Example?

This case. Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" are actually factually untrue. They claim that they believe contraceptives actually cause abortions and the court stated that regardless of whether or not it was accurate the government and therefore the employees must respect that belief and cannot have this coverage.

Viagra doesn't really stop pregnancies so... But at some point you guys are right, it becomes a judgment call by the court as to what is a legit religious belief and what is not. But so what? They've made those decisions numerous times in the past. People have tried to get around drug laws by doing the same thing and it hasn't really worked.

 

I just love how you guys are all "slippery slope, slippery slope!" when the decision is not what you want, but with an issue that you support (gun restrictions) the slippery slope argument is a terrible one. So which is it?

Neither does contraception.

How many of those are publicly traded?

I googled each one of the ones I mentioned and got a stock quote.

This case. Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" are actually factually untrue. They claim that they believe contraceptives actually cause abortions and the court stated that regardless of whether or not it was accurate the government and therefore the employees must respect that belief and cannot have this coverage.

 

Lol, that is not the employer telling an employee what to believe.

Neither does contraception.

 

con·tra·cep·tion

ˌkäntrəˈsepSHən/Submit

noun

 

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Lol, that is not the employer telling an employee what to believe.

So if the employee believes that Hobby Lobby's management is incorrect, which they actually are, they can have coverage the same as people elsewhere in the country?

I googled each one of the ones I mentioned and got a stock quote.

 

And you don't think that's an important characteristic here? That the public company works for shareholders who might not share the same beliefs, but a closely held private corporation doesn't?

con·tra·cep·tion

ˌkäntrəˈsepSHən/Submit

noun

 

the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Note the difference. You used the word "stop" in your first post, which implies that it would have had to previously start. In the definition you just used the term "prevent".

 

Prevention is what contraception actually does. However, Hobby Lobby believes that it does something different, that it actually stops pregnancy. This is incorrect, but the court decided that did not matter and Hobby Lobby's belief needed to be recognized regardless of the fact that it is incorrect.

Viagra doesn't really stop pregnancies so... But at some point you guys are right, it becomes a judgment call by the court as to what is a legit religious belief and what is not. But so what? They've made those decisions numerous times in the past. People have tried to get around drug laws by doing the same thing and it hasn't really worked.

 

I just love how you guys are all "slippery slope, slippery slope!" when the decision is not what you want, but with an issue that you support (gun restrictions) the slippery slope argument is a terrible one. So which is it?

 

I'm not arguing slippery slope, I don't understand how they can make the claim that contraception is something of an elevated status compared to blood transfusions and the like. Birth control is a part of women's health, beyond contraception, for many many women. I think it's entirely reasonable that if we are going to regulate insurance (which is a worthwhile goal) that certain regulations should apply.

 

This continues to raise the point that pushing people off of employer-based insurance is a good thing. These issues are entirely made by this unique system.

So if the employee believes that Hobby Lobby's management is incorrect, which they actually are, they can have coverage the same as people elsewhere in the country?

 

Again, this has nothing to do with an employer forcing it's beliefs on the employee.

 

 

And you don't think that's an important characteristic here? That the public company works for shareholders who might not share the same beliefs, but a closely held private corporation doesn't?

Again, every one of the ones I cited is a publicly traded, closely held corporation. Every one of them is publicly traded but the majority is owned by a group of 5 or fewer people.

 

Walmart is the best example. They are a publicly traded closely held corporation.

Again, this has nothing to do with an employer forcing it's beliefs on the employee.

They have to abide by them though. That's not even a distinction without a difference. The employee can believe Hobby Lobby is fully incorrect, which they are, but that does not matter. The employee is forced to abide by incorrect decisions based on the religion of the employer.

Note the difference. You used the word "stop" in your first post, which implies that it would have had to previously start. In the definition you just used the term "prevent".

 

Prevention is what contraception actually does. However, Hobby Lobby believes that it does something different, that it actually stops pregnancy. This is incorrect, but the court decided that did not matter and Hobby Lobby's belief needed to be recognized regardless of the fact that it is incorrect.

 

Eh, a distinction without a difference. Most women take contraception to prevent pregnancies from occurring, which some may believe is wrong. Just because it's not "stopping" an existing one or that it doesn't always prevent one because it may not occur anyway doesn't defeat the intent behind taking the drug.

 

I'll admit the non-pregnancy use of birth control, to control menstrual cramps for example, is a better argument. But it's still widely available. Go to a planned parenthood. Or as the court said, pass a law that provides that if it's so important, have the gov't pay for it. Don't interfere with the rights of others to mandate that it has to be provided by them (even if indirectly).

Eh, a distinction without a difference. Most women take contraception to prevent pregnancies from occurring, which some may believe is wrong. Just because it's not "stopping" an existing one or that it doesn't always prevent one because it may not occur anyway doesn't defeat the intent behind taking the drug.

 

I'll admit the non-pregnancy use of birth control, to control menstrual cramps for example, is a better argument. But it's still widely available. Go to a planned parenthood. Or as the court said, pass a law that provides that if it's so important, have the gov't pay for it. Don't interfere with the rights of others to mandate that it has to be provided by them (even if indirectly).

Then you believe this case was incorrectly decided because that difference is 100% the heart of this case.

Again, every one of the ones I cited is a publicly traded, closely held corporation. Every one of them is publicly traded but the majority is owned by a group of 5 or fewer people.

 

Walmart is the best example. They are a publicly traded closely held corporation.

 

But by law the "corporation" that is publicly traded is performing business for the benefit of its shareholders. Wal-Mart may be held by a majority of 5 or fewer people, but it's just a majority. Hobby Lobby and other privately held corps own 100%. They make corporate decisions for their benefit alone. That's a huge, huge distinction you're missing.

 

On this point though i'm not sure if Alito even addressed it. I haven't read through the whole opinion. I know for the first 10 pages or so he basically says it doesn't matter because what the HHS was trying to argue was that even though non-profit corps were exempted, for-profit corps should be treated differently. His point was that under the law there should be no distinction between the two. If a non-profit company can have an exemption based on a religious belief, so too should for-profit companies. The public/private distinction i'm sure will be made in subsequent cases.

But by law the "corporation" that is publicly traded is performing business for the benefit of its shareholders. Wal-Mart may be held by a majority of 5 or fewer people, but it's just a majority. Hobby Lobby and other privately held corps own 100%. They make corporate decisions for their benefit alone. That's a huge, huge distinction you're missing.

 

On this point though i'm not sure if Alito even addressed it. I haven't read through the whole opinion. I know for the first 10 pages or so he basically says it doesn't matter because what the HHS was trying to argue was that even though non-profit corps were exempted, for-profit corps should be treated differently. His point was that under the law there should be no distinction between the two. If a non-profit company can have an exemption based on a religious belief, so too should for-profit companies. The public/private distinction i'm sure will be made in subsequent cases.

The term specifically stated in the decision is "closely-held corporation". I'm going by the text of the decision. That is a specific term with an IRS definition that Walmart and all those other companies meet.

They have to abide by them though. That's not even a distinction without a difference. The employee can believe Hobby Lobby is fully incorrect, which they are, but that does not matter. The employee is forced to abide by incorrect decisions based on the religion of the employer.

 

So what? You said employers force beliefs on their employees. It's simply not true. They may be stuck with beliefs they do not agree with, but they are not forced to believe it themselves.

 

So what? You said employers force beliefs on their employees. It's simply not true. They may be stuck with beliefs they do not agree with, but they are not forced to believe it themselves.

So why is the appropriate way for this to swing the employees having to obey the beliefs of the employer and not vice-versa?

So why is the appropriate way for this to swing the employees having to obey the beliefs of the employer and not vice-versa?

 

Re-word that please. I think you're missing a word somewhere so I don't know what you're trying to say.

Re-word that please. I think you're missing a word somewhere so I don't know what you're trying to say.

The employer believes something that the employee believes is not true (add in; the employee is correct). However, the employer gets to force the employee to abide by the employer's beliefs regardless of what the employee believes. It only swings one way; the employer gets all the power. The employee has to abide by the employer's beliefs. they have to give up whatever they believe to follow the beliefs of the employer.

The employer believes something that the employee believes is not true (add in; the employee is correct). However, the employer gets to force the employee to abide by the employer's beliefs regardless of what the employee believes. It only swings one way; the employer gets all the power. The employee has to abide by the employer's beliefs.

 

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?

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?

And you're saying that employees must abide by the religious beliefs of their employer. That seems like a pretty f***ed up world too.

And you're saying that employees must abide by the religious beliefs of their employer. That seems like a pretty f***ed up world too.

 

No, it's really not. You still have the freedom to choose whether to work for the company. No one is forcing you to do that.

 

 

They have to abide by them though. That's not even a distinction without a difference. The employee can believe Hobby Lobby is fully incorrect, which they are, but that does not matter. The employee is forced to abide by incorrect decisions based on the religion of the employer.

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.

No, it's really not. You still have the freedom to choose whether to work for the company. No one is forcing you to do that.

And as always, the employee is s*** outta luck.