). Yes to the first part. But the 2nd point gets to what line is the court going to set. They've done that before. They're not going to allow a business to claim religious exemption because they don't believe that black people exist or something crazy like that, just like they rejected a lot of cases arguing that some drugs were used for religious purposes. You're going to have to prove whatever you're trying to sell, and I think that's where a lot of the cases will fail when they try to find a loop hole. There was no question about Hobby Lobby (and the 2 other companies) beliefs and corporate practices.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 03:00 PM) 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. 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. I mean, let's step back - do you agree that the Catholic Church or some other religious groups should lose their exemptions? Should they be required to provide that coverage even if their employees will, by choice, never use it?

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. Lol, Jesus with this awful logic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 02:46 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 02:34 PM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) ...no they didn't. Have you read the decision? They explicitly did not rule on any constitutional issues. This is strictly an RFRA ruling. 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.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) Yes, that is the liberal mantra. Also, conservatives have never disagreed with a court decision. I disagree all the time! I DON'T immediately become a critic of the entire system and how broken it is. I don't jump off the ledge. I understand that these opinions gain HUGE responses and then are immediately chipped away and chipped away over the next several years. This particular opinion especially was incredibly narrow. He didn't bring up gender, he didn't bring up homosexuality. It was very much limited to these contraceptives. I find it very difficult to believe that a future appellate court is going to expand this ruling in anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:43 PM) Really, there are companies in this country that have no rules? Wait, you're right. Fine, every single company in this country other than a handful of firms on wall street has to abide by rules and regulations set by the government. No, i'm saying that certain companies were exempted, by law, from this mandate. So the question was why them and not others. It was not about "why do companies get to pick and choose what laws they want to follow in the name of religion" as you're trying to make it out to be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:42 PM) 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. That happens when the owners are directly involved in the act....most frequently in....closed held, private corps!!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) 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. And the court determined that the statutory requirements were not constitutional so... Oh yeah. Liberal mantra: the opinion doesn't fit with my beliefs so, worst possible decision ever, end of world.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) And every single company in this country abides by rules set regarding their operation that they may not agree with as well. Should Hobby Lobby's owners have a right to not employ Catholics? After all, that's operating THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit. Nope. Seriously Balta, did you even read the opinion? Or are you relying on a bunch of blogs whose narrative fits your own? It seems like you don't even understand the context of the opinion. You're extrapolating, as most reviewers have, about what this possibly means, when we all know in 6 months and 100 court cases later it'll be much more refined and narrowed. That's how the law works.