(04-08-2014 03:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well for starters, humanistic based morality != religious based morality.

They're pretty darn close.

Quote:I doubt they support, say, restrictions on conflict diamonds because it is moral, but rather because it helps prevent the brutality associated with them.

Isn't that part of morality?

Quote:Also, I found this part of the article about Anthony Kennedy's question interesting: "Kennedy pointed out, Hobby Lobby’s view that it need not cover birth control would allow 'the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position. The employee may not agree with these religious beliefs of the employer.' Kennedy then asked: Do 'the religious beliefs just trump?' " Regardless of how you feel about the ACA and its mandates, why should a for-profit employer be allowed make a decision, based on religious values only, that will potentially burden its employees, especially if some employees don't have the same religious beliefs?

Because employee benefits are part of the job contract. If you don't want or value the benefits, don't take the job. You can certainly buy your own policy elsewhere... or alternatively buy coverage specifically for what is excluded.

It seems to me that there are certain things that are pretty obviously not universal, but only apply to certain segments of the population. Birth control and pre-natal care would be among them IMO. We can certainly debate that on percentages and numbers... and in industries that hire lots of people that need that care, that might be a reason to work for company a and not company b... or if you didn't need it and could choose to take a little more pay instead, that too would be an advantage.

In the best examples I can give, Medicare only covers about 50% of the costs associated with healthcare. A "silver' policy by most state exchanges is an 80/20 or 70/30 split and carries a few thousand dollar deductible (on top of that). These policies aren't free, even to people who don't pay the premiums...

It seems that having the ability to exclude something you don't need (say reproductive coverage for an older couple) in order to get something you do (a smaller deductible or copay) is just way too easy of a thing to quantify and allow... and will ultimately deliver better care... We act like this is rocket science and it is only math.

With regards to the morality discussion, yes, trying to prevent brutality is moral, but people are not supporting it so that they can say they are moral, they are supporting it for the outcome. jh made that comment about how it was odd that people would support that sort of morality, but not religious morality, and I was arguing that they are not equal moralities, they may overlap often, but not always.

Being moral at its core means distinguishing between right and wrong and doing the, subjectively, right thing. To me, and I would assume others, there is no morality behind trying to restrict access to these types of birth control because there are no good intentions behind these actions (this is not to say they are bad intentions). I say this because people who do not see this as a moral issue will most likely not believe that science has proven these methods to be abortofacients, or they will support the right to choose. Therefore, if people fall in one of these two camps, I believe it is very easy, from a moral perspective, to support an employer who provides fair trade coffee, and not support an employed like Hobby Lobby, simply because they don't believe in the moral argument of restricting contraception.

And with regards to the legality of the issue, we need to ignore whether or not you believe the ACA is good or right. It is the law as of now, and therefore we need to evaluate the merits of not covering these four contraception methods, rather than the merits of the ACA as a whole. Are you fine with your boss or a for-profit company deciding what parts of a law they can/will follow with impunity, so long as the reason is grounded in religion (in essence what Hobby Lobby is doing)?

(04-08-2014 03:37 PM)jh Wrote:  The government has already exempted numerous other employers from the contraception mandate, raising the obvious question about just how important the mandate really is.

Excellent point. There are so many exemptions to the ACA that to claim that it is a Constitutionally Protected right seems a but dubious to me. How can there be exceptions to a constitutional right BASED ON THE OFFENDER, NOT ON THE OFFENDED?? It violates a Hobby Lobby employees rights for them to exclude contraception, but it doesn't violate a Garden Ridge employees rights for them to just stop offering coverage altogether??

(04-08-2014 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:37 PM)jh Wrote:  The government has already exempted numerous other employers from the contraception mandate, raising the obvious question about just how important the mandate really is.

Excellent point. There are so many exemptions to the ACA that to claim that it is a Constitutionally Protected right seems a but dubious to me. How can there be exceptions to a constitutional right BASED ON THE OFFENDER, NOT ON THE OFFENDED?? It violates a Hobby Lobby employees rights for them to exclude contraception, but it doesn't violate a Garden Ridge employees rights for them to just stop offering coverage altogether??

Well, for this, I believe they are offering exemptions for religious non-profits only. And for them, they are basically allowing them to offer a third party provider for that portion of the coverage.

And with regards to dropping coverage, this ignores the crux of the issue, which is the motivation for the change. I don't know what Garden Ridge is, but I would assume they would only be able to stop offering coverage if they were less than 50 employees, and would be doing so for profit-motivated reasons, not religious. Context is everything.

I can't support corporations like Hobby Lobby in their efforts to limit contraception coverage in their health plans. I am not a fan of restricting Constitutional rights, but there are cases in which one person's exercise of a right has an adverse impact on another person's ability to exercise the same right (or other rights), and this is one of those cases. Maybe most people do not see limiting contraception coverage as a significant issue on its own, but where then is the point at which a corporation is guilty of discrimination and/or human rights violations? That is, what happens when corporations use a religious freedom argument to justify non-coverage of a yet wider range of medical claims (e.g., addiction counseling, Viagra prescriptions, vasectomies, HIV screening, vaccinations, and treatment of specific genetic conditions)?

Would Hobby Lobby even know what kind of claims its employees are submitting?

(04-08-2014 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And with regards to dropping coverage, this ignores the crux of the issue, which is the motivation for the change. I don't know what Garden Ridge is, but I would assume they would only be able to stop offering coverage if they were less than 50 employees, and would be doing so for profit-motivated reasons, not religious. Context is everything.

Wait wait wait...

You're arguing that MY Constitutional rights change based upon how big or religious or profitable the company I go to work for is? Constitutional Rights shouldn't have 'context'.

Do you really want the government deciding how much profit is 'too much' for a company? I'd be fine with a tax on profitable corporations to fund healthcare. I'm not fine with the government ORDERING 'certain' businesses to do THEIR job, and allowing others (not based on profitability) to be excluded.

(04-08-2014 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And with regards to dropping coverage, this ignores the crux of the issue, which is the motivation for the change. I don't know what Garden Ridge is, but I would assume they would only be able to stop offering coverage if they were less than 50 employees, and would be doing so for profit-motivated reasons, not religious. Context is everything.

Wait wait wait...

You're arguing that MY Constitutional rights change based upon how big or religious or profitable the company I go to work for is? Constitutional Rights shouldn't have 'context'.

Slow your roll, let's try to avoid this sort of sensational response and actual discuss something.

Which constitutional right do you feel has changed? And of course constitutional rights should have context. Freedom of speech does not apply when you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, or you commit slander/libel, and that is because of the context of the use of speech/text in both of those situations.

(04-08-2014 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:37 PM)jh Wrote:  The government has already exempted numerous other employers from the contraception mandate, raising the obvious question about just how important the mandate really is.

Excellent point. There are so many exemptions to the ACA that to claim that it is a Constitutionally Protected right seems a but dubious to me. How can there be exceptions to a constitutional right BASED ON THE OFFENDER, NOT ON THE OFFENDED?? It violates a Hobby Lobby employees rights for them to exclude contraception, but it doesn't violate a Garden Ridge employees rights for them to just stop offering coverage altogether??

Well, for this, I believe they are offering exemptions for religious non-profits only. And for them, they are basically allowing them to offer a third party provider for that portion of the coverage.

There are both secular and religious nonprofits, and that doesn't seem to cause any confusion. Why does changing from the tax reporting status of an organization from nonprofit to for profit change its ability to be a religious organization?

And if the administration could articulate a principled distinction, with at least some hook to the text of a relevant statute (ACA, RFRA, Dictionary Act, etc.), that would help clear up some of the confusion.

Quote:And with regards to dropping coverage, this ignores the crux of the issue, which is the motivation for the change. I don't know what Garden Ridge is, but I would assume they would only be able to stop offering coverage if they were less than 50 employees, and would be doing so for profit-motivated reasons, not religious. Context is everything.

But if receiving subsidized contraception is truly a statutory right, why does the motivation of the employer matter? Are you really saying that it is ok to put someone in a disadvantageous position to increase your profit margin but not because doing otherwise would violate a deeply held religious belief? Or is it just that the 50 person exception is built into the ACA? The counter to that is that the religious exemption is built into RFRA, which applies to all federal legislation unless specifically exempted.

(04-08-2014 04:31 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 03:37 PM)jh Wrote:  The government has already exempted numerous other employers from the contraception mandate, raising the obvious question about just how important the mandate really is.

Excellent point. There are so many exemptions to the ACA that to claim that it is a Constitutionally Protected right seems a but dubious to me. How can there be exceptions to a constitutional right BASED ON THE OFFENDER, NOT ON THE OFFENDED?? It violates a Hobby Lobby employees rights for them to exclude contraception, but it doesn't violate a Garden Ridge employees rights for them to just stop offering coverage altogether??

Well, for this, I believe they are offering exemptions for religious non-profits only. And for them, they are basically allowing them to offer a third party provider for that portion of the coverage.

There are both secular and religious nonprofits, and that doesn't seem to cause any confusion. Why does changing from the tax reporting status of an organization from nonprofit to for profit change its ability to be a religious organization?

And if the administration could articulate a principled distinction, with at least some hook to the text of a relevant statute (ACA, RFRA, Dictionary Act, etc.), that would help clear up some of the confusion.

Quote:And with regards to dropping coverage, this ignores the crux of the issue, which is the motivation for the change. I don't know what Garden Ridge is, but I would assume they would only be able to stop offering coverage if they were less than 50 employees, and would be doing so for profit-motivated reasons, not religious. Context is everything.

But if receiving subsidized contraception is truly a statutory right, why does the motivation of the employer matter? Are you really saying that it is ok to put someone in a disadvantageous position to increase your profit margin but not because doing otherwise would violate a deeply held religious belief? Or is it just that the 50 person exception is built into the ACA? The counter to that is that the religious exemption is built into RFRA, which applies to all federal legislation unless specifically exempted.

All of the issues that you are taking up are not arguments I am trying to make. I don't think profit vs. non-profit should matter, but it has been determined that it does, just the same as the 50 person exemption. IIRC, the profit vs non-profit has played out in other court cases and the distinction has been made in other laws.

If we are to debate the supreme court case at hand, we should do that, and not debate the rules that it is built upon, since those cannot change at the moment. Sure, there is merit to discuss that, but in the context of this case, the Supreme Court, having already upheld the ACA, will not likely change the 50 person exemption, or the profit vs. non-profit (but may for public vs private ownership).

(04-08-2014 04:14 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  I can't support corporations like Hobby Lobby in their efforts to limit contraception coverage in their health plans. I am not a fan of restricting Constitutional rights, but there are cases in which one person's exercise of a right has an adverse impact on another person's ability to exercise the same right (or other rights), and this is one of those cases. Maybe most people do not see limiting contraception coverage as a significant issue on its own, but where then is the point at which a corporation is guilty of discrimination and/or human rights violations? That is, what happens when corporations use a religious freedom argument to justify non-coverage of a yet wider range of medical claims (e.g., addiction counseling, Viagra prescriptions, vasectomies, HIV screening, vaccinations, and treatment of specific genetic conditions)?
Would Hobby Lobby even know what kind of claims its employees are submitting?

Hobby Lobby is not about the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, has already held that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the First Amendment even if they incidentally burden religion. In response, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that if a person can prove a statute is causing a substantial burden on their religion, then that statute cannot apply to them unless the government can prove they selected the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. Hobby Lobby is challenging the contraception mandate (primarily?) under RFRA, not the First Amendment.

So the corporation's right is not absolute, but must be balanced against the government's interests as well. In the case of discrimination or human rights violations the government will likely have a relatively easy time making their case. The more what Hobby Lobby wants to exclude from their insurance coverage exceeds the kinds of exemptions Congress or the Health Department have already created, the easier the government's case will be.

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to know what kinds of claims their employees are submitting. Their harm is in being forced to purchase insurance coverage including what they consider to be abortifactients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if any of their employees actually make use of the them.

(04-08-2014 04:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:14 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  I can't support corporations like Hobby Lobby in their efforts to limit contraception coverage in their health plans. I am not a fan of restricting Constitutional rights, but there are cases in which one person's exercise of a right has an adverse impact on another person's ability to exercise the same right (or other rights), and this is one of those cases. Maybe most people do not see limiting contraception coverage as a significant issue on its own, but where then is the point at which a corporation is guilty of discrimination and/or human rights violations? That is, what happens when corporations use a religious freedom argument to justify non-coverage of a yet wider range of medical claims (e.g., addiction counseling, Viagra prescriptions, vasectomies, HIV screening, vaccinations, and treatment of specific genetic conditions)?
Would Hobby Lobby even know what kind of claims its employees are submitting?

Hobby Lobby is not about the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, has already held that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the First Amendment even if they incidentally burden religion. In response, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that if a person can prove a statute is causing a substantial burden on their religion, then that statute cannot apply to them unless the government can prove they selected the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. Hobby Lobby is challenging the contraception mandate (primarily?) under RFRA, not the First Amendment.

So the corporation's right is not absolute, but must be balanced against the government's interests as well. In the case of discrimination or human rights violations the government will likely have a relatively easy time making their case. The more what Hobby Lobby wants to exclude from their insurance coverage exceeds the kinds of exemptions Congress or the Health Department have already created, the easier the government's case will be.

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to know what kinds of claims their employees are submitting. Their harm is in being forced to purchase insurance coverage including what they consider to be abortifactients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if any of their employees actually make use of the them.

This is the part that makes it interesting. Shouldn't it be regardless of what they consider, and be based solely upon what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers in this case? I've seen that there is serious disagreement about whether or not these means of contraception constitute abortifactients.

(04-08-2014 04:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:46 PM)jh Wrote:  Hobby Lobby doesn't have to know what kinds of claims their employees are submitting. Their harm is in being forced to purchase insurance coverage including what they consider to be abortifactients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if any of their employees actually make use of the them.

This is the part that makes it interesting. Shouldn't it be regardless of what they consider, and be based solely upon what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers in this case? I've seen that there is serious disagreement about whether or not these means of contraception constitute abortifactients.

Which would seem to suggest that Hobby Lobby's view is well within the realm of reason.

(04-08-2014 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  All of the issues that you are taking up are not arguments I am trying to make. I don't think profit vs. non-profit should matter, but it has been determined that it does, just the same as the 50 person exemption. IIRC, the profit vs non-profit has played out in other court cases and the distinction has been made in other laws.
If we are to debate the supreme court case at hand, we should do that, and not debate the rules that it is built upon, since those cannot change at the moment. Sure, there is merit to discuss that, but in the context of this case, the Supreme Court, having already upheld the ACA, will not likely change the 50 person exemption, or the profit vs. non-profit (but may for public vs private ownership).

You began our discussion by asking if it made sense for a for-profit corporation to be considered religious. This is a further illustration of why it does. The exemption for religious nonprofits in the ACA is based on agency action, not the text of the statute or the original ACA case. It has never been upheld by the Supreme Court and the Little Sisters of the Poor (real name) have a challenge to this exemption making its way through the courts right now. Nor has the Supreme Court has ever held that nonprofit and for-profit corporations are treated differently for free exercise purposes. If a nonprofit can be religious, it is very difficult to make a case that a for profit can't.

Furthermore, the exemptions in the statute, and those enacted by the agency, do matter in this case. The government has to have a compelling interest in having an employer subsidize its employees birth control purchases in order to defeat a RFRA claim. When the government is willing to grant exemptions to small employers or to religious nonprofits, it brings the importance of the mandate into question.

(04-08-2014 05:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:46 PM)jh Wrote:  Hobby Lobby doesn't have to know what kinds of claims their employees are submitting. Their harm is in being forced to purchase insurance coverage including what they consider to be abortifactients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if any of their employees actually make use of the them.

This is the part that makes it interesting. Shouldn't it be regardless of what they consider, and be based solely upon what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers in this case? I've seen that there is serious disagreement about whether or not these means of contraception constitute abortifactients.

Which would seem to suggest that Hobby Lobby's view is well within the realm of reason.

I don't believe the disagreement is within the scientific community, but within the general public. I can see how that was not clear, reading that again.

(04-08-2014 05:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:46 PM)jh Wrote:  Hobby Lobby doesn't have to know what kinds of claims their employees are submitting. Their harm is in being forced to purchase insurance coverage including what they consider to be abortifactients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if any of their employees actually make use of the them.

This is the part that makes it interesting. Shouldn't it be regardless of what they consider, and be based solely upon what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community considers in this case? I've seen that there is serious disagreement about whether or not these means of contraception constitute abortifactients.

Which would seem to suggest that Hobby Lobby's view is well within the realm of reason.

I would go ever further than RiceLad15. I believe these are generally recognized as not being abortifacients by the medical community. But when meaningful human life begins, and so whether or not a means of contraception that affects a fertilized egg induces an abortion, is a question that simply cannot be answered by science. It can only be left to individual conscience.

Congress did not have to enact RFRA. They did, however, and are now dealing with one of the consequences.

(04-08-2014 04:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And with regards to dropping coverage, this ignores the crux of the issue, which is the motivation for the change. I don't know what Garden Ridge is, but I would assume they would only be able to stop offering coverage if they were less than 50 employees, and would be doing so for profit-motivated reasons, not religious. Context is everything.

Wait wait wait...

You're arguing that MY Constitutional rights change based upon how big or religious or profitable the company I go to work for is? Constitutional Rights shouldn't have 'context'.

Slow your roll, let's try to avoid this sort of sensational response and actual discuss something.

Which constitutional right do you feel has changed? And of course constitutional rights should have context. Freedom of speech does not apply when you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room, or you commit slander/libel, and that is because of the context of the use of speech/text in both of those situations.

What 'roll' are you referring to? You seem to be arguing that my rights as a worker depend on YOUR situation as an employer?

You CAN yell fire in a crowded theater, IF there actually is one. You merely don't have the right to intentionally cause a panic when you know for a fact that one doesn't exist. That's about you and your rights being changed based on what YOU know. Not about MY rights changing based on YOUR situation. Yes, YOUR context changes YOUR rights.... but not mine.

Profitability is transient. Companies often make money one year and not the next. Your right to insurance doesn't/shouldn't change if my profitability changes.... and no exceptions exist based on profitability that I know of. My obligation to pay for your insurance might.... but not your right to it.

If Insurance isn't a right, then companies shouldn't have to offer it. If they don't have to offer it at all, they should be applauded for and not chastised for offering to cover ANYTHING.

If the government thinks people deserve it (whether it's a right or merely a sign of a 'good' society) then the government should offer it, and not try and regulate or bully companies into doing things against their own best interests... because invariably, companies will find ways to avoid paying for things they don't have to based on the exceptions that the government puts in place.

I am willing to accept either definition. What I'm not willing to accept is that the number of employees in an organization should impact your requirement to do something. The person who works for the 5000 employee company has the same opportunity to purchase insurance as the one who works for the 10 employee company with the same coverage and at the same price. If the company wants to offer or fund an alternative, they should be ENCOURAGED to, and not discouraged from doing it. If that policy doesn't include contraception for whatever reason the company decides not to include it... whether it be that they primarily employ men or older people or religion or to reduce costs and you need it, you buy the policy from the same place that the people who work for the 10 employee company do.... or take the company insurance and buy a supplemental policy for contraception alone if it is cheaper for you.

If your position is that you have a right to employee funded full coverage healthcare... then there shouldn't be any exemptions.

Ham, the roll I was talking about is your ability to take statements of mine, not my arguments of beliefs, and try to turn them into just that. In my original statement I made, I wasn't arguing to say that the size of the company, the profitability, etc should determine what rights someone had. Instead, I was stating what my assumptions were about the ACA exemptions and the justification for why I believed the exemptions could/couldn't occur based on the law, not whether or not it should have. How you went and turned that into me professing my beliefs is lost on me. If I had wanted to make that argument, I would have.

In talking about the number of employees determining your responsibility as an employer to provide something for your employee, this has president in laws such as the ADA and FMLA. So the idea that the ACA must be followed by businesses employees a number of employees above a certain threshold has been isn't new or controversial, since for the last 20 years, there has been a law on the books that requires a business larger than 50 employees to do something.

And with regards to rights and context, I'm glad you agree with me that Constitutional rights do have some context based on how they affect others. I just believe that we are looking at this situation from two different points of view. To me, I see a law that was passed, and upheld by the Supreme Court, and because of that I am more inclined to view Hobby Lobby as the person who is infringing upon the rights of their employees. They have been told that the law requires them to provide X, Y, and Z, but they are trying to infringe upon the rights of their employees, per the law that has been passed and upheld, by withholding preventative care for religious reasons, and I think employers should not force their employees to work/live a certain way because of their religious beliefs. If the labor market was truly open and everyone could work wherever they wanted, then perhaps it would be different, but there are more people than their are jobs, so I think it is best to try to force people to change their behavior based on religious ideas.

(04-08-2014 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And with regards to rights and context, I'm glad you agree with me that Constitutional rights do have some context based on how they affect others. I just believe that we are looking at this situation from two different points of view. To me, I see a law that was passed, and upheld by the Supreme Court, and because of that I am more inclined to view Hobby Lobby as the person who is infringing upon the rights of their employees. They have been told that the law requires them to provide X, Y, and Z, but they are trying to infringe upon the rights of their employees, per the law that has been passed and upheld, by withholding preventative care for religious reasons, and I think employers should not force their employees to work/live a certain way because of their religious beliefs. If the labor market was truly open and everyone could work wherever they wanted, then perhaps it would be different, but there are more people than their are jobs, so I think it is best to try to force people to change their behavior based on religious ideas.

But RFRA is also a law, passed by Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court when applied to federal laws. And RFRA provides a religious exemption to all laws passed by Congress, unless the law contains a clear statement saying that RFRA does not apply. Despite its prodigious length, the ACA does not include a statement exempting it from RFRA. If Hobby Lobby can meet the requirements of RFRA, and if the government cannot prove that the contraception mandate is the least restrictive method of meeting a compelling government interest, then their employees are not being denied anything they are entitled to.

You have said several times that the ACA was upheld by the Supreme Court. Only the individual mandate was upheld (as a tax). The Supreme Court actually struck down the medicaid/care (can't keep them straight) expansion as being too coercive and held that state's funding could not be conditional on state participation in the expansion. And there are several other challenges to the ACA still making their way through the courts, including a case that was argued in the DC Circuit on the same day as Hobby Lobby that would completely unravel the entire law. What's at issue in Hobby Lobby is a unique issue that is not implicated by the previous round of litigation at the Supreme Court.

Hobby Lobby is not trying to force anyone to change their behavior or live in a particular way. All they are doing is trying to avoid directly subsidizing medical treatments they find deeply offensive. Their employees are perfectly free to pay for the four objectionable methods of contraception on their own and there is no evidence that I am aware of suggesting Hobby Lobby has ever fired anyone for using birth control or even having an abortion.

(04-08-2014 08:16 PM)jh Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And with regards to rights and context, I'm glad you agree with me that Constitutional rights do have some context based on how they affect others. I just believe that we are looking at this situation from two different points of view. To me, I see a law that was passed, and upheld by the Supreme Court, and because of that I am more inclined to view Hobby Lobby as the person who is infringing upon the rights of their employees. They have been told that the law requires them to provide X, Y, and Z, but they are trying to infringe upon the rights of their employees, per the law that has been passed and upheld, by withholding preventative care for religious reasons, and I think employers should not force their employees to work/live a certain way because of their religious beliefs. If the labor market was truly open and everyone could work wherever they wanted, then perhaps it would be different, but there are more people than their are jobs, so I think it is best to try to force people to change their behavior based on religious ideas.

But RFRA is also a law, passed by Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court when applied to federal laws. And RFRA provides a religious exemption to all laws passed by Congress, unless the law contains a clear statement saying that RFRA does not apply. Despite its prodigious length, the ACA does not include a statement exempting it from RFRA. If Hobby Lobby can meet the requirements of RFRA, and if the government cannot prove that the contraception mandate is the least restrictive method of meeting a compelling government interest, then their employees are not being denied anything they are entitled to.

You have said several times that the ACA was upheld by the Supreme Court. Only the individual mandate was upheld (as a tax). The Supreme Court actually struck down the medicaid/care (can't keep them straight) expansion as being too coercive and held that state's funding could not be conditional on state participation in the expansion. And there are several other challenges to the ACA still making their way through the courts, including a case that was argued in the DC Circuit on the same day as Hobby Lobby that would completely unravel the entire law. What's at issue in Hobby Lobby is a unique issue that is not implicated by the previous round of litigation at the Supreme Court.

Hobby Lobby is not trying to force anyone to change their behavior or live in a particular way. All they are doing is trying to avoid directly subsidizing medical treatments they find deeply offensive. Their employees are perfectly free to pay for the four objectionable methods of contraception on their own and there is no evidence that I am aware of suggesting Hobby Lobby has ever fired anyone for using birth control or even having an abortion.

And this is exactly why we and the Supreme Court are having this debate. It is not cut and dry like each of us may try and portray it, and that's why in expecting another split decision.

(04-08-2014 07:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, the roll I was talking about is your ability to take statements of mine, not my arguments of beliefs, and try to turn them into just that. In my original statement I made, I wasn't arguing to say that the size of the company, the profitability, etc should determine what rights someone had. Instead, I was stating what my assumptions were about the ACA exemptions and the justification for why I believed the exemptions could/couldn't occur based on the law, not whether or not it should have. How you went and turned that into me professing my beliefs is lost on me. If I had wanted to make that argument, I would have.

It should have been obvious from the way I phrased it... "wait, wait wait... are you saying " that It appeared to me that you WERE arguing that so I asked for clarification.

I understood you to be arguing that it's okay to violate someone's rights for profit-motivated reasons, but not religious ones. It didn't make sense to me so I asked.

No 'roll' involved... merely a misunderstanding of the point you were trying to make.

Quote:In talking about the number of employees determining your responsibility as an employer to provide something for your employee, this has president in laws such as the ADA and FMLA. So the idea that the ACA must be followed by businesses employees a number of employees above a certain threshold has been isn't new or controversial, since for the last 20 years, there has been a law on the books that requires a business larger than 50 employees to do something.

Sure... just like requiring people who make more than a certain level to pay a higher percentage in taxes or to exempt people who have enough dependents....

But that isn't what I asked.

I was talking about someone's 'right to healthcare'. Not the company's obligation to deliver it under the law, but the individuals right to have it. The argument often made by the left is that this is an inherent right. If so, then there shouldn't be any exemptions whatsoever.

Quote:To me, I see a law that was passed, and upheld by the Supreme Court,

Well, sort of. Congress certainly CAN tax people to pay for healthcare (medicare) AND they can require businesses to do whatever they decide they want to...

But that doesn't make the right to healthcare a Constitutional one.

Quote:and because of that I am more inclined to view Hobby Lobby as the person who is infringing upon the rights of their employees.

And this is exactly what I am asking. To what right are you referring? When people use tis word, they are usually talking about a Constitutional right. I'm trying to find out if that is how you are using the word.

You go back and forth between infringing on rights and violating laws. Those aren't necessarily the same thing. Congress has passed a law. Congress has not created any 'right to healthcare' and the Supreme Court hasn't recognized one.

Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to do anything. You don't have to take their job at all, and if you do, you don't have to take their insurance. You can buy a different policy from the marketplace.

We're not talking about basic preventative care which virtually every policy in existence covers with a relatively low copay as you describe. Basic indemnity policies that covered preventative care and then catastrophic care are illegal under the ACA.

Why?

Many of those policies are actually BETTER for most people than some of these 60/40 policies.

And if you're a 50+ year old couple with no dependent children, why should you be FORCED to purchase contraceptive coverage that you will pay for for the next 30+ years and never ever use?

The only reason these things are being forced on us is because it allows the government to fund things through these taxes that it can't otherwise fund... and that is certainly legal and Constitutional...

But that doesn't make it right...

Nor does it mean that 'not wanting to do so' is violating some individual right. It does violate the law, but changing/challenging the law is the entire point.

What right would hobby lobby be violating if they were allowed to offer a limited insurance policy? How are some companies allowed to offer NO such policy, if to even offer a limited one is a violation of rights? COmpanies can be exempt from following laws... but they can be exempt from following the Constitution.

(04-08-2014 03:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  With regards to the morality discussion, yes, trying to prevent brutality is moral, but people are not supporting it so that they can say they are moral, they are supporting it for the outcome. jh made that comment about how it was odd that people would support that sort of morality, but not religious morality, and I was arguing that they are not equal moralities, they may overlap often, but not always.
Being moral at its core means distinguishing between right and wrong and doing the, subjectively, right thing. To me, and I would assume others, there is no morality behind trying to restrict access to these types of birth control because there are no good intentions behind these actions (this is not to say they are bad intentions). I say this because people who do not see this as a moral issue will most likely not believe that science has proven these methods to be abortofacients, or they will support the right to choose. Therefore, if people fall in one of these two camps, I believe it is very easy, from a moral perspective, to support an employer who provides fair trade coffee, and not support an employed like Hobby Lobby, simply because they don't believe in the moral argument of restricting contraception.

I'm not sure I understand. By saying that you don't consider this a moral decision, you seems to suggest that only people who agree with you, or at least closely enough with you, should be allowed to act on the basis of their moral beliefs. Distinguishing between right and wrong requires a standard. Religion provides one, but by no means the only, standard. Anytime you have differing standards you will have different results so there mere fact that there is disagreement about the proper result cannot determine whether a decision is morally based. I suspect you and I have very different moralities at the margin, yet based on this discussion you don't appear to be particularly religious and I am a godless heathen. Other than personal preference, what makes religion an inappropriate basis for making moral judgments?

If you are suggesting that Hobby Lobby opposes the four methods of birth control that they do simply so they can say they are being moral, I don't think that's fair to Hobby Lobby. They have very much distinguished between right and wrong and have fought all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure they can do the right thing. Hobby Lobby believes that meaningful human life begins when an egg is fertilized (a question beyond the scope of science) and is opposed to being forced to support anything that results in the destruction of a fertilized egg. It's hard to think of a better intention than avoiding the destruction of human life (perhaps those who believe that things like global warming or nuclear proliferation are grave threats to all life on the planet). Not wanting to be an active participant by funding an activity you find abhorrent is a very reasonable position.

I agree that people who disagree with that position are under no obligation to actively support Hobby Lobby and can boycott away if they so desire. There is also no contradiction between supporting fair trade coffee and opposing Hobby Lobby's policies, or even arguing that other considerations should overwhelm Hobby Lobby's free exercise rights in this case. But I do think there is a contradiction between expecting for profit corporations to practice fair trade and other moral behaviors while believing that for profit corporations cannot have religious beliefs. Saying that they are not acting morally in the sense that you disagree with their morals is one thing, but I don't see a basis for claiming that Hobby Lobby is not acting according to its own moral code simply because you, me, or anyone else disagrees with it.

Remember, the point of this part of the discussion is whether for profit corporations can act on the basis of religious beliefs. One of the government's arguments is that they simply cannot. This would mean that the context of RFRA excludes for profit corporations even though the Dictionary Act says that "person" typically includes corporations. Admitting that for profit corporations can act morally seriously undercuts this argument even if that morality is not based on religion.