Jump to content
goxfiles

Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case!

Recommended Posts

But why does/should this difference have legal significance?

Because the employer is not the only one with religious rights. 

 

Everyone here acts like finding a job is nothing. Like you can just quit and skip off into the sunset and find a job immediately if you want to, or start your own business because really, it's just that easy.

 

That's not how the world works. That's now how America is. If an employer says "You must follow these rules for no other reason than the fact that my religious says have to or you're fired", they're using the threat of unemployment to force people to adhere to a religion they do not agree with.

 

A business is not a person. Legally, the business and the business owner are two different, separate entities. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Nicine.

 

 

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?

 

Because that's what we as a society have decided. It's a social contract that we came together and made into a law. 

 

Of course, there are better ways. Again, universal healthcare would be a far superior thing to implement. But it is what it is. 

 

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?

 

Because those two scenarios aren't the same?

 

Do you think a employee should require that a buyer do certain things or dress a certain way based only on the employee's religion before they complete the sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see why employers wanting their employees to wear a religious dress code at a job is an issue. I think it's silly, but it's their business and their legal right to do if they wish without the federal government interfering.

 

But if a Muslim wanted their female employees to wear hijabs, if a Jew wanted their male employees to wear yarmulkes, or if an Amish or Mennonite wanted their female employees to wear Amish/Mennonite veils and their male employees to wear hats I don't see why the government should interfere. 

 

Not trying to start a debate. Just stating my opinion on were this has turned. If I needed a job badly enough I wouldn't mind wearing Amish/Mennonite veil and old fashioned dress. I wouldn't want people to think I was Muslim (or any religion other than Christian), but otherwise if I needed a job badly enough I wouldn't mind traditional Middle Eastern dress (Hijab with long shirt with pants underneath). It's not like your employee is dictating what you wear off the job.

 

 

You certainly can't fire someone for being gay

 

Unfortunately that's not true. In 29 states there's no against it. Firing a gay person from a secular job that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
Everyone here acts like finding a job is nothing. Like you can just quit and skip off into the sunset and find a job immediately if you want to, or start your own business because really, it's just that easy.

 

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure I already said it's really really hard.  From my company I have made, personally, roughly $12,000 over the past year and a half.  That's pretty much abject poverty, but I make it work.  I've been sued, stolen from multiple times, and I work 50-60 hour weeks regularly.  My company has grossed roughly $100,000-$130,000 in the same time span, but the rest of that money has gone to paying my employees (all of which, but my business partner, make more money than me), covering their insurance, covering expenses, etc.  It's really difficult to start your own company, but it's not impossible, and it's not some other employer's fault when you're not willing to put in the sacrifice of poverty for the short term, in exchange for a payoff at the end.  Likewise, most entrepreneurs take large investment and don't go the route I have.  With the right idea, you can get startup capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the employer is not the only one with religious rights.

And here's the issue: life is full of trade-offs. You can't always have everything, and no one is obligated to give you everything.So if you want or even need a particular job bad enough, you must be willing to take it on the employer's terms. You can set your own terms, but if they don't accept there will be no business done between the two.

 

Everyone here acts like finding a job is nothing. Like you can just quit and skip off into the sunset and find a job immediately if you want to, or start your own business because really, it's just that easy.

It doesn't matter how easy it is. No one is obligated to make your life easier by giving you employment with all the benefits you want.

 

That's not how the world works. That's now how America is. If an employer says "You must follow these rules for no other reason than the fact that my religious says have to or you're fired", they're using the threat of unemployment to force people to adhere to a religion they do not agree with.

But it doesn't matter. Jobs belong to the employer, and they should be free to give them to whoever they wish on mutually agreeable terms. If the employer doesn't like what the prospective employee's terms are, they should be allowed to reject them.

 

A business is not a person. Legally, the business and the business owner are two different, separate entities. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Nicine.

So?

 

Because that's what we as a society have decided. It's a social contract that we came together and made into a law.

I'm asking whether that was a good idea. Should society have done so? Why did we? I argue it was a bad idea, and it only happened because people feel entitled to stuff from other people.

 

Of course, there are better ways. Again, universal healthcare would be a far superior thing to implement. But it is what it is.

You keep bringing this up. Are you asking for the universal healthcare debate?

 

Because those two scenarios aren't the same?

Wait, which two scenarios aren't the same? Healthcare and housing? Why, from the standpoint of people with only a business relationship, should the obligations for each be any different?

 

Do you think a employee should require that a buyer do certain things or dress a certain way based only on the employee's religion before they complete the sale?

No, but that's because the employee does not own the product. The business (or business owner, depending on how you look at it) owns it. So they, not the employee, dictate the terms of the sale. If an individual wants to sell something he owns, he is legally 100% at liberty to only sell to people who act as he agrees with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the issue: life is full of trade-offs. You can't always have everything, and no one is obligated to give you everything.So if you want or even need a particular job bad enough, you must be willing to take it on the employer's terms. You can set your own terms, but if they don't accept there will be no business done between the two.

 

But you shouldn't have to. Why is the employer's "religious rights" enshrined in gold and crystal but if an employee doesn't agree, well, suck it up and deal with it, chump; you ain't owed s**t.

 

It doesn't matter how easy it is. No one is obligated to make your life easier by giving you employment with all the benefits you want.

 

Well, it's a good thing I never said that, huh?

 

 

But it doesn't matter. Jobs belong to the employer, and they should be free to give them to whoever they wish on mutually agreeable terms. If the employer doesn't like what the prospective employee's terms are, they should be allowed to reject them.

 

It absolutely does matter. The law says that businesses are obliged to offer healthcare and cannot discriminate. This decision made by the Supreme Court was not made because of any legal argument; it was made because the majority of the Justices are Catholic Republicans who care more about enforcing their religion and furthering their party's goals than the law.

 

 

So?

 

... So that's the whole point of this decision. 

 

I'm asking whether that was a good idea. Should society have done so? Why did we? I argue it was a bad idea, and it only happened because people feel entitled to stuff from other people.

 

It's really hard to write out an adequate response to you people calling this 'entitlement' when I'll getting in trouble for cursing.

 

 

Wait, which two scenarios aren't the same? Healthcare and housing? Why, from the standpoint of people with only a business relationship, should the obligations for each be any different?

No, the buyer and seller analogy. 

 

No, but that's because the employee does not own the product. The business (or business owner, depending on how you look at it) owns it. So they, not the employee, dictate the terms of the sale. If an individual wants to sell something he owns, he is legally 100% at liberty to only sell to people who act as he agrees with.

 

I'm gonna be really frank here; it really creeps me out how blase you are about people being discriminated against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's relevant to this debate, but every state has laws against firing people from secular job because of their religion (or lack religion).

 

I'm such an expert on discrimination laws (not really).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

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? 

I would be fine with him asking that, but none her doing it. I would never press a charge against the job, but I wouldn't be fine with her working there. It's his job. He owns it, his rules go for his employees. They did none of the work establishing what he owns, so if they don't enjoy the luxury of simply working for him or are personally against his rules, then they can go. Problem solved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be fine with him asking that, but none her doing it. I would never press a charge against the job, but I wouldn't be fine with her working there. It's his job. He owns it, his rules go for his employees. They did none of the work establishing what he owns, so if they don't enjoy the luxury of simply working for him or are personally against his rules, then they can go. Problem solved

Wow, everyone here has this really idealistic idea of the ease of finding a new job, huh? Just find a new job. Or just start a business. 

 

Right, because forcing people to adhere to your religious rules with the threat of unemployment in a bad economy is A++ problem solving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Wow, everyone here has this really idealistic idea of the ease of finding a new job, huh? Just find a new job. Or just start a business. 

 

Right, because forcing people to adhere to your religious rules with the threat of unemployment in a bad economy is A++ problem solving.

If corporations tried to force all their workers to enter their views than that would be a different story. Telling employees that you will not compromise your morals to adhere to their views and preferring to keep things at a middle-ground is the best way to do things without increasing hostilities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If corporations tried to force all their workers to enter their views than that would be a different story. Telling employees that you will not compromise your morals to adhere to their views and preferring to keep things at a middle-ground is the best way to do things without increasing hostilities

This isn't a middle ground. This is business owners forcing people to adhere to the rules of their religions. Is it a middle ground to allow some Christian Scientist business owner to refuse to provide any kind of healthcare coverage at all because that goes against his religion?

 

"I will not compromise my morals... because my morals are more important than your health and well being."

 

The best way to do things is to continue our society's general acceptance of the fact that business owners and businesses are not one at the same. Business corporations are a separate legal entity with lots of privileges and protections because of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is a corporation a person with religious rights? That it can no longer be granted the tax breaks and legal protections that it receives due to its status as a corporation. Is it a corporation? Then it's not a person with religious rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

This isn't a middle ground. This is business owners forcing people to adhere to the rules of their religions. Is it a middle ground to allow some Christian Scientist business owner to refuse to provide any kind of healthcare coverage at all because that goes against his religion?

 

"I will not compromise my morals... because my morals are more important than your health and well being."

 

The best way to do things is to continue our society's general acceptance of the fact that business owners and businesses are not one at the same. Business corporations are a separate legal entity with lots of privileges and protections because of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is a corporation a person with religious rights? That it can no longer be granted the tax breaks and legal protections that it receives due to its status as a corporation. Is it a corporation? Then it's not a person with religious rights.

Can they not receive contraceptives elsewhere? Requiring a job owner to shift the rules of his business would be going against his religious rights. So what do you do? Let job owners have their rights and own their businesses or force them to give their rights up to the people they have graciously hired? And again, I don't see your point in debates. You claimed prior that if the government deems something legal, it is perfectly correct. You made that clear. The government has deemed this legal, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"I will not compromise my morals... because my morals are more important than your health and well being."

They are when it's that person's business to run how they please. Who is an employee to tell their employer how to run his/her own business? No one, that's who.

Edited by God-Sent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

They are when it's that person's business to run how they please. Who is an employee to tell their employer how to run his/her own business? No one, that's who.

510ab88e18dd252a1594ff6c90236fff79856ec4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they not receive contraceptives elsewhere? Requiring a job owner to shift the rules of his business would be going against his religious rights. So what do you do? Let job owners have their rights and own their businesses or force them to give their rights up to the people they have graciously hired? And again, I don't see your point in debates. You claimed prior that if the government deems something legal, it is perfectly correct. You made that clear. The government has deemed this legal, right?

Wow, that's. Not even remotely what I "claimed".

 

You know, Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd read the posts I write instead of just ramble about whatever strawman you've decided to pin to me today. I think conversations between us would go better. I mean, I get it. You have zero respect for me and zero interest in anything I have to say, but is it even worth having a conversation if you just keep repeating the same "misunderstanding" when I've already explained what I meant?

 

Also, I'm pretty sure I speak for basically everyone when I say that it would be fantastic if you used your words instead of posting obnoxious reaction images any given thread. Some pictures are not, in fact, worth a thousand words. A screen shot from one of the stupidest shows on television today is one of them.

 

Especially when the reaction itself is not remotely accurate.

 

EDIT: You know what? I'm done. I'm done talking to you. It's not worth my time or frustration. This is the last time I'll respond to you at the very least for a very long while. I can't be bothered talking to someone who can't even be bothered to respond to what I actually say, and then ignore when I try to correct them. It's just not worth it, Mike.

Edited by Radical Edward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

Wow, that's. Not even remotely what I "claimed".

 

You know, Mike, I'd really appreciate it if you'd read the posts I write instead of just ramble about whatever strawman you've decided to pin to me today. I think conversations between us would go better. I mean, I get it. You have zero respect for me and zero interest in anything I have to say, but is it even worth having a conversation if you just keep repeating the same "misunderstanding" when I've already explained what I meant?

 

Also, I'm pretty sure I speak for basically everyone when I say that it would be fantastic if you used your words instead of posting obnoxious reaction images any given thread. Some pictures are not, in fact, worth a thousand words. A screen shot from one of the stupidest shows on television today is one of them.

 

Especially when the reaction itself is not remotely accurate.

 

EDIT: You know what? I'm done. I'm done talking to you. It's not worth my time or frustration. This is the last time I'll respond to you at the very least for a very long while. I can't be bothered talking to someone who can't even be bothered to respond to what I actually say, and then ignore when I try to correct them. It's just not worth it, Mike.

I'm sorry if I frustrated you. I know I've been known to skim replies in order to save time that CTF already cuts out of my schedule, and I should have noticed sooner that (as much as we were debating) I was missing parts of yours that must have made you feel like I wasn't even letting you defend yourself. I really liked hearing your opinions, and believe it or not I don't think badly of you. I regret us not being able to get along civilly and any time I did make you feel as though you were being treated unfairly. In all honesty, I feel rather attacked by you often, and treated disrespectfully as well. Sometimes I even end up avoiding CTF for the day to try and get around engaging myself in more conversation. Tonight I even tried writing a truthful response to this off and on, and it feels like my sanity's been drained from this whole thing. I really do apologize for any time I offended you, and agree that a break from debate would probably be best for both of us. I truly hope that one day we will get along better, and you'll learn to stomach my incessant meme posting :P (And in regards to that, yeah the Big Bang Theory is AWFUL.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very happy to hear the verdict of this Supreme Court case, but I'm sure we haven't heard the last of it.

 

What the Obama administration was forcing down everyone's throats was totally un-American, and un-Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those like myself, who need contraception for medical purposes, i.e., I have premenstrual dysphoric disorder, where I literally go absolutely crazy during my time, and my blood sugars get dangerously high. What about us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those like myself, who need contraception for medical purposes, i.e., I have premenstrual dysphoric disorder, where I literally go absolutely crazy during my time, and my blood sugars get dangerously high. What about us?

 

Two solid options:

* Sell your labor to another company willing to cover your needs. If you're a good worker, then it's Hobby Lobby's loss.

* Sell your labor to Hobby Lobby and use their rather generous hourly pay to purchase your own contraception.

 

My question for you is: imagine it was your business. Would you want to pay so you employees could have something you find morally atrocious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two solid options:

* Sell your labor to another company willing to cover your needs. If you're a good worker, then it's Hobby Lobby's loss.

* Sell your labor to Hobby Lobby and use their rather generous hourly pay to purchase your own contraception.

 

My question for you is: imagine it was your business. Would you want to pay so you employees could have something you find morally atrocious?

 

 

Excuse me, Morally atrocious? 

Contraceptives?

What?

 

O..k, I actually skimmed through this thread and the original post... you are being rather sincere aren't you nicene. You realize we're talking about medicine yes? Not rape or abuse or self harm?

 

(╹◡╹) what an absolutely dreadful response. 

Edited by JKAY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, Morally atrocious? 

Contraceptives?

What?

 

O..k, I actually skimmed through this thread and the original post... you are being rather sincere aren't you nicene. You realize we're talking about medicine yes? Not rape or abuse or self harm?

 

I didn't say whether contraception use is morally atrocious (that's a totally unrelated topic). But some people, such as conservative Catholics and a handful of conservative Protestants, believe that it is, thus it's a fair comparison to ask how someone else would feel about being forced to pay for something they regard in that way. This discussion is all about whether people should be forced to do/pay for things which they believe are wrong or evil. The question of whether something like contraception is wrong is another question altogether (although I do also think that it is, except for medical use).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

O..k, I actually skimmed through this thread and the original post... you are being rather sincere aren't you nicene. You realize we're talking about medicine yes? Not rape or abuse or self harm?

Well, if you are saying employers should have to provide contraceptives because of medical reasons, then logically they should also have to provide all the medicine the employee needs, otherwise that could be seen as discrimination. That could get very complicated and pricey. Or the employee could buy the stuff themselves with the money the employer gives them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say whether contraception use is morally atrocious (that's a totally unrelated topic). But some people, such as conservative Catholics and a handful of conservative Protestants, believe that it is, thus it's a fair comparison to ask how someone else would feel about being forced to pay for something they regard in that way. This discussion is all about whether people should be forced to do/pay for things which they believe are wrong or evil. The question of whether something like contraception is wrong is another question altogether (although I do also think that it is, except for medical use).

 

ok. Never mind then. Conservative Catholics/handful of conservative protestants are pretty sketchy. 

 

 

 

Well, if you are saying employers should have to provide contraceptives because of medical reasons, then logically they should also have to provide all the medicine the employee needs, otherwise that could be seen as discrimination. That could get very complicated and pricey. Or the employee could buy the stuff themselves with the money the employer gives them. 

 

If you're on salary you're getting some kind of health insurance anyways. I don't know why it should be some kind of legal battle to specify which medicine you're willing to pay for. There's a finite amount of money companies pay and it's not like it'd be more or less money than what they'd agree on for the coverage anyways.  I guess I just find the unwillingness to not be obtrusive about this morally atrocious. 

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

×