The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Simple. The employee isn't being forced to do anything in this situation. The employer is. The employee is free to do whatever they want under any scenario.

Which would be fine IF this wasn't already the law of the land. As it is the law, you're now favoring one religion (the employers) over another (the employees or they could be athiests as well). Constitution says you can't do that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Which would be fine IF this wasn't already the law of the land. As it is the law, you're now favoring one religion (the employers) over another (the employees or they could be athiests as well). Constitution says you can't do that.

One interesting tidbit that came out of today is that this isn't part of what Congress ordered, but this is what HHS put in its regs, as there was some discussion today about what Congress says deserving more deference than HHS coming up with its regulations.

Even then, nobody's religion is being favored. People are just not being forced by the government to do something against their religious beliefs. But, that's a rehash that's been said a thousand times. But, they've done a pretty good job of spinning it to seem otherwise.

Again, under any scenario, the employee can use or not use contraception in whatever fashion their beliefs lead them to.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

"Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially a key vote in the case, asked Mr. Clement how the court should take into account the religious rights of employees, which may differ from the religious views of their employer. "

They are perfectly free to acquire contraception, or even to seek out abortions. Nothing is stopping them from doing so, right? Their religious rights are not being limited or infringed upon in any way, shape or form. They are merely asking someone else to pay for it, and that someone else is politely saying, "no thanks we decline to pay for your abortion."


The Hobby Lobby / Conestoga Wood argument is simple: can we be forced against our will to be an accomplice to murder, by being forced to pay for abortions? Many of you are okay with that. We'll see how SCOTUS rules in June. Nothing we say here will influence their opinion one way or the other.


There was a telling point in one argument: the contraceptive mandate is only an HHS guideline, it is not part of the actual statute, according to challenger's lawyer Paul Clement.

 

[unofan]

They are perfectly free to acquire contraception, or even to seek out abortions. Nothing is stopping them from doing so, right? Their religious rights are not being limited or infringed upon in any way, shape or form. They are merely asking someone else to pay for it, and that someone else is politely saying, "no thanks we decline to pay for your abortion."


The Hobby Lobby / Conestoga Wood argument is simple: can we be forced against our will to be an accomplice to murder, by being forced to pay for abortions? Many of you are okay with that. We'll see how SCOTUS rules in June. Nothing we say here will influence their opinion one way or the other.


There was a telling point in one argument: the contraceptive mandate is only an HHS guideline, it is not part of the actual statute, according to challenger's lawyer Paul Clement.

They can get out of it by paying the tax and not offering health insurance to their employees at all, which by all accounts is a cheaper option anyway. Which is why some early commentators are saying the companies may win on the threshold question, but lose the overall case because there isn't a substantial burden on their religion.

I'd be fine with that outcome, even though it's ludicrous on its face to claim a corporation has a religion when the entire point of corporations is to separate the owners from the business.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

They are perfectly free to acquire contraception, or even to seek out abortions. Nothing is stopping them from doing so, right? Their religious rights are not being limited or infringed upon in any way, shape or form. They are merely asking someone else to pay for it, and that someone else is politely saying, "no thanks we decline to pay for your abortion."


The Hobby Lobby / Conestoga Wood argument is simple: can we be forced against our will to be an accomplice to murder, by being forced to pay for abortions? Many of you are okay with that. We'll see how SCOTUS rules in June. Nothing we say here will influence their opinion one way or the other.


There was a telling point in one argument: the contraceptive mandate is only an HHS guideline, it is not part of the actual statute, according to challenger's lawyer Paul Clement.

You're right it is simple. And everyone who moans about decisions being taken away from them and all that nonsense either doesn't understand the case or is being purposely deceptive.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

One interesting tidbit that came out of today is that this isn't part of what Congress ordered, but this is what HHS put in its regs, as there was some discussion today about what Congress says deserving more deference than HHS coming up with its regulations.

Even then, nobody's religion is being favored. People are just not being forced by the government to do something against their religious beliefs. But, that's a rehash that's been said a thousand times. But, they've done a pretty good job of spinning it to seem otherwise.

Again, under any scenario, the employee can use or not use contraception in whatever fashion their beliefs lead them to.

But you can't use your secular company to enforce your own religious beliefs. As I've come back to, this is the law. Were it not the law, you wouldn't be compelling companies to treat their workers equally. It was passed by Congress. What you're now doing is allowing certain companies to disregard the law under religious objections, which implies that 1) corporations have religion and 2) someone (management? shareholders?) gets to arbitrarily decide which company policies comply not with the law, but with their own religious beliefs.

Also, to your point about HHS making the call and not Congress, this is the same argument the court has rejected regarding the EPA regulating emissions. The law set it up that way, so change the law.

Lastly Bob, if you feel this law isn't right, or shouldn't have companies mandated to cover certain procedures, I say again to you that you need to get the law changed. Hiding behind religion is not the way to go, especially since assertaining a non-living entity's truthfulness when claiming a religious exemption is darn near impossible.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

The transcript is now available, for those who want to read it for themselves

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

But you can't use your secular company to enforce your own religious beliefs. As I've come back to, this is the law. Were it not the law, you wouldn't be compelling companies to treat their workers equally. It was passed by Congress. What you're now doing is allowing certain companies to disregard the law under religious objections, which implies that 1) corporations have religion and 2) someone (management? shareholders?) gets to arbitrarily decide which company policies comply not with the law, but with their own religious beliefs.

Also, to your point about HHS making the call and not Congress, this is the same argument the court has rejected regarding the EPA regulating emissions. The law set it up that way, so change the law.

Lastly Bob, if you feel this law isn't right, or shouldn't have companies mandated to cover certain procedures, I say again to you that you need to get the law changed. Hiding behind religion is not the way to go, especially since assertaining a non-living entity's truthfulness when claiming a religious exemption is darn near impossible.

Again, they aren't enforcing anything on their employees. The only forcing going on is the government on the employers in violation of their religious beliefs. The employees aren't having anything enforced on them. It's simply fiction. But, it sounds scary, so I'm sure some folks won't stop to question whether it's actually true or not. I'll give you credit, scare tactics are successful, at least in the short term.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

even though it's ludicrous on its face to claim a corporation has a religion when the entire point of corporations is to separate the owners from the business.

But that's not quite the situation with these two closely-held businesses in which all business income flows through to the owners' personal income tax returns. The employers have a choice on what they pay for, and that is the essence of their argument.

 

[unofan]

Again, they aren't enforcing anything on their employees. The only forcing going on is the government on the employers in violation of their religious beliefs. The employees aren't having anything enforced on them. It's simply fiction. But, it sounds scary, so I'm sure some folks won't stop to question whether it's actually true or not. I'll give you credit, scare tactics are successful, at least in the short term.

If you want to go down that route, the employers are forcing their insurance plans on their employees (take it or go pay for it yourself out if pocket, leaving thousands of dollars in imputed income on the table) the exact same way the government is forcing the insurance plans on the employers (cover this or drop insurance altogether, costing you money out of pocket and harming your ability to get decent employees).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You're right it is simple. And everyone who moans about decisions being taken away from them and all that nonsense either doesn't understand the case or is being purposely deceptive.

Correct. That's why all businesses currently run by Jehovah's witnesses are no longer paying for blood transfusions.

Or, as I like to put it, during your job interview make sure to ask what the owners religious views are. Why? Cause if you don't you might not be covered for something you might need.

This has been a ScoobyDoo Public Service Announcement.

 

[unofan]

But that's not quite the situation with these two closely-held businesses in which all business income flows through to the owners' personal income tax returns. The employers have a choice on what they pay for, and that is the essence of their argument.

Hobby lobby is a registered corporation in Oklahoma. Its owners have limited liability whether the money passes straight to them or not.

So what if they say their religion prevents them from paying the minimum wage? Can they get around that? That is also forced upon businesses.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Correct. That's why all businesses currently run by Jehovah's witnesses are no longer paying for blood transfusions.

Or, as I like to put it, during your job interview make sure to ask what the owners religious views are. Why? Cause if you don't you might not be covered for something you might need.

This has been a ScoobyDoo Public Service Announcement.

Good scare tactic. Not accurate, but good. No rational person thinks this would mean that a company could ban something essential.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Good scare tactic. Not accurate, but good. No rational person thinks this would mean that a company could ban something essential.

Define essential.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Define essential.

I thought you weren't a big fan of the slippery slope argument. Especially in cases where it's so inapplicable.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Again, they aren't enforcing anything on their employees. The only forcing going on is the government on the employers in violation of their religious beliefs. The employees aren't having anything enforced on them. It's simply fiction. But, it sounds scary, so I'm sure some folks won't stop to question whether it's actually true or not. I'll give you credit, scare tactics are successful, at least in the short term.

If a company owned by a Catholic and entirely staffed by Catholics purchases health care that covers abortions, and none of the employees get one, how exactly does that violate the religious beliefs of the owner (or the corporation, whatever that means)?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I thought you weren't a big fan of the slippery slope argument. Especially in cases where it's so inapplicable.

No, there's just a whole **** load of stuff that I would consider non-essential long before I'd consider birth control non-essential. There's also a whole **** load of stuff that I have been unable to get my insurance to cover that I do consider essential.

So, define it.

 

[unofan]

Good scare tactic. Not accurate, but good. No rational person thinks this would mean that a company could ban something essential.

Which is why 10-15 minutes were spent discussing that exact issue during today's arguments. Good call, Bob.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Which is why 10-15 minutes were spent discussing that exact issue during today's arguments. Good call, Bob.

But, it's like totally inaccurate.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Good scare tactic. Not accurate, but good. No rational person thinks this would mean that a company could ban something essential.

Yeah, because nobody has ever denied essential care to another person because of religious views. It's especially never happened to a close, loved family member such as a child, so it would definitely never happen to an unrelated employee...

Oh, wait: http://www.masskids.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=161&Itemid=165

Zealots who would deny essential care to their own children would definitely deny it to their employees if given the chance - that's not even a slope, it's just a cliff.