mostly just hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway
Debate Rounds (3)
the supreme court said that closely held corporations do not have to cover abortifacients and contraceptives.
it seems that most of the hype against it is put on. people are acting the way they are cause they are 'suppose' to to be 'good liberals'.
they argue things like 'so hobby lobby buys from china, who has woman who are forced to have abortions?'. this points out their hypocrisy. some might just be trying to point out their hyposrisy, but most seem to act as if it shows that the ruling was wrong or something.
they don't get much into substance.
when we look at substance, why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can' tforce their employers to do so? i can undersatnd that it's not always easy to make ends meet and such, but in the bigger picture, buying contraceptives is de minimis. why would someone want to force someone to violate their well gounded traditionally, religious beliefs fo somthing as trivial as that? and maybe there are public health concerns, as people wont buy birth control if it isn't free, and it cause sincreases in pegnancies and abortions. but this is a part of life. we shouldn't ask someone to have to violate their first amendment right even if there are bad social side effects that occur. it's as basic a right as it gets.
the most somone could argue, is it opens a slippery slope. but the thing is, we can always limit the decision to contraceptives and abortifacients. est way to approach the issue, is to treat it like they do kids drinking church wine despite drinking laws. it's just a well respected tradition, so they continue to respect it. same with funding birth control and abortifacients. the catholics shoudnt have to generaly fund it.
this 'categorical exception' would prevent so many slippery slopes, both for and against religious principles. that is, someone cant object to getting their kids vaccinated under religious reasons. and, the government can to some extent ask employers to violate their religious principles if they are way out of line, secular expectations and such. but we continue to respect genuine, sincere, at least traditional, religious beliefs.
I will not post my first argument here as it seems in your first post, you just gave some background information to the debate. I will post my first argument in the second round.
I look forward to a constructive debate! :)
Now, onto my argument...
A. "Good Liberals"
In your argument, you stated, "...people are acting the way they are cause they are supposed to be "good liberals." Number one, this is not a strong case for your stance at all. You cannot say such a statement just based on your belief. Relevant to what I stated above, arguments are based on facts, a good "back-and-forth" between the debaters, and allowing statistics, studies, etc. to support your beliefs.
B. "So, Hobby Lobby buys from China, who has women who are forced to have abortions."
Following that statement, you say that this, "points out their hypocrisy." May I ask, how, in any way, does this point out hypocrisy in the people who believe that this ruling was wrong? If anything, it points out the hypocrisy of the Green family. The Green family's main argument in the case was that being forced to cover employee's contraceptives and pills like the Plan-B pill, went against their religious traditions and beliefs where abortion and such things as, are wrong. But yet, they will allow themselves to buy from China, where, in fact, women are forced to have abortions, and the Green family has no problem with that. I would think that if the Green family were to abide by their religious traditions, they would not be buying from companies in China that force abortion upon women.
C. "Why would someone be mad that they have to buy their own birth control, and they can't force their employers to do so?"
This case involved Hobby Lobby and the Obama Administration. The workers of Hobby Lobby did not take Hobby Lobby to court. Hobby Lobby went to court with the Obama Administration because Obamacare would have Hobby Lobby pay for their employees' contraceptives, which in turn went against the Green families religious beliefs. This case was never about people being angry with Hobby Lobby.
The First Amendment also makes no mention of companies or industries. The First Amendment is in regards to an individual's rights. [http://www.law.cornell.edu...]
Also, this is a company that employs people of different religious beliefs. From Atheism to Catholicism. I had a debate on this awhile ago that is somewhat related. The debate was regarding why religious justifications must stay out of the legislation/law-making process. I made this same argument in that debate.
Being a company that employs people of different beliefs, they cannot use their personal religion to deny their employees coverage of contraceptives when many people within the company do not hold the same beliefs. At the same time, going against a measure, such as Obamacare, which is at least a step in the right direction. (I have not done much research on the whole Obamacare thing.) It really is, in my book, a mild form of oppression to their employees.
D. "...is it opens a slippery slope."
Once the Supreme Court has ruled on something like this, it is very hard to just limit the decision to contraceptives. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled on cases much like this one in the past and went against the religious side of things.
Read this article from Rachael Maddow...
"Rachel Maddow was dismayed by the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision on Monday.
The court ruled that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" corporations cannot be required to cover contraception for their employees if doing so would contradict religious beliefs. Maddow pointed to two cases where organizations cited religion as the basis of their business practices in the past, but the courts did strike those practices down.
One was the case of restaurant owner Maurice Bessinger, who believed that segregation was justified by the Bible. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to desegregate his Piggie Park restaurant chain. Years later, a federal appeals court also ruled that the Fremont Christian School in California could not withhold health benefits to their married female employees.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Monday was "very, very different" from those two other decisions, Maddow lamented Monday.
"The five members of the conservative majority voted that the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of a company"s employees " those are effectively overruled by the religious beliefs of the boss," she said. "The boss" religion determines what laws apply to his or her employees and his or her business, at least on this issue." [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...]
I will leave you with that for now.
the point about people being mad at hobby lobby i suppose con is tecincally correct about. but it's the point, why should anyone be mad about employers not being forced to violate their estalished religious beliefs for something they can take care of themselves.
con tries to argue that the first amendment doesn't make mention of companies. but it's established law by the court that corporations do have first amendment rights. the court said they are 'persons' and have those rights. but even if we didn't follow that reasoning, hobby lobby is a closely held company. they shoudn't be forced to give up their religious beliefs jus tbecause they want to incorporate. it's not like they are a huge corporation with the public as board membes whose only motive is to incrase the bottomline. which is an almost public entity.
to look at it any other way would be to use technicalites of a corporate entity against the busiess ownes to deprive them of their rights.
how is it a mild form of oppression? if it isn't right to ask a private enterprenaour to vioalte his rights if he's not a corporation, how is it right to ask a closely held corporation?
and it's not even like birth contol and such access is a real 'right'. it's never een been considered that until the obama adminstation passed the law within the law few years. con is asking us to use legislatively created "rights" to trump well established constitutional fundamental rights to religion. constituion always trumps laws.
con acts as if we should take the slippery slope to his favor. but hte slippery slope works both ways. on one hand, if we ruled against hobby lobby, it'd be taking the first amendment in a direction in which it has no meaning. but then again, we havepeople like parents who will argue that htey shouldn't have to vaccinate their kids. the only way to approach this is to treat it as a categorical exception. well establihsed traditional belifs should be respected, as the case is here. that doesn't mean that less traditional beliefs shouldnt be respected, as long as they are sincere and within a rigous respect for the belifs of the individual. someon wanting to segregate based on their beliefs of the bible, is simply going too far.
we have to draw lines like that some how. it's not always obviously consistent. it's more about keeping things within socially accepted boundaries. there's no othe way to measure these things. to act as if there is is to miss the point that the lippery slope works both ways and there can be no true bright line rules.
as to the last point. it is not really people's religious beliefs that they should have access to birth control. it is in no way framed that way cause that is not what is really happening. the employees mostly have secular and equitable concerns for wanting contraceptives and such.
and even if it was the boss's religion trumping hte employees, so what? it is the boss's company. one person's rights are going to have to triump. we shouldn't force the boss to lose when it's his company to begin with.
Laprlev forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.