|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence.
Ahh, the good old first grade argument: You don't like the foul call? Take your ball and go home! Solves everything...
Or Hobby Lobby could shut down if it doesn't like it. When did operating a business become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't.
Do you see how flawed that logic is now? It actually makes no sense, because it doesn't address the issue, it just says suck it up to those being treated unfairly.
Rather we should discuss the merits and effects of the case. If you agree that your rights should end where someone else's begin, then I can drag you down the logical line till either you are forced to contradict that statement or accept the correct view... let me begin:
So I can swing my arm as far as I want as long as I do not hit your nose (or any part of your body), right? But I have this cross around my neck that swings farther than my arm. I really want the government to give me a religious exemption for so I can swing with my cross, and I am really rich. Shouldn't everyone else just take step back? They can just stand somewhere else (or work somewhere else...)... shouldn't the government be forced to make people do that in order to accommodate my views under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Of course they should, I am rich!
You tell me how that analogy is wrong, and we can work it from there. I can tell you right now what this will come down to. We'll both be able to show that people's rights are being infringed upon. But for you, it will be a small group of rich people and their religious beliefs, and for me, it will be thousands of people and their healthcare choices. What is really more important? Don't tell me you don't know.
My healthcare choices should not be restricted by someone else's religion. The fact that a person happens to be rich should not buy them political power, nor should it affect my healthcare choices! And that is the crux of this case. It really isn't about birth control or freedom of religion. It is about money.
Today, it bought political power, not for the first time ever, but for the first time in this way, restricting the healthcare choices of many for the religious views of a few. And that is why we live in an Oligarchy, wealth buys political power here, far more so than it ever did.
Maybe it sounds easy for people who don't work in healthcare to see someone who needs a blood transfusion, but who's parents refused based on religious reason to just let them die. Maybe it sounds easy for people like you. But it isn't. And I know it sounds easy to just get up and get another job, or suck it up and pay for your own birth control. It sounds easy for people like you. But it isn't.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
don't really care about where the current legal blah is at but it's pretty clear that extent of employer right is a political question, having to do with some interplay between employer property rights and employee's rights of autonomy or some such material condition affecting his or her life.
naive and established sense of property sovereignty makes the employer a lord of an individual island. with the lord of the realm free to set rules within them however they see fit. but naive morality is just that, a set of unexamined intuitions. we can see how a world run by islands of prejudice is not so good, and there is no reason to let that happen. to allow for it would be diminishing basic human rights.
in practice this nozickian sovereign island conception of society has been breached countless times, there is no non-arbitrary/political reason for one exception's existence over another. i'm not seeing any compelling reason to allow for this religious control of healthcare. it's not some sort of poor dear guy trying to lead a religious organization why can't he do that situation.
|
On July 01 2014 02:04 oneofthem wrote:
don't really care about where the current legal blah is at but it's pretty clear that extent of employer right is a political question, having to do with some interplay between employer property rights and employee's rights of autonomy or some such material condition affecting his or her life.
naive and established sense of property sovereignty makes the employer a lord of an individual island. with the lord of the realm free to set rules within them however they see fit. but naive morality is just that, a set of unexamined intuitions. we can see how a world run by islands of prejudice is not so good, and there is no reason to let that happen. to allow for it would be diminishing basic human rights.
in practice this nozickian sovereign island conception of society has been breached countless times, there is no non-arbitrary/political reason for one exception's existence over another. i'm not seeing any compelling reason to allow for this religious control of healthcare. it's not some sort of poor dear guy trying to lead a religious organization why can't he do that situation.
I'm just gonna shut up and let this guy speak more and bask in his intelligence.
From Wikipedia:
Nozick created the thought experiment of the "utility monster" to show that average utilitarianism could lead to a situation where the needs of the vast majority were sacrificed for one individual.
|
On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence.
The whole thing is a bad joke. They (Hobby Lobby) have already paid for more of the birth control they are opposing than dozens of women will in their whole life. They also make income off of the same birth control they 'have religious belief blah blah bullshit'
I suppose in principal there is a fraction of a point here but the idea that you can profit off of the same birth control you are refusing to cover makes 0 sense.
What the hell is the moral difference between exchanging work for insurance that gets one access to birth control and exchanging work for money to buy the birth control? It's like seeing a homeless alcoholic person in a liquor store who is short money for a bottle and because of your devout religious beliefs, you can't buy him the bottle, so you give him cash instead because that somehow doesn't violate your ridiculous belief.
No one is forced to use the insurance for birth control just like no one is forced to spend their money on birth control? It's a choice that employees make (one less now).
Don't work for the psychos who don't believe in medicine, now they wont have to provide healthcare at all... I think there is going to be a drastic increase in the amount of 'closely held' businesses that are exclusively faith healer believers.
Based off of the logic used, I don't know how they will prevent people with 10-20 50 owners from trying the same kind of BS?
The most important thing Obama has done during his presidency is get decent judges on SCOTUS. Looks like we will just have to wait for more to retire. At least it doesn't look like republicans will have a shot at the presidency for at least the next 8-16 years... (unless Jeb can make it past the primaries... A Bush v Clinton race would probably see the biggest decline in voter turnout from election to election in a while and would help republicans).
|
You're deliberately twisting arguments and pressing the limits of argumentation by analogy. When did government become destructive to religious freedom, and when did it start compelling for-profit business owners to believe and act like life does not begin at conception, contrary to rights preserved in HHS/HRSA law for non-profits and small businesses?
"Or Hobby Lobby could shut down if it doesn't like it." that's government becoming destructive to religious freedom.
The decision extended the very same protections offered to non-profits and small businesses to for-profit businesses that are incorporated and "closely held." Read the damn decision because the logic is quite sound, but you're arguing personal points very much unrelated to the case at hand. The courts have already tested many limits to religious practice exemptions (peyote & Indians, social security, etc) and they were mentioned and covered in the opinion itself! It's not a universally extensible right to claim something 'violates my religious beliefs' and disobey statute, and it conforms to a very strict set of legal criteria about compelling government interests amongst others (again, read the opinion to educate yourself about how courts and statutes treat edge cases ... it isn't fist-and-nose black and white freedoms, it's the means of testing gray areas).
Allow me to begin just with the syllabus by the Reporter of Decisions, preceding the actual opinion,
HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave mer- chants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protec- tion of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fic- tion of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including sharehold- ers, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.
(b) HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. Pp. 31–38.
(1) It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. If they and their companies refuse to provide contraceptive coverage, they face severe economic consequences: about $475 million per year for Hobby Lobby, $33 million per year for Conestoga, and $15 million per year for Mardel. And if they drop coverage altogether, they could face penalties of roughly $26 million for Hobby Lobby, $1.8 million for Conestoga, and $800,000 for Mardel. P. 32.
The remainder of your post, BronzeKnee, reveals a comical claim that every religious freedom concern automatically means we're in an Oligarchy, that defendants are weath and buy political power ...etc etc. You refuse to even allow those that disagree with you their good-faith beliefs that the First Amendment (and in this case, also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) protects their exercise of religion against government encroachment. Come down off your soap box; not every disagreement of opinion is wealth and power trampling upon your healthcare choices.
|
On July 01 2014 02:15 Danglars wrote:
You're deliberately twisting arguments and pressing the limits of argumentation by analogy. When did government become destructive to religious freedom, and when did it start compelling for-profit business owners to believe and act like life does not begin at conception, contrary to rights preserved in HHS/HRSA law for non-profits and small businesses?
"Or Hobby Lobby could shut down if it doesn't like it." that's government becoming destructive to religious freedom.
When I said Hobby Lobby could shut down, it was satirical. I thought that much was very clear.
I spent a considerable amount of time bashing the "Don't like the foul call? Take your ball and go home!" argument, then did the very same thing to prove the point it was foolish. And it is foolish. How was it not clear?
That alone makes me not want to respond to the rest of your post as I use a lot of analogies and if they don't get that one I can't be sure you fully understood my post. Sure call me elitist, but I'm tired of arguing with people on internet who cannot see analogies and don't understand satire.
But I will say this. First, this case is not open and shut, that much is very obvious. Change one of the judges on the court, and the decision is reversed. Acting like it is either way, shows ignorance. And bringing up past cases or political laws is irrelevant. I'm here to discuss what is right and what is wrong, not politics.
As I said in my post before, it really comes down to the rights of a small group of rich people and their religious beliefs versus, thousands of people and their healthcare choices
And I think oneofthem really answered it all for us and took this conversation onto another level. I have to quote this, because it is one of the most profound things I've ever heard on the internet:
On July 01 2014 02:04 oneofthem wrote:
don't really care about where the current legal blah is at but it's pretty clear that extent of employer right is a political question, having to do with some interplay between employer property rights and employee's rights of autonomy or some such material condition affecting his or her life.
naive and established sense of property sovereignty makes the employer a lord of an individual island. with the lord of the realm free to set rules within them however they see fit. but naive morality is just that, a set of unexamined intuitions. we can see how a world run by islands of prejudice is not so good, and there is no reason to let that happen. to allow for it would be diminishing basic human rights.
in practice this nozickian sovereign island conception of society has been breached countless times, there is no non-arbitrary/political reason for one exception's existence over another. i'm not seeing any compelling reason to allow for this religious control of healthcare. it's not some sort of poor dear guy trying to lead a religious organization why can't he do that situation.
|
a comical claim that every religious freedom concern automatically means we're in an Oligarchy, that defendants are weath and buy political power ...etc etc.
You don't need this decision to see that America is clearly an oligarchy in all practicality...?
|
On July 01 2014 01:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. Ahh, the good old first grade argument: You don't like the foul call? Take your ball and go home! Solves everything... Or Hobby Lobby could shut down if it doesn't like it. When did operating a business become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't.
Haha, you're too funny. The right of persons to engage in commerce is clearly recognized and protected. What exactly do you think the pursuit of happiness and property interests entail?
Do you see how flawed that logic is now? It actually makes no sense, because it doesn't address the issue, it just says suck it up to those being treated unfairly.
Do you see how flawed YOUR logic is now?
Rather we should discuss the merits and effects of the case.
Oh, I see where this is going. You're about to prove my point again about liberals being repeatedly guilty of using the ends to justify the means.
If you agree that your rights should end where someone else's begin, then I can drag you down the logical line till either you are forced to contradict that statement or accept the correct view... let me begin:
So I can swing my arm as far as I want as long as I do not hit your nose (or any part of your body), right? But I have this cross around my neck that swings farther than my arm. I really want the government to give me a religious exemption for so I can swing with my cross, and I am really rich. Shouldn't everyone else just take step back? They can just stand somewhere else (or work somewhere else...)... shouldn't the government be forced to make people do that in order to accommodate my views under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Of course they should, I am rich!
This is incredibly stupid. People can obviously wear whatever they want. However, there's no freedom to batter and physically injury people. Clearly the state has a compelling state interest in prohibiting such conduct -- regardless of its religious justification -- which is why states prohibit such conduct and courts allow them to do so.
In short, come up with a better hypothetical.
You tell me how that analogy is wrong, and we can work it from there.
Why should I do your work when I know that your argument is clearly wrong?
I can tell you right now what this will come down to. We'll both be able to show that people's rights are being infringed upon. But for you, it will be a small group of rich people and their religious beliefs, and for me, it will be thousands of people and their healthcare choices.
Here's what you don't understand. There is a fundamental difference between a right to do something and then having someone else -- especially a private person -- pay for your doing it. This decision does not prohibit anyone from buying contraception -- including Hobby Lobby workers. All it does is prevent the government from FORCING employers to buy contraception for their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs.
So the answer to this ridiculous riddle of yours is this: only one party's rights were at stake -- the employer's.
What is really more important, don't tell me you don't know?
My healthcare choices should not be restricted by someone else's religion. The fact that a person happens to be rich should not buy them political power, nor should it affect my healthcare choices! And that is the crux of this case. It really isn't about birth control or freedom of religion. It is about money.
Today, it bough political power, not for the first time ever, but for the first time in this way, restricting the healthcare choices of many for the religious views of a few. And that is why we live in an Oligarchy, wealth buys political power here, far more so than it ever did.
This is conspiracy theory-level nonsense. Feel free to offer one scintilla of evidence from the Court's opinion showing that this is about money as opposed to fundamental religious freedoms. You're not going to find it.
Maybe it sounds easy for people who don't work in healthcare to see someone who needs a blood transfusion, but who's parents refused based on religious reason to just let them die. Maybe it sounds easy for people like you.
This is a whole different matter that this case expressly does not touch upon.
But it isn't. And I know it sounds easy to just get up and get another job, or suck it up and pay for your own birth control. It sounds easy for people like you. But it isn't.
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway.
|
United States42871 Posts
On July 01 2014 02:15 Danglars wrote:
You're deliberately twisting arguments and pressing the limits of argumentation by analogy. When did government become destructive to religious freedom, and when did it start compelling for-profit business owners to believe and act like life does not begin at conception, contrary to rights preserved in HHS/HRSA law for non-profits and small businesses?
When it works within a system that requires people to get healthcare from their employer. What this comes down to is people not getting the healthcare they need because of an insane hybrid system that makes the healthcare of a nation conditional upon the sincerely held fantasies of a small number of unqualified individuals. At the very least this decision shows that the current system is untenable, even if your refuse to improve it by removing the Sky Father from the equation.
If I wanted to run a business in the US that refused to provide health insurance covering any genetic diseases because I believed that they were God's will, would I be able to do that?
|
On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
Haha, you're too funny. The right of persons to engage in commerce is clearly recognized and protected. What exactly do you think the pursuit of happiness and property interests entail?
You also totally missed the point. I do have a right to have a job, no one can say "that guy can never have a job anywhere and I will make sure of it." Now I don't have the right to work anywhere I want.
The same can be said about business. You do have a right to start and operate a businesses, but you don't have the right to operate any business anywhere you want. You discussed the latter line of logic, people and businesses not being allowed to work or operate anywhere they want, then switched to the former, people and businesses having the right to work or operate in general, when talking about businesses. Why are you trying to trick people? What is the purpose?
Don't split my arguments hairs if you're not going to split yours. Hopefully what I said will educate you.
On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:54 BronzeKnee wrote:
So I can swing my arm as far as I want as long as I do not hit your nose (or any part of your body), right? But I have this cross around my neck that swings farther than my arm. I really want the government to give me a religious exemption for so I can swing with my cross, and I am really rich. Shouldn't everyone else just take step back? They can just stand somewhere else (or work somewhere else...)... shouldn't the government be forced to make people do that in order to accommodate my views under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Of course they should, I am rich! This is incredibly stupid. People can obviously wear whatever they want.
I am so sorry, but I had to quote that. You totally misunderstood my argument if you think it had anything to do with letting people wear what they want. The whole point of the analogy was to show how ridiculous it is for people to gain any kind of exemption based on religious reasons that would allow them to affect the rights of other. That misunderstanding is hilarious and ends my involvement in this argument.
And I'll leave everyone with this bit off wisdom.
On July 01 2014 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
If people can't pay a buck per fuck, then they probably shouldn't be engaging in sexual intercourse anyway.
|
On July 01 2014 02:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:15 Danglars wrote:
You're deliberately twisting arguments and pressing the limits of argumentation by analogy. When did government become destructive to religious freedom, and when did it start compelling for-profit business owners to believe and act like life does not begin at conception, contrary to rights preserved in HHS/HRSA law for non-profits and small businesses? When it works within a system that requires people to get healthcare from their employer.What this comes down to is people not getting the healthcare they need because of an insane hybrid system that makes the healthcare of a nation conditional upon the sincerely held fantasies of a small number of unqualified individuals. At the very least this decision shows that the current system is untenable, even if your refuse to improve it by removing the Sky Father from the equation. If I wanted to run a business in the US that refused to provide health insurance covering any genetic diseases because I believed that they were God's will, would I be able to do that?
Right, I agree with all of this, which is why there should be some form of base universal coverage provided by the government. It still doesn't change the fact that needlessly infringing upon the religious freedoms of private persons when lesser alternatives are available is a bad idea.
|
Based on this ruling, what prevents a corporation from being a part of some religion that believes in "faith healing" and declining to cover its employees based on that religious belief?
|
On July 01 2014 02:42 aksfjh wrote:
Based on this ruling, what prevents a corporation from being a part of some religion that believes in "faith healing" and declining to cover its employees based on that religious belief?
That kind of corporate action wouldn't be allowed. The Court would find that there's a sufficiently compelling state interest at stake and that there's no less intrusive means of mandating employer-provided health care.
|
|
|
On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence.
The question isn't when did employment become a "right," but when did a right to earn a living get taken away? Even in feudal economic systems the lords recognized the right of their serfs to earn a living with a roof over their heads and food on their tables. The "right to contract" usurped the "right to live" during the triumph of reason and the emergence of classical economics. Despite reason's shortcomings, it seems many still do not see a problem with a system wherein the majority of people, born through no will of their own, must live on whatever they can get for their labor on the open market. Can't earn enough to provide a decent living? Can't find a job with adequate healthcare? Go west, young man, go west.
|
On July 01 2014 02:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. The question isn't when did employment become a "right," but when did a right to earn a living get taken away? Even in feudal economic systems the lords recognized the right of their serfs to earn a living with a roof over their heads and food on their tables. The "right to contract" usurped the "right to live" during the triumph of reason and the emergence of classical economics. Despite reason's shortcomings, it seems many still do not see a problem with a system wherein the majority of people, born through no will of their own, must live on whatever they can get for their labor on the open market. Can't earn enough to provide a decent living? Can't find a job with adequate healthcare? Go west, young man, go west. Well, this is a different and larger issue for which I don't really have an answer.
|
On July 01 2014 02:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:52 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. The question isn't when did employment become a "right," but when did a right to earn a living get taken away? Even in feudal economic systems the lords recognized the right of their serfs to earn a living with a roof over their heads and food on their tables. The "right to contract" usurped the "right to live" during the triumph of reason and the emergence of classical economics. Despite reason's shortcomings, it seems many still do not see a problem with a system wherein the majority of people, born through no will of their own, must live on whatever they can get for their labor on the open market. Can't earn enough to provide a decent living? Can't find a job with adequate healthcare? Go west, young man, go west. Well, this is a different and larger issue for which I don't really have an answer.
Fuck I thought law was the answer to everything.
Joke, I have a thing against law professions, but you're faaaar from the worst I've encountered my dear xDaunt 
|
On July 01 2014 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
What the hell is the moral difference between exchanging work for insurance that gets one access to birth control and exchanging work for money to buy the birth control?
Not much...
|
On July 01 2014 02:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 02:25 KwarK wrote:On July 01 2014 02:15 Danglars wrote:
You're deliberately twisting arguments and pressing the limits of argumentation by analogy. When did government become destructive to religious freedom, and when did it start compelling for-profit business owners to believe and act like life does not begin at conception, contrary to rights preserved in HHS/HRSA law for non-profits and small businesses? When it works within a system that requires people to get healthcare from their employer.What this comes down to is people not getting the healthcare they need because of an insane hybrid system that makes the healthcare of a nation conditional upon the sincerely held fantasies of a small number of unqualified individuals. At the very least this decision shows that the current system is untenable, even if your refuse to improve it by removing the Sky Father from the equation. If I wanted to run a business in the US that refused to provide health insurance covering any genetic diseases because I believed that they were God's will, would I be able to do that? Right, I agree with all of this, which is why there should be some form of base universal coverage provided by the government. It still doesn't change the fact that needlessly infringing upon the religious freedoms of private persons when lesser alternatives are available is a bad idea.
Seriously... Like seriously...? That makes 0 sense... So you want them to have to pay for the birth control that simultaneously provides them profit and violates their 'sincerely held fantasies' but if they have the government middleman it for them it's OK?
Didn't they already turn down an offer like that? One where they just pay taxes then the government pays for the birth control?
This case is bullshit. If they had such sincere beliefs they wouldn't have been investing in the same stuff they are refusing to provide (or would of at least immediately divested when it was brought to their attention). So sure if the employee wants to have Hobby Lobby invest more money in the companies who produce birth control that's fine, but God forbid they want Hobby Lobby to invest in providing access to said manufacture's product, then suddenly it's a religious and constitutional crisis... Give me a break... This is yet another example of the bullshit bubble being impenetrable to reality.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On July 01 2014 02:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2014 01:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 01 2014 01:26 BronzeKnee wrote:
I don't even think we can ask the question: "Do we live in an Oligarchy"? anymore... the answer is a resounding yes.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the religious rights of a few people at the top of a company override the personal rights of all those below it regarding healthcare? That a few rich people, the owners of a company, can restrict the healthcare options of their employees based on their religion, even if the employees have a different religion?
Disgusting. So go work elsewhere? When did employment become a "right?" Oh, right. It didn't. The larger point is that letting the government infringing upon one group's religious freedoms when there are alternatives to that infringement that will accomplish the same objection, the infringement shouldn't be allowed. Go read Kennedy's concurrence. The question isn't when did employment become a "right," but when did a right to earn a living get taken away? Even in feudal economic systems the lords recognized the right of their serfs to earn a living with a roof over their heads and food on their tables. The "right to contract" usurped the "right to live" during the triumph of reason and the emergence of classical economics. Despite reason's shortcomings, it seems many still do not see a problem with a system wherein the majority of people, born through no will of their own, must live on whatever they can get for their labor on the open market. Can't earn enough to provide a decent living? Can't find a job with adequate healthcare? Go west, young man, go west.
well the lords of feudal times recognized that they had total control over land and also the awareness of the totality of this control. so outside of working on the land, they knew the peasants had no other way of existing. this is partly how they rationalized their power, as soem sort of stewardship over god's green earth.
could probably find some aquinas passage talking about ideal kingship and whatnot but in order for a purely land rent system to survive the feudal lords had to give a place to the peasants to work the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
