If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Supreme Court to decide if you can use your religion as an excuse to make health decisions for your employees   (wtop.com) divider line 431
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, health law, reproductive healths, faiths  
•       •       •

4471 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



431 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 05:37:47 PM

This text is now purple: Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.


Which is why that court decision is an abomination, just logically speaking.
 
2013-11-26 05:39:03 PM

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.

Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.


Of course but within the confines of the law. Just because the bible has the price of a slave and instructions on how to treat your slaves does not mean that you can bypass the law and keep slaves and say `religious freedom`. You can`t stone people either.

Same concept. What employment law states in this case would supersedes religion.
 
2013-11-26 05:39:05 PM
The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.
 
2013-11-26 05:40:44 PM

someonelse: You are oversimplifying. What about antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications? Are they elective? If I have religious objections to them, why should I be compelled to offer coverage that includes them? What about joint replacement? Elective or no? I can function by hobbling around, after all. I don't technically need a new knee to survive, but I may elect to get one.


I am not over simplifying. Insurance companies continually make coverage decisions based on medical need. No doctor prescribes antidepressants for jollies. You are willfully clouding what is a very simple dividing line: medically necessary vs. elective. Employers' desires should not be a factor in all that which is medically necessary.
 
2013-11-26 05:42:10 PM
1. People have rights.
2. People are assembled out of various parts: human arms, human legs, human organs, etc.
3. Human parts share the rights of the whole, ie: a law that criminalizes using a body part for making sounds would violate the person's right to free speech.
4. Brain can authorize removal of tonsils but it is illegal to sell your extra kidney on eBay.
5. Lists are dumb.
 
2013-11-26 05:42:16 PM

pedrop357: The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.


What deductions do they get other than a straight deduction for an expense, like salary or rent or electricity or interest? Is there something more nuanced?
 
2013-11-26 05:42:59 PM

Warlordtrooper: If they allow this then you can call anything a religious belief. Don want to pay taxes? Against my religion. Don't want to serve black people just claim its against your religion. This precedent will allow anyone to ignore any law they please if they just claim a religious belief


My religion requires me to rape random strangers every once in a while. WHY ARE YOU INFRINGING ON MY RELIGION?!?
 
2013-11-26 05:43:45 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: pedrop357: The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.

What deductions do they get other than a straight deduction for an expense, like salary or rent or electricity or interest? Is there something more nuanced?


Employers get to deduct their part of the premiums.  This gives them an advantage in that they can provide insurance to you cheaper than you can.  A person who has/had COBRA could not deduct the same premiums.
 
2013-11-26 05:45:20 PM

someonelse: pedrop357: dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.

This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?

Your argument boils down to the idea that if you cannot pay the price for treatment on the open market, you cannot have it. And your argument is not limited to contraception. It logically applies to anything the employer wants it to, including life-saving procedures.


Since no one else seems to be stating the obvious I'll just point out that no one wants to require the government to force companies to  buy everyone a Lamborghini  and no one wants companies to have the ability to kill their employees at will.  Exactly how much government regulation vs personal freedom we get will be some where in the middle and the courts exist to determine where the line is drawn. Arguing that we can only have one extreme or the other is just stupid.
 
2013-11-26 05:47:49 PM
This is an insane concept.  While I generally like the freedom to have employers and employees negotiate on their own without government interference, I can see all sorts of instant religious people looking to game a system that allowed exceptions for religious purposes.

My religion requires that I not provide any benefits to my employees at all.
 
2013-11-26 05:47:52 PM

ZzeusS: OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.



static1.wikia.nocookie.net
I am programmed for your pleasure.
 
2013-11-26 05:49:11 PM

Ker_Thwap: This is an insane concept.  While I generally like the freedom to have employers and employees negotiate on their own without government interference, I can see all sorts of instant religious people looking to game a system that allowed exceptions for religious purposes.

My religion requires that I not provide any benefits to my employees at all.


Works for me.

Don't expect to have a high caliber of employees.
 
2013-11-26 05:50:20 PM

flucto: someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?

Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?


So if a doctor prescribes BC then it should be covered? Thanks!
 
2013-11-26 05:52:22 PM
If the insurance peeps went away and single payer arrived, well...
 
2013-11-26 05:54:03 PM
Religion is no silver bullet when it comes to the law... just ask a Rastafarian about it sometime.
www.cannabisculture.com
 
2013-11-26 05:54:43 PM

doofusss: If the insurance peeps went away and single payer arrived, well...


It would get even worse?
 
2013-11-26 05:56:20 PM

pedrop357: doofusss: If the insurance peeps went away and single payer arrived, well...

It would get even worse?


It would? How? How can it get worse than it already is?
 
2013-11-26 05:56:30 PM

flucto: chairmenmeow47: doctors prescribed me birth control so that i am not in so much pain i can't go to work.

Personally I think all prescriptions should be covered. Condoms less so.


Why?
 
2013-11-26 05:57:23 PM

pedrop357: Ker_Thwap: This is an insane concept.  While I generally like the freedom to have employers and employees negotiate on their own without government interference, I can see all sorts of instant religious people looking to game a system that allowed exceptions for religious purposes.

My religion requires that I not provide any benefits to my employees at all.

Works for me.

Don't expect to have a high caliber of employees.


I was being snide... but, as a business decision in some cases you could have basic laborer employees who require minimal training, and low caliber employees might just suit your needs.  My point was that this just opens up specialized religions where you use goofy beliefs to circumvent laws in place.
 
2013-11-26 05:57:30 PM

TheWhoppah: ciberido: Really?  How often does that happen?

Every 15 minutes.
Like Clockwork.
BBBBBAAAARRRKKKK!!!!! You humans will pay for ruining our homeland!! GRRRRRRRR!!!! Family Darkpaw of the Sabretooth Clan will slay you all!! BARK!


Fippy?
 
2013-11-26 05:57:42 PM

pedrop357: Debeo Summa Credo: pedrop357: The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.

What deductions do they get other than a straight deduction for an expense, like salary or rent or electricity or interest? Is there something more nuanced?

Employers get to deduct their part of the premiums.  This gives them an advantage in that they can provide insurance to you cheaper than you can.  A person who has/had COBRA could not deduct the same premiums.


yes, they get to deduct their premiums paid for employee health insurance. It's a business expense like salary or rent.

That isn't unusual or a loophole or whatever in any way.
 
2013-11-26 05:58:39 PM

microlith: It would? How? How can it get worse than it already is?



Adding several layers of highly incompetent bureaucracy to the process would improve it?
 
2013-11-26 05:59:04 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: yes, they get to deduct their premiums paid for employee health insurance. It's a business expense like salary or rent.

That isn't unusual or a loophole or whatever in any way.


The benefit is on the employee side, not the employer side. Health care paid for by your employer is tax-exempt for the employee. That's the incentive.
 
2013-11-26 06:01:07 PM

ciberido: ZzeusS: OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.


[static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 700x525]
I am programmed for your pleasure.


I noticed how they survived 30 years after the nukes, and can make laundry and do bedding, sort and stack books, but no one can grab a broom.
 
2013-11-26 06:01:13 PM

Shryke: microlith: It would? How? How can it get worse than it already is?


Adding several layers of highly incompetent bureaucracy to the process would improve it?


Presumably we'd be stripping away the greed-driven layers imposed by private insurance companies as a start. But I guess you're arguing in defense of good 'ol American Incompetence, since it seems to work in other countries.
 
2013-11-26 06:01:41 PM
People taking care of each other shouldn't be a business.
 
2013-11-26 06:02:28 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: yes, they get to deduct their premiums paid for employee health insurance. It's a business expense like salary or rent.

That isn't unusual or a loophole or whatever in any way.

The benefit is on the employee side, not the employer side. Health care paid for by your employer is tax-exempt for the employee. That's the incentive.


Ah, yes, of course. Shame on me for forgetting that.

Thanks.
 
2013-11-26 06:03:35 PM

microlith: greed-driven layers


Capitalism is the source of the wealth you seek to redistribute. Why kill the golden goose?

~~since it seems to work in other countries.

The other countries you speak of endure identical inflation issues with health care costs. Simply spending less does not mean better health care.
 
2013-11-26 06:03:39 PM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: Specifically calling out voting districts is an abridgement of equal protections under the law. Basically, from this, "fair" can be derived.

Again, there's a reason why the opinion (if you read it) doesn't actually make this claim. That's because equal protection applies to people, not political entities. There's no rule that you need to treat all political entities equally - that would be a pretty absurd idea if you think about it.


How so? The 14th was written specifically to defend groups.

As to the states, they derive some 5th amendment process protections via the 10th.
 
2013-11-26 06:06:22 PM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.

Which is why that court decision is an abomination, just logically speaking.


Is it?

You do realize that about 10 minutes after it gets reversed, conservative states will immediately outlaw labor unions, right? They are legal fictions whose rights derive from the logic behind CU.
 
2013-11-26 06:07:04 PM

This text is now purple: How so? The 14th was written specifically to defend groups.


No its not. Read the equal protection clause - it is explicitly about "citizens" and "persons":

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2013-11-26 06:07:21 PM
Why don't we just provide everyone with the exact same basic care plan, and if you would like additional coverages you can buy them yourself
 
2013-11-26 06:07:40 PM

This text is now purple: You do realize that about 10 minutes after it gets reversed, conservative states will immediately outlaw labor unions, right?


I don't think you know what Citizens United did.
 
2013-11-26 06:12:09 PM

debug: Why?


Condoms, gym memberships, vitamins, vegetables, yoga, vacations: all healthy. None are "health care" per se. There has to be a line, surely? I like "medically necessary"
 
2013-11-26 06:15:16 PM

Shryke: microlith: greed-driven layers

Capitalism is the source of the wealth you seek to redistribute. Why kill the golden goose?


Nothing has shown capitalism to be of any benefit in handling the costs of medicine. As has been noted many times, our per-capita expenditures on healthcare exceed other nations significantly, have generally worse outcomes, and leave more people completely without. Capitalism is not perfect, nor a solution for all things.

~~since it seems to work in other countries.

The other countries you speak of endure identical inflation issues with health care costs. Simply spending less does not mean better health care.


They have distantly similar, not identical issues. Costs go up, but not at the rate they do in the US. As I noted, they spend less on average and don't have people who live completely without insurance or go broke as a result of having received care.
 
2013-11-26 06:15:36 PM

Shryke: Pitabred: Sure. Just because you say so? You're asserting I'm in the position to be contributing millions of dollars to the hospital/drug company/etc. to pay for my cancer treatments to make up for my use of the system?

All cancer treatments cost millions of dollars? shiat, if you are going to belt out the bullshiat, why not go for billions of dollars? Or trillions? Gorillions!

So... let them die? fark the poor, sick and disabled, they had it coming to them? Damn. Nice to know you're a sociopath, and so labeled.

This is very tired, and childish, argument. Everyone in the world dies, Bleedingheartbred. Let's turn this argument around, as you seem so very concerned: should the government pay for a dual lung transplant for my grandmother, who is 97, and then indenture you for the cost of it? Do you feel that is just, and a wise policy? I expect huge amounts of leftist compassion in your reply, don't disappoint me.


Ok, so your end argument is, if you are wealthy enough to pay for your life, you get to continue to live, right?  And if you're poor, well, tough shiat pal/gal, you get to work until you drop over dead or are thrown on the streets, because freedom?

And any doctor that would do a lung transplant on someone at 97 years old is either a quack trying to make a quick buck, or certifiably insane.  And you know damn well it would never happen.  But nice strawman argument.
 
2013-11-26 06:29:17 PM

AurizenDarkstar: you get to continue to live, right? And if you're poor, well, tough shiat pal/gal


Yes. Paying for services you want means exactly that. Your argument extends to utilities, groceries, etc. Those should be "free" too, yes?

~~And any doctor that would do a lung transplant on someone at 97 years old

Wisdom from our betters, eh? So a man that can pay for it should just go pound salt? What other 5 year plans do you have for us, comrade?
 
2013-11-26 06:30:51 PM

microlith: Nothing has shown capitalism to be of any benefit in handling the costs of medicine


Outrageously false. The nearest system we have to capitalistic health care also produces more than HALF of medical research and more than 60% of all medical innovation on the PLANET.

~~not identical issues.

I said identical inflation rates. And they do.
 
2013-11-26 06:40:50 PM

Shryke: AurizenDarkstar: you get to continue to live, right? And if you're poor, well, tough shiat pal/gal

Yes. Paying for services you want means exactly that. Your argument extends to utilities, groceries, etc. Those should be "free" too, yes?


Ah, deflecting from your asinine statement by making a completely different argument.  Insurance allows people to be able to 'pay' for not only doctor's visits, but for any life threatening illnesses they may end up with.  How is that like paying utilities or for food?  Are we now required to have insurance to cover those costs as well?

Shryke: ~~And any doctor that would do a lung transplant on someone at 97 years old

Wisdom from our betters, eh? So a man that can pay for it should just go pound salt? What other 5 year plans do you have for us, comrade?


Your second asinine comment proves you know nothing about medicine and how decisions to use it are made.  So why should I say anything other than that you made a strawman argument.  And the best you can do is follow up with another strawman?  You really better step up your bullshiat, otherwise I'm sure Drew won't give you that raise you've been angling for.
 
2013-11-26 06:45:41 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Look, I don't think contraception/abortion coverage in a health plan makes the owners of the company "responsible" in the eyes of God in any way, shape or form - so they all need to farking take a breath and stop this nonsense...

BUT...

Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception   IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!

That's like saying "I'm not paying my employees a million dollars a year - so I'm making decisions on where they can live, and what kind of car they can drive."


Fine I'll bite.  There is a medical condition called pregnancy which can be quite difficult on your health, the prevention of which is a legitimate medical concern for quite a few people.  After my brother was born, for example, my mom was advised by her doctor not to get pregnant again because the complications that resulted from that pregnancy would have made any subsequent pregnancies extremely risky.  How women deal with the fact that they can become pregnant is in fact a health decision.  Her employer (which I believe has already been established as a separate legal entity from the owners of the company and therefore their religious beliefs don't matter) does not get to make that decision for her by arbitrarily deciding which medications are for realsies, and which ones are slut-enablers.
 
2013-11-26 07:15:16 PM

Headso: Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.


Actually, the pre-ACA system penalized middle and lower income people and ACA is only going to exacerbate that situation.

When an employer pays for insurance, the employee needs to be productive enough that the employer can bill customers, one way or another, to cover all costs of employment.   If you take a factory worker with a good insurance plan, his premiums are going to be a minimum of $1000/month.  That's $12,000/year or about $6/hour for a FTE.  That's $6/hour that the employee has absolutely no chance of ever seeing (even though he earned it) unless he gets sick and with most insurance plans he'll still have copays and deductibles for every visit, every prescription.  So whether he sees it or not, he pays a minimum of $12,000/year plus his copays for every visit and prescription.  If he's remarkably healthy, it costs him $12.000/year.  If he's sickly, it costs him more.  No matter how healthy he is, it still costs him $12.000/year minimum.

We've had an HSA for more than 15 years.  Our premiums this year were just over $300/month with a $7500 deductible.  A small (negligible) portion of the premium goes into the HSA but we can put as much as we want into it pre-tax.  If we're remarkably healthy, our total cost is a bit over $3600/year.  Whatever we've been smart enough to put into the HSA is ours, not the insurance company's.  If something terrible happens and we meet the deductible, our maximum cost is $11,100 because once we meet the deductible all expenses including prescriptions are covered - no copays.  Because we've had the great good fortune of being pretty darned healthy all our lives, we've managed to lay by a fair amount of money in the HSA.  At the point that we are forced into Medicare, we can use that money to buy supplemental or anything else we want.

But even if we had been unhealthy or had a chronic condition we would not have spent as much as a standard policy.  Consider a good friend of mine who has a couple of chronic conditions but the same health insurance policy.  He meets his deductible every year.  I know that my (and others') "unused" premiums cover his expenses for usually the last few months of the year.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I know is that he is able to afford all the health care he and his wife require without going bankrupt on copays, deductibles, percentage splits, or maximum coverages.  My bottom line point is that an HSA arrangement favors the middle class as a whole because the middle class, as a whole, is relatively healthy and could, over most working careers, save a bundle of money that they can spend wantonly upon retirement or even pass on to their heirs.  But you look at teachers, union workers, or any other middle class folks with good insurance coverage, they do not have the opportunity to keep any of their health insurance dollars.  Those "Cadillac" premiums go straight to the insurance company and they aren't coming back.  Additionally, having the large deductible that I have makes me a much more conscientious consumer.  I negotiate prices with doctors and other service providers.  I had a minor problem this year, went to see the doctor and he gave me a prescription.  Went to the pharmacist (a friend of mine) and he allowed as how this prescription was going to be $1600!   Knowing my insurance plan, he wanted to make sure I knew what it cost before he special ordered it.  I got on the phone to the doctor immediately and told him that I wasn't in favor of writing a check for that amount of money for a  handful of pills and asked if there was an alternative that didn't have so many zeroes behind it.  He, being a specialist I'd never dealt with before, apologized profusely and rewrote the prescription for another drug that was just as effective (but wasn't brand new and probably didn't give him a kickback or at least hadn't brought in a lavish lunch for him and his entire practice) and cost the grand sum of $79.  Anybody with a full-coverage plan and a small copay would not have brought up the subject.

Those great health insurance plans penalize the middle class, not benefit them.
 
2013-11-26 07:23:44 PM

Shryke: Outrageously false. The nearest system we have to capitalistic health care also produces more than HALF of medical research and more than 60% of all medical innovation on the PLANET.


Which has nothing to do with the COSTS OF TREATMENT. Get back to me when R&D budgets at pharmaceutical corps are greater than their marketing budgets, instead of screwing US patients so as to better market to them. Seeing your other argument I'm disinclined to continue arguing this, that you would willingly claim that people should die of preventable, treatable illnesses simply because they can't afford to is sociopathic to a disgusting degree.

~~not identical issues.

I said identical inflation rates. And they do.


Care to support your argument, or is it just "it is because I said so" for you?
 
2013-11-26 07:26:57 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.

They own the business, they have the say just as you do in your business.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Paying a living wage and not working someone to death

If you don't like your pay and you don't like your hours, you are not forced by anyone to work there. Nor should you be forced to work there. Or do anything against your will for that matter.

Hobodeluxe: well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?

Why does it matter to you?

Hobodeluxe: it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.

So how about this? They have no company insurance and they choose to buy their own insurance that will cover whatever their little hearts desire. Better yet they can make the choice to go to work elsewhere that offers them something more attractive. You're hiring aren't you? $20/hour plus full benes too I'm sure.


fine as long as they give me what they were giving the insurance company for my plan.
also why does it matter to me? why does it matter to them what their employees do with their own damn money. it's not the company's money. it's the employees'
 
2013-11-26 07:30:57 PM
I knew this thread would be full of fail.

1. Employers are not obligated to provide health coverage to any employees. However, beginning in 2014, employers with more than 50 full-time employees that do not offer coverage will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time equivalent employee for all full-time employees in excess of 30 if even one employee receives a federal government subsidy and purchases coverage in an exchange. This is, I assume, to prevent most employers from just ending all insurance coverage and forcing their employees into the "marketplace."
2. The federal government doesn't tax health insurance when employers provide it to their employees as part of a compensation package. This tax expenditure is the largest "loophole" in the federal tax code, resulting in nearly $300 billion in forgone revenue in FY2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
3. What Hobby Lobby and others are claiming is that requiring them to pay for insurance that includes contraception is a violation of their religious beliefs.  They could solve this by not providing insurance for any employees. But they don't want to do that. They want a religious exception to the rules. Even though they are not religious organizations. Their primary purpose is commerce, not religion.
4. Some people here have suggested that what Hobby Lobby objects to is "abortifacients." In fact, Hobby Lobby claims to be offended by ALL contraceptives. Just in case anybody thought their objection was based on actual reasonable motives. It is not. It is based on a stupid prejudice about controlling ladyparts, pretty much from the same stupid place religious nutjobs get their anti-gay shiat from.
5. Most of this bullshiat could have been avoided if we'd just gone with single payer. But because insurance companies are giant, greedy entities and the person who "helped" write the ACA was a health insurance lobbyist before the legislation was passed, and now works for Johnson & Johnson as a lobbyist, we're stuck with this clusterfark.
 
2013-11-26 07:32:42 PM
But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?
 
2013-11-26 07:47:55 PM

Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?


Your sentence makes no sense.
 
2013-11-26 07:55:39 PM

cannotsuggestaname: Ok I am going to form a religion that requires contraception and medical services, then I will suggest my flock finds employment with companies like Hobby Lobby. What happens when you have conflicting religious requirements to be met? Does the corporation win or do the people?


Difficulty: Hobby Lobby is fairly well documented to be run by dominionists (and in fact, NAR-linked dominionists) who use the business as a funding front for "Prosperity Gospel" groups and which is known to have engaged in discriminatory hiring practices.

Not kidding on this, either.  The company has a documented history of firing not only non-Christians but non-dominionists, is probably one of the two largest corporate sponsors of the (almost completely NARasitised and heavily peddling of the Prosperity Gospel bunk) Assemblies of God along with three separate uplines of Amway, and pretty much the only reason that Oral Roberts University didn't shut down in light of a massive embezzlement scandal related to six televangelists on the board of directors is on account Hobby Lobby gave a massive injection of cash.

Not only that, but they're probably the largest corporate funder of David Barton's "Wallbuilders" (a nasty NARasite group that promotes what can be best described as a pro-dominionist American Historical Revisionism that essentially posits the intent of the Founding Fathers as setting up a theocracy a la Bioshock: Infinite) and there's even evidence they're a corporate sponsor (via Assemblies linkage) of not one but two groups that have engaged in bona fide dominionist terrorism (the Army of God via a group called Summit Ministries, and the genocidal regime of Efrain Rios Montt and his present supporters in Guatemala; the latter has been recently shown to have been very strongly religiously-motivated genocide, with "Pope Francis-style" Liberation Theology Catholics and indigenous Mayans practicing traditional religion explicitly being targeted on basis of these groups not being dominionist)

Suffice it to say that anyone who is openly antidominionist or even seeming to be potentially dominionist-unfriendly tends to get fired VERY quickly and certainly does NOT make it to levels of employment where benefits packages tend to be given out.

/Hobby Lobby is on a personal list of companies I will never, ever, ever willingly or otherwise do business with (and yes, Amway and Chick-Fil-A are also on that list, for similar reasons)
 
2013-11-26 07:56:49 PM

DamnYankees: Coastalgrl: I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system

How can a corporation have a belief system? A corporation is a legal fiction.


And that would be the shortest brief in SCOTUS history.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 08:10:16 PM

Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?


You do realise, don't you, that if you're somehow morally against certain rules and laws that one MUST follow if they own a corporation that they are free to NOT own a corporation, right?

You want take advantage of the vast and growing privileges one gets by owning parts or all of a corporation you sure as hell better be willing to accept the rules.  I know the massive hordes of whining corporate execs and corporate worshipers won't agree with me... still.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 08:14:11 PM

ukexpat: DamnYankees: Coastalgrl: I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system

How can a corporation have a belief system? A corporation is a legal fiction.

And that would be the shortest brief in SCOTUS history.


This SCOTUS is willing to do any mental gymnastics needed to make sure their buddies in the corporate world get everything their way.

Corporations should NOT be called "persons."  They should have enumerated and limited legal rights for their protection that are considered lower in priority than the rights of individuals.  We desperately need a constitutional amendment that says this since SCOTUS let the idea of limited corporate rights get screwed up to this extent.  But good luck with today's paid off legislators...
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report