Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Hobby Lobby

Macgreggor
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 5:14:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Federal law states that the government cannot place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The contraception requirement does not compel any employer to use any contraceptive methods, nor does it require them to adhere to, affirm, or abandon any particular belief. It merely requires for-profit employers to provide comprehensive health coverage so that their employees may then make their own decisions about whether or not to use contraception, according to their own individualized health and wellness needs.

By arguing the contrary, these business owners are using religious freedom to claim control over personal decisions of their employees' private lives. This argument falls apart if the political baggage associated with women's health is removed. If an employer refused on religious grounds to offer health insurance policies that covered children's vaccines or blood transfusions, for example, the vast majority of us would agree that a boss has no right to interfere in the basic, personal medical decisions of employees.

Furthermore, the lawsuits are based on the premise that for-profit corporate owners' religious beliefs, and the ability to freely exercise those beliefs, extend to the corporation they own. While the Supreme Court has at times given corporations certain rights normally enjoyed by persons -- the right to enter into a contract, the right to bring a lawsuit, and, infamously, the right to free speech under Citizens United -- corporations are not people. Corporations cannot vote. They cannot get married. They cannot run for office. For the purposes of this argument, they cannot pray.

The combination of extending a business owner's religious beliefs to a for-profit company and then using those corporate rights to discriminate against employees and customers who do not adhere to that religion could have implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act. Such a decision could give business owners a justification to impose their religion on their employees, skirt workplace protections and ignore anti-discrimination measures. Such a fundamental change to the principle of religious freedom would upend our basic sense of equality and fairness in the workplace and would be a constant threat to our personal rights and freedoms.

I don't know if I have missed the news, so is anyone up on the actual ruling? And if the ruling is for the Green's how do you think it will impact other aspects of situations in the work place that could be shrouded under the owners religion, not yours?
Mac
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 7:38:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wooo-hooo
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 9:19:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:14:46 AM, Macgreggor wrote:
Federal law states that the government cannot place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The contraception requirement does not compel any employer to use any contraceptive methods, nor does it require them to adhere to, affirm, or abandon any particular belief. It merely requires for-profit employers to provide comprehensive health coverage so that their employees may then make their own decisions about whether or not to use contraception, according to their own individualized health and wellness needs.

By arguing the contrary, these business owners are using religious freedom to claim control over personal decisions of their employees' private lives. This argument falls apart if the political baggage associated with women's health is removed. If an employer refused on religious grounds to offer health insurance policies that covered children's vaccines or blood transfusions, for example, the vast majority of us would agree that a boss has no right to interfere in the basic, personal medical decisions of employees.

Furthermore, the lawsuits are based on the premise that for-profit corporate owners' religious beliefs, and the ability to freely exercise those beliefs, extend to the corporation they own. While the Supreme Court has at times given corporations certain rights normally enjoyed by persons -- the right to enter into a contract, the right to bring a lawsuit, and, infamously, the right to free speech under Citizens United -- corporations are not people. Corporations cannot vote. They cannot get married. They cannot run for office. For the purposes of this argument, they cannot pray.

The combination of extending a business owner's religious beliefs to a for-profit company and then using those corporate rights to discriminate against employees and customers who do not adhere to that religion could have implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act. Such a decision could give business owners a justification to impose their religion on their employees, skirt workplace protections and ignore anti-discrimination measures. Such a fundamental change to the principle of religious freedom would upend our basic sense of equality and fairness in the workplace and would be a constant threat to our personal rights and freedoms.

I don't know if I have missed the news, so is anyone up on the actual ruling? And if the ruling is for the Green's how do you think it will impact other aspects of situations in the work place that could be shrouded under the owners religion, not yours?

I think it exposes the fact that employer provided heath care insurance, which is the golden standard in the US, does not give the individual choice nor does it provide the best care to the individual. It just needs to go away and this case then goes away.
Linkish1O2
Posts: 2,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 9:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 5:14:46 AM, Macgreggor wrote:
Federal law states that the government cannot place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The contraception requirement does not compel any employer to use any contraceptive methods, nor does it require them to adhere to, affirm, or abandon any particular belief. It merely requires for-profit employers to provide comprehensive health coverage so that their employees may then make their own decisions about whether or not to use contraception, according to their own individualized health and wellness needs.

By arguing the contrary, these business owners are using religious freedom to claim control over personal decisions of their employees' private lives. This argument falls apart if the political baggage associated with women's health is removed. If an employer refused on religious grounds to offer health insurance policies that covered children's vaccines or blood transfusions, for example, the vast majority of us would agree that a boss has no right to interfere in the basic, personal medical decisions of employees.

Furthermore, the lawsuits are based on the premise that for-profit corporate owners' religious beliefs, and the ability to freely exercise those beliefs, extend to the corporation they own. While the Supreme Court has at times given corporations certain rights normally enjoyed by persons -- the right to enter into a contract, the right to bring a lawsuit, and, infamously, the right to free speech under Citizens United -- corporations are not people. Corporations cannot vote. They cannot get married. They cannot run for office. For the purposes of this argument, they cannot pray.

The combination of extending a business owner's religious beliefs to a for-profit company and then using those corporate rights to discriminate against employees and customers who do not adhere to that religion could have implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act. Such a decision could give business owners a justification to impose their religion on their employees, skirt workplace protections and ignore anti-discrimination measures. Such a fundamental change to the principle of religious freedom would upend our basic sense of equality and fairness in the workplace and would be a constant threat to our personal rights and freedoms.

I don't know if I have missed the news, so is anyone up on the actual ruling? And if the ruling is for the Green's how do you think it will impact other aspects of situations in the work place that could be shrouded under the owners religion, not yours?

Since this says hobby lobby, I'll tell you my hobby, technology!!!!!
"I am a mystery and to unlock the mystery at my core, one must simply embrace slendermans hug with no fear."- me

"I hearby declare myself a phantom in the darkness."-me