Jump to content
goxfiles

Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case!

Recommended Posts

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? 

That is still not forcing beliefs upon the Muslim. Those classes that you refer of teach the history of the Bible and Christianity. If I were made to attend a class that taught Islam's history I wouldn't feel forced or obliged to believe in Islam. It's the same as arguing that a Muslim or Christian shouldn't be forced to take philosophy, because it's forcing the view of philosophers upon the person.

 

Learning history or philosophy does not force one to believe in what is being taught.

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is still not forcing beliefs upon the Muslim. Those classes that you refer of teach the history of the Bible and Christianity. If I were made to attend a class that taught Islam's history I wouldn't feel forced or obliged to believe in Islam. It's the same as arguing that a Muslim or Christian shouldn't be forced to take philosophy, because it's forcing the view of philosophers upon the person.

 

Learning history or philosophy does not force one to believe in what is being taught.

 

Are you kidding me? Seriously? I'm done. I'm done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? Seriously? I'm done. I'm done!

What would I be kidding you with? Have you studied the curriculum of classes that you speak of? It's "The Bible in History and Literature" which is a high school electives. An elective means that the student has the choice whether or no to attend such a class. I hardly see how teaching history and literature in the Bible forces beliefs upon a person.

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would I be kidding you with? Have you studied the curriculum of classes that you speak of? It's "The Bible in History and Literature" which is a high school electives. An elective means that the student has the choice whether or no to attend such a class. I hardly see how teaching history and literature in the Bible forces beliefs upon a person.

 

No no no. This was mandatory and in elementary school. And where I go to school, it's illegal for a teacher to teach any religion as it were true, which is what they were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no. This was mandatory and in elementary school. And where I go to school, it's illegal for a teacher to teach any religion as it were true, which is what they were doing.

Nonetheless teaching The Bible in History and Literature is not teaching that it is spiritually true. Even if they were though I wouldn't find it a problem  as that's how America's schools were founded. I'm stepping out of this aspect though as I don't want to derail the thread any further from the OP.

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

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.

 

My dad grew up in poverty in the hills of WV.  He'd sneak out to the kitchen at night, crunch crackers up in a bowl, and pretend he was eating soup as a child.  He's now a corporate architect.  My mom grew up on foodstamps on a farm where they had to borrow food from neighbors some winters.  She's now a school counselor.  I refuse to believe anyone is forced to work a specific job given their socio-economic leanings.  Especially in a day where the internet has brought at-home work to an all-time high.  Is it hard? HECK YES!  Is it impossible? No. Especially if you prayerfully seek God - He will always provide.  You may not become rich, but that's most often not the best thing for us anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonetheless teaching The Bible in History and Literature is not teaching that it is spiritually true. Even if they were though I wouldn't find it a problem as that's how America's schools were founded. I'm stepping out of this aspect though as I don't want to derail the thread any further from the OP.

Maybe the class she's speaking of is in some way not as this class is/ought to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad grew up in poverty in the hills of WV.  He'd sneak out to the kitchen at night, crunch crackers up in a bowl, and pretend he was eating soup as a child.  He's now a corporate architect.  My mom grew up on foodstamps on a farm where they had to borrow food from neighbors some winters.  She's now a school counselor.  I refuse to believe anyone is forced to work a specific job given their socio-economic leanings.  Especially in a day where the internet has brought at-home work to an all-time high.  Is it hard? HECK YES!  Is it impossible? No. Especially if you prayerfully seek God - He will always provide.  You may not become rich, but that's most often not the best thing for us anyway.

How about instead of thinking "If I can do it, anyone can!" how about thinking something like, "If I have to work this hard and go through this much crap just to make a decent living, where does that leave the people with less ability/opportunity/resources than me?"

 

Because you see, JAG, not everyone is JAG. You can "refuse" to believe whatever you like, but what you refuse to believe is, in fact, the reality for many, many people. You are not helping anyone by pretending like everyone's situation is exactly the same and all it takes is spit and elbow grease to succeed. That's not how the world works.

 

Facts are, this is ugly and dangerous, and it never would have passed if the majority of the Justices weren't conservative Republicans, or if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims. There is no legal justification for it. Businesses are not people, and there have been numerous cases that solidify this. Businesses and their owners are separate entities legally; you cannot pick and choose when they are separate and when they are the same. You cannot demand your business to be treated as a neutral corporation and then demand it be treated like a person. 

 

It's madness, but it's not the first time the majority in the Supreme Court has worked for their party's interest rather than the people's. It's just rather sad that people aren't seeing the very real issues that will arise from this, or think that these issues aren't issues at all and employees are just toys for employers to do with what they will.

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

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.

Don't be absurd, MY views on sex are not what matters here. It's the views of job owners. You have disregarded my last question: Is not personally offering something forcing others to go without it? If I decided not to give out free lunch at a hypothetical job I owned, would I be forcing the people there to never eat lunch; or would I be denying a luxury in my own workplace that I saw unfit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be absurd, MY views on sex are not what matters here. It's the views of job owners. You have disregarded my last question: Is not personally offering something forcing others to go without it? If I decided not to give out free lunch at a hypothetical job I owned, would I be forcing the people there to never eat lunch; or would I be denying a luxury in my own workplace that I saw unfit?

Why? Why do the views of the job owners matter more than mine, or someone else who doesn't agree with you or your awful ideas? 

 

As a hypothetical business owner refusing to cover contraceptives, you attempt to force others to go without it by making it difficult for those who cannot afford it to have it. By doing so, you attempt to force people to adhere to your views of sexual morality, blithely disregarding the fact that, frankly, you're views should mean squat.

 

If you refused to provide lunches to your workers by citing your Muslim faith and the fact that it was Ramadan, and many people relied on that free lunch to eat, then yes, I would accuse you of attempting to use your power to force your workers to adhere to your religious faith's rules.

 

Here's the deal: corporations are not people. Several cases have confirmed this. Corporations. Are. Not. People. If they were, things would be extremely, extremely different. Business owners have gone to court and gotten this confirmed: the owners and the businesses are separate legal entities.

 

You can't pick and choose when a corporation is and is not a person based on when it suits you.

 

And frankly, no. The job owners religious views don't matter in this case. They have their personal views and they can keep them and live their lives as they see fit, but it is absurd to believe that they can use them as an excuse to attempt to enforce their standards on their employees. I suppose you'd be fine with a Muslim employer forcing your fiancee to wear a hijab and paying her markedly less than you because women shouldn't be working and she's a harlot if she doesn't cover her face in front of men in public, according to Islam? 

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Why? Why do the views of the job owners matter more than mine, or someone else who doesn't agree with you or your awful ideas? 

 

As a hypothetical business owner refusing to cover contraceptives, you attempt to force others to go without it by making it difficult for those who cannot afford it to have it. By doing so, you attempt to force people to adhere to your views of sexual morality, blithely disregarding the fact that, frankly, you're views should mean squat.

 

If you refused to provide lunches to your workers by citing your Muslim faith and the fact that it was Ramadan, and many people relied on that free lunch to eat, then yes, I would accuse you of attempting to use your power to force your workers to adhere to your religious faith's rules.

 

Here's the deal: corporations are not people. Several cases have confirmed this. Corporations. Are. Not. People. If they were, things would be extremely, extremely different. Business owners have gone to court and gotten this confirmed: the owners and the businesses are separate legal entities.

 

You can't pick and choose when a corporation is and is not a person based on when it suits you.

 

And frankly, no. The job owners religious views don't matter in this case. They have their personal views and they can keep them and live their lives as they see fit, but it is absurd to believe that they can use them as an excuse to attempt to enforce their standards on their employees. I suppose you'd be fine with a Muslim employer forcing your fiancee to wear a hijab and paying her markedly less than you because women shouldn't be working and she's a harlot if she doesn't cover her face in front of men in public, according to Islam? 

 

His fiancé could work somewhere else if she had issues with wearing a hijab.  Seriously, why do you hate freedom so much? I only write that half-sarcastically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His fiancé could work somewhere else if she had issues with wearing a hijab.  Seriously, why do you hate freedom so much? I only write that half-sarcastically. 

Because not agreeing with using the threat of unemployment to force workers to adhere to their employers religious views is totally hating freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Because not agreeing with using the threat of unemployment to force workers to adhere to their employers religious views is totally hating freedom.

 

It's totally hating religious freedom, that's for sure.  Likewise it's hating free markets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's totally hating religious freedom, that's for sure.  Likewise it's hating free markets. 

How is it hating religious freedom? I am not trying to take away the business owner's religious rights after all, just not agreeing with the ridiculous (and markedly false) notion that businesses are people with religious rights. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but I don't agree that you are free to enforce those beliefs on your workers, regardless of what they believe.

 

Don't see how it's hating free markets either, though I certainly don't have the sparkle-and-gem encrusted view of capitalism that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

How is it hating religious freedom? I am not trying to take away the business owner's religious rights after all, just not agreeing with the ridiculous (and markedly false) notion that businesses are people with religious rights. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but I don't agree that you are free to enforce those beliefs on your workers, regardless of what they believe.

 

Don't see how it's hating free markets either, though I certainly don't have the sparkle-and-gem encrusted view of capitalism that you do.

 

Pretend you adhered to a made-up-religion called a 'Jessen' that was recognized nationally.  Now, your founder was a woman who survived an abortion, so one of the greatest tenants of your faith is to 'protect the unborn.'  At the same time, also pretend you ran a metal shop, and by doing so you were supporting your family and providing jobs for others to support families.  One day, the government tells you, though, that you're going to have to start subsidizing procedures/devices Jessen believers believe cause abortions after conception.  What would you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretend you adhered to a made-up-religion called a 'Jessen' that was recognized nationally.  Now, your founder was a woman who survived an abortion, so one of the greatest tenants of your faith is to 'protect the unborn.'  At the same time, also pretend you ran a metal shop, and by doing so you were supporting your family and providing jobs for others to support families.  One day, the government tells you, though, that you're going to have to start subsidizing procedures/devices Jessen believers believe cause abortions after conception.  What would you do?

My job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe, please explain to me why it is okay for businesses to have dress codes only as long as they have nothing to do with religion.

Also, businesses are allowed to fire people. They have no obligation to continue to give people jobs, so why should they be obligated to do more than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe, please explain to me why it is okay for businesses to have dress codes only as long as they have nothing to do with religion.

Also, businesses are allowed to fire people. They have no obligation to continue to give people jobs, so why should they be obligated to do more than that?

Because there's a difference between "We need you to look professional so wear a suit when you come into work" and "Women must cover every inch of their skin because to do otherwise is against the rules of my religion". 

 

They are allowed to fire people. For a good reason. If they fail to do their job properly, are negligent, etc. Not just willy nilly. Again, what you seem to be proposing is a return to the Industrial Revolution, when businesses were beholden to no one and the government set no standards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are allowed to fire people. For a good reason. If they fail to do their job properly, are negligent, etc. Not just willy nilly. Again, what you seem to be proposing is a return to the Industrial Revolution, when businesses were beholden to no one and the government set no standards.

 

 

Where do you work? Have you never heard of "At-Will Employment?" An employee can be fired without notice and/or reason at any time unless there is a contract involved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you work? Have you never heard of "At-Will Employment?" An employee can be fired without notice and/or reason at any time unless there is a contract involved.

 

Depends on the state, mate. 

 

You certainly can't fire someone for being gay, or black, or disabled though. They prove you're a discriminating putz and you're done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

My job.

 

You're a woman without conviction.  The same logic can be transplanted to if you followed a religion called 'Milk' and the government mandated you rat out all of the homosexuals working for you so they could be rounded up and sent to camps.  You'd just 'do your job.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180509/supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling

 

To wit:

 

 

 

On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday.

WOW WHAT A SHOCK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there's a difference between "We need you to look professional so wear a suit when you come into work" and "Women must cover every inch of their skin because to do otherwise is against the rules of my religion".

But why does/should this difference have legal significance?

 

They are allowed to fire people. For a good reason. If they fail to do their job properly, are negligent, etc. Not just willy nilly.

That's not really my point. My question is, if employers are not obligated to continue employing people, why should they be obligated to do a bunch of other stuff just because they are still employing them?

Again, what you seem to be proposing is a return to the Industrial Revolution, when businesses were beholden to no one and the government set no standards.

Not really. Some standards matter. But even if it should be the government who enforces these standards, not everything should be regulated. There is, for example, a difference between creating a hazardous workforce and just not doing random stuff for your employees that has nothing to do with work. For that matter, why should businesses have to pay for health insurance but not, say, rent? That's arguably a more fundamental need.

Here's another question: employment is a business transaction, a sale. Time for money. Now, most sales do not involve the buyer having obligations regarding the seller's personal life. So why should employment?

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

×