Jump to content
goxfiles

Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case!

Recommended Posts

Not doing something isn't forcing it. If you aren't giving out free food, are you forcing hunger on impoverished children? Yet if you force a Muslim to give pork to impoverished children, is that not forceful?

By deliberately denying people the means to prevent pregnancies, you attempt to force them to adhere to your beliefs on what is morally acceptable in sex. You want to deny people contraceptives to force them not to have sex. You've made this extremely clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hobby Lobby invests in Teva Pharmaceutical, a company that creates the Plan-B morning after pill and ParaGard which is a copper IUD. They also invest in Pfizer, a company that makes abortion inducing drugs known as Cryotec and Prostin E2. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby gets over 90% of it's stock from a country that has state funded abortions and has around 13 million abortions each year. Religious freedom was just a front they were using. The actual goal: Control over women. 

Even if it were about  religious freedom, the owners have a right to not get abortions or use contraceptives, but that does not mean they should be able to force that onto their employees. A company is not a living being. it can not have a religion. it is made of hundreds, thousands of people with their own ideologies working together to make the company thrive. everyone from the cashiers to the CEOs. each person with their own different idea about GOD or none at all. 

Edited by Crow Of Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the employer's religious rights supersede the employee's religious rights?

No, but employment is an agreement. Each side can set whatever conditions they wish, and if the other refuses to meet them the employment cannot go on. Besides, if it requires someone else's stuff (like their money) it's not a right. Neither side should be forced to meet conditions they are not willing to meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Hobby Lobby invests in Teva Pharmaceutical, a company that creates the Plan-B morning after pill and ParaGard which is a copper IUD. They also invest in Pfizer, a company that makes abortion inducing drugs known as Cryotec and Prostin E2. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby gets over 90% of it's stock from a country that has state funded abortions and has around 13 million abortions each year. Religious freedom was just a front they were using. The actual goal: Control over women. 

Even if it were about  religious freedom, the owners have a right to not get abortions or use contraceptives, but that does not mean they should be able to force that onto their employees. A company is not a living being. it can not have a religion. it is made of hundreds, thousands of people with their own ideologies working together to make the company thrive. everyone from the cashiers to the CEOs. each person with their own different idea about GOD or none at all. 

 

Extremist much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By deliberately denying people the means to prevent pregnancies, you attempt to force them to adhere to your beliefs on what is morally acceptable in sex. You want to deny people contraceptives to force them not to have sex. You've made this extremely clear.

Contraceptives were not denied only ones that can be considered an abortifacient. If 16 out of 20 isn't enough "shop" somewhere else. A person's sexual practices in general should not be their employers issue to take care of thus should not have to provide any contraceptives. Ironically, you keep appealing to the slippery slope fallacy by saying an employer can't make decisions based on morality yet the government can? 

 

 

That's what this opens the door for: Employers forcing their employees to follow their religion's dictates, regardless of whether or not their employees agree with it.

 

Employment in the U.S. is not forced upon people, therefore and employer is "forcing" nothing upon their employees. People here choose who they work for, thereby choosing whether you like the companies benefits or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a genuine question here (i.e. I'm sincerely curious about this, rather than looking for debate)?

 

I take the combined pill for a variety of reasons (heads up: it ain't about premarital sex). I get that free across the UK on the NHS, whether I'm at home in England or at uni in Scotland. Effectively the law of double effect comes into play: the intention is to treat and prevent other conditions with the combined pill, and a side effect of that is contraceptive protection. 

 

Does this ruling mean that employers can refuse to cover contraception (I'm not talking about Hobby Lobby in particular; more the precedent it sets) even when that medication isn't intended for contraceptive use? Say, for example, a Catholic who disagrees with contraception entirely.   

 

Or, to go further, does this mean that (as Mike suggested), employers can demand evidence from medical professionals as to the use of medication before they cover it (which surely goes against medical ethics and the idea of confidentiality)?

 

Just trying to get a clearer picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a genuine question here (i.e. I'm sincerely curious about this, rather than looking for debate)?

 

I take the combined pill for a variety of reasons (heads up: it ain't about premarital sex). I get that free across the UK on the NHS, whether I'm at home in England or at uni in Scotland. Effectively the law of double effect comes into play: the intention is to treat and prevent other conditions with the combined pill, and a side effect of that is contraceptive protection. 

 

Does this ruling mean that employers can refuse to cover contraception (I'm not talking about Hobby Lobby in particular; more the precedent it sets) even when that medication isn't intended for contraceptive use? Say, for example, a Catholic who disagrees with contraception entirely.   

 

Or, to go further, does this mean that (as Mike suggested), employers can demand evidence from medical professionals as to the use of medication before they cover it (which surely goes against medical ethics and the idea of confidentiality)?

 

Just trying to get a clearer picture. 

Technically no, but that is what the opposition of my side is attempting to claim. In essence, that's what is being debated, because Hobby Lobby only offers 16/20 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contraceptives were not denied only ones that can be considered an abortifacient. If 16 out of 20 isn't enough "shop" somewhere else. A person's sexual practices in general should not be their employers issue to take care of thus should not have to provide any contraceptives. Ironically, you keep appealing to the slippery slope fallacy by saying an employer can't make decisions based on morality yet the government can? 

What?

 

I do not appeal to the slippery slope fallacy, and I am pointing out that this law sets a precedent. This is something that many people, including Justice Ginsburg, have pointed out: this ruling sets a precedent for employers to be able to bypass, deny, and potentially require things of their employees based on the employers' religion, regardless of their employee's wishes and needs. 

 

Employment in the U.S. is not forced upon people, therefore and employer is "forcing" nothing upon their employees. People here choose who they work for, thereby choosing whether you like the companies benefits or not.

 

You speak from a place of privilege. Not everyone has job mobility and not everyone does "choose" who they work for. Some people take whatever job they can out of desperation, or are forced by necessity to take one job or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

You speak from a place of privilege. Not everyone has job mobility and not everyone does "choose" who they work for. Some people take whatever job they can out of desperation, or are forced by necessity to take one job or another.

 

This isn't true.  Everyone has the 'right' to choose where to work.  There is no slavery.  If a person doesn't have the 'means' to choose where they work, that's different, but it's certainly not barring.  Being 'forced by necessity' is not the same as by legality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't true.  Everyone has the 'right' to choose where to work.  There is no slavery.  If a person doesn't have the 'means' to choose where they work, that's different, but it's certainly not barring.  Being 'forced by necessity' is not the same as by legality.

Really? It's not true that not everyone has job mobility. It's not true that some people are forced to take jobs they don't like out of necessity and don't have much choice in what jobs they can take? 

 

If you have to choose between drinking Nickelodeon slime and drinking mud, is that a "choice" in the same way that if you had the choice between those and then milk, water, soda, whiskey...? No. 

 

I didn't say they were forced into slavery. I was saying that saying "Well, they chose that job, they must have lived the benefits" isn't accurate because these days, in this job market, people can't be choosy. There is a very large group of people who don't have the luxury of waving off a job because it doesn't have the benefits they would prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, guys. I don't want this thread to be closed. Please try to avoid the urge to go off topic, okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Really? It's not true that not everyone has job mobility. It's not true that some people are forced to take jobs they don't like out of necessity and don't have much choice in what jobs they can take? 

 

If you have to choose between drinking Nickelodeon slime and drinking mud, is that a "choice" in the same way that if you had the choice between those and then milk, water, soda, whiskey...? No. 

 

I didn't say they were forced into slavery. I was saying that saying "Well, they chose that job, they must have lived the benefits" isn't accurate because these days, in this job market, people can't be choosy. There is a very large group of people who don't have the luxury of waving off a job because it doesn't have the benefits they would prefer.

 

We're agreeing that times can be tough and you might feel forced to pick a specific job.  We disagree that you are, in actuality, forced to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hobby Lobby invests in Teva Pharmaceutical, a company that creates the Plan-B morning after pill and ParaGard which is a copper IUD. They also invest in Pfizer, a company that makes abortion inducing drugs known as Cryotec and Prostin E2. 

 

They may not be aware that those companies make abortifacients (there are sadly a lot of organizations that donate money to Planned Parenthood, do embryonic stem cell research, etc. that pro-lifers may be unaware of and donate money to). This article may help clear up confusion. http://www.snopes.com/info/news/hobbylobby.asp 

 

They may not be investing in those companies anymore (that report was from 2012) or they may still be unaware. But here's the thing I found Teva Pharmaceuticals is the largest pharmaceutical producer in the world. One in every eight prescriptions dispensed in the US is a Teva product. It's not like these companies are best known for making contraception or abortifacients. 

 

 Hobby Lobby gets over 90% of it's stock from a country that has state funded abortions and has around 13 million abortions each year. Religious freedom was just a front they were using. The actual goal: Control over women. 

 

That makes no sense. It makes about as much sense as someone in Chile (a country where abortion is never legal) saying a Chilean company isn't really pro-life, because it gets 90% of its stock from the US. Because in the US over a million abortions every year and it's in the top four countries in the world with the least restrictions on abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're agreeing that times can be tough and you might feel forced to pick a specific job.  We disagree that you are, in actuality, forced to do anything.

 

Ugh. You don't get what he's saying. There are millions of people with a highschool education or less that will only be employed by a few places, and most times only one place. They're basically slaves. They are subject to whatever their employer says because they have nowhere else to go. So their choice is to work there or be homeless. Yes, that's technically a choice, in the same way that giving a mugger your money is a choice. Either give him your money or die. Well is that really a choice? And as I've said before, freedom of religion necessitates the freedom from religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? It's not true that not everyone has job mobility. It's not true that some people are forced to take jobs they don't like out of necessity and don't have much choice in what jobs they can take? 

 

If you have to choose between drinking Nickelodeon slime and drinking mud, is that a "choice" in the same way that if you had the choice between those and then milk, water, soda, whiskey...? No. 

 

I didn't say they were forced into slavery. I was saying that saying "Well, they chose that job, they must have lived the benefits" isn't accurate because these days, in this job market, people can't be choosy. There is a very large group of people who don't have the luxury of waving off a job because it doesn't have the benefits they would prefer.

Yet why should one man's hardship make another man do what he believes he should not?

I also would ask again, what it is specifically about the employer-employee relationship that obligates one party to pay for the other's health, given that most relationships do not carry this obligation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet why should one man's hardship make another man do what he believes he should not?

I also would ask again, what it is specifically about the employer-employee relationship that obligates one party to pay for the other's health, given that most relationships do not carry this obligation?

Frankly, I don't know enough about the legal aspect to comment. I know that for whatever reason they are obligated (though again, I feel that America simply entering the 21st century and establishing some universal healthcare would fix this issue nicely), and I disagree that businesses are "people" and have the right to enforce their owner's religious doctrines and beliefs on the company as a whole.

 

Why should one's job be affected or put in jeopardy because of his employer's beliefs? What makes an employer's religious rights more important that their employees? In this job market, many people do not feel safe or comfortable quitting their jobs. This creates an environment where one would feel trapped in a job that they do not want for the sake of security, and surely being forced to adhere to religious ideals that they do not agree with to keep their job isn't right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't know enough about the legal aspect to comment. I know that for whatever reason they are obligated (though again, I feel that America simply entering the 21st century and establishing some universal healthcare would fix this issue nicely), and I disagree that businesses are "people" and have the right to enforce their owner's religious doctrines and beliefs on the company as a whole.[/i]

Regardless of whether businesses are people, their owners are, and it's a serious violation of liberty to force someone to subsidize a cause they don't believe in.

Why should one's job be affected or put in jeopardy because of his employer's beliefs? What makes an employer's religious rights more important that their employees? In this job market, many people do not feel safe or comfortable quitting their jobs. This creates an environment where one would feel trapped in a job that they do not want for the sake of security, and surely being forced to adhere to religious ideals that they do not agree with to keep their job isn't right.

But here's the kicker: it's not their job. The job belongs to the employer. He is the one shelling out cash for this work, and if he has deeply held convictions, he should not be forced to disregard them. Nor should he do so. There is no excuse for going against your own conscience.

The issue is that adding nonessential requirements to the employment agreement is necessarily an arbitrary restriction of liberty. People are not normally under legal obligation to pay for things anyone else needs, nor should they be. Certain relationships are different. Parents must provide for their children, and such. But that relationship is natural and permanent (normally speaking). Employment is accidental (that is, the relationship does not have to exist between any two people by nature) and usually temporary. It is quite presumptuous over people's normal right to property and liberty to make them pay for something to which they object and for someone to whom they have no meaningful connection. Now, legally speaking, they currently do have some of these obligations. Buy my point is that these areas inconsistent with the very concept of rights on which this legal system was founded. No rights were contracted which require the action of another party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Ugh. You don't get what he's saying. There are millions of people with a highschool education or less that will only be employed by a few places, and most times only one place. They're basically slaves. They are subject to whatever their employer says because they have nowhere else to go. So their choice is to work there or be homeless. Yes, that's technically a choice, in the same way that giving a mugger your money is a choice. Either give him your money or die. Well is that really a choice? And as I've said before, freedom of religion necessitates the freedom from religion.

 

Can you provide any statistics on the number of types of jobs one can procure with only a high school education?  I believe, in doing research, you will find it to be an extremely high number.  With all of that said, my girlfriend's dad never went to college and he owns a wine/liquor store, a casino/hotel, a resort, and a record label.  My uncle never went to college, but worked an apprenticeship as a pipe-fitter and now owns the company he started working at years ago. Entrepreneurship doesn't require a degree - it merely requires an idea, delayed gratification, and a great deal of persistence.  There's always a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I've said before, freedom of religion necessitates the freedom from religion.

 

This is the exact opposite of the First Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I disagree that businesses are "people" and have the right to enforce their owner's religious doctrines and beliefs on the company as a whole.

 

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the exact opposite of the First Amendment.

 

To be free to practice your religion you must be free from other religions forcing their views on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide any statistics on the number of types of jobs one can procure with only a high school education?  I believe, in doing research, you will find it to be an extremely high number.  With all of that said, my girlfriend's dad never went to college and he owns a wine/liquor store, a casino/hotel, a resort, and a record label.  My uncle never went to college, but worked an apprenticeship as a pipe-fitter and now owns the company he started working at years ago. Entrepreneurship doesn't require a degree - it merely requires an idea, delayed gratification, and a great deal of persistence.  There's always a choice.

 

Well where I live there isn't. Either you work for one of a handful of companies or you don't work. And if you live here, 9 times out of 10, you don't have the money to leave and find work elsewhere. Income is much lower than all the areas surrounding it but the prices are the same. I was lucky enough to be born t a family where my mum owns one of said businesses and I have the opportunity to leave but most of her workers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have no money to move and can't get a loan because they have such a low income. They have absolutely nowhere to go. I've seen it many times. And the sad thing is that their kids usually end up in the same position. They have no choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be free to practice your religion you must be free from other religions forcing their views on you.

Define "forcing their views on you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "forcing their views on you."

 

As an example, I know someone who grew up in the southern United States. He went to public school. There they had a class that taught about the bible and Jesus and all that. But there was one Muslim girl that had to just sit and listen when they did that. She was free to have her religion but she was not free from Christianity dominating the school. It was being ostracized because she was not the same religion. And this was not a Christian/Catholic school where this would be just fine. It was a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Is this right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example, I know someone who grew up in the southern United States. He went to public school. There they had a class that taught about the bible and Jesus and all that. But there was one Muslim girl that had to just sit and listen when they did that. She was free to have her religion but she was not free from Christianity dominating the school. It was being ostracized because she was not the same religion. And this was not a Christian/Catholic school where this would be just fine. It was a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Is this right?

Sad story, but how is it similar to this one? That might indeed qualify as forcing your religion on someone, but I'm not sure this is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×