|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws.
I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects.
Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause.
Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future.
|
On July 09 2020 01:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:39 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2020 01:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never said I was planning to move to Europe/Canada, just that if I didn't have family ties I'd strongly consider it. There are moral, economic, and philosophical reasons. I doubt I'd move to any EU country aside from (maybe) Germany, purely because learning new languages is hard.
Moral -
US is the only country in the world where slavery is still openly legal (yes, China has some factories where it's been discovered, but it's not in their constitution that it's OK to do so). Remaining in the US donates my taxes to preserving this system.
Economic-
It's a gamble. Yes, you can make significantly more in the US, but only with some massive gambles viz a viz the health insurance industry. It's safer to live in a country with universal health care, economically. A single serious illness could wipe out 15x my savings. Any children I have are likely to have certain illnesses under this system, and it could condemn then to a life of debt.
Philosophically -
I'm far left (by American standards). I had no representation in congress until 2018. It's incredibly strongly entrenched in capitalism, a system I think inevitably leads to abuses.
I think billionaires are a product of a system that rewards a mental illness. That isn't to say that other countries don't produce them, but the vast majority are from here, and they lead to a very skewed representation politically.
Culturally-
I find US culture generally pretty abhorrent. While every country has shitty people, the US glorifies many of them. I'm not just talking about Trump, but also various celebrities. (I think even conservatives would agree with this point, at least).
I'm also visibly Cherokee/not quite white, so racism is a consideration (while still an issue in Europe/Canada, it's not got the same systemic structures in place that has half of their political system currently openly pandering directly to racists).
It'd also be easy for me to relocate as I have a master's, work in a fairly in-demand/essential and low-interest/boring job. I write programs for an American branch of a German reinsurance company currently. I'm already bilingual, but I'd rather not learn a third language, so CA or UK would be my first choices, with Germany as the most likely, and my second language is in the one country with a worse work/life balance and more hostile to immigrants than the US (Japanese).
Now, even if I didn't have family ties I probably wouldn't, for the following reasons -
I do feel some debt to the US for making me who I am today.
It would be an act of cowardice to flee rather than try to make positive changes. I'm very stubborn.
There are signs that the US may change for the better as the current generation of politicians loses power.
But I think there are very strong arguments to abandon the US, especially if remaining there would provide benefit to it. Slavery is still openly legal in the US? and nowhere else? OK, don't know about NOWHERE else. Was an exaggeration, probably. No 1st world country I know of, though. The 13th amendment specifically legalizes it as a punishment for crime. That's why prisoners can be forced to work for 30 cents an hour, well below minimum wage. edit - At least 5 states pay nothing for work by prisoners. Show nested quote +With a few rare exceptions, regular prison jobs are still unpaid in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Texas. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/
While they should receive pay, are the inmates forced to perform the jobs? Just curious.
I also wouldnt necessarily equate prison labor to slavery. Not saying its right but theres levels to things and I dont think they are on the same tier.
|
On July 09 2020 01:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:43 Nevuk wrote:On July 09 2020 01:39 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2020 01:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never said I was planning to move to Europe/Canada, just that if I didn't have family ties I'd strongly consider it. There are moral, economic, and philosophical reasons. I doubt I'd move to any EU country aside from (maybe) Germany, purely because learning new languages is hard.
Moral -
US is the only country in the world where slavery is still openly legal (yes, China has some factories where it's been discovered, but it's not in their constitution that it's OK to do so). Remaining in the US donates my taxes to preserving this system.
Economic-
It's a gamble. Yes, you can make significantly more in the US, but only with some massive gambles viz a viz the health insurance industry. It's safer to live in a country with universal health care, economically. A single serious illness could wipe out 15x my savings. Any children I have are likely to have certain illnesses under this system, and it could condemn then to a life of debt.
Philosophically -
I'm far left (by American standards). I had no representation in congress until 2018. It's incredibly strongly entrenched in capitalism, a system I think inevitably leads to abuses.
I think billionaires are a product of a system that rewards a mental illness. That isn't to say that other countries don't produce them, but the vast majority are from here, and they lead to a very skewed representation politically.
Culturally-
I find US culture generally pretty abhorrent. While every country has shitty people, the US glorifies many of them. I'm not just talking about Trump, but also various celebrities. (I think even conservatives would agree with this point, at least).
I'm also visibly Cherokee/not quite white, so racism is a consideration (while still an issue in Europe/Canada, it's not got the same systemic structures in place that has half of their political system currently openly pandering directly to racists).
It'd also be easy for me to relocate as I have a master's, work in a fairly in-demand/essential and low-interest/boring job. I write programs for an American branch of a German reinsurance company currently. I'm already bilingual, but I'd rather not learn a third language, so CA or UK would be my first choices, with Germany as the most likely, and my second language is in the one country with a worse work/life balance and more hostile to immigrants than the US (Japanese).
Now, even if I didn't have family ties I probably wouldn't, for the following reasons -
I do feel some debt to the US for making me who I am today.
It would be an act of cowardice to flee rather than try to make positive changes. I'm very stubborn.
There are signs that the US may change for the better as the current generation of politicians loses power.
But I think there are very strong arguments to abandon the US, especially if remaining there would provide benefit to it. Slavery is still openly legal in the US? and nowhere else? OK, don't know about NOWHERE else. Was an exaggeration, probably. No 1st world country I know of, though. The 13th amendment specifically legalizes it as a punishment for crime. That's why prisoners can be forced to work for 30 cents an hour, well below minimum wage. edit - At least 5 states pay nothing for work by prisoners. With a few rare exceptions, regular prison jobs are still unpaid in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Texas. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ While they should receive pay, are the inmates forced to perform the jobs? Just curious. I also wouldnt necessarily equate prison labor to slavery. Not saying its right but theres levels to things and I dont think they are on the same tier.
Yes they are required to do it, since most prisons will charge you for anything. Like calling your family, or even visits in some place. Or just basic needs, like tooth brush, soaps and the likes. Cool prison system.
Oh, theres also prisons execs boasting about their high retention rate, aka how useless their rehabilition system is because it's designed to keep people in.
|
On July 09 2020 01:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
The population that mainly sees nation states with separate land and culture is slowly dying out though. Among younger Europeans, Europe is just a big playing field with different languages already. Certainly, there is still the question of how the division in wealth is being treated, but culturally, most of the nations will become highly interchangeable very soon. I don't know what the odds are, but the movement for more unity is growing as well.
Different languages vs distant governments with very removed accountability are two very different things. You might imagine Poles that like the PiS platform being unwilling to let more of their legislative duties go to a transnational body for the sake of unity, even though they're comfortable learning more languages and embracing other cultures.
Though I would guess that younger people don't mind closer unity and aren't as attached to nation state independence, I'd have to see actual representative polling to confirm it. Also, I have no idea if the movement for unity is growing, shrinking, or stalling. I think y'all had a nation leave in a surprise popular vote. I think a few countries were very unhappy with what Germany and the EU forced on them as regards financial burdens, and Italy elected a euroskeptic leader obviously opposed to closer union. These are just examples to show that the "movement for more unity is growing as well" certainly needs some evidence to prove, as regards stories reporting in the foreign press.
|
On July 09 2020 01:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:43 Nevuk wrote:On July 09 2020 01:39 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2020 01:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never said I was planning to move to Europe/Canada, just that if I didn't have family ties I'd strongly consider it. There are moral, economic, and philosophical reasons. I doubt I'd move to any EU country aside from (maybe) Germany, purely because learning new languages is hard.
Moral -
US is the only country in the world where slavery is still openly legal (yes, China has some factories where it's been discovered, but it's not in their constitution that it's OK to do so). Remaining in the US donates my taxes to preserving this system.
Economic-
It's a gamble. Yes, you can make significantly more in the US, but only with some massive gambles viz a viz the health insurance industry. It's safer to live in a country with universal health care, economically. A single serious illness could wipe out 15x my savings. Any children I have are likely to have certain illnesses under this system, and it could condemn then to a life of debt.
Philosophically -
I'm far left (by American standards). I had no representation in congress until 2018. It's incredibly strongly entrenched in capitalism, a system I think inevitably leads to abuses.
I think billionaires are a product of a system that rewards a mental illness. That isn't to say that other countries don't produce them, but the vast majority are from here, and they lead to a very skewed representation politically.
Culturally-
I find US culture generally pretty abhorrent. While every country has shitty people, the US glorifies many of them. I'm not just talking about Trump, but also various celebrities. (I think even conservatives would agree with this point, at least).
I'm also visibly Cherokee/not quite white, so racism is a consideration (while still an issue in Europe/Canada, it's not got the same systemic structures in place that has half of their political system currently openly pandering directly to racists).
It'd also be easy for me to relocate as I have a master's, work in a fairly in-demand/essential and low-interest/boring job. I write programs for an American branch of a German reinsurance company currently. I'm already bilingual, but I'd rather not learn a third language, so CA or UK would be my first choices, with Germany as the most likely, and my second language is in the one country with a worse work/life balance and more hostile to immigrants than the US (Japanese).
Now, even if I didn't have family ties I probably wouldn't, for the following reasons -
I do feel some debt to the US for making me who I am today.
It would be an act of cowardice to flee rather than try to make positive changes. I'm very stubborn.
There are signs that the US may change for the better as the current generation of politicians loses power.
But I think there are very strong arguments to abandon the US, especially if remaining there would provide benefit to it. Slavery is still openly legal in the US? and nowhere else? OK, don't know about NOWHERE else. Was an exaggeration, probably. No 1st world country I know of, though. The 13th amendment specifically legalizes it as a punishment for crime. That's why prisoners can be forced to work for 30 cents an hour, well below minimum wage. edit - At least 5 states pay nothing for work by prisoners. With a few rare exceptions, regular prison jobs are still unpaid in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Texas. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ While they should receive pay, are the inmates forced to perform the jobs? Just curious. I also wouldnt necessarily equate prison labor to slavery. Not saying its right but theres levels to things and I dont think they are on the same tier.
Depends on the prison/state. I know some will force prisoners into solitary or increase their sentence for being uncooperative if they refuse, which is perfectly legal for the prisons to do. (Specifically, you can find accounts of Texas forcing everyone to work by putting them in solitary. They leave them there for two weeks and only give them bread/water until they agree, and only ask every two weeks. They're left in solitary until they agree. In CA, they're allowed to work as a privilege that can be taken away).
It's not chattel slavery (the kind practiced by the South prior to the 13th amendment, which is almost uniquely bad in history), but it's defined as "slavery or involuntary servitude" in the amendment. It's slavery in the states that don't pay, and involuntary servitude in the ones that do.
It's not even a big money raiser federally - it only made 500$m in sales for the government in 2016. Mostly they make things like license plates or odds and ends for the army. States probably make more, but it's not exactly an easy thing to study.
(source for the 500m number :
www.economist.com
(This isn't even touching on Erasme's point about being charged for things in prison. I think this is a newer strategy? While slavery in prison in the US in general isn't new).
|
On July 09 2020 02:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
The population that mainly sees nation states with separate land and culture is slowly dying out though. Among younger Europeans, Europe is just a big playing field with different languages already. Certainly, there is still the question of how the division in wealth is being treated, but culturally, most of the nations will become highly interchangeable very soon. I don't know what the odds are, but the movement for more unity is growing as well. Different languages vs distant governments with very removed accountability are two very different things. You might imagine Poles that like the PiS platform being unwilling to let more of their legislative duties go to a transnational body for the sake of unity, even though they're comfortable learning more languages and embracing other cultures. Though I would guess that younger people don't mind closer unity and aren't as attached to nation state independence, I'd have to see actual representative polling to confirm it. Also, I have no idea if the movement for unity is growing, shrinking, or stalling. I think y'all had a nation leave in a surprise popular vote. I think a few countries were very unhappy with what Germany and the EU forced on them as regards financial burdens, and Italy elected a euroskeptic leader obviously opposed to closer union. These are just examples to show that the "movement for more unity is growing as well" certainly needs some evidence to prove, as regards stories reporting in the foreign press.
Like I said, people love to only show the negative side of the discussion, all the people trying to be less European and more nation state. But this is a reaction to the culture of the majority shifting towards unity. Overall, there is no vocal push for integration of the nation states, but the public shifts towards it on it's own. That's why the right becomes so loud lately.
|
On July 09 2020 02:09 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:56 Sadist wrote:On July 09 2020 01:43 Nevuk wrote:On July 09 2020 01:39 IgnE wrote:On July 09 2020 01:25 Nevuk wrote:
I never said I was planning to move to Europe/Canada, just that if I didn't have family ties I'd strongly consider it. There are moral, economic, and philosophical reasons. I doubt I'd move to any EU country aside from (maybe) Germany, purely because learning new languages is hard.
Moral -
US is the only country in the world where slavery is still openly legal (yes, China has some factories where it's been discovered, but it's not in their constitution that it's OK to do so). Remaining in the US donates my taxes to preserving this system.
Economic-
It's a gamble. Yes, you can make significantly more in the US, but only with some massive gambles viz a viz the health insurance industry. It's safer to live in a country with universal health care, economically. A single serious illness could wipe out 15x my savings. Any children I have are likely to have certain illnesses under this system, and it could condemn then to a life of debt.
Philosophically -
I'm far left (by American standards). I had no representation in congress until 2018. It's incredibly strongly entrenched in capitalism, a system I think inevitably leads to abuses.
I think billionaires are a product of a system that rewards a mental illness. That isn't to say that other countries don't produce them, but the vast majority are from here, and they lead to a very skewed representation politically.
Culturally-
I find US culture generally pretty abhorrent. While every country has shitty people, the US glorifies many of them. I'm not just talking about Trump, but also various celebrities. (I think even conservatives would agree with this point, at least).
I'm also visibly Cherokee/not quite white, so racism is a consideration (while still an issue in Europe/Canada, it's not got the same systemic structures in place that has half of their political system currently openly pandering directly to racists).
It'd also be easy for me to relocate as I have a master's, work in a fairly in-demand/essential and low-interest/boring job. I write programs for an American branch of a German reinsurance company currently. I'm already bilingual, but I'd rather not learn a third language, so CA or UK would be my first choices, with Germany as the most likely, and my second language is in the one country with a worse work/life balance and more hostile to immigrants than the US (Japanese).
Now, even if I didn't have family ties I probably wouldn't, for the following reasons -
I do feel some debt to the US for making me who I am today.
It would be an act of cowardice to flee rather than try to make positive changes. I'm very stubborn.
There are signs that the US may change for the better as the current generation of politicians loses power.
But I think there are very strong arguments to abandon the US, especially if remaining there would provide benefit to it. Slavery is still openly legal in the US? and nowhere else? OK, don't know about NOWHERE else. Was an exaggeration, probably. No 1st world country I know of, though. The 13th amendment specifically legalizes it as a punishment for crime. That's why prisoners can be forced to work for 30 cents an hour, well below minimum wage. edit - At least 5 states pay nothing for work by prisoners. With a few rare exceptions, regular prison jobs are still unpaid in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Texas. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ While they should receive pay, are the inmates forced to perform the jobs? Just curious. I also wouldnt necessarily equate prison labor to slavery. Not saying its right but theres levels to things and I dont think they are on the same tier. Depends on the prison/state. I know some will force prisoners into solitary or increase their sentence for being uncooperative if they refuse, which is perfectly legal for the prisons to do. (Specifically, you can find accounts of Texas forcing everyone to work by putting them in solitary. They leave them there for two weeks and only give them bread/water until they agree, and only ask every two weeks. They're left in solitary until they agree. In CA, they're allowed to work as a privilege that can be taken away). It's not chattel slavery (the kind practiced by the South prior to the 13th amendment, which is almost uniquely bad in history), but it's defined as "slavery or involuntary servitude" in the amendment. It's slavery in the states that don't pay, and involuntary servitude in the ones that do. It's not even a big money raiser federally - it only made 500$m in sales for the government in 2016. Mostly they make things like license plates or odds and ends for the army. States probably make more, but it's not exactly an easy thing to study. (source for the 500m number : www.economist.com(This isn't even touching on Erasme's point about being charged for things in prison. I think this is a newer strategy? While slavery in prison in the US in general isn't new).
Some dude probably sold it as a way around giving them money to work in the first place.
|
On July 09 2020 02:27 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 02:06 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
The population that mainly sees nation states with separate land and culture is slowly dying out though. Among younger Europeans, Europe is just a big playing field with different languages already. Certainly, there is still the question of how the division in wealth is being treated, but culturally, most of the nations will become highly interchangeable very soon. I don't know what the odds are, but the movement for more unity is growing as well. Different languages vs distant governments with very removed accountability are two very different things. You might imagine Poles that like the PiS platform being unwilling to let more of their legislative duties go to a transnational body for the sake of unity, even though they're comfortable learning more languages and embracing other cultures. Though I would guess that younger people don't mind closer unity and aren't as attached to nation state independence, I'd have to see actual representative polling to confirm it. Also, I have no idea if the movement for unity is growing, shrinking, or stalling. I think y'all had a nation leave in a surprise popular vote. I think a few countries were very unhappy with what Germany and the EU forced on them as regards financial burdens, and Italy elected a euroskeptic leader obviously opposed to closer union. These are just examples to show that the "movement for more unity is growing as well" certainly needs some evidence to prove, as regards stories reporting in the foreign press. Like I said, people love to only show the negative side of the discussion, all the people trying to be less European and more nation state. But this is a reaction to the culture of the majority shifting towards unity. Overall, there is no vocal push for integration of the nation states, but the public shifts towards it on it's own. That's why the right becomes so loud lately.
The trouble is that the evidence is the elections, and countries, and exit, as outlined, and you offer just your opinion with your name supporting it. If there’s some growth in unity movements, I’m going to need more than just your assertion that it’s happening, if you understand what I mean. For all I know, you’re in denial with what’s happening around you, and the forces for nation states (and status quo or less unity) are more dominant than I’m supposing here. If you were like some world renowned political scientist, I’d take more stock in your opinion without citation.
|
On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended.
I really cannot agree with those. While it would make sense in a european system since employees (or students) can choose their health insurance plan, since in the US, the employer provides the insurance contract, I cannot understand how employers are able to deny their employees/students legal coverage.
This basically skews even further the discrepancy in power between employer/employee, in such a manner that depending on who you work for, you can get LESS coverage for "belief reasons" of your employer.
I'd probably be fine with the religious school one, if it applied only to employees as choosing to work as, say, a teacher in a religious school means you are probably mostly from that same faith (then again, there are not ONLY teachers, also janitors etc, who do not have to partake in teaching), however it seems it also applies to the students, who are denied coverage.
Your assertion that they earned the "right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience" is completely twisting the facts. They are employing people to serve the poor, and they deny their employees the full extent of legal health coverage.
That other companies get a exemption and not them is not the point to me, it is probably the point of the ruling though. To me, no companies should be able to provide "less" coverage than what is required by law. No exemptions since the employer is the one who decides on the health insurance it provides to its employees. It's an unfair power.
It's not about your religious liberty, it's about denying other people rights under cover of your own freedom. It's imposing your beliefs unto others. One's freedom should not be to deny legal things to your neighbor/employee/whatever.
It should be important to note that it's not even only abortion the issue here. It's also the pill and other contraceptive methods that are not covered. Something that women often use to fix their hormone production level that otherwise lead to various health issues.
The right to NOT use that coverage would be enough religious or belief freedom. Why actively deny it to others ? Again, the root of the problem I have with religion and conservatism in America.
|
On July 09 2020 01:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
The population that mainly sees nation states with separate land and culture is slowly dying out though. Among younger Europeans, Europe is just a big playing field with different languages already. Certainly, there is still the question of how the division in wealth is being treated, but culturally, most of the nations will become highly interchangeable very soon. I don't know what the odds are, but the movement for more unity is growing as well.
I think the internet has played a big role in showing people we aren't nearly as different as we used to think. Societies had different starting points and differences in culture, but we're all pretty similar in the ways that matter. I'd also say the mere existence of the EU has been really good for global collectivism. A large group of very powerful countries forming a common union is really huge and cool. The US wanted to be a big collection of states for the same reason the EU was a good idea. Be huge, work together on a common goal, it will serve you well.
|
On July 09 2020 03:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:47 Broetchenholer wrote:
The population that mainly sees nation states with separate land and culture is slowly dying out though. Among younger Europeans, Europe is just a big playing field with different languages already. Certainly, there is still the question of how the division in wealth is being treated, but culturally, most of the nations will become highly interchangeable very soon. I don't know what the odds are, but the movement for more unity is growing as well. I think the internet has played a big role in showing people we aren't nearly as different as we used to think. Societies had different starting points and differences in culture, but we're all pretty similar in the ways that matter. I'd also say the mere existence of the EU has been really good for global collectivism. A large group of very powerful countries forming a common union is really huge and cool. The US wanted to be a big collection of states for the same reason the EU was a good idea. Be huge, work together on a common goal, it will serve you well.
And i agree with Broetchenholer here.
Culture definitively shifts. While most people still don't view themselves as primarily European over, for example, German, they do have a feeling of cultural connection. A lot of young people like to spend time in other European countries (especially since it is really, really easy to do this (well, without corona). You can just hop on a train, buy a pretty cheap ticket, and be in another country in a few hours. And since pretty much all young people speak English reasonably well throughout europe, you can just talk to people there. Cultural differences are quite often viewed as "This is a cool thing about this place", rather than something that really divides. At least that is how i perceive stuff, at least between western european nations. I think another generation or so, and it will be similar with eastern europe, once we get further away from the people who actually lived in a soviet regime. I don't think integration will happen over night, but i kind of view it as inevitable in the next century or so.
|
On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future.
What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter?
|
On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter?
My guess is that they don't view healthcare as a right, but basically as something an employer gifts to his employees out of the goodness of his heart, or possibly to entice better employees to be hired. So it is something that needs to be completely within the choice of the employer, and thus the employer is being forced to do something against his conscious by having to gift the bad reproductive healthcare to his employers.
As soon as you view healthcare as a right the workers have, the whole argument evaporates.
Also, know what an even better solution to this would be: Universal Healthcare. Suddenly the employer isn't even involved in the decision and isn't forced to do any things they object to. And the employees get good healthcare no matter where they are employed. Win-Win.
|
On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. The US assumes that positions of authority or power are intrinsically elevated or revered in some fashion. When you have a job, your employer is considered a PROVIDER, not just half of a relationship. In more conservative philosophies, it is similar to being a parent. You are granted this and that, not owed this and that based on your contributions. You are assumed to be FORTUNATE to have been given insurance, not owed as a matter of ethics. In short, conservatism just isn't at a point where healthcare is a human right. Because it isn't a human right, whatever your employer wants to give you, as a provider, is THEIR call to make, in the eyes of a conservative. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter?
|
On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter?
The US assumes that positions of authority or power are intrinsically elevated or revered in some fashion. When you have a job, your employer is considered a PROVIDER, not just half of a relationship. In more conservative philosophies, it is similar to being a parent. You are granted this and that, not owed this and that based on your contributions. You are assumed to be FORTUNATE to have been given insurance, not owed as a matter of ethics.
In short, conservatism just isn't at a point where healthcare is a human right. Because it isn't a human right, whatever your employer wants to give you, as a provider, is THEIR call to make, in the eyes of a conservative.
|
On July 09 2020 04:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter? My guess is that they don't view healthcare as a right, but basically as something an employer gifts to his employees out of the goodness of his heart, or possibly to entice better employees to be hired. So it is something that needs to be completely within the choice of the employer, and thus the employer is being forced to do something against his conscious by having to gift the bad reproductive healthcare to his employers. As soon as you view healthcare as a right the workers have, the whole argument evaporates. Also, know what an even better solution to this would be: Universal Healthcare. Suddenly the employer isn't even involved in the decision and isn't forced to do any things they object to. And the employees get good healthcare no matter where they are employed. Win-Win.
To be fair, doesn't germany also have some pretty outrageous laws for "religious" employers that can undercut worker protections/rights no other company can? Iirc it's just for certain, christian, church founded enterprises (hospitals?). Iirc they are allowed to discriminate against non-religious or other-religious employees?
|
On July 09 2020 04:20 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 04:01 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter? My guess is that they don't view healthcare as a right, but basically as something an employer gifts to his employees out of the goodness of his heart, or possibly to entice better employees to be hired. So it is something that needs to be completely within the choice of the employer, and thus the employer is being forced to do something against his conscious by having to gift the bad reproductive healthcare to his employers. As soon as you view healthcare as a right the workers have, the whole argument evaporates. Also, know what an even better solution to this would be: Universal Healthcare. Suddenly the employer isn't even involved in the decision and isn't forced to do any things they object to. And the employees get good healthcare no matter where they are employed. Win-Win. To be fair, doesn't germany also have some pretty outrageous laws for "religious" employers that can undercut worker protections/rights no other company can? Iirc it's just for certain, christian, church founded enterprises (hospitals?). Iirc they are allowed to discriminate against non-religious or other-religious employees?
Sadly, yes. There was a case about a doctor who got fired because he got a divorce and remarried, and the catholic church who owns the hospital he works in didn't like that.
A bit of googling says that the thing isn't done yet, but i absolutely agree that that is utter nonsense, and shouldn't be a thing. I can accept it for people involved in teaching the faith. A church does not have to hire an atheist priest. But for other people who are employed by the church, it is beyond absurd. Especially since churches are pretty involved in hospitals over here.
|
On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter?
The same way a gun subsidy from the employer would be different than a wage used to purchase a gun. I might have personal views against firearm ownership, but just offering a wage for honest work doesn’t put me in the position of actual supporting that purchase. Once you’ve paid the employee, a private system should say they have no business telling you what to buy with it. Once the choice has been made on behalf of the employer by law, the employer is absolutely involved. One involves putting a gun to their head and telling them that they will buy this for that individual, fuck their conscience, and the other involves no gun, no force, no involvement. The force here is a vital part.
|
Canada11372 Posts
On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter?
I think the argument goes as follows- If I pay you to do work, we have an exchange of your time for my money. Once the exchange is made, it is now your money and you could spend it on a great many things, some of which I might consider to be immoral. However, that's all your choice and nothing to do with me.
However, health insurance is paid for in part or in whole by my business- an ongoing service provided by the company, and one of those services provided is something the business owner considers to be heinous (and if we narrow it- aside from conservative Catholics and Quiver Full groups, the moral issue is usually over abortifacients, not contraceptives as a whole.) Consider flipping the issue around if your business insurance compelled you to have check boxes that could direct money to fund pro-life groups that protest around abortion clinics. Assuming you think protesting abortion clinics is wrong- would you also be resentful if the health insurance provided by your business was being directed there? Isn't it different from your employee takes their wages and donates it to said group? I think there is a distinction.
|
On July 09 2020 04:20 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2020 04:01 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 03:55 Dan HH wrote:On July 09 2020 01:51 Danglars wrote:On July 09 2020 01:34 Simberto wrote:On July 09 2020 01:20 Danglars wrote:The Becket legal fund, with its mission to defend religious liberty, is now 2-0 at the Supreme Court for the day. First, hopefully the end of nearly a decade of litigation as Little Sisters of the Poor win their right to serve the elderly poor while living according to their religious conscience. They are exempted from the Obamacare contraception mandate. Trump's HHS(&HRSA), like Obama's HHS, has the discretion to carve exemptions and define standards, since that's in the law. Thomas wrote the opinion for the 7-2 victory. https://twitter.com/BECKETlaw/status/1280867792682733569The second case involves whether employees of religious schools can sue their employer under employment discrimination law, or whether those lawsuits are barred by First Amendment protections. The court held that it is a matter of religious institution independence that courts should "stay out of employment disputes" and that the employees concerned were charged with "vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith." I'll just link the opinion for this case. These are two good victories after quite a few disappointments in prior days. I wish cases like a group of nuns or a Catholic religious school had their first amendment rights verified quickly, instead of being forced to fight for them through multiple levels of the court system. It's a good reminder that these rights aren't extended to all by default, no matter how many people here and elsewhere want to tell people that they support civil rights, but that they must be watched and defended. It is amazing how you can call "not providing effective healthcare to your employees" "religious freedom" instead. Being religious should not be a shortcut to avoid workplace regulations. Can i just start a religion which doesn't believe in paying taxes and then claim religious freedom to not pay taxes? It is absurd that religious laws apparently go above democratically legitimate laws. I don't really consider those laws as democratically legitimate, since first amendment religious liberty rights confer protections against whatever democratic majority thinks is a good idea at the time. It was illegitimate, and luckily 7 justices found it to be so. The citizens of the country need protections against government intrusion on their lives. Luckily, the US still has that in some respects. Looking a little deeper, Kagan and Breyer joined Alito for the school decision, and both concurred in judgement in the Little Sisters of the Poor decision. As far as the court's more liberal and more conservative justices go, this was a bipartisan win and really ought to be celebrated for convincing half the liberal justices in the justice of the petitioners' cause. Hopefully we get more 7-2 and not 5-4 decisions on this topic in the future. What's confusing about this to my non-American brain is how employees choosing to use their healthcare plan to obtain contraceptives is morally any different to them using their wage to obtain contraceptives from the point of view of the employer? In what way does the former make the employer more "complicit" than the latter? My guess is that they don't view healthcare as a right, but basically as something an employer gifts to his employees out of the goodness of his heart, or possibly to entice better employees to be hired. So it is something that needs to be completely within the choice of the employer, and thus the employer is being forced to do something against his conscious by having to gift the bad reproductive healthcare to his employers. As soon as you view healthcare as a right the workers have, the whole argument evaporates. Also, know what an even better solution to this would be: Universal Healthcare. Suddenly the employer isn't even involved in the decision and isn't forced to do any things they object to. And the employees get good healthcare no matter where they are employed. Win-Win. To be fair, doesn't germany also have some pretty outrageous laws for "religious" employers that can undercut worker protections/rights no other company can? Iirc it's just for certain, christian, church founded enterprises (hospitals?). Iirc they are allowed to discriminate against non-religious or other-religious employees?
Good to know. Unsuccessful in their fight at home, they double their ire for fights abroad? Not that German legal protections are very relevant to the American thread, but the stigma laid thick around here is how “advanced” Europe is socially, without many caveats given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
