by Ugh
The glorious U.S. Supreme Court will issue its decision in the Hobby Lobby case this morning around 10am. SCOTUSblog will have live coverage.
Hard to call this one. I can see 5-4 for the Hobby Lobby, or 5-4, maybe even 6-3 for the other side. More likely, given the various issues, it will be some sort of split between the two parties.
Feel free to discuss this or any other SCOTUS case/issue (will Ginsburg retire this summer?). The opinion on the recess appointment case that was being discussed in another thread is here. Overall, that one seemed reasonable to me.
UPDATE: Hobby Lobby wins 5-4, although not without some qualification (it seems). Opinion will eventually be posted here.
i’m thinking hobby lobby prevails, 5-4. and, from there, things will get weird.
we’ll see in a few minutes.
i’m thinking hobby lobby prevails, 5-4. and, from there, things will get weird.
we’ll see in a few minutes.
i’m thinking hobby lobby prevails, 5-4. and, from there, things will get weird.
we’ll see in a few minutes.
Weird is correct. This amicus brief spells out some interesting business issues (pp 2-3 for a summary, pp8-9 of the pdf).
Weird is correct. This amicus brief spells out some interesting business issues (pp 2-3 for a summary, pp8-9 of the pdf).
Weird is correct. This amicus brief spells out some interesting business issues (pp 2-3 for a summary, pp8-9 of the pdf).
I’m praying the Court rules against Hobby Lobby, but since I’m merely an individual conscience, not a corporate one, I expect to be ignored by the current made-up American Gods.
I’m praying the Court rules against Hobby Lobby, but since I’m merely an individual conscience, not a corporate one, I expect to be ignored by the current made-up American Gods.
I’m praying the Court rules against Hobby Lobby, but since I’m merely an individual conscience, not a corporate one, I expect to be ignored by the current made-up American Gods.
If Hobby Lobby wins a corporate right to religious convictions, I expect corporate management should be subject to in-your-face parking lot/sidewalk counseling with no buffer zones regarding their attitudes about birth control, as we kind of mix it up with all of these new sh*t laws.
I know the NRA and gun show attendees across the country aren’t going to like affectionate, open carry liberals getting up close and personal with AR-15s sans buffer zones for some quiet trigger warning words of counsel (through clenched teeth) regarding the former’s arming of the murderers of kindergarten fetuses and the adult fetuses who teach them.
It’s all going to come down very hard.
If Hobby Lobby wins a corporate right to religious convictions, I expect corporate management should be subject to in-your-face parking lot/sidewalk counseling with no buffer zones regarding their attitudes about birth control, as we kind of mix it up with all of these new sh*t laws.
I know the NRA and gun show attendees across the country aren’t going to like affectionate, open carry liberals getting up close and personal with AR-15s sans buffer zones for some quiet trigger warning words of counsel (through clenched teeth) regarding the former’s arming of the murderers of kindergarten fetuses and the adult fetuses who teach them.
It’s all going to come down very hard.
If Hobby Lobby wins a corporate right to religious convictions, I expect corporate management should be subject to in-your-face parking lot/sidewalk counseling with no buffer zones regarding their attitudes about birth control, as we kind of mix it up with all of these new sh*t laws.
I know the NRA and gun show attendees across the country aren’t going to like affectionate, open carry liberals getting up close and personal with AR-15s sans buffer zones for some quiet trigger warning words of counsel (through clenched teeth) regarding the former’s arming of the murderers of kindergarten fetuses and the adult fetuses who teach them.
It’s all going to come down very hard.
if Hobby Lobby wins, i’m going to invent a religion and claim my S-corp is dedicated to its precepts.
if Hobby Lobby wins, i’m going to invent a religion and claim my S-corp is dedicated to its precepts.
if Hobby Lobby wins, i’m going to invent a religion and claim my S-corp is dedicated to its precepts.
Apparently Alito wrote Hobby Lobby, so it seems they have won. No official word yet though.
Apparently Alito wrote Hobby Lobby, so it seems they have won. No official word yet though.
Apparently Alito wrote Hobby Lobby, so it seems they have won. No official word yet though.
SCOTUS blog says Hobby Lobby prevailed, 5-4.
Where’s my cookie?
Also on SCOTUS blog – the decision is very narrowly tailored. Only closely held corps can claim religious exemptions on the basis of freedom of religion.
There also appears to be language to the effect that the decision *only* addresses the contraception mandate – other covered medical procedures that might provoke a religious objection, such as transfusions or vaccinations, are *not* included in the decision.
I have no idea what possible legal basis there might be for not extending this to those, however. It’ll be interesting to see how the Supremes dance around that one.
In any case, IMO the next few years are likely to be good ones for attorneys who want to bring religious exemption cases.
SCOTUS blog says Hobby Lobby prevailed, 5-4.
Where’s my cookie?
Also on SCOTUS blog – the decision is very narrowly tailored. Only closely held corps can claim religious exemptions on the basis of freedom of religion.
There also appears to be language to the effect that the decision *only* addresses the contraception mandate – other covered medical procedures that might provoke a religious objection, such as transfusions or vaccinations, are *not* included in the decision.
I have no idea what possible legal basis there might be for not extending this to those, however. It’ll be interesting to see how the Supremes dance around that one.
In any case, IMO the next few years are likely to be good ones for attorneys who want to bring religious exemption cases.
SCOTUS blog says Hobby Lobby prevailed, 5-4.
Where’s my cookie?
Also on SCOTUS blog – the decision is very narrowly tailored. Only closely held corps can claim religious exemptions on the basis of freedom of religion.
There also appears to be language to the effect that the decision *only* addresses the contraception mandate – other covered medical procedures that might provoke a religious objection, such as transfusions or vaccinations, are *not* included in the decision.
I have no idea what possible legal basis there might be for not extending this to those, however. It’ll be interesting to see how the Supremes dance around that one.
In any case, IMO the next few years are likely to be good ones for attorneys who want to bring religious exemption cases.
Here is the opinion.
Here is the opinion.
Here is the opinion.
THIS could be an instance of exercising Constitutionally-protected corporate conscience, too, given the murderous new religion the Republican Party seems intent on shoving down our throats:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/blackwater-knocked-down-probe-by-threatening-to-kill-investigator
Look, yet more proof the Republican Party is transforming itself into Murder Incorporated in order to take better advantage of imaginary yet expansive corporate freedoms:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lepage-maine-sovereign-citizen
Notice again in that link, and the previous one, the threats of murder, as in the Cliven travesty, all by Republican operatives, gone unconfronted, unpunished, ignored, unlike the Skittles reach-around of our swarthier classes, which draws gunfire immediately from the privileged diapered classes of right-wing gun punditry.
They are going to love my fresh legal reasoning which holds that gunfire, especially the ra-a-tat-tat variety, is both money and speech protected by both the First and Second Amendments.
I know I could make that reasoning the law of the land, given the sh*thead small dicked riot of anti-American vermin we’ve stood by and allowed to seize this country’s institutions.
Like Dick Cheney, I believe cop-killer bullets are merely a conversational gambit, while bird shot is mere small talk, all Constitutionally-protected when and where and in whatever direction I choose.
We need a pussy riot of up close in your face, unbuffered concealed carry counseling with all of the above miscreants to put things right.
We should shoot our weapons into the air and consider the bullets to be the words of prayer, directed as petition at God’s bullet-proof vest.
THIS could be an instance of exercising Constitutionally-protected corporate conscience, too, given the murderous new religion the Republican Party seems intent on shoving down our throats:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/blackwater-knocked-down-probe-by-threatening-to-kill-investigator
Look, yet more proof the Republican Party is transforming itself into Murder Incorporated in order to take better advantage of imaginary yet expansive corporate freedoms:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lepage-maine-sovereign-citizen
Notice again in that link, and the previous one, the threats of murder, as in the Cliven travesty, all by Republican operatives, gone unconfronted, unpunished, ignored, unlike the Skittles reach-around of our swarthier classes, which draws gunfire immediately from the privileged diapered classes of right-wing gun punditry.
They are going to love my fresh legal reasoning which holds that gunfire, especially the ra-a-tat-tat variety, is both money and speech protected by both the First and Second Amendments.
I know I could make that reasoning the law of the land, given the sh*thead small dicked riot of anti-American vermin we’ve stood by and allowed to seize this country’s institutions.
Like Dick Cheney, I believe cop-killer bullets are merely a conversational gambit, while bird shot is mere small talk, all Constitutionally-protected when and where and in whatever direction I choose.
We need a pussy riot of up close in your face, unbuffered concealed carry counseling with all of the above miscreants to put things right.
We should shoot our weapons into the air and consider the bullets to be the words of prayer, directed as petition at God’s bullet-proof vest.
THIS could be an instance of exercising Constitutionally-protected corporate conscience, too, given the murderous new religion the Republican Party seems intent on shoving down our throats:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/blackwater-knocked-down-probe-by-threatening-to-kill-investigator
Look, yet more proof the Republican Party is transforming itself into Murder Incorporated in order to take better advantage of imaginary yet expansive corporate freedoms:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/lepage-maine-sovereign-citizen
Notice again in that link, and the previous one, the threats of murder, as in the Cliven travesty, all by Republican operatives, gone unconfronted, unpunished, ignored, unlike the Skittles reach-around of our swarthier classes, which draws gunfire immediately from the privileged diapered classes of right-wing gun punditry.
They are going to love my fresh legal reasoning which holds that gunfire, especially the ra-a-tat-tat variety, is both money and speech protected by both the First and Second Amendments.
I know I could make that reasoning the law of the land, given the sh*thead small dicked riot of anti-American vermin we’ve stood by and allowed to seize this country’s institutions.
Like Dick Cheney, I believe cop-killer bullets are merely a conversational gambit, while bird shot is mere small talk, all Constitutionally-protected when and where and in whatever direction I choose.
We need a pussy riot of up close in your face, unbuffered concealed carry counseling with all of the above miscreants to put things right.
We should shoot our weapons into the air and consider the bullets to be the words of prayer, directed as petition at God’s bullet-proof vest.
Apparently Ginsburg’s dissent (which she is reading aloud as I type) calls the majority a “decision of startling breadth”, though Kennedy says no.
Majority says: “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”
But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
Apparently Ginsburg’s dissent (which she is reading aloud as I type) calls the majority a “decision of startling breadth”, though Kennedy says no.
Majority says: “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”
But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
Apparently Ginsburg’s dissent (which she is reading aloud as I type) calls the majority a “decision of startling breadth”, though Kennedy says no.
Majority says: “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”
But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
Hm.
So: if I can demonstrate that a law — any law — is based solely on implicit, explicit, or otherwise made-up religious principles, am I free as an atheist to ignore it?
Restrictions against murder? Basic part of any social compact (commandments or no).
Blue laws regarding liquor sales on Sundays? 100% detritus based on the erstwhile beliefs of devotees of the cult of invisible magic sky carpenters (or so I am led to believe – and not even in their book, by the way). My [wholly imaginary] alcohol-purveying business should be free to blow off such laws completely.
No?
Hm.
So: if I can demonstrate that a law — any law — is based solely on implicit, explicit, or otherwise made-up religious principles, am I free as an atheist to ignore it?
Restrictions against murder? Basic part of any social compact (commandments or no).
Blue laws regarding liquor sales on Sundays? 100% detritus based on the erstwhile beliefs of devotees of the cult of invisible magic sky carpenters (or so I am led to believe – and not even in their book, by the way). My [wholly imaginary] alcohol-purveying business should be free to blow off such laws completely.
No?
Hm.
So: if I can demonstrate that a law — any law — is based solely on implicit, explicit, or otherwise made-up religious principles, am I free as an atheist to ignore it?
Restrictions against murder? Basic part of any social compact (commandments or no).
Blue laws regarding liquor sales on Sundays? 100% detritus based on the erstwhile beliefs of devotees of the cult of invisible magic sky carpenters (or so I am led to believe – and not even in their book, by the way). My [wholly imaginary] alcohol-purveying business should be free to blow off such laws completely.
No?
i suspect all the “conservatives” lauding this one will be singing a very different tune the first time a Muslim business tries to utilize it.
i suspect all the “conservatives” lauding this one will be singing a very different tune the first time a Muslim business tries to utilize it.
i suspect all the “conservatives” lauding this one will be singing a very different tune the first time a Muslim business tries to utilize it.
explain the logic here
what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?
explain the logic here
what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?
explain the logic here
what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?
Perhaps: “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”, isn’t saying those things are exempt, but just means they’ll arrive at the same decision for those other things too but you’ll have to get them here first. Basically its just a jobs program for high payed corporate lawyers?
Perhaps: “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”, isn’t saying those things are exempt, but just means they’ll arrive at the same decision for those other things too but you’ll have to get them here first. Basically its just a jobs program for high payed corporate lawyers?
Perhaps: “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”, isn’t saying those things are exempt, but just means they’ll arrive at the same decision for those other things too but you’ll have to get them here first. Basically its just a jobs program for high payed corporate lawyers?
As a taxpayer, the thought of Samuel Alito or his children receiving blood transfusions at my expense via the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan offends my religious sensibilities, newly convicted as a result of my interpretation of obscure verses in the Book of Dudewhatthef*ckaromney.
Exception should not be made for Cliven-connected militia members who show up at hospitals that receive federal monies with massive blood loss from gunshot wounds.
Further, religious convictions now direct me without buffering to protest allowing conservatives of all stripes to donate plasma, human organs, semen, and eggs (even if I need them) on account of the risk of transmitting the Republican virus into the Nation’s precious bodily fluids supplies.
As a taxpayer, the thought of Samuel Alito or his children receiving blood transfusions at my expense via the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan offends my religious sensibilities, newly convicted as a result of my interpretation of obscure verses in the Book of Dudewhatthef*ckaromney.
Exception should not be made for Cliven-connected militia members who show up at hospitals that receive federal monies with massive blood loss from gunshot wounds.
Further, religious convictions now direct me without buffering to protest allowing conservatives of all stripes to donate plasma, human organs, semen, and eggs (even if I need them) on account of the risk of transmitting the Republican virus into the Nation’s precious bodily fluids supplies.
As a taxpayer, the thought of Samuel Alito or his children receiving blood transfusions at my expense via the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan offends my religious sensibilities, newly convicted as a result of my interpretation of obscure verses in the Book of Dudewhatthef*ckaromney.
Exception should not be made for Cliven-connected militia members who show up at hospitals that receive federal monies with massive blood loss from gunshot wounds.
Further, religious convictions now direct me without buffering to protest allowing conservatives of all stripes to donate plasma, human organs, semen, and eggs (even if I need them) on account of the risk of transmitting the Republican virus into the Nation’s precious bodily fluids supplies.
what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?
ipso saidso.
“i suspect all the “conservatives” lauding this one will be singing a very different tune the first time a Muslim business tries to utilize it.”
Ya mean they won’t mind Sharia Law strictures regarding birth control even in states where they’ve made such law illegal?
what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?
ipso saidso.
“i suspect all the “conservatives” lauding this one will be singing a very different tune the first time a Muslim business tries to utilize it.”
Ya mean they won’t mind Sharia Law strictures regarding birth control even in states where they’ve made such law illegal?
what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?
ipso saidso.
“i suspect all the “conservatives” lauding this one will be singing a very different tune the first time a Muslim business tries to utilize it.”
Ya mean they won’t mind Sharia Law strictures regarding birth control even in states where they’ve made such law illegal?
As a form of non-buffered counseling in Hobby Lobby parking lots directed at the company’s execs and Board Of Directors regarding methods of contraception, I think I now have the constitutional latitude to let these fish do the talking:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Things-you-should-worry-about-but-probably-81903/photo-6017653.php
As a form of non-buffered counseling in Hobby Lobby parking lots directed at the company’s execs and Board Of Directors regarding methods of contraception, I think I now have the constitutional latitude to let these fish do the talking:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Things-you-should-worry-about-but-probably-81903/photo-6017653.php
As a form of non-buffered counseling in Hobby Lobby parking lots directed at the company’s execs and Board Of Directors regarding methods of contraception, I think I now have the constitutional latitude to let these fish do the talking:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Things-you-should-worry-about-but-probably-81903/photo-6017653.php
But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
IANAL, but the logic seems plain enough: corporations that are Christian — but only the right kind of Christian — have the same Constitutional rights as human beings. Christian human beings, I mean.
–TP
But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
IANAL, but the logic seems plain enough: corporations that are Christian — but only the right kind of Christian — have the same Constitutional rights as human beings. Christian human beings, I mean.
–TP
But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
IANAL, but the logic seems plain enough: corporations that are Christian — but only the right kind of Christian — have the same Constitutional rights as human beings. Christian human beings, I mean.
–TP
Doc Sci: But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
See pp45-49 of Alito’s opinion. Essentially, those cases aren’t before us and, further, there isn’t any evidence (before the court) that there will be challenges to, e.g., a vaccine mandate, even if there were there may be different government interests at stake and a mandate in those cases may in fact be a least restrictive means.
The last is rather rich because one of the examples the Court uses is that the government could just assume the cost! That, it seems, will always be the case for any religious objection.
Doc Sci: But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
See pp45-49 of Alito’s opinion. Essentially, those cases aren’t before us and, further, there isn’t any evidence (before the court) that there will be challenges to, e.g., a vaccine mandate, even if there were there may be different government interests at stake and a mandate in those cases may in fact be a least restrictive means.
The last is rather rich because one of the examples the Court uses is that the government could just assume the cost! That, it seems, will always be the case for any religious objection.
Doc Sci: But why? Dear lawyers, plz explain the logic here.
See pp45-49 of Alito’s opinion. Essentially, those cases aren’t before us and, further, there isn’t any evidence (before the court) that there will be challenges to, e.g., a vaccine mandate, even if there were there may be different government interests at stake and a mandate in those cases may in fact be a least restrictive means.
The last is rather rich because one of the examples the Court uses is that the government could just assume the cost! That, it seems, will always be the case for any religious objection.
“what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?”
Ipse dixit: “he, himself, said it”
“what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?”
Ipse dixit: “he, himself, said it”
“what’s Latin for “Because I Said So” ?”
Ipse dixit: “he, himself, said it”
Does this also mean that Hobby Lobby employees of a certain Native American religious persuasion may imbibe of peyote buttons while on the job, or is just one religion now established?
See Charles Pierce and his friend James Madison in the post now up, entitled “The Ladyparts Thing”.
Does this also mean that Hobby Lobby employees of a certain Native American religious persuasion may imbibe of peyote buttons while on the job, or is just one religion now established?
See Charles Pierce and his friend James Madison in the post now up, entitled “The Ladyparts Thing”.
Does this also mean that Hobby Lobby employees of a certain Native American religious persuasion may imbibe of peyote buttons while on the job, or is just one religion now established?
See Charles Pierce and his friend James Madison in the post now up, entitled “The Ladyparts Thing”.
Remember when Sandra Day O’Connor appointed Dubya president? That ruling, too, shamefacedly (or perhaps brazenly) purported to be “narrow”. “We rule that Dick and Dubya belong in the White House,” said the SCOTUS, “but don’t quote us”.
“Narrow” rulings can have enormous consequences, and anybody who pretends otherwise needs to review recent history. Except Justices of the Supreme Court, of course. You can’t teach them anything.
–TP
Remember when Sandra Day O’Connor appointed Dubya president? That ruling, too, shamefacedly (or perhaps brazenly) purported to be “narrow”. “We rule that Dick and Dubya belong in the White House,” said the SCOTUS, “but don’t quote us”.
“Narrow” rulings can have enormous consequences, and anybody who pretends otherwise needs to review recent history. Except Justices of the Supreme Court, of course. You can’t teach them anything.
–TP
Remember when Sandra Day O’Connor appointed Dubya president? That ruling, too, shamefacedly (or perhaps brazenly) purported to be “narrow”. “We rule that Dick and Dubya belong in the White House,” said the SCOTUS, “but don’t quote us”.
“Narrow” rulings can have enormous consequences, and anybody who pretends otherwise needs to review recent history. Except Justices of the Supreme Court, of course. You can’t teach them anything.
–TP
And so, Alito and his band of fellow Opus Dei memebers, decide that corporations can have religious belief.
In spite of universal agreement (including atheists) they have NO SOUL. They do not draw breath, they act in many places at the same time, yet exist no where in particular. They have no body, and do not speak but through the mouths of those they control. They have no natural lifespan, but are in principle immortal. Most are amoral, some are actively evil, a few may be beneficial.
So let me ask the following question: if you list the characteristics (as above) of a CORPORATION, and also the characteristics traditionally ascribed to a DEMON, is there not a large degree of overlap?
Alito et al should be excommunicated for worshiping and empowering DEMONS in our world.
And so, Alito and his band of fellow Opus Dei memebers, decide that corporations can have religious belief.
In spite of universal agreement (including atheists) they have NO SOUL. They do not draw breath, they act in many places at the same time, yet exist no where in particular. They have no body, and do not speak but through the mouths of those they control. They have no natural lifespan, but are in principle immortal. Most are amoral, some are actively evil, a few may be beneficial.
So let me ask the following question: if you list the characteristics (as above) of a CORPORATION, and also the characteristics traditionally ascribed to a DEMON, is there not a large degree of overlap?
Alito et al should be excommunicated for worshiping and empowering DEMONS in our world.
And so, Alito and his band of fellow Opus Dei memebers, decide that corporations can have religious belief.
In spite of universal agreement (including atheists) they have NO SOUL. They do not draw breath, they act in many places at the same time, yet exist no where in particular. They have no body, and do not speak but through the mouths of those they control. They have no natural lifespan, but are in principle immortal. Most are amoral, some are actively evil, a few may be beneficial.
So let me ask the following question: if you list the characteristics (as above) of a CORPORATION, and also the characteristics traditionally ascribed to a DEMON, is there not a large degree of overlap?
Alito et al should be excommunicated for worshiping and empowering DEMONS in our world.
To all the lawyers here, may I reiterate Dr S’s question:
What possible legal difference is there between contraception and vaccination? How can mandating one be legally permissable and mandating the other not?
To all the lawyers here, may I reiterate Dr S’s question:
What possible legal difference is there between contraception and vaccination? How can mandating one be legally permissable and mandating the other not?
To all the lawyers here, may I reiterate Dr S’s question:
What possible legal difference is there between contraception and vaccination? How can mandating one be legally permissable and mandating the other not?
Should B&H Photo, a closely held corporation owned by conservative Hasidic Jews, be required to observe the law when it comes to hiring and paying women?
The list could be quite long.
Closely held private companies in the US include Bechtel, Cargill, Publix, Pilot Corp (who in turn are part owners of Flying J truck stops), Deloitte Touche, Hearst, S.C. Johnson, Mars, and good old Koch Industries.
So, we’re not just talking about mom and pop operations.
Should B&H Photo, a closely held corporation owned by conservative Hasidic Jews, be required to observe the law when it comes to hiring and paying women?
The list could be quite long.
Closely held private companies in the US include Bechtel, Cargill, Publix, Pilot Corp (who in turn are part owners of Flying J truck stops), Deloitte Touche, Hearst, S.C. Johnson, Mars, and good old Koch Industries.
So, we’re not just talking about mom and pop operations.
Should B&H Photo, a closely held corporation owned by conservative Hasidic Jews, be required to observe the law when it comes to hiring and paying women?
The list could be quite long.
Closely held private companies in the US include Bechtel, Cargill, Publix, Pilot Corp (who in turn are part owners of Flying J truck stops), Deloitte Touche, Hearst, S.C. Johnson, Mars, and good old Koch Industries.
So, we’re not just talking about mom and pop operations.
Lemieux pretty much destroys the majority holding here.
Coupled with the Harris decision, the naked partisanship of this Court should be patently obvious to everybody. Hobby Lobby as Tony P. stated above, is merely following conservative precedent, i.e., “pulling it out of you ass” as established first in Bush v. Anything Remotely Resembling Principle.
I have no big problem with partisanship. Like the rending of garments over the death of the filibuster, one can only hope that when a Liberal majority is running things on the Court that they are as nakedly and viciously partisan as the current majority is, because they have demonstrated repeatedly that they could care less about principle.
Damn them to hell.
Lemieux pretty much destroys the majority holding here.
Coupled with the Harris decision, the naked partisanship of this Court should be patently obvious to everybody. Hobby Lobby as Tony P. stated above, is merely following conservative precedent, i.e., “pulling it out of you ass” as established first in Bush v. Anything Remotely Resembling Principle.
I have no big problem with partisanship. Like the rending of garments over the death of the filibuster, one can only hope that when a Liberal majority is running things on the Court that they are as nakedly and viciously partisan as the current majority is, because they have demonstrated repeatedly that they could care less about principle.
Damn them to hell.
Lemieux pretty much destroys the majority holding here.
Coupled with the Harris decision, the naked partisanship of this Court should be patently obvious to everybody. Hobby Lobby as Tony P. stated above, is merely following conservative precedent, i.e., “pulling it out of you ass” as established first in Bush v. Anything Remotely Resembling Principle.
I have no big problem with partisanship. Like the rending of garments over the death of the filibuster, one can only hope that when a Liberal majority is running things on the Court that they are as nakedly and viciously partisan as the current majority is, because they have demonstrated repeatedly that they could care less about principle.
Damn them to hell.
What possible legal difference is there between contraception and vaccination?
Alito would say that there (might) be a difference in the “least restrictive means” to accomplish the asserted government interest. So, for vaccinations, we need everyone vaccinated for public health reasons and to do that we have to mandate vaccination coverage!
What possible legal difference is there between contraception and vaccination?
Alito would say that there (might) be a difference in the “least restrictive means” to accomplish the asserted government interest. So, for vaccinations, we need everyone vaccinated for public health reasons and to do that we have to mandate vaccination coverage!
What possible legal difference is there between contraception and vaccination?
Alito would say that there (might) be a difference in the “least restrictive means” to accomplish the asserted government interest. So, for vaccinations, we need everyone vaccinated for public health reasons and to do that we have to mandate vaccination coverage!
Lemieux falls short before he gets started:
The owners of Hobby Lobby and the other litigants want to have it both ways, receiving the protections of a corporation when it comes to financial liability, but remaining individuals when it comes to the question of whether they have to comply with neutral legal requirements. This argument doesn’t make any sense. Or it does
Lemieux falls short before he gets started:
The owners of Hobby Lobby and the other litigants want to have it both ways, receiving the protections of a corporation when it comes to financial liability, but remaining individuals when it comes to the question of whether they have to comply with neutral legal requirements. This argument doesn’t make any sense. Or it does
Lemieux falls short before he gets started:
The owners of Hobby Lobby and the other litigants want to have it both ways, receiving the protections of a corporation when it comes to financial liability, but remaining individuals when it comes to the question of whether they have to comply with neutral legal requirements. This argument doesn’t make any sense. Or it does
Marty:
Cite/link? Lemieux links to his more detailed arguments, where are yours?
Marty:
Cite/link? Lemieux links to his more detailed arguments, where are yours?
Marty:
Cite/link? Lemieux links to his more detailed arguments, where are yours?
His argument is akin to: they want to paint their house red AND have running water, that doesn’t make any sense. Or it does. The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
His argument is akin to: they want to paint their house red AND have running water, that doesn’t make any sense. Or it does. The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
His argument is akin to: they want to paint their house red AND have running water, that doesn’t make any sense. Or it does. The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
There are religious groups that oppose vaccination. In the not too distant past that included the Roman Catholic Church. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists are just the best known ones that still keep to that. There was also once an almost universal (Christian) opposition to pain medication during child delivery (based on Genesis). I do not know which churches still keep that as part of the doctrine but there are individuals that do (including women and not just nuns).
There are religious groups that oppose vaccination. In the not too distant past that included the Roman Catholic Church. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists are just the best known ones that still keep to that. There was also once an almost universal (Christian) opposition to pain medication during child delivery (based on Genesis). I do not know which churches still keep that as part of the doctrine but there are individuals that do (including women and not just nuns).
There are religious groups that oppose vaccination. In the not too distant past that included the Roman Catholic Church. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists are just the best known ones that still keep to that. There was also once an almost universal (Christian) opposition to pain medication during child delivery (based on Genesis). I do not know which churches still keep that as part of the doctrine but there are individuals that do (including women and not just nuns).
for vaccinations, we need everyone vaccinated for public health reasons and to do that we have to mandate vaccination coverage!
Except, Ugh, that herd immunity will be sufficient to cover a couple of percent of the population not vaccinated. Provided everybody else is — and the number of people with religious (as opposed to scientific ignorance) objections to vaccination is not that large.
Contraception, in contrast, does not feature herd immunity. 😉 Which would actually seem to mean that there is a better case for a vaccination exemption than for a contraception one. Unless, apparently, one is Justice Alito.
for vaccinations, we need everyone vaccinated for public health reasons and to do that we have to mandate vaccination coverage!
Except, Ugh, that herd immunity will be sufficient to cover a couple of percent of the population not vaccinated. Provided everybody else is — and the number of people with religious (as opposed to scientific ignorance) objections to vaccination is not that large.
Contraception, in contrast, does not feature herd immunity. 😉 Which would actually seem to mean that there is a better case for a vaccination exemption than for a contraception one. Unless, apparently, one is Justice Alito.
for vaccinations, we need everyone vaccinated for public health reasons and to do that we have to mandate vaccination coverage!
Except, Ugh, that herd immunity will be sufficient to cover a couple of percent of the population not vaccinated. Provided everybody else is — and the number of people with religious (as opposed to scientific ignorance) objections to vaccination is not that large.
Contraception, in contrast, does not feature herd immunity. 😉 Which would actually seem to mean that there is a better case for a vaccination exemption than for a contraception one. Unless, apparently, one is Justice Alito.
More like Hobby Lobby wants to paint female employees red who require birth control and then disallow them from using the running water in the company bathrooms to wash the scarlet letters off.
Male employees may f8ck with impunity and spread or contract STDs and/or impregnate their partners no questions asked and I presume the health plan will cover the treatments, but their female counterparts must look elsewhere to protect themselves against either STDs or pregnancy, should they desire such protection, or is the company going to institute a pox check on employee medical visits?
It is still not clear to me if female employees whose doctors prescribe the various birth control methods for collateral medical purposes outside of preventing pregnancy are prevented from having those measures covered by the health plan.
More like Hobby Lobby wants to paint female employees red who require birth control and then disallow them from using the running water in the company bathrooms to wash the scarlet letters off.
Male employees may f8ck with impunity and spread or contract STDs and/or impregnate their partners no questions asked and I presume the health plan will cover the treatments, but their female counterparts must look elsewhere to protect themselves against either STDs or pregnancy, should they desire such protection, or is the company going to institute a pox check on employee medical visits?
It is still not clear to me if female employees whose doctors prescribe the various birth control methods for collateral medical purposes outside of preventing pregnancy are prevented from having those measures covered by the health plan.
More like Hobby Lobby wants to paint female employees red who require birth control and then disallow them from using the running water in the company bathrooms to wash the scarlet letters off.
Male employees may f8ck with impunity and spread or contract STDs and/or impregnate their partners no questions asked and I presume the health plan will cover the treatments, but their female counterparts must look elsewhere to protect themselves against either STDs or pregnancy, should they desire such protection, or is the company going to institute a pox check on employee medical visits?
It is still not clear to me if female employees whose doctors prescribe the various birth control methods for collateral medical purposes outside of preventing pregnancy are prevented from having those measures covered by the health plan.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
Wrong and basically irrelevant. They are related insofar as they bear on public policy. Plaintiffs argue they are both entitled to limited liability protection (which human persons cannot have as humans) and relief from an undue burden on their religious conscience (a property which corporations cannot have).
They basically want US to let THEM decide which hat they are entitled to wear and when it can be worn.
So tell me, are corporations “persons” with religious consciousness or legal fictions we grant special properties to in order to facilitate commerce?
You have to pick one. You can’t have it both ways.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
Wrong and basically irrelevant. They are related insofar as they bear on public policy. Plaintiffs argue they are both entitled to limited liability protection (which human persons cannot have as humans) and relief from an undue burden on their religious conscience (a property which corporations cannot have).
They basically want US to let THEM decide which hat they are entitled to wear and when it can be worn.
So tell me, are corporations “persons” with religious consciousness or legal fictions we grant special properties to in order to facilitate commerce?
You have to pick one. You can’t have it both ways.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
Wrong and basically irrelevant. They are related insofar as they bear on public policy. Plaintiffs argue they are both entitled to limited liability protection (which human persons cannot have as humans) and relief from an undue burden on their religious conscience (a property which corporations cannot have).
They basically want US to let THEM decide which hat they are entitled to wear and when it can be worn.
So tell me, are corporations “persons” with religious consciousness or legal fictions we grant special properties to in order to facilitate commerce?
You have to pick one. You can’t have it both ways.
“Male employees may f8ck with impunity and spread or contract STDs and/or impregnate their partners no questions asked and I presume the health plan will cover the treatments, but their female counterparts must look elsewhere to protect themselves against either STDs or pregnancy, should they desire such protection, or is the company going to institute a pox check on employee medical visits?”
I think women with std’s are also covered. The real question is if they object to male birth control. Will vasectomies be covered? Or is it more finite than even that, is birth control that precludes fertilization ok while after the fact birth control is not? What did we decide here?
“Male employees may f8ck with impunity and spread or contract STDs and/or impregnate their partners no questions asked and I presume the health plan will cover the treatments, but their female counterparts must look elsewhere to protect themselves against either STDs or pregnancy, should they desire such protection, or is the company going to institute a pox check on employee medical visits?”
I think women with std’s are also covered. The real question is if they object to male birth control. Will vasectomies be covered? Or is it more finite than even that, is birth control that precludes fertilization ok while after the fact birth control is not? What did we decide here?
“Male employees may f8ck with impunity and spread or contract STDs and/or impregnate their partners no questions asked and I presume the health plan will cover the treatments, but their female counterparts must look elsewhere to protect themselves against either STDs or pregnancy, should they desire such protection, or is the company going to institute a pox check on employee medical visits?”
I think women with std’s are also covered. The real question is if they object to male birth control. Will vasectomies be covered? Or is it more finite than even that, is birth control that precludes fertilization ok while after the fact birth control is not? What did we decide here?
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
Actually, that’s sort of the point.
They aren’t the same. Corporations are capable of owning property, engaging in commercial activity, entering into contracts, and otherwise doing things that potentially put them at risk of financial liability. That is why they were invented, and is why they exist.
They are not capable of exercising religion. The people who own a corporation are capable of doing so, the corporation itself is not.
The court has recognized such a capability in the corporation, because they say it’s not possible to distinguish between the corporation and its owners in the case of closely held corps.
The distinction is made quite crisply in the case of financial liability.
Hard to see how that is not having it both ways.
Except, Ugh, that herd immunity will be sufficient to cover a couple of percent of the population not vaccinated.
Maybe, maybe not.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
Actually, that’s sort of the point.
They aren’t the same. Corporations are capable of owning property, engaging in commercial activity, entering into contracts, and otherwise doing things that potentially put them at risk of financial liability. That is why they were invented, and is why they exist.
They are not capable of exercising religion. The people who own a corporation are capable of doing so, the corporation itself is not.
The court has recognized such a capability in the corporation, because they say it’s not possible to distinguish between the corporation and its owners in the case of closely held corps.
The distinction is made quite crisply in the case of financial liability.
Hard to see how that is not having it both ways.
Except, Ugh, that herd immunity will be sufficient to cover a couple of percent of the population not vaccinated.
Maybe, maybe not.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
Actually, that’s sort of the point.
They aren’t the same. Corporations are capable of owning property, engaging in commercial activity, entering into contracts, and otherwise doing things that potentially put them at risk of financial liability. That is why they were invented, and is why they exist.
They are not capable of exercising religion. The people who own a corporation are capable of doing so, the corporation itself is not.
The court has recognized such a capability in the corporation, because they say it’s not possible to distinguish between the corporation and its owners in the case of closely held corps.
The distinction is made quite crisply in the case of financial liability.
Hard to see how that is not having it both ways.
Except, Ugh, that herd immunity will be sufficient to cover a couple of percent of the population not vaccinated.
Maybe, maybe not.
Regarding vaccination, perhaps the long game in the developing conservative zombie apocalypse is to eventually outlaw vaccination mandates to prevent the rest of world’s population from protect itself against the spreading conservative pathogen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md6Dvxdr0AQ
Regarding vaccination, perhaps the long game in the developing conservative zombie apocalypse is to eventually outlaw vaccination mandates to prevent the rest of world’s population from protect itself against the spreading conservative pathogen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md6Dvxdr0AQ
Regarding vaccination, perhaps the long game in the developing conservative zombie apocalypse is to eventually outlaw vaccination mandates to prevent the rest of world’s population from protect itself against the spreading conservative pathogen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md6Dvxdr0AQ
No, bobbyp I don’t. The answer to both can be yes. In the case of the courts decision they specified companies where limited and identifiable individuals(closely held), people, held the ownership and make the decision. They can have the financial protection, provided to stimulate business formation, without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom, a fundamental right of persons in our country.
There is not one thing inherently contradictory in that.
No, bobbyp I don’t. The answer to both can be yes. In the case of the courts decision they specified companies where limited and identifiable individuals(closely held), people, held the ownership and make the decision. They can have the financial protection, provided to stimulate business formation, without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom, a fundamental right of persons in our country.
There is not one thing inherently contradictory in that.
No, bobbyp I don’t. The answer to both can be yes. In the case of the courts decision they specified companies where limited and identifiable individuals(closely held), people, held the ownership and make the decision. They can have the financial protection, provided to stimulate business formation, without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom, a fundamental right of persons in our country.
There is not one thing inherently contradictory in that.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
they certainly do.
when the owners of a company cause the company to do something, they are not acting as individuals. they are acting as employees of the corporation. that’s the entire point of a corporation – to create an entity that exists separate from the owners in order to shield the owners and investors from personal liability. a corporation is not the owner. the owner is not the corporation.
but, HL wants it both ways. they want to hide behind the corporation when it benefits them, and they want to be the corporation when that benefits them.
they’re a bunch of frauds.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
they certainly do.
when the owners of a company cause the company to do something, they are not acting as individuals. they are acting as employees of the corporation. that’s the entire point of a corporation – to create an entity that exists separate from the owners in order to shield the owners and investors from personal liability. a corporation is not the owner. the owner is not the corporation.
but, HL wants it both ways. they want to hide behind the corporation when it benefits them, and they want to be the corporation when that benefits them.
they’re a bunch of frauds.
The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.
they certainly do.
when the owners of a company cause the company to do something, they are not acting as individuals. they are acting as employees of the corporation. that’s the entire point of a corporation – to create an entity that exists separate from the owners in order to shield the owners and investors from personal liability. a corporation is not the owner. the owner is not the corporation.
but, HL wants it both ways. they want to hide behind the corporation when it benefits them, and they want to be the corporation when that benefits them.
they’re a bunch of frauds.
I suspect some religious conservatives dislike the word “mandate” because it sounds gay.
I suspect some religious conservatives dislike the word “mandate” because it sounds gay.
I suspect some religious conservatives dislike the word “mandate” because it sounds gay.
Also, Hobby Lobby included birth control in the past in their health plan and suddenly found it objectionable after it became mandatory. Cue Casablanca gambling reference.
Also, Hobby Lobby included birth control in the past in their health plan and suddenly found it objectionable after it became mandatory. Cue Casablanca gambling reference.
Also, Hobby Lobby included birth control in the past in their health plan and suddenly found it objectionable after it became mandatory. Cue Casablanca gambling reference.
without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom
hey nice can you opened up there. why just lookit all them worms!
without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom
hey nice can you opened up there. why just lookit all them worms!
without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom
hey nice can you opened up there. why just lookit all them worms!
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked. It does limit the liability in many areas, but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc. To ensure the survival of the company. As they get successful the company has the money, good for them.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked. It does limit the liability in many areas, but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc. To ensure the survival of the company. As they get successful the company has the money, good for them.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked. It does limit the liability in many areas, but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc. To ensure the survival of the company. As they get successful the company has the money, good for them.
Marty,
1. The Owners are not, legally, the corporation. The idea that a corporation should have “religious freedom” is simply nonsensical. See Cleek’s comment.
2. The Owners are not “unduly burdened” in any meaningful sense. See Cleek’s comment.
This holding is a farce on just about any level one choses to look at it. It is a nakedly political holding based on pure f*cking air (PFA).
Lemieux argues this persuasively.
Marty,
1. The Owners are not, legally, the corporation. The idea that a corporation should have “religious freedom” is simply nonsensical. See Cleek’s comment.
2. The Owners are not “unduly burdened” in any meaningful sense. See Cleek’s comment.
This holding is a farce on just about any level one choses to look at it. It is a nakedly political holding based on pure f*cking air (PFA).
Lemieux argues this persuasively.
Marty,
1. The Owners are not, legally, the corporation. The idea that a corporation should have “religious freedom” is simply nonsensical. See Cleek’s comment.
2. The Owners are not “unduly burdened” in any meaningful sense. See Cleek’s comment.
This holding is a farce on just about any level one choses to look at it. It is a nakedly political holding based on pure f*cking air (PFA).
Lemieux argues this persuasively.
They can have the financial protection, provided to stimulate business formation, without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom
The burden here is being required to pay for insurance that might be used by somebody to pay for a medical service that the Greens find objectionable.
Who is paying for the insurance?
The Greens?
They are, personally, cutting checks?
Another issue of interest here, raised by Charlie Pierce here, is the degree of subjective judgement required to decide what is, and is not, an undue burden.
So, for example, requiring the Greens to pay for insurance that somebody might use to pay for something they don’t like – an undue burden.
Expanding a ski resort onto land the Native Americans consider sacred – not an undue burden.
Transfusions and vaccinations, which conflict with the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists – not likely to be an undue burden.
Quakers who do not want to pay taxes for warmaking and other purposes they find abhorrent – not an undue burden.
How does the legal system pick and choose which beliefs deserve protection, without crossing the line into an establishment of religion?
RFRA for me, but not for thee.
They can have the financial protection, provided to stimulate business formation, without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom
The burden here is being required to pay for insurance that might be used by somebody to pay for a medical service that the Greens find objectionable.
Who is paying for the insurance?
The Greens?
They are, personally, cutting checks?
Another issue of interest here, raised by Charlie Pierce here, is the degree of subjective judgement required to decide what is, and is not, an undue burden.
So, for example, requiring the Greens to pay for insurance that somebody might use to pay for something they don’t like – an undue burden.
Expanding a ski resort onto land the Native Americans consider sacred – not an undue burden.
Transfusions and vaccinations, which conflict with the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists – not likely to be an undue burden.
Quakers who do not want to pay taxes for warmaking and other purposes they find abhorrent – not an undue burden.
How does the legal system pick and choose which beliefs deserve protection, without crossing the line into an establishment of religion?
RFRA for me, but not for thee.
They can have the financial protection, provided to stimulate business formation, without the imposition of an undue burden on their religious freedom
The burden here is being required to pay for insurance that might be used by somebody to pay for a medical service that the Greens find objectionable.
Who is paying for the insurance?
The Greens?
They are, personally, cutting checks?
Another issue of interest here, raised by Charlie Pierce here, is the degree of subjective judgement required to decide what is, and is not, an undue burden.
So, for example, requiring the Greens to pay for insurance that somebody might use to pay for something they don’t like – an undue burden.
Expanding a ski resort onto land the Native Americans consider sacred – not an undue burden.
Transfusions and vaccinations, which conflict with the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists – not likely to be an undue burden.
Quakers who do not want to pay taxes for warmaking and other purposes they find abhorrent – not an undue burden.
How does the legal system pick and choose which beliefs deserve protection, without crossing the line into an establishment of religion?
RFRA for me, but not for thee.
I have a financial, or perhaps logistical, question:
How does Greedco Insurance price a group policy for Religiocorp that excludes sinful meds, devices, or procedures? Greedco’s actuaries have worked up a group rate of $X/employee for garden-variety coverage. The god-botherer special will come to $X+/-epsilon per employee. What happens if epsilon is positive?
I say “if” but, knowing the ways of Greedco, “when” might be more accurate. It will be fun to see whether Religiocorp stands by its deep devotion to its faith, in that case.
–TP
I have a financial, or perhaps logistical, question:
How does Greedco Insurance price a group policy for Religiocorp that excludes sinful meds, devices, or procedures? Greedco’s actuaries have worked up a group rate of $X/employee for garden-variety coverage. The god-botherer special will come to $X+/-epsilon per employee. What happens if epsilon is positive?
I say “if” but, knowing the ways of Greedco, “when” might be more accurate. It will be fun to see whether Religiocorp stands by its deep devotion to its faith, in that case.
–TP
I have a financial, or perhaps logistical, question:
How does Greedco Insurance price a group policy for Religiocorp that excludes sinful meds, devices, or procedures? Greedco’s actuaries have worked up a group rate of $X/employee for garden-variety coverage. The god-botherer special will come to $X+/-epsilon per employee. What happens if epsilon is positive?
I say “if” but, knowing the ways of Greedco, “when” might be more accurate. It will be fun to see whether Religiocorp stands by its deep devotion to its faith, in that case.
–TP
I’d like to know what kind of hobbies Hobby Lobby thinks their female employees are up to in their free time.
I wonder if David Koresh, had he lived and opened armed temples throughout the Red States and then run for Congress, would have prevented his teenaged female acolytes from accessing birth control through his Waco for Wackos health plan?
Had the government mandated that the Jim Jones cult not fed cyanide to their flock during communion, which one would have outraged the religiously sensitive the most, the government mandate or the poisoning.
Or, instead, would Samuel Alito and company strike down the government’s mandate that the cost of the cyanide must be covered by the cult’s health plan because that was one step beyond the pale for Jones’ sensitive religious convictions, but it would be O.K. if cult members purchased the cyanide themselves to be used on their own time?
I’d ask him, but there is a 220-foot buffer zone between his neck and my hands, I mean, bullhorn.
I’d like to know what kind of hobbies Hobby Lobby thinks their female employees are up to in their free time.
I wonder if David Koresh, had he lived and opened armed temples throughout the Red States and then run for Congress, would have prevented his teenaged female acolytes from accessing birth control through his Waco for Wackos health plan?
Had the government mandated that the Jim Jones cult not fed cyanide to their flock during communion, which one would have outraged the religiously sensitive the most, the government mandate or the poisoning.
Or, instead, would Samuel Alito and company strike down the government’s mandate that the cost of the cyanide must be covered by the cult’s health plan because that was one step beyond the pale for Jones’ sensitive religious convictions, but it would be O.K. if cult members purchased the cyanide themselves to be used on their own time?
I’d ask him, but there is a 220-foot buffer zone between his neck and my hands, I mean, bullhorn.
I’d like to know what kind of hobbies Hobby Lobby thinks their female employees are up to in their free time.
I wonder if David Koresh, had he lived and opened armed temples throughout the Red States and then run for Congress, would have prevented his teenaged female acolytes from accessing birth control through his Waco for Wackos health plan?
Had the government mandated that the Jim Jones cult not fed cyanide to their flock during communion, which one would have outraged the religiously sensitive the most, the government mandate or the poisoning.
Or, instead, would Samuel Alito and company strike down the government’s mandate that the cost of the cyanide must be covered by the cult’s health plan because that was one step beyond the pale for Jones’ sensitive religious convictions, but it would be O.K. if cult members purchased the cyanide themselves to be used on their own time?
I’d ask him, but there is a 220-foot buffer zone between his neck and my hands, I mean, bullhorn.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked.
Also not to go too tangential, but you are conflating different kinds of financial risk.
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case is that the court has found that the Greens’ personal religious scruples must be recognized in the corporation they own. The corporation, because it is closely held, somehow inherits their 1st A rights of free exercise of religion.
The right is being recognized *in the corporation*, not in the Greens. There was never any question of the Greens’ *personal* right of free exercise.
To my knowledge, that right has not been recognized in for-profit corporations before. My understanding is that there is a significant body of law that has found the opposite.
That’s the novelty.
It’s going to be a big ugly mess sorting it out, and doing so is going to involve a lot of extremely fine hair-splitting to decide what religions deserve protection, what activities constitute an expression or exercise of that religion, how much of a burden is too much, and exactly how strong of a state interest is required to tip the scale.
None of that is going to be clean black letter law. It’s going to be every kind of squirrelly subjective BS you can imagine.
And IMVHO it’s going to be inherently impossible for the state and the courts to engage in that squirrelly subjective BS without crossing the line into establishment of religion.
Some practices will be granted exemptions, from who knows what kinds of laws, and other practices will be considered simply too fringe-y and woo-woo to get equal treatment.
Birth control – undue burden.
Vaccination – meh.
All so that the Greens aren’t required to own a corporation that pays for insurance that somebody, somewhere, might use for something they don’t approve of.
As I have mentioned every time this comes up, I’m sympathetic to the Greens’ situation, but (a) the erosion of the distinction between for-profit corps and the people who own them, and the recognition of every kind of sacred personal right in for-profit corps is going to be freaking pernicious, and (b) sorting out the boundary between commercial activity and the exercise of religion is going to be a unending freaking ugly mess.
Good time to go to law school.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked.
Also not to go too tangential, but you are conflating different kinds of financial risk.
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case is that the court has found that the Greens’ personal religious scruples must be recognized in the corporation they own. The corporation, because it is closely held, somehow inherits their 1st A rights of free exercise of religion.
The right is being recognized *in the corporation*, not in the Greens. There was never any question of the Greens’ *personal* right of free exercise.
To my knowledge, that right has not been recognized in for-profit corporations before. My understanding is that there is a significant body of law that has found the opposite.
That’s the novelty.
It’s going to be a big ugly mess sorting it out, and doing so is going to involve a lot of extremely fine hair-splitting to decide what religions deserve protection, what activities constitute an expression or exercise of that religion, how much of a burden is too much, and exactly how strong of a state interest is required to tip the scale.
None of that is going to be clean black letter law. It’s going to be every kind of squirrelly subjective BS you can imagine.
And IMVHO it’s going to be inherently impossible for the state and the courts to engage in that squirrelly subjective BS without crossing the line into establishment of religion.
Some practices will be granted exemptions, from who knows what kinds of laws, and other practices will be considered simply too fringe-y and woo-woo to get equal treatment.
Birth control – undue burden.
Vaccination – meh.
All so that the Greens aren’t required to own a corporation that pays for insurance that somebody, somewhere, might use for something they don’t approve of.
As I have mentioned every time this comes up, I’m sympathetic to the Greens’ situation, but (a) the erosion of the distinction between for-profit corps and the people who own them, and the recognition of every kind of sacred personal right in for-profit corps is going to be freaking pernicious, and (b) sorting out the boundary between commercial activity and the exercise of religion is going to be a unending freaking ugly mess.
Good time to go to law school.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked.
Also not to go too tangential, but you are conflating different kinds of financial risk.
The issue in the Hobby Lobby case is that the court has found that the Greens’ personal religious scruples must be recognized in the corporation they own. The corporation, because it is closely held, somehow inherits their 1st A rights of free exercise of religion.
The right is being recognized *in the corporation*, not in the Greens. There was never any question of the Greens’ *personal* right of free exercise.
To my knowledge, that right has not been recognized in for-profit corporations before. My understanding is that there is a significant body of law that has found the opposite.
That’s the novelty.
It’s going to be a big ugly mess sorting it out, and doing so is going to involve a lot of extremely fine hair-splitting to decide what religions deserve protection, what activities constitute an expression or exercise of that religion, how much of a burden is too much, and exactly how strong of a state interest is required to tip the scale.
None of that is going to be clean black letter law. It’s going to be every kind of squirrelly subjective BS you can imagine.
And IMVHO it’s going to be inherently impossible for the state and the courts to engage in that squirrelly subjective BS without crossing the line into establishment of religion.
Some practices will be granted exemptions, from who knows what kinds of laws, and other practices will be considered simply too fringe-y and woo-woo to get equal treatment.
Birth control – undue burden.
Vaccination – meh.
All so that the Greens aren’t required to own a corporation that pays for insurance that somebody, somewhere, might use for something they don’t approve of.
As I have mentioned every time this comes up, I’m sympathetic to the Greens’ situation, but (a) the erosion of the distinction between for-profit corps and the people who own them, and the recognition of every kind of sacred personal right in for-profit corps is going to be freaking pernicious, and (b) sorting out the boundary between commercial activity and the exercise of religion is going to be a unending freaking ugly mess.
Good time to go to law school.
But Count, those examples you cite weren’t really Christian religions. So their “religious objections” to laws against their practices would have had no significance for the Court.
But Count, those examples you cite weren’t really Christian religions. So their “religious objections” to laws against their practices would have had no significance for the Court.
But Count, those examples you cite weren’t really Christian religions. So their “religious objections” to laws against their practices would have had no significance for the Court.
This tweet from Erick Dicklessson, picked up at Sullivan’s joint:
Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
Follow
My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
9:02 AM – 30 Jun 2014
Look for AIDS drugs, penicillin, anti-herpes creams, diagnostic testing, you name it, to be the next frontier in disallowing employees to access items that mitigate the consequences of sex through their healthcare plans.
When Alito writes words like “limited” and narrow” to define this ruling, he means, “Erick, bring me more cases and let’s outlaw f*cking altogether.”
Also, shouldn’t Erickson’s dear mother have given us a trigger warning regarding the consequences for the rest of us of his Dad rogering her nine months before he sullied the manger?
He’s nought but a suppurating pustule, a social disease, on the inadequate love wand of conservatism.
This tweet from Erick Dicklessson, picked up at Sullivan’s joint:
Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
Follow
My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
9:02 AM – 30 Jun 2014
Look for AIDS drugs, penicillin, anti-herpes creams, diagnostic testing, you name it, to be the next frontier in disallowing employees to access items that mitigate the consequences of sex through their healthcare plans.
When Alito writes words like “limited” and narrow” to define this ruling, he means, “Erick, bring me more cases and let’s outlaw f*cking altogether.”
Also, shouldn’t Erickson’s dear mother have given us a trigger warning regarding the consequences for the rest of us of his Dad rogering her nine months before he sullied the manger?
He’s nought but a suppurating pustule, a social disease, on the inadequate love wand of conservatism.
This tweet from Erick Dicklessson, picked up at Sullivan’s joint:
Erick Erickson ✔ @EWErickson
Follow
My religion trumps your “right” to employer subsidized consequence free sex.
9:02 AM – 30 Jun 2014
Look for AIDS drugs, penicillin, anti-herpes creams, diagnostic testing, you name it, to be the next frontier in disallowing employees to access items that mitigate the consequences of sex through their healthcare plans.
When Alito writes words like “limited” and narrow” to define this ruling, he means, “Erick, bring me more cases and let’s outlaw f*cking altogether.”
Also, shouldn’t Erickson’s dear mother have given us a trigger warning regarding the consequences for the rest of us of his Dad rogering her nine months before he sullied the manger?
He’s nought but a suppurating pustule, a social disease, on the inadequate love wand of conservatism.
Tony P. brings up a good point. Actuarially, a plan without BC will have higher costs, and the premiums will, ceteris paribus (don’tcha’ just love that term?) have to rise accordingly.
This is a good deal for who?
Also, won’t the crybabies at Hobby Lobby now have to offer higher wages to their wimmins employees? How much do you think the raise shall be?
Tony P. brings up a good point. Actuarially, a plan without BC will have higher costs, and the premiums will, ceteris paribus (don’tcha’ just love that term?) have to rise accordingly.
This is a good deal for who?
Also, won’t the crybabies at Hobby Lobby now have to offer higher wages to their wimmins employees? How much do you think the raise shall be?
Tony P. brings up a good point. Actuarially, a plan without BC will have higher costs, and the premiums will, ceteris paribus (don’tcha’ just love that term?) have to rise accordingly.
This is a good deal for who?
Also, won’t the crybabies at Hobby Lobby now have to offer higher wages to their wimmins employees? How much do you think the raise shall be?
9 dollars a month
9 dollars a month
9 dollars a month
I confess that I find it interesting that Justice Alito thinks he has crafted a narrow ruling here. When he has, in dissent from other rulings, contended (correctly) that they would have extremely broad consequences, far beyond what the majority claimed to be deciding. (Cf his dissents in Lawrence or Windsor.)
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
I confess that I find it interesting that Justice Alito thinks he has crafted a narrow ruling here. When he has, in dissent from other rulings, contended (correctly) that they would have extremely broad consequences, far beyond what the majority claimed to be deciding. (Cf his dissents in Lawrence or Windsor.)
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
I confess that I find it interesting that Justice Alito thinks he has crafted a narrow ruling here. When he has, in dissent from other rulings, contended (correctly) that they would have extremely broad consequences, far beyond what the majority claimed to be deciding. (Cf his dissents in Lawrence or Windsor.)
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
Marty, “9 dollars a month” is the cost of the generic version of *one* type of birth control.
Importantly, some of the most effective methods of BC aren’t widely used in the US because they have high up-front costs.
IUDs, for instance, cost $500-1000 at once, but then last for 5 years or more. Implants cost $400-800 and last 3 years. Progestin shots cost $35-75 and last for 3 months.
If you think contraception is no big deal, you have no business talking about contraception.
Marty, “9 dollars a month” is the cost of the generic version of *one* type of birth control.
Importantly, some of the most effective methods of BC aren’t widely used in the US because they have high up-front costs.
IUDs, for instance, cost $500-1000 at once, but then last for 5 years or more. Implants cost $400-800 and last 3 years. Progestin shots cost $35-75 and last for 3 months.
If you think contraception is no big deal, you have no business talking about contraception.
Marty, “9 dollars a month” is the cost of the generic version of *one* type of birth control.
Importantly, some of the most effective methods of BC aren’t widely used in the US because they have high up-front costs.
IUDs, for instance, cost $500-1000 at once, but then last for 5 years or more. Implants cost $400-800 and last 3 years. Progestin shots cost $35-75 and last for 3 months.
If you think contraception is no big deal, you have no business talking about contraception.
Doc, all of those cost less than $20 a month, my insurance only pays for generic sumatriptan, up to 9 pills a month for my migraines. It works like crap. I run out regularly. Life has limitations. Some people can only afford generic birth control. Some women just can’t afford an iud. Life has limitations.
Nothing irritates me more than being told somehow I am not worthy of having an opinion. It is really not that complex a thing I think I can grasp it. Two wives two daughters later it isn’t a mystery.
Doc, all of those cost less than $20 a month, my insurance only pays for generic sumatriptan, up to 9 pills a month for my migraines. It works like crap. I run out regularly. Life has limitations. Some people can only afford generic birth control. Some women just can’t afford an iud. Life has limitations.
Nothing irritates me more than being told somehow I am not worthy of having an opinion. It is really not that complex a thing I think I can grasp it. Two wives two daughters later it isn’t a mystery.
Doc, all of those cost less than $20 a month, my insurance only pays for generic sumatriptan, up to 9 pills a month for my migraines. It works like crap. I run out regularly. Life has limitations. Some people can only afford generic birth control. Some women just can’t afford an iud. Life has limitations.
Nothing irritates me more than being told somehow I am not worthy of having an opinion. It is really not that complex a thing I think I can grasp it. Two wives two daughters later it isn’t a mystery.
…but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc.
1. The veracity of this claim is not backed up by any evidence.
2. The claim is irrelevant as these poor hocked up to their eyeball folks still have LIMITED LIABILITY. That is the whole point of llc/corporate organization.
This is as opposed to some poor schmuck who takes out a student loan and cannot, unlike these poor, poor, oh woes!, poor downtrodden small businessfolk who get write off their personal cars and vacations as a business expense, declare business bankruptcy.
Cry me a river.
…but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc.
1. The veracity of this claim is not backed up by any evidence.
2. The claim is irrelevant as these poor hocked up to their eyeball folks still have LIMITED LIABILITY. That is the whole point of llc/corporate organization.
This is as opposed to some poor schmuck who takes out a student loan and cannot, unlike these poor, poor, oh woes!, poor downtrodden small businessfolk who get write off their personal cars and vacations as a business expense, declare business bankruptcy.
Cry me a river.
…but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc.
1. The veracity of this claim is not backed up by any evidence.
2. The claim is irrelevant as these poor hocked up to their eyeball folks still have LIMITED LIABILITY. That is the whole point of llc/corporate organization.
This is as opposed to some poor schmuck who takes out a student loan and cannot, unlike these poor, poor, oh woes!, poor downtrodden small businessfolk who get write off their personal cars and vacations as a business expense, declare business bankruptcy.
Cry me a river.
Yes, but Marty, do fellow conservatives call your nine migraine pills “slut pills”?
After all, headaches are a form of birth control, you little minx.
Yes, but Marty, do fellow conservatives call your nine migraine pills “slut pills”?
After all, headaches are a form of birth control, you little minx.
Yes, but Marty, do fellow conservatives call your nine migraine pills “slut pills”?
After all, headaches are a form of birth control, you little minx.
In the midst of a serious tantrum on my part, matched only by bobbyp’s, I actually laughed out loud. You little minx …
In the midst of a serious tantrum on my part, matched only by bobbyp’s, I actually laughed out loud. You little minx …
In the midst of a serious tantrum on my part, matched only by bobbyp’s, I actually laughed out loud. You little minx …
9 dollars a month
Not the point.
The point is that the 1st Amendment rights of owners of closely held for-profit corporations have now been recognized in those corporations.
That’s new. It’s a break from the up-to-now settled law.
And it’s a huge can of worms.
What makes something that a corporation does an “exercise of religion”?
When does a regulation present an “undue burden”?
When does the state’s interest in regulating trump the corporation’s newly discovered right of free religious exercise?
Who decides all of this? Congress? The courts? The executive?
How do any of those entities make decisions about what is, and is not free exercise of religion in the context of commercial transactions?
How do they do so without favoring one point of view over another?
How do they favor one point of view over another without establishing religion?
All new territory.
And all of this was done so that the company that the Greens own, and which otherwise operates per the requirements of plain old secular law, won’t have to purchase insurance that includes, among every other standard element of preventive care, coverage for birth control methods that some employee of Hobby Lobby, somewhere, might decide to use.
From the Greens, to Hobby Lobby, to the insurance carrier, to the health care provider and/or pharmacy, to a hypothetical Hobby Lobby employee. Assuming somebody actually uses the insurance to pay for any of the undesirable products.
Several degrees of separation there, between the Greens’ personal involvement, and the objectionable act.
That’s now the standard for “exercise of religion”, and for “undue burdens”.
Get ready for the weirdness, because it’s on it’s way.
9 dollars a month
Not the point.
The point is that the 1st Amendment rights of owners of closely held for-profit corporations have now been recognized in those corporations.
That’s new. It’s a break from the up-to-now settled law.
And it’s a huge can of worms.
What makes something that a corporation does an “exercise of religion”?
When does a regulation present an “undue burden”?
When does the state’s interest in regulating trump the corporation’s newly discovered right of free religious exercise?
Who decides all of this? Congress? The courts? The executive?
How do any of those entities make decisions about what is, and is not free exercise of religion in the context of commercial transactions?
How do they do so without favoring one point of view over another?
How do they favor one point of view over another without establishing religion?
All new territory.
And all of this was done so that the company that the Greens own, and which otherwise operates per the requirements of plain old secular law, won’t have to purchase insurance that includes, among every other standard element of preventive care, coverage for birth control methods that some employee of Hobby Lobby, somewhere, might decide to use.
From the Greens, to Hobby Lobby, to the insurance carrier, to the health care provider and/or pharmacy, to a hypothetical Hobby Lobby employee. Assuming somebody actually uses the insurance to pay for any of the undesirable products.
Several degrees of separation there, between the Greens’ personal involvement, and the objectionable act.
That’s now the standard for “exercise of religion”, and for “undue burdens”.
Get ready for the weirdness, because it’s on it’s way.
9 dollars a month
Not the point.
The point is that the 1st Amendment rights of owners of closely held for-profit corporations have now been recognized in those corporations.
That’s new. It’s a break from the up-to-now settled law.
And it’s a huge can of worms.
What makes something that a corporation does an “exercise of religion”?
When does a regulation present an “undue burden”?
When does the state’s interest in regulating trump the corporation’s newly discovered right of free religious exercise?
Who decides all of this? Congress? The courts? The executive?
How do any of those entities make decisions about what is, and is not free exercise of religion in the context of commercial transactions?
How do they do so without favoring one point of view over another?
How do they favor one point of view over another without establishing religion?
All new territory.
And all of this was done so that the company that the Greens own, and which otherwise operates per the requirements of plain old secular law, won’t have to purchase insurance that includes, among every other standard element of preventive care, coverage for birth control methods that some employee of Hobby Lobby, somewhere, might decide to use.
From the Greens, to Hobby Lobby, to the insurance carrier, to the health care provider and/or pharmacy, to a hypothetical Hobby Lobby employee. Assuming somebody actually uses the insurance to pay for any of the undesirable products.
Several degrees of separation there, between the Greens’ personal involvement, and the objectionable act.
That’s now the standard for “exercise of religion”, and for “undue burdens”.
Get ready for the weirdness, because it’s on it’s way.
“Not the point”
Certainly not, just the answer to a specific question.
“Not the point”
Certainly not, just the answer to a specific question.
“Not the point”
Certainly not, just the answer to a specific question.
operates per the requirements of plain old secular law
We should not forget that this wasn’t a law. It was the hhs policy that was set in implementing the ACA. They decided that a benefit that was included in almost all business provided coverage had to be required. It was their can of worms to open or not. They chose to. Then when the exceptions objected they built a whole anti woman campaign using it ad a political hammer. It is unlikely many employers drops such an inexpensive and potentially cost saving benefit from their insurance plan. In large part it is not clear how big a deal in practice this really is.
operates per the requirements of plain old secular law
We should not forget that this wasn’t a law. It was the hhs policy that was set in implementing the ACA. They decided that a benefit that was included in almost all business provided coverage had to be required. It was their can of worms to open or not. They chose to. Then when the exceptions objected they built a whole anti woman campaign using it ad a political hammer. It is unlikely many employers drops such an inexpensive and potentially cost saving benefit from their insurance plan. In large part it is not clear how big a deal in practice this really is.
operates per the requirements of plain old secular law
We should not forget that this wasn’t a law. It was the hhs policy that was set in implementing the ACA. They decided that a benefit that was included in almost all business provided coverage had to be required. It was their can of worms to open or not. They chose to. Then when the exceptions objected they built a whole anti woman campaign using it ad a political hammer. It is unlikely many employers drops such an inexpensive and potentially cost saving benefit from their insurance plan. In large part it is not clear how big a deal in practice this really is.
One part of the can of worms russell refers to: what laws and regulations, other than providing insurance which covers contraception, can otherwise entirely secular companies now opt out of on religious grounds? (Alito says his opinion only applies to this one item. But that just means that there will be a flood of cases, until the Court either lays out a general principle or establishes a few thousand individual precedents.)
And that’s before we get to questions about whether only beliefs of organized religious donominations count. How big, how many members, does a religion have to have before they can get an exception? And can someone have non-religious ethical objections — and if not, how is that not “establishment of religion”?
Definitely a full employment for lawyers decision.
One part of the can of worms russell refers to: what laws and regulations, other than providing insurance which covers contraception, can otherwise entirely secular companies now opt out of on religious grounds? (Alito says his opinion only applies to this one item. But that just means that there will be a flood of cases, until the Court either lays out a general principle or establishes a few thousand individual precedents.)
And that’s before we get to questions about whether only beliefs of organized religious donominations count. How big, how many members, does a religion have to have before they can get an exception? And can someone have non-religious ethical objections — and if not, how is that not “establishment of religion”?
Definitely a full employment for lawyers decision.
One part of the can of worms russell refers to: what laws and regulations, other than providing insurance which covers contraception, can otherwise entirely secular companies now opt out of on religious grounds? (Alito says his opinion only applies to this one item. But that just means that there will be a flood of cases, until the Court either lays out a general principle or establishes a few thousand individual precedents.)
And that’s before we get to questions about whether only beliefs of organized religious donominations count. How big, how many members, does a religion have to have before they can get an exception? And can someone have non-religious ethical objections — and if not, how is that not “establishment of religion”?
Definitely a full employment for lawyers decision.
LIMITED LIABILITY. That is the whole point of llc/corporate organization
Especially under the laws of Delaware, in which state well over half of companies choose to incorporate. I’ve spent most of my adult life working for Delaware corporations.
If things continue on this path, I imagine that Delaware will be the first state to give corporations a vote in Senatorial elections.
LIMITED LIABILITY. That is the whole point of llc/corporate organization
Especially under the laws of Delaware, in which state well over half of companies choose to incorporate. I’ve spent most of my adult life working for Delaware corporations.
If things continue on this path, I imagine that Delaware will be the first state to give corporations a vote in Senatorial elections.
LIMITED LIABILITY. That is the whole point of llc/corporate organization
Especially under the laws of Delaware, in which state well over half of companies choose to incorporate. I’ve spent most of my adult life working for Delaware corporations.
If things continue on this path, I imagine that Delaware will be the first state to give corporations a vote in Senatorial elections.
They decided that a benefit that was included in almost all business provided coverage had to be required.
And rightly so based on reams of evidence that such coverage was good for the health of half or more of our population, and what’s good for health is good for “bending the cost curve downward”, which is, you know, one of the major reasons for adopting the ACA.
Did you think the Dept. of Health & Human Services just made the rule up on a whim?
The “big deal” is this. Possibly thousands of women will be harmed just so some assholes like the Greene’s and others of their warped political persuasion can make a political point.
They deserve nothing less than to rot in hell.
They decided that a benefit that was included in almost all business provided coverage had to be required.
And rightly so based on reams of evidence that such coverage was good for the health of half or more of our population, and what’s good for health is good for “bending the cost curve downward”, which is, you know, one of the major reasons for adopting the ACA.
Did you think the Dept. of Health & Human Services just made the rule up on a whim?
The “big deal” is this. Possibly thousands of women will be harmed just so some assholes like the Greene’s and others of their warped political persuasion can make a political point.
They deserve nothing less than to rot in hell.
They decided that a benefit that was included in almost all business provided coverage had to be required.
And rightly so based on reams of evidence that such coverage was good for the health of half or more of our population, and what’s good for health is good for “bending the cost curve downward”, which is, you know, one of the major reasons for adopting the ACA.
Did you think the Dept. of Health & Human Services just made the rule up on a whim?
The “big deal” is this. Possibly thousands of women will be harmed just so some assholes like the Greene’s and others of their warped political persuasion can make a political point.
They deserve nothing less than to rot in hell.
For those of you who think small businessfolk walk on water:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/18/Small-Business-Tax-Cheats-A-$122-Billion-Problem
We give them nearly everything they ask for, and still they rob the public purse blind.
For those of you who think small businessfolk walk on water:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/18/Small-Business-Tax-Cheats-A-$122-Billion-Problem
We give them nearly everything they ask for, and still they rob the public purse blind.
For those of you who think small businessfolk walk on water:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/01/18/Small-Business-Tax-Cheats-A-$122-Billion-Problem
We give them nearly everything they ask for, and still they rob the public purse blind.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked. It does limit the liability in many areas, but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc. To ensure the survival of the company. As they get successful the company has the money, good for them.
Some seriously confused thinking here.
No wonder you appear not to have problems with the decision.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked. It does limit the liability in many areas, but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc. To ensure the survival of the company. As they get successful the company has the money, good for them.
Some seriously confused thinking here.
No wonder you appear not to have problems with the decision.
I think, not to go too tangential, that the concept that all corporations shield the owners from any financial liability should be debunked. It does limit the liability in many areas, but a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc. To ensure the survival of the company. As they get successful the company has the money, good for them.
Some seriously confused thinking here.
No wonder you appear not to have problems with the decision.
“corporations are people”
don’t forget, “conservatives” actually nominated a person who believes that corporations are people. so it’s no wonder they love this H.L. decision.
“corporations are people”
don’t forget, “conservatives” actually nominated a person who believes that corporations are people. so it’s no wonder they love this H.L. decision.
“corporations are people”
don’t forget, “conservatives” actually nominated a person who believes that corporations are people. so it’s no wonder they love this H.L. decision.
After sleeping on it, I still can’t decide: does the US suffer more from corporatism or religiosity?
–TP
After sleeping on it, I still can’t decide: does the US suffer more from corporatism or religiosity?
–TP
After sleeping on it, I still can’t decide: does the US suffer more from corporatism or religiosity?
–TP
Tony P,
SCOTUS est corporatio mea novi praecedenti quae pro paucis funditur in remissionem pecuniarum.
Tony P,
SCOTUS est corporatio mea novi praecedenti quae pro paucis funditur in remissionem pecuniarum.
Tony P,
SCOTUS est corporatio mea novi praecedenti quae pro paucis funditur in remissionem pecuniarum.
alternatively ‘conditur’ instead of ‘funditur’.
alternatively ‘conditur’ instead of ‘funditur’.
alternatively ‘conditur’ instead of ‘funditur’.
corporatism or religiosity?
It’s a pincher movement.
Then, there is the violent, murderous, domestic McVeighian, terrorist wing of the Republican Party, now openly embraced and allowed to operate freely across state lines by that Party as the means to kill its enemies … us … and institute the pure corporate religiosity sought by the John Birch Society, which is the lifeblood of the so-called “modern” Republican Party.
It’s going to take more than nine migraine pills to soothe the pain that’s coming when the troubles start.
The Latin for what is coming is shititur hittus fanarium.
corporatism or religiosity?
It’s a pincher movement.
Then, there is the violent, murderous, domestic McVeighian, terrorist wing of the Republican Party, now openly embraced and allowed to operate freely across state lines by that Party as the means to kill its enemies … us … and institute the pure corporate religiosity sought by the John Birch Society, which is the lifeblood of the so-called “modern” Republican Party.
It’s going to take more than nine migraine pills to soothe the pain that’s coming when the troubles start.
The Latin for what is coming is shititur hittus fanarium.
corporatism or religiosity?
It’s a pincher movement.
Then, there is the violent, murderous, domestic McVeighian, terrorist wing of the Republican Party, now openly embraced and allowed to operate freely across state lines by that Party as the means to kill its enemies … us … and institute the pure corporate religiosity sought by the John Birch Society, which is the lifeblood of the so-called “modern” Republican Party.
It’s going to take more than nine migraine pills to soothe the pain that’s coming when the troubles start.
The Latin for what is coming is shititur hittus fanarium.
The link for the link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-simply-must-read-this
The link for the link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-simply-must-read-this
The link for the link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-simply-must-read-this
Count-me, actually it is merda flabellum ictura (or ic[i]ens, if it is present not future tense).
Count-me, actually it is merda flabellum ictura (or ic[i]ens, if it is present not future tense).
Count-me, actually it is merda flabellum ictura (or ic[i]ens, if it is present not future tense).
Certainly not, just the answer to a specific question.
Fair enough.
We should not forget that this wasn’t a law. It was the hhs policy that was set in implementing the ACA. … It is unlikely many employers drops such an inexpensive and potentially cost saving benefit from their insurance plan. In large part it is not clear how big a deal in practice this really is.
Also good and reasonable points.
IMO the practical consequences of Hobby Lobby, specifically, not being required to pay for a handful of birth control products or procedures, which are not “onerously expensive” for most definitions of those words, is minimal.
The potential harmfulness of the decision is the precedent of recognizing the 1st A right of freedom of religion in for-profit corps.
And, I would add, in the vagueness of now-binding terms like “closely held”, “undue burden”, “religious activity”, and “compelling government interest”.
Some of the largest companies in the US are “closely held”, if that term means “does not issue publicly traded stock”.
Something like half of the people in the country work for such companies. I do.
Anyone who owns a company that doesn’t issue public shares now has a basis for claiming an exemption from any federal law or regulation if they can find a way to frame it as a burden on their religious beliefs.
As wj points out, it’s not clear if the same protections apply to mere human conscience, not necessarily motivated by religious faith. Which is a sticky point of its own.
The SCOTUS apparently called out discrimination based on race as being off limits, however my understanding is that LGBT folks and women were not mentioned.
Here are the court’s words (Scalia’s words, if I’m not mistaken) from the Oregon Employment Division vs Smith decision, in response to which Congress passed the RFRA:
And:
Having closed the door to all of the above for plain old human beings in Smith, the court has now opened the door for the same for for-profit corps.
Much entertainment to follow.
Certainly not, just the answer to a specific question.
Fair enough.
We should not forget that this wasn’t a law. It was the hhs policy that was set in implementing the ACA. … It is unlikely many employers drops such an inexpensive and potentially cost saving benefit from their insurance plan. In large part it is not clear how big a deal in practice this really is.
Also good and reasonable points.
IMO the practical consequences of Hobby Lobby, specifically, not being required to pay for a handful of birth control products or procedures, which are not “onerously expensive” for most definitions of those words, is minimal.
The potential harmfulness of the decision is the precedent of recognizing the 1st A right of freedom of religion in for-profit corps.
And, I would add, in the vagueness of now-binding terms like “closely held”, “undue burden”, “religious activity”, and “compelling government interest”.
Some of the largest companies in the US are “closely held”, if that term means “does not issue publicly traded stock”.
Something like half of the people in the country work for such companies. I do.
Anyone who owns a company that doesn’t issue public shares now has a basis for claiming an exemption from any federal law or regulation if they can find a way to frame it as a burden on their religious beliefs.
As wj points out, it’s not clear if the same protections apply to mere human conscience, not necessarily motivated by religious faith. Which is a sticky point of its own.
The SCOTUS apparently called out discrimination based on race as being off limits, however my understanding is that LGBT folks and women were not mentioned.
Here are the court’s words (Scalia’s words, if I’m not mistaken) from the Oregon Employment Division vs Smith decision, in response to which Congress passed the RFRA:
And:
Having closed the door to all of the above for plain old human beings in Smith, the court has now opened the door for the same for for-profit corps.
Much entertainment to follow.
Certainly not, just the answer to a specific question.
Fair enough.
We should not forget that this wasn’t a law. It was the hhs policy that was set in implementing the ACA. … It is unlikely many employers drops such an inexpensive and potentially cost saving benefit from their insurance plan. In large part it is not clear how big a deal in practice this really is.
Also good and reasonable points.
IMO the practical consequences of Hobby Lobby, specifically, not being required to pay for a handful of birth control products or procedures, which are not “onerously expensive” for most definitions of those words, is minimal.
The potential harmfulness of the decision is the precedent of recognizing the 1st A right of freedom of religion in for-profit corps.
And, I would add, in the vagueness of now-binding terms like “closely held”, “undue burden”, “religious activity”, and “compelling government interest”.
Some of the largest companies in the US are “closely held”, if that term means “does not issue publicly traded stock”.
Something like half of the people in the country work for such companies. I do.
Anyone who owns a company that doesn’t issue public shares now has a basis for claiming an exemption from any federal law or regulation if they can find a way to frame it as a burden on their religious beliefs.
As wj points out, it’s not clear if the same protections apply to mere human conscience, not necessarily motivated by religious faith. Which is a sticky point of its own.
The SCOTUS apparently called out discrimination based on race as being off limits, however my understanding is that LGBT folks and women were not mentioned.
Here are the court’s words (Scalia’s words, if I’m not mistaken) from the Oregon Employment Division vs Smith decision, in response to which Congress passed the RFRA:
And:
Having closed the door to all of the above for plain old human beings in Smith, the court has now opened the door for the same for for-profit corps.
Much entertainment to follow.
the difference is that was then, this is now.
the difference is that was then, this is now.
the difference is that was then, this is now.
a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc.
But that’s not a function of the corporate form at all. Often, when a small privately held company seeks a significant loan the lender will require the owners to provide a personal guarantee. Of course there is the option of not borrowing the money, or borrowing less, etc.
In addition, minor shareholders generally do not have to sign such guarantees.
a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc.
But that’s not a function of the corporate form at all. Often, when a small privately held company seeks a significant loan the lender will require the owners to provide a personal guarantee. Of course there is the option of not borrowing the money, or borrowing less, etc.
In addition, minor shareholders generally do not have to sign such guarantees.
a large number of the owners of these companies have/had all of their personal assets mortgaged against lines of credit etc.
But that’s not a function of the corporate form at all. Often, when a small privately held company seeks a significant loan the lender will require the owners to provide a personal guarantee. Of course there is the option of not borrowing the money, or borrowing less, etc.
In addition, minor shareholders generally do not have to sign such guarantees.
Some of the largest companies in the US are “closely held”, if that term means “does not issue publicly traded stock”.
I believe that the IRS’ definition (if that is what the Court was using) is that at least half of the company is owned by 5 or fewer individuals. Or, specifically, was owned by 5 or fewer individuals for at least half of the last tax year.
Side question: If corporations are people, does that mean their subsidiaries can qualify as “closely held”? Because if so, one could then have a corporation which was not closely held, but which did all its businesses thru subsidiaries in order to get around the closely held restriction….
Some of the largest companies in the US are “closely held”, if that term means “does not issue publicly traded stock”.
I believe that the IRS’ definition (if that is what the Court was using) is that at least half of the company is owned by 5 or fewer individuals. Or, specifically, was owned by 5 or fewer individuals for at least half of the last tax year.
Side question: If corporations are people, does that mean their subsidiaries can qualify as “closely held”? Because if so, one could then have a corporation which was not closely held, but which did all its businesses thru subsidiaries in order to get around the closely held restriction….
Some of the largest companies in the US are “closely held”, if that term means “does not issue publicly traded stock”.
I believe that the IRS’ definition (if that is what the Court was using) is that at least half of the company is owned by 5 or fewer individuals. Or, specifically, was owned by 5 or fewer individuals for at least half of the last tax year.
Side question: If corporations are people, does that mean their subsidiaries can qualify as “closely held”? Because if so, one could then have a corporation which was not closely held, but which did all its businesses thru subsidiaries in order to get around the closely held restriction….
The (or an) other difference is that Smith was about crazy peyote-eating Injuns, whereas the Greens are fine upstanding Christian folk.
Freedom for some, and where extended, extended to their property as well.
The (or an) other difference is that Smith was about crazy peyote-eating Injuns, whereas the Greens are fine upstanding Christian folk.
Freedom for some, and where extended, extended to their property as well.
The (or an) other difference is that Smith was about crazy peyote-eating Injuns, whereas the Greens are fine upstanding Christian folk.
Freedom for some, and where extended, extended to their property as well.
“:I believe that the IRS definition ……..”
Cue the House Republicans’s next clown show investigations into the IRS’ attempt to find out if the laws are being followed.
“:I believe that the IRS definition ……..”
Cue the House Republicans’s next clown show investigations into the IRS’ attempt to find out if the laws are being followed.
“:I believe that the IRS definition ……..”
Cue the House Republicans’s next clown show investigations into the IRS’ attempt to find out if the laws are being followed.
“Having closed the door to all of the above for plain old human beings in Smith, the court has now opened the door for the same for for-profit corps.”
I don’t believe this is accurate. The court used the words narrow and specific on purpose. Like most good dissent, the minority declared the sky is falling. To echo russell from a few days ago, hhs overstepped in a stupid way and the SCOTUS slapped them down.
An interesting summary of a Christian view
“Having closed the door to all of the above for plain old human beings in Smith, the court has now opened the door for the same for for-profit corps.”
I don’t believe this is accurate. The court used the words narrow and specific on purpose. Like most good dissent, the minority declared the sky is falling. To echo russell from a few days ago, hhs overstepped in a stupid way and the SCOTUS slapped them down.
An interesting summary of a Christian view
“Having closed the door to all of the above for plain old human beings in Smith, the court has now opened the door for the same for for-profit corps.”
I don’t believe this is accurate. The court used the words narrow and specific on purpose. Like most good dissent, the minority declared the sky is falling. To echo russell from a few days ago, hhs overstepped in a stupid way and the SCOTUS slapped them down.
An interesting summary of a Christian view
The court used the words narrow and specific on purpose.
Are there any examples in our nation’s history of “narrow” rulings being subsequently “widened”?
Time will tell where this decision leads, and I suspect it won’t take very long.
An interesting summary of a Christian view
A couple of comments here.
First, there is no single “Christian view” of this issue. You will find spokespeople for every conceivable perspective on this issue in the Christian community, and also in nearly every other flavor of religious community, and also in non-religious communities.
Second, what the author of the piece you link to fails to mention, even once, is that the person in whom freedom of religion has been recognized in this case is a *for profit corporation*.
Not the Greens. Their personal religious liberty is not, and was not, ever, in question.
The court used the words narrow and specific on purpose.
Are there any examples in our nation’s history of “narrow” rulings being subsequently “widened”?
Time will tell where this decision leads, and I suspect it won’t take very long.
An interesting summary of a Christian view
A couple of comments here.
First, there is no single “Christian view” of this issue. You will find spokespeople for every conceivable perspective on this issue in the Christian community, and also in nearly every other flavor of religious community, and also in non-religious communities.
Second, what the author of the piece you link to fails to mention, even once, is that the person in whom freedom of religion has been recognized in this case is a *for profit corporation*.
Not the Greens. Their personal religious liberty is not, and was not, ever, in question.
The court used the words narrow and specific on purpose.
Are there any examples in our nation’s history of “narrow” rulings being subsequently “widened”?
Time will tell where this decision leads, and I suspect it won’t take very long.
An interesting summary of a Christian view
A couple of comments here.
First, there is no single “Christian view” of this issue. You will find spokespeople for every conceivable perspective on this issue in the Christian community, and also in nearly every other flavor of religious community, and also in non-religious communities.
Second, what the author of the piece you link to fails to mention, even once, is that the person in whom freedom of religion has been recognized in this case is a *for profit corporation*.
Not the Greens. Their personal religious liberty is not, and was not, ever, in question.
Worth noting that per a figure given on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning, one half of all employees in the United States work for businesses that are owned by either a single person or a family. So potentially this directly effects half the workers in the U.S.
Worth noting that per a figure given on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning, one half of all employees in the United States work for businesses that are owned by either a single person or a family. So potentially this directly effects half the workers in the U.S.
Worth noting that per a figure given on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning, one half of all employees in the United States work for businesses that are owned by either a single person or a family. So potentially this directly effects half the workers in the U.S.
I would note russell that I said A Christian view, on purpose, not THE Christian view.
I would note russell that I said A Christian view, on purpose, not THE Christian view.
I would note russell that I said A Christian view, on purpose, not THE Christian view.
Noted
Noted
Noted
Not the Greens. Their personal religious liberty is not, and was not, ever, in question.
Well, I guess that’s the rub. They, and many others, think it was. Just because they happen to own the company as a corporation doesn’t mean they don’t own the company.
Not the Greens. Their personal religious liberty is not, and was not, ever, in question.
Well, I guess that’s the rub. They, and many others, think it was. Just because they happen to own the company as a corporation doesn’t mean they don’t own the company.
Not the Greens. Their personal religious liberty is not, and was not, ever, in question.
Well, I guess that’s the rub. They, and many others, think it was. Just because they happen to own the company as a corporation doesn’t mean they don’t own the company.
Just because they happen to own the company as a corporation doesn’t mean they don’t own the company.
Why is that same standard not applied to those who seek legal immunity behind the corporate veil?
Just because they happen to own the company as a corporation doesn’t mean they don’t own the company.
Why is that same standard not applied to those who seek legal immunity behind the corporate veil?
Just because they happen to own the company as a corporation doesn’t mean they don’t own the company.
Why is that same standard not applied to those who seek legal immunity behind the corporate veil?
This is my take, please correct me where I err. Also, I’m going to ignore legal doctrine (which won’t be hard, as I don’t know it here) and just appeal to logic:
The Greens want to claim the health insurance they offer employees as a tax deduction. HHS said that employer-provided health insurance cannot be claimed as a deduction unless it covers contraception. Greens argued that this violates a bunch of things: First Amendment, RFRA, etc. SCOTUS said Greens win and that HHS’s policy violates RFRA because HHS’s policy overburdens the Green’s religious beliefs.
What is the principled distinction between what the Greens are doing and every other religious objection you can possibly raise to a government policy?
For example, let’s say there’s a tax deduction available to government contractors, but any contractor can be disqualified from claiming that deduction if they are found liable under Title VII for race discrimination. A closely-held corporate government contractor claims their religious beliefs are burdened by being barred from racial discrimination. Is that too much of a burden?
This is my take, please correct me where I err. Also, I’m going to ignore legal doctrine (which won’t be hard, as I don’t know it here) and just appeal to logic:
The Greens want to claim the health insurance they offer employees as a tax deduction. HHS said that employer-provided health insurance cannot be claimed as a deduction unless it covers contraception. Greens argued that this violates a bunch of things: First Amendment, RFRA, etc. SCOTUS said Greens win and that HHS’s policy violates RFRA because HHS’s policy overburdens the Green’s religious beliefs.
What is the principled distinction between what the Greens are doing and every other religious objection you can possibly raise to a government policy?
For example, let’s say there’s a tax deduction available to government contractors, but any contractor can be disqualified from claiming that deduction if they are found liable under Title VII for race discrimination. A closely-held corporate government contractor claims their religious beliefs are burdened by being barred from racial discrimination. Is that too much of a burden?
This is my take, please correct me where I err. Also, I’m going to ignore legal doctrine (which won’t be hard, as I don’t know it here) and just appeal to logic:
The Greens want to claim the health insurance they offer employees as a tax deduction. HHS said that employer-provided health insurance cannot be claimed as a deduction unless it covers contraception. Greens argued that this violates a bunch of things: First Amendment, RFRA, etc. SCOTUS said Greens win and that HHS’s policy violates RFRA because HHS’s policy overburdens the Green’s religious beliefs.
What is the principled distinction between what the Greens are doing and every other religious objection you can possibly raise to a government policy?
For example, let’s say there’s a tax deduction available to government contractors, but any contractor can be disqualified from claiming that deduction if they are found liable under Title VII for race discrimination. A closely-held corporate government contractor claims their religious beliefs are burdened by being barred from racial discrimination. Is that too much of a burden?
Why is that same standard not applied to those who seek legal immunity behind the corporate veil?
To follow up on this from more or less the other side of the coin:
If the Greens wanted to enjoy the protections of the RFRA, they could have organized Hobby Lobby as a general partnership.
They would have had to forgo some of the obvious benefits of the corporate form. But, they would have been operating as *themselves*, personally, and so would have enjoyed the protections of their *personal* civil liberties in the operation of their business.
Why is that same standard not applied to those who seek legal immunity behind the corporate veil?
To follow up on this from more or less the other side of the coin:
If the Greens wanted to enjoy the protections of the RFRA, they could have organized Hobby Lobby as a general partnership.
They would have had to forgo some of the obvious benefits of the corporate form. But, they would have been operating as *themselves*, personally, and so would have enjoyed the protections of their *personal* civil liberties in the operation of their business.
Why is that same standard not applied to those who seek legal immunity behind the corporate veil?
To follow up on this from more or less the other side of the coin:
If the Greens wanted to enjoy the protections of the RFRA, they could have organized Hobby Lobby as a general partnership.
They would have had to forgo some of the obvious benefits of the corporate form. But, they would have been operating as *themselves*, personally, and so would have enjoyed the protections of their *personal* civil liberties in the operation of their business.
Taking a page from the Count’s book, here’s a link to a link to the other war on women case decided yesterday.
Taking a page from the Count’s book, here’s a link to a link to the other war on women case decided yesterday.
Taking a page from the Count’s book, here’s a link to a link to the other war on women case decided yesterday.
If the Greens wanted to enjoy the protections of the RFRA, they could have organized Hobby Lobby as a general partnership..
They had no reason to consider that until the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them, over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control. Long after they had made their organizational choice.
If the Greens wanted to enjoy the protections of the RFRA, they could have organized Hobby Lobby as a general partnership..
They had no reason to consider that until the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them, over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control. Long after they had made their organizational choice.
If the Greens wanted to enjoy the protections of the RFRA, they could have organized Hobby Lobby as a general partnership..
They had no reason to consider that until the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them, over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control. Long after they had made their organizational choice.
this is the same Hobby Lobby that has no problems investing its money (and the money of its delicate employees) in companies that make all of the products they were suddenly so concerned about, and the same Hobby Lobby that provided many of these same products in their previous health care plan, right? we’re talking about the same company?
this is the company that, suddenly, decided it had to fight against providing what it had already been providing and opposing the products of the companies that it still invests its employees’ retirement funds in. same one?
this is the same Hobby Lobby that has no problems investing its money (and the money of its delicate employees) in companies that make all of the products they were suddenly so concerned about, and the same Hobby Lobby that provided many of these same products in their previous health care plan, right? we’re talking about the same company?
this is the company that, suddenly, decided it had to fight against providing what it had already been providing and opposing the products of the companies that it still invests its employees’ retirement funds in. same one?
this is the same Hobby Lobby that has no problems investing its money (and the money of its delicate employees) in companies that make all of the products they were suddenly so concerned about, and the same Hobby Lobby that provided many of these same products in their previous health care plan, right? we’re talking about the same company?
this is the company that, suddenly, decided it had to fight against providing what it had already been providing and opposing the products of the companies that it still invests its employees’ retirement funds in. same one?
many of these same products in their previous health care plan
And, as far as any public statement I have seen goes, plan to continue to provide what they always have.
many of these same products in their previous health care plan
And, as far as any public statement I have seen goes, plan to continue to provide what they always have.
many of these same products in their previous health care plan
And, as far as any public statement I have seen goes, plan to continue to provide what they always have.
And, as far as any public statement I have seen goes, plan to continue to provide what they always have.
nope.
Plan-B and Ella, which were previously covered, are among the things the esteemed medical wizards at HL have deemed “abortifacients”.
they’re frauds.
And, as far as any public statement I have seen goes, plan to continue to provide what they always have.
nope.
Plan-B and Ella, which were previously covered, are among the things the esteemed medical wizards at HL have deemed “abortifacients”.
they’re frauds.
And, as far as any public statement I have seen goes, plan to continue to provide what they always have.
nope.
Plan-B and Ella, which were previously covered, are among the things the esteemed medical wizards at HL have deemed “abortifacients”.
they’re frauds.
“they’re frauds.”
Seem pretty genuine.
“they’re frauds.”
Seem pretty genuine.
“they’re frauds.”
Seem pretty genuine.
They’re genuinely frauds, Marty.
They’re genuinely frauds, Marty.
They’re genuinely frauds, Marty.
We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for, but not to privately check in their existing health plans for compliance until a third party raises the subject. There seems to be more than a little inconsistency here.
We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for, but not to privately check in their existing health plans for compliance until a third party raises the subject. There seems to be more than a little inconsistency here.
We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for, but not to privately check in their existing health plans for compliance until a third party raises the subject. There seems to be more than a little inconsistency here.
The term is “real phoneys”, sapient. Sheesh.
The term is “real phoneys”, sapient. Sheesh.
The term is “real phoneys”, sapient. Sheesh.
Alito: “The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.”
Will be interesting if this leads to courts adjudicating whether someone’s religious beliefs are “sincere” and how you apply a sincerity test to a legal construct. Perhaps if the owners are not unanimous in their religious beliefs on a particular issue the corporation’s religious belief is no longer “sincere” and can’t be protected under the RFRA?
One would think that would be a reason why the RFRA doesn’t apply to corporations under the “unless the context indicates otherwise” portion of 1 USC 1. Unfortunately its conceded applicability to religious non-profits organized as a corporation makes it much harder to convincingly argue that it is not applicable to for-profit corporations.
Alito: “The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.”
Will be interesting if this leads to courts adjudicating whether someone’s religious beliefs are “sincere” and how you apply a sincerity test to a legal construct. Perhaps if the owners are not unanimous in their religious beliefs on a particular issue the corporation’s religious belief is no longer “sincere” and can’t be protected under the RFRA?
One would think that would be a reason why the RFRA doesn’t apply to corporations under the “unless the context indicates otherwise” portion of 1 USC 1. Unfortunately its conceded applicability to religious non-profits organized as a corporation makes it much harder to convincingly argue that it is not applicable to for-profit corporations.
Alito: “The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.”
Will be interesting if this leads to courts adjudicating whether someone’s religious beliefs are “sincere” and how you apply a sincerity test to a legal construct. Perhaps if the owners are not unanimous in their religious beliefs on a particular issue the corporation’s religious belief is no longer “sincere” and can’t be protected under the RFRA?
One would think that would be a reason why the RFRA doesn’t apply to corporations under the “unless the context indicates otherwise” portion of 1 USC 1. Unfortunately its conceded applicability to religious non-profits organized as a corporation makes it much harder to convincingly argue that it is not applicable to for-profit corporations.
or, due to the very public nature, someone pointed out something they didn’t know?
or, due to the very public nature, someone pointed out something they didn’t know?
or, due to the very public nature, someone pointed out something they didn’t know?
“If things continue on this path, I imagine that Delaware will be the first state to give corporations a vote in Senatorial elections.”
Or elect a corporation to the Senate. Cut out the middleman.
“If things continue on this path, I imagine that Delaware will be the first state to give corporations a vote in Senatorial elections.”
Or elect a corporation to the Senate. Cut out the middleman.
“If things continue on this path, I imagine that Delaware will be the first state to give corporations a vote in Senatorial elections.”
Or elect a corporation to the Senate. Cut out the middleman.
They had no reason to consider that until…
As a closely held corporation, they have the option to reorganize, but they want it both ways.
….the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them….
There is nothing “arbitrary” about the HHS decision. It was in accord with both the law and the science. The view you appear to espouse is not in accord with either.
….over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control.
Then Congress could have so specified when it sent the legislation to the President for signature. But it did not. Those “two thousand” pages must have been just too much for those dumbass GOP congresscritters and their staffs to figure out.
They had no reason to consider that until…
As a closely held corporation, they have the option to reorganize, but they want it both ways.
….the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them….
There is nothing “arbitrary” about the HHS decision. It was in accord with both the law and the science. The view you appear to espouse is not in accord with either.
….over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control.
Then Congress could have so specified when it sent the legislation to the President for signature. But it did not. Those “two thousand” pages must have been just too much for those dumbass GOP congresscritters and their staffs to figure out.
They had no reason to consider that until…
As a closely held corporation, they have the option to reorganize, but they want it both ways.
….the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them….
There is nothing “arbitrary” about the HHS decision. It was in accord with both the law and the science. The view you appear to espouse is not in accord with either.
….over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control.
Then Congress could have so specified when it sent the legislation to the President for signature. But it did not. Those “two thousand” pages must have been just too much for those dumbass GOP congresscritters and their staffs to figure out.
We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for
Sure, the belief that Obamacare is an obamanation because … the government! I’m pretty sure that that’s their sincerely held belief.
We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for
Sure, the belief that Obamacare is an obamanation because … the government! I’m pretty sure that that’s their sincerely held belief.
We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for
Sure, the belief that Obamacare is an obamanation because … the government! I’m pretty sure that that’s their sincerely held belief.
They had no reason to consider that until the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them, over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control.
“Arbitrarily” is a funny word.
Here is a capsule history of the HHS mandate.
High points:
The requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans cover birth control (if they cover any prescription drugs) goes back to an EEOC ruling from 2000.
That mandate is part of the implementation of the ACA. There was an amendment proposed to exclude it, which was voted down in the Senate in a very close vote.
In January of 2012, HHS mandated that birth control coverage be provided without co-pay.
So, the mandate is consistent with an EEOC ruling from 2000, which in turn was upheld repeatedly by federal courts. The innovation under Sibelius was the requirement for no co-pay.
And as cleek points out, many if not all of the products the Greens object to were provided under the insurance coverage they offered employees before the ACA.
What strikes me about this case is that there are several degrees of separation between the Greens and the objectionable acts, both financially and in terms of agency.
The bar for “exercise of religion” now is consenting to a company you own contributing to an insurance product that, among a very wide variety of things, covers a range of birth control products, some of which you disapprove of for reasons which, since though they may be, are not strongly founded medically, the use of which may or may not occur, based on decisions made by other people in consultation with their physicians.
I would like that same bar – a requirement of no more than equal strength – to be applied to every federal requirement that might conflict with someone’s personal religious or simple moral or ethical convictions, either in their own actions or in the operation of any establishment they own, or participate in owning, in any way that meets the definition of “closely held”.
Freedom for one, freedom for all.
They had no reason to consider that until the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them, over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control.
“Arbitrarily” is a funny word.
Here is a capsule history of the HHS mandate.
High points:
The requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans cover birth control (if they cover any prescription drugs) goes back to an EEOC ruling from 2000.
That mandate is part of the implementation of the ACA. There was an amendment proposed to exclude it, which was voted down in the Senate in a very close vote.
In January of 2012, HHS mandated that birth control coverage be provided without co-pay.
So, the mandate is consistent with an EEOC ruling from 2000, which in turn was upheld repeatedly by federal courts. The innovation under Sibelius was the requirement for no co-pay.
And as cleek points out, many if not all of the products the Greens object to were provided under the insurance coverage they offered employees before the ACA.
What strikes me about this case is that there are several degrees of separation between the Greens and the objectionable acts, both financially and in terms of agency.
The bar for “exercise of religion” now is consenting to a company you own contributing to an insurance product that, among a very wide variety of things, covers a range of birth control products, some of which you disapprove of for reasons which, since though they may be, are not strongly founded medically, the use of which may or may not occur, based on decisions made by other people in consultation with their physicians.
I would like that same bar – a requirement of no more than equal strength – to be applied to every federal requirement that might conflict with someone’s personal religious or simple moral or ethical convictions, either in their own actions or in the operation of any establishment they own, or participate in owning, in any way that meets the definition of “closely held”.
Freedom for one, freedom for all.
They had no reason to consider that until the HHS decided to arbitrarily require them, over much of Congress’s objection to provide insurance for ALL forms of birth control.
“Arbitrarily” is a funny word.
Here is a capsule history of the HHS mandate.
High points:
The requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans cover birth control (if they cover any prescription drugs) goes back to an EEOC ruling from 2000.
That mandate is part of the implementation of the ACA. There was an amendment proposed to exclude it, which was voted down in the Senate in a very close vote.
In January of 2012, HHS mandated that birth control coverage be provided without co-pay.
So, the mandate is consistent with an EEOC ruling from 2000, which in turn was upheld repeatedly by federal courts. The innovation under Sibelius was the requirement for no co-pay.
And as cleek points out, many if not all of the products the Greens object to were provided under the insurance coverage they offered employees before the ACA.
What strikes me about this case is that there are several degrees of separation between the Greens and the objectionable acts, both financially and in terms of agency.
The bar for “exercise of religion” now is consenting to a company you own contributing to an insurance product that, among a very wide variety of things, covers a range of birth control products, some of which you disapprove of for reasons which, since though they may be, are not strongly founded medically, the use of which may or may not occur, based on decisions made by other people in consultation with their physicians.
I would like that same bar – a requirement of no more than equal strength – to be applied to every federal requirement that might conflict with someone’s personal religious or simple moral or ethical convictions, either in their own actions or in the operation of any establishment they own, or participate in owning, in any way that meets the definition of “closely held”.
Freedom for one, freedom for all.
lots of mind reading all over this thread, we should separate the thread between the objections to the Greens even thinking they have a right to go to court, because they are evil phoney people, and objections to the decision even if the Greens are religiously pious and perfectly well intentioned Christian folk. Then I will only have to read half the comments.
lots of mind reading all over this thread, we should separate the thread between the objections to the Greens even thinking they have a right to go to court, because they are evil phoney people, and objections to the decision even if the Greens are religiously pious and perfectly well intentioned Christian folk. Then I will only have to read half the comments.
lots of mind reading all over this thread, we should separate the thread between the objections to the Greens even thinking they have a right to go to court, because they are evil phoney people, and objections to the decision even if the Greens are religiously pious and perfectly well intentioned Christian folk. Then I will only have to read half the comments.
lots of mind reading all over this thread
Lots of mind reading by the Supreme Court to hold that “religious beliefs” (whatever that means to a corporation) in unscientific assertions are “sincere”. Mind reading is unfortunately part of the legal test now.
lots of mind reading all over this thread
Lots of mind reading by the Supreme Court to hold that “religious beliefs” (whatever that means to a corporation) in unscientific assertions are “sincere”. Mind reading is unfortunately part of the legal test now.
lots of mind reading all over this thread
Lots of mind reading by the Supreme Court to hold that “religious beliefs” (whatever that means to a corporation) in unscientific assertions are “sincere”. Mind reading is unfortunately part of the legal test now.
I have no opinion, pro or con, about the Greens personally.
From what I’ve read or heard, they treat their employees well, probably better than average for big box retail.
They have every right to pursue their interests through the law and the courts if that’s their wish.
Recognizing freedom of religious expression in a for-profit corporation opens an enormous can of worms, that is going to be a freaking mess to sort out.
If the 5 guys in black think this going to remain a “narrow finding”, they are (and not for the first time) being willfully naive, because there is no legal basis for the finding to remain narrow.
On the contrary, it’s hard to imagine how it can be kept narrow without discriminating between one set of religious practices and another.
I have no opinion, pro or con, about the Greens personally.
From what I’ve read or heard, they treat their employees well, probably better than average for big box retail.
They have every right to pursue their interests through the law and the courts if that’s their wish.
Recognizing freedom of religious expression in a for-profit corporation opens an enormous can of worms, that is going to be a freaking mess to sort out.
If the 5 guys in black think this going to remain a “narrow finding”, they are (and not for the first time) being willfully naive, because there is no legal basis for the finding to remain narrow.
On the contrary, it’s hard to imagine how it can be kept narrow without discriminating between one set of religious practices and another.
I have no opinion, pro or con, about the Greens personally.
From what I’ve read or heard, they treat their employees well, probably better than average for big box retail.
They have every right to pursue their interests through the law and the courts if that’s their wish.
Recognizing freedom of religious expression in a for-profit corporation opens an enormous can of worms, that is going to be a freaking mess to sort out.
If the 5 guys in black think this going to remain a “narrow finding”, they are (and not for the first time) being willfully naive, because there is no legal basis for the finding to remain narrow.
On the contrary, it’s hard to imagine how it can be kept narrow without discriminating between one set of religious practices and another.
Unfortunately, Marty, the Court makes the notion of the importance of a party’s action to their exercise of religion germane to the discussion. While we (and they) are to assume the sincerity of the party’s beliefs, they are required to evaluate whether undertaking the actions in question would mean that “[the party’s] religious exercise is substantially burdened”. And while it’s easier to question the sincerity of beliefs by pointing out that they didn’t appear to care about their actions in these regards until it became politically expedient to do so, the importance to the party’s exercise of religion can to some degree be inferred by examining the same behaviors that make us question their sincerity.
Unfortunately, Marty, the Court makes the notion of the importance of a party’s action to their exercise of religion germane to the discussion. While we (and they) are to assume the sincerity of the party’s beliefs, they are required to evaluate whether undertaking the actions in question would mean that “[the party’s] religious exercise is substantially burdened”. And while it’s easier to question the sincerity of beliefs by pointing out that they didn’t appear to care about their actions in these regards until it became politically expedient to do so, the importance to the party’s exercise of religion can to some degree be inferred by examining the same behaviors that make us question their sincerity.
Unfortunately, Marty, the Court makes the notion of the importance of a party’s action to their exercise of religion germane to the discussion. While we (and they) are to assume the sincerity of the party’s beliefs, they are required to evaluate whether undertaking the actions in question would mean that “[the party’s] religious exercise is substantially burdened”. And while it’s easier to question the sincerity of beliefs by pointing out that they didn’t appear to care about their actions in these regards until it became politically expedient to do so, the importance to the party’s exercise of religion can to some degree be inferred by examining the same behaviors that make us question their sincerity.
What strikes me about this case is that there are several degrees of separation between the Greens and the objectionable acts, both financially and in terms of agency.
Yes, but apparently this is a no-no. Alito again: “The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step.”
What strikes me about this case is that there are several degrees of separation between the Greens and the objectionable acts, both financially and in terms of agency.
Yes, but apparently this is a no-no. Alito again: “The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step.”
What strikes me about this case is that there are several degrees of separation between the Greens and the objectionable acts, both financially and in terms of agency.
Yes, but apparently this is a no-no. Alito again: “The Hahns and Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage. This belief implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. Arrogating the authority to provide a binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question, HHS and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step.”
Lots of mind reading by the Supreme Court to hold that “religious beliefs” (whatever that means to a corporation) in unscientific assertions are “sincere”. Mind reading is unfortunately part of the legal test now.
Sapient, it’s my understanding that the Court is required to take for granted that the beliefs are sincere barring glaring strong evidence to the contrary, to the point where it’s not really a legal test they need to engage in. The issue where a legal test arises in regards to convictions, based on my understanding, is in regards to the importance of the actions in question to their ability to exercise their religion. Admittedly, there’s an awful lot of overlap between these notions, and the issue of sincerity still arises when faced with the inevitable assertion that X, Y, or Z is indispensable to free practice. But this is a hair the Court seemed eager to split.
Lots of mind reading by the Supreme Court to hold that “religious beliefs” (whatever that means to a corporation) in unscientific assertions are “sincere”. Mind reading is unfortunately part of the legal test now.
Sapient, it’s my understanding that the Court is required to take for granted that the beliefs are sincere barring glaring strong evidence to the contrary, to the point where it’s not really a legal test they need to engage in. The issue where a legal test arises in regards to convictions, based on my understanding, is in regards to the importance of the actions in question to their ability to exercise their religion. Admittedly, there’s an awful lot of overlap between these notions, and the issue of sincerity still arises when faced with the inevitable assertion that X, Y, or Z is indispensable to free practice. But this is a hair the Court seemed eager to split.
Lots of mind reading by the Supreme Court to hold that “religious beliefs” (whatever that means to a corporation) in unscientific assertions are “sincere”. Mind reading is unfortunately part of the legal test now.
Sapient, it’s my understanding that the Court is required to take for granted that the beliefs are sincere barring glaring strong evidence to the contrary, to the point where it’s not really a legal test they need to engage in. The issue where a legal test arises in regards to convictions, based on my understanding, is in regards to the importance of the actions in question to their ability to exercise their religion. Admittedly, there’s an awful lot of overlap between these notions, and the issue of sincerity still arises when faced with the inevitable assertion that X, Y, or Z is indispensable to free practice. But this is a hair the Court seemed eager to split.
(See Ginsberg’s dissent, pp. 21-22.)
(See Ginsberg’s dissent, pp. 21-22.)
(See Ginsberg’s dissent, pp. 21-22.)
I don’t really care whether Hobby Lobby is sincere, since the legal argument they present is also available to people who are sincere.
However, if you really want to fight about whether Hobby Lobby is sincere:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html
I don’t really care whether Hobby Lobby is sincere, since the legal argument they present is also available to people who are sincere.
However, if you really want to fight about whether Hobby Lobby is sincere:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html
I don’t really care whether Hobby Lobby is sincere, since the legal argument they present is also available to people who are sincere.
However, if you really want to fight about whether Hobby Lobby is sincere:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html
their sincerity matters to me because they just pulled a cotter pin out of the workings on the government and i think we deserve to know who the vandals really are.
their sincerity matters to me because they just pulled a cotter pin out of the workings on the government and i think we deserve to know who the vandals really are.
their sincerity matters to me because they just pulled a cotter pin out of the workings on the government and i think we deserve to know who the vandals really are.
belief trumps medicine. and belief trumps law.
you just have to believe, and you’re exempt from the law. the fact that you are dead wrong doesn’t matter. believe!
and here come the worms:
belief trumps medicine. and belief trumps law.
you just have to believe, and you’re exempt from the law. the fact that you are dead wrong doesn’t matter. believe!
and here come the worms:
belief trumps medicine. and belief trumps law.
you just have to believe, and you’re exempt from the law. the fact that you are dead wrong doesn’t matter. believe!
and here come the worms:
Yes, but apparently this is a no-no.
And from Ugh’s cite:
So, the bar is now that a company that you own, or participate in the ownership of, will be exempt from federal laws or regulations if that law or regulation requires it do something that enables or facilitates *someone else* to do something you find objectionable, on religious grounds.
Can anyone think of how this might go awry?
Conservative Catholics, conservative evangelical Protestants, Hasidim and conservative Jews, Amish, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Muslims.
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Unitarians, Quakers, Christian Scientists.
Folks in the Catholic Worker and base church movements, independent house churches of all stripes.
Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’i, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrianism.
Rastafarians, Santeros, the Native American church, ayahuasca cultists.
Wiccans, pagans, neo-druids, Asatru followers.
The Church of Saint John Coltrane.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There are about a million Santeros in the US. Baha’i is the second most common religion in South Carolina. Buddhism is the second most common religion in about a third of the US, Islam in about another third of the US. The Muslim community in Dearborn MI is one of the largest in the world.
Every sitting judge in the US is going to need a degree in comparative religion.
I say bring it. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let freedom ring.
But it’s gotta ring the same for everybody, no exceptions, or it’s an establishment of religion.
Yes, but apparently this is a no-no.
And from Ugh’s cite:
So, the bar is now that a company that you own, or participate in the ownership of, will be exempt from federal laws or regulations if that law or regulation requires it do something that enables or facilitates *someone else* to do something you find objectionable, on religious grounds.
Can anyone think of how this might go awry?
Conservative Catholics, conservative evangelical Protestants, Hasidim and conservative Jews, Amish, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Muslims.
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Unitarians, Quakers, Christian Scientists.
Folks in the Catholic Worker and base church movements, independent house churches of all stripes.
Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’i, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrianism.
Rastafarians, Santeros, the Native American church, ayahuasca cultists.
Wiccans, pagans, neo-druids, Asatru followers.
The Church of Saint John Coltrane.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There are about a million Santeros in the US. Baha’i is the second most common religion in South Carolina. Buddhism is the second most common religion in about a third of the US, Islam in about another third of the US. The Muslim community in Dearborn MI is one of the largest in the world.
Every sitting judge in the US is going to need a degree in comparative religion.
I say bring it. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let freedom ring.
But it’s gotta ring the same for everybody, no exceptions, or it’s an establishment of religion.
Yes, but apparently this is a no-no.
And from Ugh’s cite:
So, the bar is now that a company that you own, or participate in the ownership of, will be exempt from federal laws or regulations if that law or regulation requires it do something that enables or facilitates *someone else* to do something you find objectionable, on religious grounds.
Can anyone think of how this might go awry?
Conservative Catholics, conservative evangelical Protestants, Hasidim and conservative Jews, Amish, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Muslims.
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Unitarians, Quakers, Christian Scientists.
Folks in the Catholic Worker and base church movements, independent house churches of all stripes.
Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’i, Jains, Sikhs, Zoroastrianism.
Rastafarians, Santeros, the Native American church, ayahuasca cultists.
Wiccans, pagans, neo-druids, Asatru followers.
The Church of Saint John Coltrane.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There are about a million Santeros in the US. Baha’i is the second most common religion in South Carolina. Buddhism is the second most common religion in about a third of the US, Islam in about another third of the US. The Muslim community in Dearborn MI is one of the largest in the world.
Every sitting judge in the US is going to need a degree in comparative religion.
I say bring it. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let freedom ring.
But it’s gotta ring the same for everybody, no exceptions, or it’s an establishment of religion.
Or elect a corporation to the Senate. Cut out the middleman.
Isn’t there a minimum age? Or are corporations considered mature from the date of birth? Hm, that must be the case since I have not yet heard that a corporation younger than 18 years has ever claimed young offenders mitigation.
Or elect a corporation to the Senate. Cut out the middleman.
Isn’t there a minimum age? Or are corporations considered mature from the date of birth? Hm, that must be the case since I have not yet heard that a corporation younger than 18 years has ever claimed young offenders mitigation.
Or elect a corporation to the Senate. Cut out the middleman.
Isn’t there a minimum age? Or are corporations considered mature from the date of birth? Hm, that must be the case since I have not yet heard that a corporation younger than 18 years has ever claimed young offenders mitigation.
There is a minimum age to vote. But not to be elected to most offices — the exceptions being President (35) or US Senator (30).
The voting age is set at the state level, so presumably Deleware could set it anywhere they chose. Although if they allow corporations to vote at a lower age than individuals, their might be cause to contest that as unlawful discrimination….
There is a minimum age to vote. But not to be elected to most offices — the exceptions being President (35) or US Senator (30).
The voting age is set at the state level, so presumably Deleware could set it anywhere they chose. Although if they allow corporations to vote at a lower age than individuals, their might be cause to contest that as unlawful discrimination….
There is a minimum age to vote. But not to be elected to most offices — the exceptions being President (35) or US Senator (30).
The voting age is set at the state level, so presumably Deleware could set it anywhere they chose. Although if they allow corporations to vote at a lower age than individuals, their might be cause to contest that as unlawful discrimination….
russell gazes into his crystal ball:
Time will tell where this decision leads, and I suspect it won’t take very long.
Less than 24 hours. Clarification issued today broadens ruling to all forms of contraception, not just the four specifically listed in the decision, when ownership of closely-held company objects on the basis of Catholicism.
What happens when a Muslim-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers heart-valve-replacement surgery if the valve is derived from a pig?
What happens when a Jain-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers any form of medicine which requires the death of an animal?
russell gazes into his crystal ball:
Time will tell where this decision leads, and I suspect it won’t take very long.
Less than 24 hours. Clarification issued today broadens ruling to all forms of contraception, not just the four specifically listed in the decision, when ownership of closely-held company objects on the basis of Catholicism.
What happens when a Muslim-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers heart-valve-replacement surgery if the valve is derived from a pig?
What happens when a Jain-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers any form of medicine which requires the death of an animal?
russell gazes into his crystal ball:
Time will tell where this decision leads, and I suspect it won’t take very long.
Less than 24 hours. Clarification issued today broadens ruling to all forms of contraception, not just the four specifically listed in the decision, when ownership of closely-held company objects on the basis of Catholicism.
What happens when a Muslim-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers heart-valve-replacement surgery if the valve is derived from a pig?
What happens when a Jain-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers any form of medicine which requires the death of an animal?
It’s a job-creation program for insurance company database admins!!
It’s a job-creation program for insurance company database admins!!
It’s a job-creation program for insurance company database admins!!
Less than 24 hours. Clarification issued today broadens ruling to all forms of contraception, not just the four specifically listed in the decision, when ownership of closely-held company objects on the basis of Catholicism.
What happens when a Muslim-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers heart-valve-replacement surgery if the valve is derived from a pig?
What happens when a Jain-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers any form of medicine which requires the death of an animal
Really?
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them. The ruling moves us back to pre-ACA in this one area. It’s extension beyond health insurance I will have to really see. But employers are not going to limit their employees insurance beyond rationality.
Less than 24 hours. Clarification issued today broadens ruling to all forms of contraception, not just the four specifically listed in the decision, when ownership of closely-held company objects on the basis of Catholicism.
What happens when a Muslim-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers heart-valve-replacement surgery if the valve is derived from a pig?
What happens when a Jain-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers any form of medicine which requires the death of an animal
Really?
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them. The ruling moves us back to pre-ACA in this one area. It’s extension beyond health insurance I will have to really see. But employers are not going to limit their employees insurance beyond rationality.
Less than 24 hours. Clarification issued today broadens ruling to all forms of contraception, not just the four specifically listed in the decision, when ownership of closely-held company objects on the basis of Catholicism.
What happens when a Muslim-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers heart-valve-replacement surgery if the valve is derived from a pig?
What happens when a Jain-owned closely-held company declares that it cannot, in good conscience, pay for insurance that covers any form of medicine which requires the death of an animal
Really?
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them. The ruling moves us back to pre-ACA in this one area. It’s extension beyond health insurance I will have to really see. But employers are not going to limit their employees insurance beyond rationality.
I cant ever fix this, a little help?
I cant ever fix this, a little help?
I cant ever fix this, a little help?
If I’m dating a young Hindu corporation, who I later find out is an underaged venture capital startup and she seduces me into helping her realize and lift her kundalini and in the meantime adjusts three of my chakras … first, who pays for whatever rebirth protection we need, her or me; and second, whose ox gets gored; and third, will I be arrested for causing harm to an ox?
And fourth: Everyone report back here in twelve hours to learn if Judge Alito is now adjusting the line written in stone .. uh.. sand .. umm air-writing by this formerly narrow decision to permit corporate officers first thing every workday morning to physically examine female employees to discern if they remain virgins and in the case of married females several male corporate officers may whistle and catcall in their direction as they march to their desks and then the officers can place their bets in the office betting pool regarding who is pregnant and who is not.
Bring your chalk, Marty, cause this line you keep drawing is on the move.
If I’m dating a young Hindu corporation, who I later find out is an underaged venture capital startup and she seduces me into helping her realize and lift her kundalini and in the meantime adjusts three of my chakras … first, who pays for whatever rebirth protection we need, her or me; and second, whose ox gets gored; and third, will I be arrested for causing harm to an ox?
And fourth: Everyone report back here in twelve hours to learn if Judge Alito is now adjusting the line written in stone .. uh.. sand .. umm air-writing by this formerly narrow decision to permit corporate officers first thing every workday morning to physically examine female employees to discern if they remain virgins and in the case of married females several male corporate officers may whistle and catcall in their direction as they march to their desks and then the officers can place their bets in the office betting pool regarding who is pregnant and who is not.
Bring your chalk, Marty, cause this line you keep drawing is on the move.
If I’m dating a young Hindu corporation, who I later find out is an underaged venture capital startup and she seduces me into helping her realize and lift her kundalini and in the meantime adjusts three of my chakras … first, who pays for whatever rebirth protection we need, her or me; and second, whose ox gets gored; and third, will I be arrested for causing harm to an ox?
And fourth: Everyone report back here in twelve hours to learn if Judge Alito is now adjusting the line written in stone .. uh.. sand .. umm air-writing by this formerly narrow decision to permit corporate officers first thing every workday morning to physically examine female employees to discern if they remain virgins and in the case of married females several male corporate officers may whistle and catcall in their direction as they march to their desks and then the officers can place their bets in the office betting pool regarding who is pregnant and who is not.
Bring your chalk, Marty, cause this line you keep drawing is on the move.
Fixt?
Fixt?
Fixt?
employers are not going to limit their employees insurance beyond rationality.
With respect, that’s exactly what Hobby Lobby the company has done.
IUDs and Plan B are not abortifacients. Ask any Ob/Gyn MD.
The owners of Hobby Lobby have irrationally decided that, for purposes of the owners’ religious scruples, these contraceptives are abortifacients, and has been granted the special right to limit the insurance coverage of their employees based on this irrational belief.
employers are not going to limit their employees insurance beyond rationality.
With respect, that’s exactly what Hobby Lobby the company has done.
IUDs and Plan B are not abortifacients. Ask any Ob/Gyn MD.
The owners of Hobby Lobby have irrationally decided that, for purposes of the owners’ religious scruples, these contraceptives are abortifacients, and has been granted the special right to limit the insurance coverage of their employees based on this irrational belief.
employers are not going to limit their employees insurance beyond rationality.
With respect, that’s exactly what Hobby Lobby the company has done.
IUDs and Plan B are not abortifacients. Ask any Ob/Gyn MD.
The owners of Hobby Lobby have irrationally decided that, for purposes of the owners’ religious scruples, these contraceptives are abortifacients, and has been granted the special right to limit the insurance coverage of their employees based on this irrational belief.
there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
It will be interesting to see if the current employees of Hobby Lobby (who are, I think, predominantly female) feel that line has been crossed. If I worked there, I certainly would.
there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
It will be interesting to see if the current employees of Hobby Lobby (who are, I think, predominantly female) feel that line has been crossed. If I worked there, I certainly would.
there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
It will be interesting to see if the current employees of Hobby Lobby (who are, I think, predominantly female) feel that line has been crossed. If I worked there, I certainly would.
Fixed, but it kind of broke the context of subsequent comments.
The slash goes before the i in the HTML tag, Gilligan!
Fixed, but it kind of broke the context of subsequent comments.
The slash goes before the i in the HTML tag, Gilligan!
Fixed, but it kind of broke the context of subsequent comments.
The slash goes before the i in the HTML tag, Gilligan!
A couple of thoughts:
1. Hobby Lobby is having it both ways: either you are or or not a limited liability creature of statute. Hobby Lobby is probably–more like certainly–in any number of ordinary, premises liability lawsuits. I expect the claimants in those cases to now assert personal liability on the part of the shareholders.
2. The decision is not that big of a deal. We are talking about a regulation that never would have passed as a law that simply limits what an employer is obliged to do for its employees. The limitation is fairly mild, birth control being fairly cheap. For those who think it is the end of the world, not everyone agrees with you.
3. This fight is the result of creating positive rights where one person or entity is compelled to give or do something for another person. That is going to create friction. On the left, the view seems to be that any compulsion of one person to perform an act deemed worthy by the left is, by definition, good and right and the person compelled should just fall in line with whatever decree comes down. But, if the person compelled fights back, and if the courts say there are limits on what the gov’t can compel, well that is a travesty, blah, blah, blah. I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Hobby Lobby is having it both ways: either you are or or not a limited liability creature of statute. Hobby Lobby is probably–more like certainly–in any number of ordinary, premises liability lawsuits. I expect the claimants in those cases to now assert personal liability on the part of the shareholders.
2. The decision is not that big of a deal. We are talking about a regulation that never would have passed as a law that simply limits what an employer is obliged to do for its employees. The limitation is fairly mild, birth control being fairly cheap. For those who think it is the end of the world, not everyone agrees with you.
3. This fight is the result of creating positive rights where one person or entity is compelled to give or do something for another person. That is going to create friction. On the left, the view seems to be that any compulsion of one person to perform an act deemed worthy by the left is, by definition, good and right and the person compelled should just fall in line with whatever decree comes down. But, if the person compelled fights back, and if the courts say there are limits on what the gov’t can compel, well that is a travesty, blah, blah, blah. I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Hobby Lobby is having it both ways: either you are or or not a limited liability creature of statute. Hobby Lobby is probably–more like certainly–in any number of ordinary, premises liability lawsuits. I expect the claimants in those cases to now assert personal liability on the part of the shareholders.
2. The decision is not that big of a deal. We are talking about a regulation that never would have passed as a law that simply limits what an employer is obliged to do for its employees. The limitation is fairly mild, birth control being fairly cheap. For those who think it is the end of the world, not everyone agrees with you.
3. This fight is the result of creating positive rights where one person or entity is compelled to give or do something for another person. That is going to create friction. On the left, the view seems to be that any compulsion of one person to perform an act deemed worthy by the left is, by definition, good and right and the person compelled should just fall in line with whatever decree comes down. But, if the person compelled fights back, and if the courts say there are limits on what the gov’t can compel, well that is a travesty, blah, blah, blah. I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
Preventing hypocrisy is one of the ordained functions of federal government, McKTx.
Preventing hypocrisy is one of the ordained functions of federal government, McKTx.
Preventing hypocrisy is one of the ordained functions of federal government, McKTx.
i/ bad. Not that I haven’t done that some hundreds of times, I clearly needed a refresher course.
i/ bad. Not that I haven’t done that some hundreds of times, I clearly needed a refresher course.
i/ bad. Not that I haven’t done that some hundreds of times, I clearly needed a refresher course.
Joel,
This “special right” was every employers right until four years ago. Its not really that big a deal except some people got part of it back.
Joel,
This “special right” was every employers right until four years ago. Its not really that big a deal except some people got part of it back.
Joel,
This “special right” was every employers right until four years ago. Its not really that big a deal except some people got part of it back.
This “special right” was every employers right until four years ago.
Umm.
Before ACA, twenty-eight states mandated that employer-provided insurance cover contraception, if that insurance covered prescriptions.
Hobby Lobby complied in those states.
This “special right” was every employers right until four years ago.
Umm.
Before ACA, twenty-eight states mandated that employer-provided insurance cover contraception, if that insurance covered prescriptions.
Hobby Lobby complied in those states.
This “special right” was every employers right until four years ago.
Umm.
Before ACA, twenty-eight states mandated that employer-provided insurance cover contraception, if that insurance covered prescriptions.
Hobby Lobby complied in those states.
limits on what gov’t can decree
I think it’s completely amazing that the government can decree that the legal-fiction constructs called “corporations” can have personal religious scruples.
One wonders how a closely-held corporation prays. And where was it baptized? Does it fast during Lent? Can a corporation take Holy Communion?
limits on what gov’t can decree
I think it’s completely amazing that the government can decree that the legal-fiction constructs called “corporations” can have personal religious scruples.
One wonders how a closely-held corporation prays. And where was it baptized? Does it fast during Lent? Can a corporation take Holy Communion?
limits on what gov’t can decree
I think it’s completely amazing that the government can decree that the legal-fiction constructs called “corporations” can have personal religious scruples.
One wonders how a closely-held corporation prays. And where was it baptized? Does it fast during Lent? Can a corporation take Holy Communion?
So ACA overreach screwed things up in 28 states,huh? Back to even in 22. But just for closely helds.
So ACA overreach screwed things up in 28 states,huh? Back to even in 22. But just for closely helds.
So ACA overreach screwed things up in 28 states,huh? Back to even in 22. But just for closely helds.
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
Have you ever read an entire insurance policy? The people who market these products will get a good belly laugh at that claim.
And frankly, absent a national health plan, people still need private insurance, no matter how crappy.
Similarly for “contracts” we routinely enter in to regarding credit cards, software, etc., etc. I’m sure you’ve read those from end to end also, and found nothing objectionable?
Conservatives routinely decry the loss of (big L) Liberty, yet also routinely support institutional arrangements that commodify freedom and stifle human agency.
We are all just products on a shelf, to be bought and sold. Enjoy the trinkets, but for me, I say, bah! Some freedom.
If you agree, please click on “accept”.
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
Have you ever read an entire insurance policy? The people who market these products will get a good belly laugh at that claim.
And frankly, absent a national health plan, people still need private insurance, no matter how crappy.
Similarly for “contracts” we routinely enter in to regarding credit cards, software, etc., etc. I’m sure you’ve read those from end to end also, and found nothing objectionable?
Conservatives routinely decry the loss of (big L) Liberty, yet also routinely support institutional arrangements that commodify freedom and stifle human agency.
We are all just products on a shelf, to be bought and sold. Enjoy the trinkets, but for me, I say, bah! Some freedom.
If you agree, please click on “accept”.
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
Have you ever read an entire insurance policy? The people who market these products will get a good belly laugh at that claim.
And frankly, absent a national health plan, people still need private insurance, no matter how crappy.
Similarly for “contracts” we routinely enter in to regarding credit cards, software, etc., etc. I’m sure you’ve read those from end to end also, and found nothing objectionable?
Conservatives routinely decry the loss of (big L) Liberty, yet also routinely support institutional arrangements that commodify freedom and stifle human agency.
We are all just products on a shelf, to be bought and sold. Enjoy the trinkets, but for me, I say, bah! Some freedom.
If you agree, please click on “accept”.
I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
I see damn little on the right in the way of rethinking limits on private power relations, or government power when it comes to “national defense” or civil liberties either.
So here we are. Puntsville?
I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
I see damn little on the right in the way of rethinking limits on private power relations, or government power when it comes to “national defense” or civil liberties either.
So here we are. Puntsville?
I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
I see damn little on the right in the way of rethinking limits on private power relations, or government power when it comes to “national defense” or civil liberties either.
So here we are. Puntsville?
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
Only if they believe they can find another job. One which offers better coverage and something like the same pay.
But the reality is, people generally resist changing jobs unless something is extremely painful. (Or someone comes to themm with a much better offer.) In the current job market, this may be very upsetting for some of their employees, but probably not enough to cause them to quit.
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
Only if they believe they can find another job. One which offers better coverage and something like the same pay.
But the reality is, people generally resist changing jobs unless something is extremely painful. (Or someone comes to themm with a much better offer.) In the current job market, this may be very upsetting for some of their employees, but probably not enough to cause them to quit.
The answer to all these questions is that there is a limit to the insurance exceptions one can put in their policy and still have people willing to work for them.
Only if they believe they can find another job. One which offers better coverage and something like the same pay.
But the reality is, people generally resist changing jobs unless something is extremely painful. (Or someone comes to themm with a much better offer.) In the current job market, this may be very upsetting for some of their employees, but probably not enough to cause them to quit.
All true, wj.But, over some time, employers typically react to hiring and retention problems with better benefits and compensation.
All true, wj.But, over some time, employers typically react to hiring and retention problems with better benefits and compensation.
All true, wj.But, over some time, employers typically react to hiring and retention problems with better benefits and compensation.
I have a dream/fantasy that the new Pope would deem contraception acceptable (I mean, he’s plumping for married priests).
I have a dream/fantasy that the new Pope would deem contraception acceptable (I mean, he’s plumping for married priests).
I have a dream/fantasy that the new Pope would deem contraception acceptable (I mean, he’s plumping for married priests).
Quite true, Marty. Employers who treat their people right do better in the long run. Frequently, a whole lot better. But unfortunately, an awful lot of companies, even closely held ones, get focused on the very short term, and lose track of the big picture.
And people can have the same difficult planning for the long term, of course. Just look at how many people end up massively in debt, or arrive at retirement age without much in the way of savings.
Quite true, Marty. Employers who treat their people right do better in the long run. Frequently, a whole lot better. But unfortunately, an awful lot of companies, even closely held ones, get focused on the very short term, and lose track of the big picture.
And people can have the same difficult planning for the long term, of course. Just look at how many people end up massively in debt, or arrive at retirement age without much in the way of savings.
Quite true, Marty. Employers who treat their people right do better in the long run. Frequently, a whole lot better. But unfortunately, an awful lot of companies, even closely held ones, get focused on the very short term, and lose track of the big picture.
And people can have the same difficult planning for the long term, of course. Just look at how many people end up massively in debt, or arrive at retirement age without much in the way of savings.
I had a dream that the deeply-felt convictions of all citizens were equally respected, by virtue of a carefully-constructed and well-maintained wall between church and state.
I had a dream that the deeply-felt convictions of all citizens were equally respected, by virtue of a carefully-constructed and well-maintained wall between church and state.
I had a dream that the deeply-felt convictions of all citizens were equally respected, by virtue of a carefully-constructed and well-maintained wall between church and state.
So ACA overreach screwed things up in 28 states,huh? Back to even in 22. But just for closely helds.
Not the ACA, the EEOC, ca. 2000.
What the ACA added was the requirement for no co-pay.
You say overreach, other folks say it makes sense. Potato, potahto.
If you’re looking for root causes, I’d look at our practice of providing health insurance primarily via employers.
Good luck unwinding that.
In any case, the solution to “overreach” is now to recognize religious belief in for-profit corporations.
That’s not overreach, it’s freaking nutty. It’s like finding religious sentiment in a bank account.
That’s an analogy I’m almost afraid to make out loud – it might give people ideas.
The United States of pretzel logic.
So ACA overreach screwed things up in 28 states,huh? Back to even in 22. But just for closely helds.
Not the ACA, the EEOC, ca. 2000.
What the ACA added was the requirement for no co-pay.
You say overreach, other folks say it makes sense. Potato, potahto.
If you’re looking for root causes, I’d look at our practice of providing health insurance primarily via employers.
Good luck unwinding that.
In any case, the solution to “overreach” is now to recognize religious belief in for-profit corporations.
That’s not overreach, it’s freaking nutty. It’s like finding religious sentiment in a bank account.
That’s an analogy I’m almost afraid to make out loud – it might give people ideas.
The United States of pretzel logic.
So ACA overreach screwed things up in 28 states,huh? Back to even in 22. But just for closely helds.
Not the ACA, the EEOC, ca. 2000.
What the ACA added was the requirement for no co-pay.
You say overreach, other folks say it makes sense. Potato, potahto.
If you’re looking for root causes, I’d look at our practice of providing health insurance primarily via employers.
Good luck unwinding that.
In any case, the solution to “overreach” is now to recognize religious belief in for-profit corporations.
That’s not overreach, it’s freaking nutty. It’s like finding religious sentiment in a bank account.
That’s an analogy I’m almost afraid to make out loud – it might give people ideas.
The United States of pretzel logic.
“1. Hobby Lobby is having it both ways: either you are or or not a limited liability creature of statute. Hobby Lobby is probably–more like certainly–in any number of ordinary, premises liability lawsuits. I expect the claimants in those cases to now assert personal liability on the part of the shareholders.”
Uh, sure, they might assert that, and then they’ll lose. Unless you seriously think state courts are going to promptly abandon centuries of tort precedent because of this RFRA decision.
“2. The decision is not that big of a deal. We are talking about a regulation that never would have passed as a law that simply limits what an employer is obliged to do for its employees. The limitation is fairly mild, birth control being fairly cheap. For those who think it is the end of the world, not everyone agrees with you.”
If your point 1 is right, and corporate liability for close corporations now truly extends to shareholders, how can the decision not be that big of a deal? But of course point 1 is wrong.
You say that limiting access to birth control is “mild” because it’s “fairly cheap.” Well, how cheap is it? How much cheaper would it be with the HHS rule in effect? Is that amount of money enough to make a difference to poor- and middle-class people?
You’re making light of “those” calling this the “end of the world,” Of course, the thing most likely to cause the ACTUAL end of the world, global climate change, is actively denied by every politician in the Republican party. So that’s ironic.
Of course, no one I know or read is actually calling this the end of the world. But it is concerning, because there is simply no principled basis for picking which religious beliefs trump or don’t trump which government policies. If you spotted one in the opinion I’d love to have the cite.
“3. This fight is the result of creating positive rights where one person or entity is compelled to give or do something for another person. That is going to create friction. On the left, the view seems to be that any compulsion of one person to perform an act deemed worthy by the left is, by definition, good and right and the person compelled should just fall in line with whatever decree comes down. But, if the person compelled fights back, and if the courts say there are limits on what the gov’t can compel, well that is a travesty, blah, blah, blah. I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.”
Hobby Lobby wasn’t compelled to provide employee health insurance at all, let alone provide such insurance complete with birth control. This is a common misconception, one that I have in fact dispelled on this very message board, but I suppose one more time won’t hurt.
Employer-provided health insurance is not counted toward income for the covered employees. Premia paid by the employer are not taxable (because they are a cost of providing compensation). These features of the tax code (relics of WW II price controls) make it highly tax-advantaged for many employers to offer health insurance coverage.
Hobby Lobby’s complaint is that HHS decided that employer “health insurance” would have to cover birth control to count as health insurance for the purposes of the tax break.
It’s not a government decree. It’s a tax break.
“1. Hobby Lobby is having it both ways: either you are or or not a limited liability creature of statute. Hobby Lobby is probably–more like certainly–in any number of ordinary, premises liability lawsuits. I expect the claimants in those cases to now assert personal liability on the part of the shareholders.”
Uh, sure, they might assert that, and then they’ll lose. Unless you seriously think state courts are going to promptly abandon centuries of tort precedent because of this RFRA decision.
“2. The decision is not that big of a deal. We are talking about a regulation that never would have passed as a law that simply limits what an employer is obliged to do for its employees. The limitation is fairly mild, birth control being fairly cheap. For those who think it is the end of the world, not everyone agrees with you.”
If your point 1 is right, and corporate liability for close corporations now truly extends to shareholders, how can the decision not be that big of a deal? But of course point 1 is wrong.
You say that limiting access to birth control is “mild” because it’s “fairly cheap.” Well, how cheap is it? How much cheaper would it be with the HHS rule in effect? Is that amount of money enough to make a difference to poor- and middle-class people?
You’re making light of “those” calling this the “end of the world,” Of course, the thing most likely to cause the ACTUAL end of the world, global climate change, is actively denied by every politician in the Republican party. So that’s ironic.
Of course, no one I know or read is actually calling this the end of the world. But it is concerning, because there is simply no principled basis for picking which religious beliefs trump or don’t trump which government policies. If you spotted one in the opinion I’d love to have the cite.
“3. This fight is the result of creating positive rights where one person or entity is compelled to give or do something for another person. That is going to create friction. On the left, the view seems to be that any compulsion of one person to perform an act deemed worthy by the left is, by definition, good and right and the person compelled should just fall in line with whatever decree comes down. But, if the person compelled fights back, and if the courts say there are limits on what the gov’t can compel, well that is a travesty, blah, blah, blah. I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.”
Hobby Lobby wasn’t compelled to provide employee health insurance at all, let alone provide such insurance complete with birth control. This is a common misconception, one that I have in fact dispelled on this very message board, but I suppose one more time won’t hurt.
Employer-provided health insurance is not counted toward income for the covered employees. Premia paid by the employer are not taxable (because they are a cost of providing compensation). These features of the tax code (relics of WW II price controls) make it highly tax-advantaged for many employers to offer health insurance coverage.
Hobby Lobby’s complaint is that HHS decided that employer “health insurance” would have to cover birth control to count as health insurance for the purposes of the tax break.
It’s not a government decree. It’s a tax break.
“1. Hobby Lobby is having it both ways: either you are or or not a limited liability creature of statute. Hobby Lobby is probably–more like certainly–in any number of ordinary, premises liability lawsuits. I expect the claimants in those cases to now assert personal liability on the part of the shareholders.”
Uh, sure, they might assert that, and then they’ll lose. Unless you seriously think state courts are going to promptly abandon centuries of tort precedent because of this RFRA decision.
“2. The decision is not that big of a deal. We are talking about a regulation that never would have passed as a law that simply limits what an employer is obliged to do for its employees. The limitation is fairly mild, birth control being fairly cheap. For those who think it is the end of the world, not everyone agrees with you.”
If your point 1 is right, and corporate liability for close corporations now truly extends to shareholders, how can the decision not be that big of a deal? But of course point 1 is wrong.
You say that limiting access to birth control is “mild” because it’s “fairly cheap.” Well, how cheap is it? How much cheaper would it be with the HHS rule in effect? Is that amount of money enough to make a difference to poor- and middle-class people?
You’re making light of “those” calling this the “end of the world,” Of course, the thing most likely to cause the ACTUAL end of the world, global climate change, is actively denied by every politician in the Republican party. So that’s ironic.
Of course, no one I know or read is actually calling this the end of the world. But it is concerning, because there is simply no principled basis for picking which religious beliefs trump or don’t trump which government policies. If you spotted one in the opinion I’d love to have the cite.
“3. This fight is the result of creating positive rights where one person or entity is compelled to give or do something for another person. That is going to create friction. On the left, the view seems to be that any compulsion of one person to perform an act deemed worthy by the left is, by definition, good and right and the person compelled should just fall in line with whatever decree comes down. But, if the person compelled fights back, and if the courts say there are limits on what the gov’t can compel, well that is a travesty, blah, blah, blah. I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.”
Hobby Lobby wasn’t compelled to provide employee health insurance at all, let alone provide such insurance complete with birth control. This is a common misconception, one that I have in fact dispelled on this very message board, but I suppose one more time won’t hurt.
Employer-provided health insurance is not counted toward income for the covered employees. Premia paid by the employer are not taxable (because they are a cost of providing compensation). These features of the tax code (relics of WW II price controls) make it highly tax-advantaged for many employers to offer health insurance coverage.
Hobby Lobby’s complaint is that HHS decided that employer “health insurance” would have to cover birth control to count as health insurance for the purposes of the tax break.
It’s not a government decree. It’s a tax break.
….over some time, employers typically react to hiring and retention problems with better benefits and compensation.
This is simply not true. If it were true, we would see large increases in the pay for welders, for just one example. Instead we get whiny editorials in the WSJ bemoaning the fact that “nobody wants” to be a welder at $12/hr.
Or we see attempts to bend government policy to solve the problem. An example here is the tech industry pushing for more HB-1 visas to increase the supply of labor.
Another: The Brooksian dread regarding our declining (white) birth rate. What? Run out of workers and have to pay whomever is left a bigger slice of the pie. Heavens no! We can’t have that.
There are plenty more in this vein.
The only fields your “rising pay and benefits” seems to apply is for bankers, buy out artists, hedge fund managers, some sports stars, university presidents and football coaches and athletic directors, some entertainers, and, of course CEO’s.
The last is priceless. There is no shortage of people willing and able to be CEO’s. Nonetheless, their compensation is untethered from any apparent market forces.
Supply and demand? Yeah. Sure.
….over some time, employers typically react to hiring and retention problems with better benefits and compensation.
This is simply not true. If it were true, we would see large increases in the pay for welders, for just one example. Instead we get whiny editorials in the WSJ bemoaning the fact that “nobody wants” to be a welder at $12/hr.
Or we see attempts to bend government policy to solve the problem. An example here is the tech industry pushing for more HB-1 visas to increase the supply of labor.
Another: The Brooksian dread regarding our declining (white) birth rate. What? Run out of workers and have to pay whomever is left a bigger slice of the pie. Heavens no! We can’t have that.
There are plenty more in this vein.
The only fields your “rising pay and benefits” seems to apply is for bankers, buy out artists, hedge fund managers, some sports stars, university presidents and football coaches and athletic directors, some entertainers, and, of course CEO’s.
The last is priceless. There is no shortage of people willing and able to be CEO’s. Nonetheless, their compensation is untethered from any apparent market forces.
Supply and demand? Yeah. Sure.
….over some time, employers typically react to hiring and retention problems with better benefits and compensation.
This is simply not true. If it were true, we would see large increases in the pay for welders, for just one example. Instead we get whiny editorials in the WSJ bemoaning the fact that “nobody wants” to be a welder at $12/hr.
Or we see attempts to bend government policy to solve the problem. An example here is the tech industry pushing for more HB-1 visas to increase the supply of labor.
Another: The Brooksian dread regarding our declining (white) birth rate. What? Run out of workers and have to pay whomever is left a bigger slice of the pie. Heavens no! We can’t have that.
There are plenty more in this vein.
The only fields your “rising pay and benefits” seems to apply is for bankers, buy out artists, hedge fund managers, some sports stars, university presidents and football coaches and athletic directors, some entertainers, and, of course CEO’s.
The last is priceless. There is no shortage of people willing and able to be CEO’s. Nonetheless, their compensation is untethered from any apparent market forces.
Supply and demand? Yeah. Sure.
It’s like finding religious sentiment in a bank account.
Mammon is a powerful and jealous God. If money is worshipped why should not the money worship itself*, esp. in the ethereal form of a bank account?
*itself practicing worship, I mean
It’s like finding religious sentiment in a bank account.
Mammon is a powerful and jealous God. If money is worshipped why should not the money worship itself*, esp. in the ethereal form of a bank account?
*itself practicing worship, I mean
It’s like finding religious sentiment in a bank account.
Mammon is a powerful and jealous God. If money is worshipped why should not the money worship itself*, esp. in the ethereal form of a bank account?
*itself practicing worship, I mean
It’s not a government decree. It’s a tax break
I am pretty sure under the ACA this isn’t quite true. But even prior to that it is simplistic. The employer could get the same tax break by just paying the employee the cash. Or, just not and pocket the delta between the cash saved and the tax paid. The benefit is to the employee, who gets pretax insurance at a presumably lower rate than in n the individual market. So she gets the cost as no taxable income and cheaper insurance. The employer gets to tout their benefits package, which costs the company.
It’s not a government decree. It’s a tax break
I am pretty sure under the ACA this isn’t quite true. But even prior to that it is simplistic. The employer could get the same tax break by just paying the employee the cash. Or, just not and pocket the delta between the cash saved and the tax paid. The benefit is to the employee, who gets pretax insurance at a presumably lower rate than in n the individual market. So she gets the cost as no taxable income and cheaper insurance. The employer gets to tout their benefits package, which costs the company.
It’s not a government decree. It’s a tax break
I am pretty sure under the ACA this isn’t quite true. But even prior to that it is simplistic. The employer could get the same tax break by just paying the employee the cash. Or, just not and pocket the delta between the cash saved and the tax paid. The benefit is to the employee, who gets pretax insurance at a presumably lower rate than in n the individual market. So she gets the cost as no taxable income and cheaper insurance. The employer gets to tout their benefits package, which costs the company.
The employer gets to tout their benefits package
so, yes, it’s a benefit to the company.
The employer gets to tout their benefits package
so, yes, it’s a benefit to the company.
The employer gets to tout their benefits package
so, yes, it’s a benefit to the company.
I’m quite surprised that many people here seem optimistic about vaccine coverage mandates surviving religious objections. To me, it’s obvious that there is at least one mandated vaccine that likely won’t: Gardasil (HPV).
I’ll admit to not knowing how that might happen. Will courts let employers opt-out of vaccine coverage generally? Or will we see even more twisted logic explaining why HPV vaccines don’t need to be covered, but flu vaccines do? Either way, the mess is just beginning.
I’m quite surprised that many people here seem optimistic about vaccine coverage mandates surviving religious objections. To me, it’s obvious that there is at least one mandated vaccine that likely won’t: Gardasil (HPV).
I’ll admit to not knowing how that might happen. Will courts let employers opt-out of vaccine coverage generally? Or will we see even more twisted logic explaining why HPV vaccines don’t need to be covered, but flu vaccines do? Either way, the mess is just beginning.
I’m quite surprised that many people here seem optimistic about vaccine coverage mandates surviving religious objections. To me, it’s obvious that there is at least one mandated vaccine that likely won’t: Gardasil (HPV).
I’ll admit to not knowing how that might happen. Will courts let employers opt-out of vaccine coverage generally? Or will we see even more twisted logic explaining why HPV vaccines don’t need to be covered, but flu vaccines do? Either way, the mess is just beginning.
Sorry Marty, everyone, it seems I was partly wrong. I was right that employers are not legally required to offer health insurance. However, if you are en employer who offers insurance, there is a penalty for not covering birth control of up to $100/day.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100249369/CRS-Report-HHS-Contraception-Abortion-Mandate
Sorry Marty, everyone, it seems I was partly wrong. I was right that employers are not legally required to offer health insurance. However, if you are en employer who offers insurance, there is a penalty for not covering birth control of up to $100/day.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100249369/CRS-Report-HHS-Contraception-Abortion-Mandate
Sorry Marty, everyone, it seems I was partly wrong. I was right that employers are not legally required to offer health insurance. However, if you are en employer who offers insurance, there is a penalty for not covering birth control of up to $100/day.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100249369/CRS-Report-HHS-Contraception-Abortion-Mandate
Julian,
I did a three second search and liked this explanation from Monster the best. I suppose you could say they aren’t “required” to provide health insurance because they can pay a penalty instead, but that’s a stretch:
Are employers required to provide health insurance to their employees?
I think that counts as required.
Julian,
I did a three second search and liked this explanation from Monster the best. I suppose you could say they aren’t “required” to provide health insurance because they can pay a penalty instead, but that’s a stretch:
Are employers required to provide health insurance to their employees?
I think that counts as required.
Julian,
I did a three second search and liked this explanation from Monster the best. I suppose you could say they aren’t “required” to provide health insurance because they can pay a penalty instead, but that’s a stretch:
Are employers required to provide health insurance to their employees?
I think that counts as required.
You’re right and I was wrong.
You’re right and I was wrong.
You’re right and I was wrong.
I think that counts as required.
No. It does not. There is a choice. Offer insurance or pay a penalty. A choice is not a “requirement”.
Tax breaks: The insurance is a non-taxable benefit to the employee and a deductible cost to the employer. If the employer were to pay cash, presumably they would have to pay more to offset the tax the employee would now have to pay on the added income….all things being equal. Paying more = costs more money.
Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.
I think that counts as required.
No. It does not. There is a choice. Offer insurance or pay a penalty. A choice is not a “requirement”.
Tax breaks: The insurance is a non-taxable benefit to the employee and a deductible cost to the employer. If the employer were to pay cash, presumably they would have to pay more to offset the tax the employee would now have to pay on the added income….all things being equal. Paying more = costs more money.
Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.
I think that counts as required.
No. It does not. There is a choice. Offer insurance or pay a penalty. A choice is not a “requirement”.
Tax breaks: The insurance is a non-taxable benefit to the employee and a deductible cost to the employer. If the employer were to pay cash, presumably they would have to pay more to offset the tax the employee would now have to pay on the added income….all things being equal. Paying more = costs more money.
Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.
thanks.
thanks.
thanks.
“Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.”
yes, as is paying higher wages and offering more vacations and any number of things that attract better employees. But they are costs, presumably with some defined benefit, to the company.
“Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.”
yes, as is paying higher wages and offering more vacations and any number of things that attract better employees. But they are costs, presumably with some defined benefit, to the company.
“Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.”
yes, as is paying higher wages and offering more vacations and any number of things that attract better employees. But they are costs, presumably with some defined benefit, to the company.
There is a choice. Offer insurance or pay a penalty. A choice is not a “requirement”.
Bobby, on that grounds, there is no requirement to obey the speed limit either. You have a choice: conform to the limit or pay a penalty. Likewise the laws against fraud, etc. For all of them, there is a “choice”.
There is a choice. Offer insurance or pay a penalty. A choice is not a “requirement”.
Bobby, on that grounds, there is no requirement to obey the speed limit either. You have a choice: conform to the limit or pay a penalty. Likewise the laws against fraud, etc. For all of them, there is a “choice”.
There is a choice. Offer insurance or pay a penalty. A choice is not a “requirement”.
Bobby, on that grounds, there is no requirement to obey the speed limit either. You have a choice: conform to the limit or pay a penalty. Likewise the laws against fraud, etc. For all of them, there is a “choice”.
“yes, as is paying higher wages and offering more vacations and any number of things that attract better employees. But they are costs, presumably with some defined benefit, to the company.”
Paying higher wages is not tax-advantaged for employees. Health insurance is, because health insurance is excluded from income.
The fact that health insurance is excluded from income is in some ways very bad for minimum-wage workers, because employer-provided health insurance does not count toward meeting that minimum wage. So employers paying minimum wage cannot use health insurance for employees to meet the minimum wage standard; consequently, I think many such employers do not provide health insurance to employees at all.
“yes, as is paying higher wages and offering more vacations and any number of things that attract better employees. But they are costs, presumably with some defined benefit, to the company.”
Paying higher wages is not tax-advantaged for employees. Health insurance is, because health insurance is excluded from income.
The fact that health insurance is excluded from income is in some ways very bad for minimum-wage workers, because employer-provided health insurance does not count toward meeting that minimum wage. So employers paying minimum wage cannot use health insurance for employees to meet the minimum wage standard; consequently, I think many such employers do not provide health insurance to employees at all.
“yes, as is paying higher wages and offering more vacations and any number of things that attract better employees. But they are costs, presumably with some defined benefit, to the company.”
Paying higher wages is not tax-advantaged for employees. Health insurance is, because health insurance is excluded from income.
The fact that health insurance is excluded from income is in some ways very bad for minimum-wage workers, because employer-provided health insurance does not count toward meeting that minimum wage. So employers paying minimum wage cannot use health insurance for employees to meet the minimum wage standard; consequently, I think many such employers do not provide health insurance to employees at all.
Marty,
A company that pays a cash wage in lieu of a non-taxable benefit will have higher labor costs than one that does, all other things being equal.
Therefore, the tax treatment of company health benefits are basically a public subsidy to those who offer them.
The “defined benefit” to the company in this instance is lower costs, not “better employees”.
The thrust of the ACA is this: If you want the subsidy, you have to play by our rules. This is in line with that old adage, “those who have the gold make the rules”.
The assholes who own Hobby Lobby want the subsidy (i.e., they have not opted out of providing health benefits), but also want the power to define the rules.
This is known as having your cake and eating it too.
The Supremes, in their wisdom, said, “Well, OK, in the case of closely held corporations who object to birth control only and nothing else, then we’ll let the company call the tune and deny benefits to a certain class of people who are attached to a uterus.”
The decision is a farce.
Marty,
A company that pays a cash wage in lieu of a non-taxable benefit will have higher labor costs than one that does, all other things being equal.
Therefore, the tax treatment of company health benefits are basically a public subsidy to those who offer them.
The “defined benefit” to the company in this instance is lower costs, not “better employees”.
The thrust of the ACA is this: If you want the subsidy, you have to play by our rules. This is in line with that old adage, “those who have the gold make the rules”.
The assholes who own Hobby Lobby want the subsidy (i.e., they have not opted out of providing health benefits), but also want the power to define the rules.
This is known as having your cake and eating it too.
The Supremes, in their wisdom, said, “Well, OK, in the case of closely held corporations who object to birth control only and nothing else, then we’ll let the company call the tune and deny benefits to a certain class of people who are attached to a uterus.”
The decision is a farce.
Marty,
A company that pays a cash wage in lieu of a non-taxable benefit will have higher labor costs than one that does, all other things being equal.
Therefore, the tax treatment of company health benefits are basically a public subsidy to those who offer them.
The “defined benefit” to the company in this instance is lower costs, not “better employees”.
The thrust of the ACA is this: If you want the subsidy, you have to play by our rules. This is in line with that old adage, “those who have the gold make the rules”.
The assholes who own Hobby Lobby want the subsidy (i.e., they have not opted out of providing health benefits), but also want the power to define the rules.
This is known as having your cake and eating it too.
The Supremes, in their wisdom, said, “Well, OK, in the case of closely held corporations who object to birth control only and nothing else, then we’ll let the company call the tune and deny benefits to a certain class of people who are attached to a uterus.”
The decision is a farce.
In any case, the solution to “overreach” is now to recognize religious belief in for-profit corporations.
perhaps, someday, people will be able to look back on this and see it as the first step towards explicit legal recognition of for-profit churches.
In any case, the solution to “overreach” is now to recognize religious belief in for-profit corporations.
perhaps, someday, people will be able to look back on this and see it as the first step towards explicit legal recognition of for-profit churches.
In any case, the solution to “overreach” is now to recognize religious belief in for-profit corporations.
perhaps, someday, people will be able to look back on this and see it as the first step towards explicit legal recognition of for-profit churches.
I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
The funny thing is, I look at this situation and it makes me think we should just hand basic health insurance over to the feds, lock stock and barrel.
Enough of this weird crazy-quilt patched-together crapstorm. Medicare for everyone.
That way everybody gets to go to the doctor, and/or has access to what they need in terms of basic medicine.
Period.
Schools, highways, libraries, postal service, some nice public parks, and oh yeah, basic health insurance.
No, we won’t cover your face lift. Yes, we will cover any form of birth control that the FDA has approved, and that your doctor thinks is a good fit for your situation.
If an IUD offends you, don’t use one.
If you have moral scruples about your tax dollars being spent on medical practices you object to, you can take a number and get in line behind everybody else who doesn’t like how their taxes are spent.
The remedy for that is called “voting”.
What will it cost? It can’t be any more than what we pay now, because we pay through the freaking nose. Both nostrils.
Medicare for everyone, and we move the hell on. Next problem, please.
Some days I think we are the stupidest nation on the face of the earth. The stuff we pick to obsess about, and the places we decide to draw lines in the sand, make no sense to me at all.
End of rant.
I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
The funny thing is, I look at this situation and it makes me think we should just hand basic health insurance over to the feds, lock stock and barrel.
Enough of this weird crazy-quilt patched-together crapstorm. Medicare for everyone.
That way everybody gets to go to the doctor, and/or has access to what they need in terms of basic medicine.
Period.
Schools, highways, libraries, postal service, some nice public parks, and oh yeah, basic health insurance.
No, we won’t cover your face lift. Yes, we will cover any form of birth control that the FDA has approved, and that your doctor thinks is a good fit for your situation.
If an IUD offends you, don’t use one.
If you have moral scruples about your tax dollars being spent on medical practices you object to, you can take a number and get in line behind everybody else who doesn’t like how their taxes are spent.
The remedy for that is called “voting”.
What will it cost? It can’t be any more than what we pay now, because we pay through the freaking nose. Both nostrils.
Medicare for everyone, and we move the hell on. Next problem, please.
Some days I think we are the stupidest nation on the face of the earth. The stuff we pick to obsess about, and the places we decide to draw lines in the sand, make no sense to me at all.
End of rant.
I see damn little in the way of rethinking whether there ought to be limits on what gov’t can decree.
The funny thing is, I look at this situation and it makes me think we should just hand basic health insurance over to the feds, lock stock and barrel.
Enough of this weird crazy-quilt patched-together crapstorm. Medicare for everyone.
That way everybody gets to go to the doctor, and/or has access to what they need in terms of basic medicine.
Period.
Schools, highways, libraries, postal service, some nice public parks, and oh yeah, basic health insurance.
No, we won’t cover your face lift. Yes, we will cover any form of birth control that the FDA has approved, and that your doctor thinks is a good fit for your situation.
If an IUD offends you, don’t use one.
If you have moral scruples about your tax dollars being spent on medical practices you object to, you can take a number and get in line behind everybody else who doesn’t like how their taxes are spent.
The remedy for that is called “voting”.
What will it cost? It can’t be any more than what we pay now, because we pay through the freaking nose. Both nostrils.
Medicare for everyone, and we move the hell on. Next problem, please.
Some days I think we are the stupidest nation on the face of the earth. The stuff we pick to obsess about, and the places we decide to draw lines in the sand, make no sense to me at all.
End of rant.
someday, people will be able to look back on this and see it as the first step towards explicit legal recognition of for-profit churches.
OK with me, as long as they want to pay taxes.
We’d retire the national debt in 10 years.
Also, Richard Mayhew has an interesting post about the implementation nuts and bolts over at Balloon Juice.
Long story short, exemptions like this are not a biggie, implementation-wise.
someday, people will be able to look back on this and see it as the first step towards explicit legal recognition of for-profit churches.
OK with me, as long as they want to pay taxes.
We’d retire the national debt in 10 years.
Also, Richard Mayhew has an interesting post about the implementation nuts and bolts over at Balloon Juice.
Long story short, exemptions like this are not a biggie, implementation-wise.
someday, people will be able to look back on this and see it as the first step towards explicit legal recognition of for-profit churches.
OK with me, as long as they want to pay taxes.
We’d retire the national debt in 10 years.
Also, Richard Mayhew has an interesting post about the implementation nuts and bolts over at Balloon Juice.
Long story short, exemptions like this are not a biggie, implementation-wise.
Bobby, on that grounds, there is no requirement to obey the speed limit either.
Inapt analogy. The company is going to pay in one of three ways: Cash, benefits, tax (you call it a penalty-it’s just a tax).
Pick one. No jail time for any.
Bobby, on that grounds, there is no requirement to obey the speed limit either.
Inapt analogy. The company is going to pay in one of three ways: Cash, benefits, tax (you call it a penalty-it’s just a tax).
Pick one. No jail time for any.
Bobby, on that grounds, there is no requirement to obey the speed limit either.
Inapt analogy. The company is going to pay in one of three ways: Cash, benefits, tax (you call it a penalty-it’s just a tax).
Pick one. No jail time for any.
The remedy for that is called “voting”.
So far voting has worked.
The remedy for that is called “voting”.
So far voting has worked.
The remedy for that is called “voting”.
So far voting has worked.
So far voting has worked.
Except in Florida in 2000, of course.
So far voting has worked.
Except in Florida in 2000, of course.
So far voting has worked.
Except in Florida in 2000, of course.
The thing I prefer when it comes to the nut and bolts of things is when they are standardized.
Why can’t we all go metric.
The thing I prefer when it comes to the nut and bolts of things is when they are standardized.
Why can’t we all go metric.
The thing I prefer when it comes to the nut and bolts of things is when they are standardized.
Why can’t we all go metric.
Why can’t we all go metric.
Big Inch is a formidable presence on K Street.
Why can’t we all go metric.
Big Inch is a formidable presence on K Street.
Why can’t we all go metric.
Big Inch is a formidable presence on K Street.
A major beneficiary of and spiritual (spirited maybe too) adviser to the Green family:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/hobby-lobby-bill-gothard-institute-basic-life-principles
I guess whether or not a woman is packing an IUD at her own expense (or not) matters little to a minister who merely wants to extend a little hands-on canoodling, I mean counseling, to his flock. Also, perchance a blowjob, God willing.
Home schooling, indeed.
Verily, I say unto you, they suffer when the sluts come on to them, is probably what these, these ….. these (none of my slurs and naughty words seem adequate) say to themselves as they rationalize their actions to themselves, before preaching to us about how we should behave.
So what is it with so many strict Christian conservative Republican men in high and low places?
They want to convert you AND f*ck you (not necessarily in that order), and if either of those arrangements don’t work out, they’ll shoot you for just about any old reason.
A major beneficiary of and spiritual (spirited maybe too) adviser to the Green family:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/hobby-lobby-bill-gothard-institute-basic-life-principles
I guess whether or not a woman is packing an IUD at her own expense (or not) matters little to a minister who merely wants to extend a little hands-on canoodling, I mean counseling, to his flock. Also, perchance a blowjob, God willing.
Home schooling, indeed.
Verily, I say unto you, they suffer when the sluts come on to them, is probably what these, these ….. these (none of my slurs and naughty words seem adequate) say to themselves as they rationalize their actions to themselves, before preaching to us about how we should behave.
So what is it with so many strict Christian conservative Republican men in high and low places?
They want to convert you AND f*ck you (not necessarily in that order), and if either of those arrangements don’t work out, they’ll shoot you for just about any old reason.
A major beneficiary of and spiritual (spirited maybe too) adviser to the Green family:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/hobby-lobby-bill-gothard-institute-basic-life-principles
I guess whether or not a woman is packing an IUD at her own expense (or not) matters little to a minister who merely wants to extend a little hands-on canoodling, I mean counseling, to his flock. Also, perchance a blowjob, God willing.
Home schooling, indeed.
Verily, I say unto you, they suffer when the sluts come on to them, is probably what these, these ….. these (none of my slurs and naughty words seem adequate) say to themselves as they rationalize their actions to themselves, before preaching to us about how we should behave.
So what is it with so many strict Christian conservative Republican men in high and low places?
They want to convert you AND f*ck you (not necessarily in that order), and if either of those arrangements don’t work out, they’ll shoot you for just about any old reason.
These features of the tax code (relics of WW II price controls) make it highly tax-advantaged for many employers to offer health insurance coverage.
Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.
Uh, sure, they might assert that, and then they’ll lose. Unless you seriously think state courts are going to promptly abandon centuries of tort precedent because of this RFRA decision.
I agree they will lose, and I didn’t say otherwise. I am simply noting that plaintiffs’ counsel will raise hell with Hobby Lobby about shareholder liability. I agree HL will be allowed to have it both ways.
But it is concerning, because there is simply no principled basis for picking which religious beliefs trump or don’t trump which government policies. If you spotted one in the opinion I’d love to have the cite.
Well, you have to stuff that rabbit in the hat in order to pull it out. If, prior to the gov’t policy telling someone they have to do something, there is no infringement, but then the gov’t policy infringes, you have a problem. It isn’t the citizenry’s job to conform their faith(s) to changes in gov’t policy–it’s the gov’t job to make a real effort to avoid infringing on citizens’ beliefs. That can’t always happen, but in the Progressive World, infringement isn’t even a small speed bump. Not so for the rest of us.
How many actual employers here at OBWI, i.e. who actually pay for employees’ health coverage, think it’s a tax break?
For those, if any, who do, my congratulations on staying in business.
Until I merged into a large firm two years ago, I had my own shop. Health care costs went up every year. I saved roughly 35 cents on the dollar by paying for health insurance.
It is somewhat of a tax break for employees, since they are not taxed on the benefit conferred by the employer. If Democrats think this is so awful, just start taxing the employees and good luck in the next elections!
But spare me the benefit to the employer stuff.
The funny thing is, I look at this situation and it makes me think we should just hand basic health insurance over to the feds, lock stock and barrel.
That is not exactly giving a lot of thought to what gov’t should and should not decree–rather, it is total default to the gov’t: you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
A company that pays a cash wage in lieu of a non-taxable benefit will have higher labor costs than one that does, all other things being equal.
Can you explain the math here?
These features of the tax code (relics of WW II price controls) make it highly tax-advantaged for many employers to offer health insurance coverage.
Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.
Uh, sure, they might assert that, and then they’ll lose. Unless you seriously think state courts are going to promptly abandon centuries of tort precedent because of this RFRA decision.
I agree they will lose, and I didn’t say otherwise. I am simply noting that plaintiffs’ counsel will raise hell with Hobby Lobby about shareholder liability. I agree HL will be allowed to have it both ways.
But it is concerning, because there is simply no principled basis for picking which religious beliefs trump or don’t trump which government policies. If you spotted one in the opinion I’d love to have the cite.
Well, you have to stuff that rabbit in the hat in order to pull it out. If, prior to the gov’t policy telling someone they have to do something, there is no infringement, but then the gov’t policy infringes, you have a problem. It isn’t the citizenry’s job to conform their faith(s) to changes in gov’t policy–it’s the gov’t job to make a real effort to avoid infringing on citizens’ beliefs. That can’t always happen, but in the Progressive World, infringement isn’t even a small speed bump. Not so for the rest of us.
How many actual employers here at OBWI, i.e. who actually pay for employees’ health coverage, think it’s a tax break?
For those, if any, who do, my congratulations on staying in business.
Until I merged into a large firm two years ago, I had my own shop. Health care costs went up every year. I saved roughly 35 cents on the dollar by paying for health insurance.
It is somewhat of a tax break for employees, since they are not taxed on the benefit conferred by the employer. If Democrats think this is so awful, just start taxing the employees and good luck in the next elections!
But spare me the benefit to the employer stuff.
The funny thing is, I look at this situation and it makes me think we should just hand basic health insurance over to the feds, lock stock and barrel.
That is not exactly giving a lot of thought to what gov’t should and should not decree–rather, it is total default to the gov’t: you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
A company that pays a cash wage in lieu of a non-taxable benefit will have higher labor costs than one that does, all other things being equal.
Can you explain the math here?
These features of the tax code (relics of WW II price controls) make it highly tax-advantaged for many employers to offer health insurance coverage.
Once you get out of the jungle of minimum wage competition, the tax treatment of health benefits is highly advantageous to employers who offer the benefit vs. those who do not offer it.
Uh, sure, they might assert that, and then they’ll lose. Unless you seriously think state courts are going to promptly abandon centuries of tort precedent because of this RFRA decision.
I agree they will lose, and I didn’t say otherwise. I am simply noting that plaintiffs’ counsel will raise hell with Hobby Lobby about shareholder liability. I agree HL will be allowed to have it both ways.
But it is concerning, because there is simply no principled basis for picking which religious beliefs trump or don’t trump which government policies. If you spotted one in the opinion I’d love to have the cite.
Well, you have to stuff that rabbit in the hat in order to pull it out. If, prior to the gov’t policy telling someone they have to do something, there is no infringement, but then the gov’t policy infringes, you have a problem. It isn’t the citizenry’s job to conform their faith(s) to changes in gov’t policy–it’s the gov’t job to make a real effort to avoid infringing on citizens’ beliefs. That can’t always happen, but in the Progressive World, infringement isn’t even a small speed bump. Not so for the rest of us.
How many actual employers here at OBWI, i.e. who actually pay for employees’ health coverage, think it’s a tax break?
For those, if any, who do, my congratulations on staying in business.
Until I merged into a large firm two years ago, I had my own shop. Health care costs went up every year. I saved roughly 35 cents on the dollar by paying for health insurance.
It is somewhat of a tax break for employees, since they are not taxed on the benefit conferred by the employer. If Democrats think this is so awful, just start taxing the employees and good luck in the next elections!
But spare me the benefit to the employer stuff.
The funny thing is, I look at this situation and it makes me think we should just hand basic health insurance over to the feds, lock stock and barrel.
That is not exactly giving a lot of thought to what gov’t should and should not decree–rather, it is total default to the gov’t: you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
A company that pays a cash wage in lieu of a non-taxable benefit will have higher labor costs than one that does, all other things being equal.
Can you explain the math here?
I think that the math comes down to this: If you don’t provide health care, to be competitive in the labor market you have to pay salaries which cover not only the cost of equivalent health care, but also the additional take that your employees pay on their higher salary. Because, after all, while the company can deduct the cost, the individuals cannot. (As I have cause to know, having had to provide my own coverage for the past decade.)
So the benefit is essentially the amount of additional tax the employees’ higher salaries entail. Plus, at least pre-ACA, the difference in cost between what insurance companies would charge for a group plan vs what it would cost for individual plans. (Always assuming, again pre-ACA, that the individuals were not refused due to “pre-existing conditions — something that never even gets asked about in group plans, at least in my experience.)
I think that the math comes down to this: If you don’t provide health care, to be competitive in the labor market you have to pay salaries which cover not only the cost of equivalent health care, but also the additional take that your employees pay on their higher salary. Because, after all, while the company can deduct the cost, the individuals cannot. (As I have cause to know, having had to provide my own coverage for the past decade.)
So the benefit is essentially the amount of additional tax the employees’ higher salaries entail. Plus, at least pre-ACA, the difference in cost between what insurance companies would charge for a group plan vs what it would cost for individual plans. (Always assuming, again pre-ACA, that the individuals were not refused due to “pre-existing conditions — something that never even gets asked about in group plans, at least in my experience.)
I think that the math comes down to this: If you don’t provide health care, to be competitive in the labor market you have to pay salaries which cover not only the cost of equivalent health care, but also the additional take that your employees pay on their higher salary. Because, after all, while the company can deduct the cost, the individuals cannot. (As I have cause to know, having had to provide my own coverage for the past decade.)
So the benefit is essentially the amount of additional tax the employees’ higher salaries entail. Plus, at least pre-ACA, the difference in cost between what insurance companies would charge for a group plan vs what it would cost for individual plans. (Always assuming, again pre-ACA, that the individuals were not refused due to “pre-existing conditions — something that never even gets asked about in group plans, at least in my experience.)
That should have been “additional tax“, not “additional take”. Sorry.
That should have been “additional tax“, not “additional take”. Sorry.
That should have been “additional tax“, not “additional take”. Sorry.
From the count’s link:
Cabbage patch dolls?!?
I just can’t keep up with the crazy anymore.
From the count’s link:
Cabbage patch dolls?!?
I just can’t keep up with the crazy anymore.
From the count’s link:
Cabbage patch dolls?!?
I just can’t keep up with the crazy anymore.
you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
How is this different from employer-provided private health insurance, except for who the bureaucrats work for, and what their motives are for deciding what to give you?
you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
How is this different from employer-provided private health insurance, except for who the bureaucrats work for, and what their motives are for deciding what to give you?
you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
How is this different from employer-provided private health insurance, except for who the bureaucrats work for, and what their motives are for deciding what to give you?
That is not exactly giving a lot of thought to what gov’t should and should not decree
Actually, it’s giving a lot of thought to what an appropriate role and scope for government might be regarding health care, for quite a while actually, and simply coming to a different conclusion than you do.
rather, it is total default to the gov’t: you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
What, no bureaucrats now? I want to be covered by your carrier.
You’re rolling in freedom if your insurance carrier denies coverage for something, or makes you jump through five hoops to get where you need to go, but you’re on the road to serfhood if the feds do the same?
I’m not seeing the logic there.
My guess is that, were we to have universal Medicare coverage, what “the bureaucrats gave us” would be as good or better than what folks have via our current Rube Goldberg regime.
At least, prior to ACA.
You’re sure to disagree. C’est la vie.
It’s hypothetical anyway, neither of us is going to see anything like universal Medicare in our lifetimes.
That is not exactly giving a lot of thought to what gov’t should and should not decree
Actually, it’s giving a lot of thought to what an appropriate role and scope for government might be regarding health care, for quite a while actually, and simply coming to a different conclusion than you do.
rather, it is total default to the gov’t: you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
What, no bureaucrats now? I want to be covered by your carrier.
You’re rolling in freedom if your insurance carrier denies coverage for something, or makes you jump through five hoops to get where you need to go, but you’re on the road to serfhood if the feds do the same?
I’m not seeing the logic there.
My guess is that, were we to have universal Medicare coverage, what “the bureaucrats gave us” would be as good or better than what folks have via our current Rube Goldberg regime.
At least, prior to ACA.
You’re sure to disagree. C’est la vie.
It’s hypothetical anyway, neither of us is going to see anything like universal Medicare in our lifetimes.
That is not exactly giving a lot of thought to what gov’t should and should not decree
Actually, it’s giving a lot of thought to what an appropriate role and scope for government might be regarding health care, for quite a while actually, and simply coming to a different conclusion than you do.
rather, it is total default to the gov’t: you get what the bureaucrats give you, you do what they tell you to do.
What, no bureaucrats now? I want to be covered by your carrier.
You’re rolling in freedom if your insurance carrier denies coverage for something, or makes you jump through five hoops to get where you need to go, but you’re on the road to serfhood if the feds do the same?
I’m not seeing the logic there.
My guess is that, were we to have universal Medicare coverage, what “the bureaucrats gave us” would be as good or better than what folks have via our current Rube Goldberg regime.
At least, prior to ACA.
You’re sure to disagree. C’est la vie.
It’s hypothetical anyway, neither of us is going to see anything like universal Medicare in our lifetimes.
Russell, it is not universal Medicare you want, its universal Medicaid. I’m pretty sure.
Russell, it is not universal Medicare you want, its universal Medicaid. I’m pretty sure.
Russell, it is not universal Medicare you want, its universal Medicaid. I’m pretty sure.
It isn’t the citizenry’s job to conform their faith(s) to changes in gov’t policy–it’s the gov’t job to make a real effort to avoid infringing on citizens’ beliefs.
a corporation is not a citizen, citizen.
the citizens who run the corporation in question were already “infringing” their own beliefs (both by providing the drugs they now claim to be so offended by, and by using company and employees savings to finance the companies which make the drugs). what changed is that what they were already voluntarily doing became required.
It isn’t the citizenry’s job to conform their faith(s) to changes in gov’t policy–it’s the gov’t job to make a real effort to avoid infringing on citizens’ beliefs.
a corporation is not a citizen, citizen.
the citizens who run the corporation in question were already “infringing” their own beliefs (both by providing the drugs they now claim to be so offended by, and by using company and employees savings to finance the companies which make the drugs). what changed is that what they were already voluntarily doing became required.
It isn’t the citizenry’s job to conform their faith(s) to changes in gov’t policy–it’s the gov’t job to make a real effort to avoid infringing on citizens’ beliefs.
a corporation is not a citizen, citizen.
the citizens who run the corporation in question were already “infringing” their own beliefs (both by providing the drugs they now claim to be so offended by, and by using company and employees savings to finance the companies which make the drugs). what changed is that what they were already voluntarily doing became required.
No, I’d prefer universal Medicare.
Federal program, no weird state-by-state carving out of squirrely exceptions and special rules.
If you’re an American, you get basic health insurance, period.
Works for the geezers, it’d work for the rest of us. In my very humble opinion.
On another front, as of today folks are looking for a religious exemption to a proposed executive order that would require federal contractors to not discriminate against LGBT folks.
Day two, y’all.
Narrow appears to mean different things to different folks.
No, I’d prefer universal Medicare.
Federal program, no weird state-by-state carving out of squirrely exceptions and special rules.
If you’re an American, you get basic health insurance, period.
Works for the geezers, it’d work for the rest of us. In my very humble opinion.
On another front, as of today folks are looking for a religious exemption to a proposed executive order that would require federal contractors to not discriminate against LGBT folks.
Day two, y’all.
Narrow appears to mean different things to different folks.
No, I’d prefer universal Medicare.
Federal program, no weird state-by-state carving out of squirrely exceptions and special rules.
If you’re an American, you get basic health insurance, period.
Works for the geezers, it’d work for the rest of us. In my very humble opinion.
On another front, as of today folks are looking for a religious exemption to a proposed executive order that would require federal contractors to not discriminate against LGBT folks.
Day two, y’all.
Narrow appears to mean different things to different folks.
so many worms in such a narrow little can!
who woulda thunk it.
so many worms in such a narrow little can!
who woulda thunk it.
so many worms in such a narrow little can!
who woulda thunk it.
a corporation is not a citizen, citizen.
Harder and harder to draw that line every day.
As McK notes, there are two sides to the “my corp can’t do what I wouldn’t want to do” coin. Folks should be careful what they wish for.
And, there’s always sole proprietor or general partnership. If the burden of the corporate form is just too weighty.
a corporation is not a citizen, citizen.
Harder and harder to draw that line every day.
As McK notes, there are two sides to the “my corp can’t do what I wouldn’t want to do” coin. Folks should be careful what they wish for.
And, there’s always sole proprietor or general partnership. If the burden of the corporate form is just too weighty.
a corporation is not a citizen, citizen.
Harder and harder to draw that line every day.
As McK notes, there are two sides to the “my corp can’t do what I wouldn’t want to do” coin. Folks should be careful what they wish for.
And, there’s always sole proprietor or general partnership. If the burden of the corporate form is just too weighty.
Can you explain the math here?
wj covered it. If you offer an employee $50K/yr. which includes a Cadillac heath care plan worth $10k (or costing the employer that in premiums), you’d have to pay that same employee, say, $52,000 in cash salary at a 20% marginal tax rate to be equal to the package that has the benefit.
Which option costs the employer more?
Not to mention the disadvantage the employee would have trying to find a comparable policy at a comparable cost in the individual marketplace. As wj mentions, that’s worth something, too.
Can you explain the math here?
wj covered it. If you offer an employee $50K/yr. which includes a Cadillac heath care plan worth $10k (or costing the employer that in premiums), you’d have to pay that same employee, say, $52,000 in cash salary at a 20% marginal tax rate to be equal to the package that has the benefit.
Which option costs the employer more?
Not to mention the disadvantage the employee would have trying to find a comparable policy at a comparable cost in the individual marketplace. As wj mentions, that’s worth something, too.
Can you explain the math here?
wj covered it. If you offer an employee $50K/yr. which includes a Cadillac heath care plan worth $10k (or costing the employer that in premiums), you’d have to pay that same employee, say, $52,000 in cash salary at a 20% marginal tax rate to be equal to the package that has the benefit.
Which option costs the employer more?
Not to mention the disadvantage the employee would have trying to find a comparable policy at a comparable cost in the individual marketplace. As wj mentions, that’s worth something, too.
what changed is that what they were already voluntarily doing became required.
even if, lets say, this were true. What is surprising is that you seem to have trouble grasping the concept. What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
what changed is that what they were already voluntarily doing became required.
even if, lets say, this were true. What is surprising is that you seem to have trouble grasping the concept. What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
what changed is that what they were already voluntarily doing became required.
even if, lets say, this were true. What is surprising is that you seem to have trouble grasping the concept. What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
The Cabbage Patch dolls, female version, came with IUDs pre-installed.
Thus the outrage.
The Cabbage Patch dolls, female version, came with IUDs pre-installed.
Thus the outrage.
The Cabbage Patch dolls, female version, came with IUDs pre-installed.
Thus the outrage.
“Which option costs the employer more”
You are just assuming that they would make up the difference. Not happening, not a real world occurrence. This is just something you imagine would happen. More important, even if in your world it happened, the actual benefit is still the employees not the company. Its just a cost to the company and somewhat less efficient than just paying cash.
“Which option costs the employer more”
You are just assuming that they would make up the difference. Not happening, not a real world occurrence. This is just something you imagine would happen. More important, even if in your world it happened, the actual benefit is still the employees not the company. Its just a cost to the company and somewhat less efficient than just paying cash.
“Which option costs the employer more”
You are just assuming that they would make up the difference. Not happening, not a real world occurrence. This is just something you imagine would happen. More important, even if in your world it happened, the actual benefit is still the employees not the company. Its just a cost to the company and somewhat less efficient than just paying cash.
What is surprising is that you seem to have trouble grasping the concept. What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
Since their case was based on their abhorrence of the birth control methods in question, the fact that they were already paying for them does, in fact, seem relevant.
I’m open to the claim that they were simply unaware that those things were covered until somebody brought it to their attention, but the case they brought wasn’t based on the idea that it was fine with them until the feds said they had to.
It was based on the idea that it wasn’t fine with them, full stop.
The object to “government overreach” per se appears to be *your* objection. It doesn’t appear to be that relevant to the Greens, as witness the fact that they appear to be perfectly fine with all of the other birth control mandates.
What is surprising is that you seem to have trouble grasping the concept. What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
Since their case was based on their abhorrence of the birth control methods in question, the fact that they were already paying for them does, in fact, seem relevant.
I’m open to the claim that they were simply unaware that those things were covered until somebody brought it to their attention, but the case they brought wasn’t based on the idea that it was fine with them until the feds said they had to.
It was based on the idea that it wasn’t fine with them, full stop.
The object to “government overreach” per se appears to be *your* objection. It doesn’t appear to be that relevant to the Greens, as witness the fact that they appear to be perfectly fine with all of the other birth control mandates.
What is surprising is that you seem to have trouble grasping the concept. What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
Since their case was based on their abhorrence of the birth control methods in question, the fact that they were already paying for them does, in fact, seem relevant.
I’m open to the claim that they were simply unaware that those things were covered until somebody brought it to their attention, but the case they brought wasn’t based on the idea that it was fine with them until the feds said they had to.
It was based on the idea that it wasn’t fine with them, full stop.
The object to “government overreach” per se appears to be *your* objection. It doesn’t appear to be that relevant to the Greens, as witness the fact that they appear to be perfectly fine with all of the other birth control mandates.
I agree Russell. It is the incredulity that surprises me. I think the Greenes were unaware. But it isn’t a requirement that they be.
I agree Russell. It is the incredulity that surprises me. I think the Greenes were unaware. But it isn’t a requirement that they be.
I agree Russell. It is the incredulity that surprises me. I think the Greenes were unaware. But it isn’t a requirement that they be.
What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory
Strawman, RIP.
What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory
Strawman, RIP.
What I am doing voluntarily is no rational for making it mandatory
Strawman, RIP.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
Marty: What I am doing voluntarily is no rational[e] for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
Marty is right. A law that requires wearing clothes cannot be justified on the mere grounds that everybody voluntarily wears clothes. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be justified on other grounds. Including disgust, incidentally.
I don’t know whether The Government requires me to accept Novocaine before my dentist starts drilling my teeth. There’s no question that such a requirement, old or new, would be a limitation on my Liberty(TM). But I would not give a damn, being a librul and all.
Now, would I support such a requirement given that somebody, somewhere, might give a damn? Maybe not. But if that somebody, somewhere, had no stronger objection than “I wouldn’t get my teeth drilled without Novocaine, but my sense of Liberty(TM) is offended”, well, that I would not give a damn about.
Would I offer a religious exemption to people whose “faith” forbids them to take Novocaine? In a heartbeat, I would:)
–TP
Marty: What I am doing voluntarily is no rational[e] for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
Marty is right. A law that requires wearing clothes cannot be justified on the mere grounds that everybody voluntarily wears clothes. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be justified on other grounds. Including disgust, incidentally.
I don’t know whether The Government requires me to accept Novocaine before my dentist starts drilling my teeth. There’s no question that such a requirement, old or new, would be a limitation on my Liberty(TM). But I would not give a damn, being a librul and all.
Now, would I support such a requirement given that somebody, somewhere, might give a damn? Maybe not. But if that somebody, somewhere, had no stronger objection than “I wouldn’t get my teeth drilled without Novocaine, but my sense of Liberty(TM) is offended”, well, that I would not give a damn about.
Would I offer a religious exemption to people whose “faith” forbids them to take Novocaine? In a heartbeat, I would:)
–TP
Marty: What I am doing voluntarily is no rational[e] for making it mandatory. It has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the imposition of an additional requirement.
Marty is right. A law that requires wearing clothes cannot be justified on the mere grounds that everybody voluntarily wears clothes. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be justified on other grounds. Including disgust, incidentally.
I don’t know whether The Government requires me to accept Novocaine before my dentist starts drilling my teeth. There’s no question that such a requirement, old or new, would be a limitation on my Liberty(TM). But I would not give a damn, being a librul and all.
Now, would I support such a requirement given that somebody, somewhere, might give a damn? Maybe not. But if that somebody, somewhere, had no stronger objection than “I wouldn’t get my teeth drilled without Novocaine, but my sense of Liberty(TM) is offended”, well, that I would not give a damn about.
Would I offer a religious exemption to people whose “faith” forbids them to take Novocaine? In a heartbeat, I would:)
–TP
TP, thanks for the spelling correction.
TP, thanks for the spelling correction.
TP, thanks for the spelling correction.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
God, Ugh, do you really need it spelled out for you? Spending money is speech. So when you spend money on a plan that includes abortifacients, you’re saying “I support these women having abortions”, whereas if you just pay their wages you’re saying “I support these women earning me money”.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
God, Ugh, do you really need it spelled out for you? Spending money is speech. So when you spend money on a plan that includes abortifacients, you’re saying “I support these women having abortions”, whereas if you just pay their wages you’re saying “I support these women earning me money”.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
God, Ugh, do you really need it spelled out for you? Spending money is speech. So when you spend money on a plan that includes abortifacients, you’re saying “I support these women having abortions”, whereas if you just pay their wages you’re saying “I support these women earning me money”.
for-profit corporations are government-created people who must be permitted to act as vessels for channeling the religious feelings of their high-level employees.
someone get James Madison on the phone, see what he thinks about that.
for-profit corporations are government-created people who must be permitted to act as vessels for channeling the religious feelings of their high-level employees.
someone get James Madison on the phone, see what he thinks about that.
for-profit corporations are government-created people who must be permitted to act as vessels for channeling the religious feelings of their high-level employees.
someone get James Madison on the phone, see what he thinks about that.
You’re welcome, Marty. If only your ideology were as easy to fix as your spelling:)
–TP
You’re welcome, Marty. If only your ideology were as easy to fix as your spelling:)
–TP
You’re welcome, Marty. If only your ideology were as easy to fix as your spelling:)
–TP
TP, well some people just change it to idiotology.
TP, well some people just change it to idiotology.
TP, well some people just change it to idiotology.
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
No, ugh. The mystery is why it is OK for the Greens to invest in companies which make the products they object to, but not to purchase (indirectly, via employee insurance) the products of those companies. If the products are so abhorant, how can they invest in the companies with, apparently, no qualms? It would seem, to my tiny mind, like a far greater offense to their proclaimed religious sensibilities. “If you embrace an action [e.g. manufacturing something], you embrace the consequences of that action [i.e. the same and use of the manufacture].”
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
No, ugh. The mystery is why it is OK for the Greens to invest in companies which make the products they object to, but not to purchase (indirectly, via employee insurance) the products of those companies. If the products are so abhorant, how can they invest in the companies with, apparently, no qualms? It would seem, to my tiny mind, like a far greater offense to their proclaimed religious sensibilities. “If you embrace an action [e.g. manufacturing something], you embrace the consequences of that action [i.e. the same and use of the manufacture].”
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
No, ugh. The mystery is why it is OK for the Greens to invest in companies which make the products they object to, but not to purchase (indirectly, via employee insurance) the products of those companies. If the products are so abhorant, how can they invest in the companies with, apparently, no qualms? It would seem, to my tiny mind, like a far greater offense to their proclaimed religious sensibilities. “If you embrace an action [e.g. manufacturing something], you embrace the consequences of that action [i.e. the same and use of the manufacture].”
TP, well some people just change it to idiotology.
Props for good-sportitude!
The mystery is why it is OK for the Greens to invest in companies which make the products they object to, but not to purchase (indirectly, via employee insurance) the products of those companies.
It’s not a mystery, people are just not particularly consistent beings.
That presents challenges when the rest of us are asked to accommodate their quirks and quiddities in things like law and regulations.
The door is now open, we’ll see who else shows up with their own special special case.
TP, well some people just change it to idiotology.
Props for good-sportitude!
The mystery is why it is OK for the Greens to invest in companies which make the products they object to, but not to purchase (indirectly, via employee insurance) the products of those companies.
It’s not a mystery, people are just not particularly consistent beings.
That presents challenges when the rest of us are asked to accommodate their quirks and quiddities in things like law and regulations.
The door is now open, we’ll see who else shows up with their own special special case.
TP, well some people just change it to idiotology.
Props for good-sportitude!
The mystery is why it is OK for the Greens to invest in companies which make the products they object to, but not to purchase (indirectly, via employee insurance) the products of those companies.
It’s not a mystery, people are just not particularly consistent beings.
That presents challenges when the rest of us are asked to accommodate their quirks and quiddities in things like law and regulations.
The door is now open, we’ll see who else shows up with their own special special case.
Just remember, wj: IUDs don’t kill babies; women kill babies.
–TP
Just remember, wj: IUDs don’t kill babies; women kill babies.
–TP
Just remember, wj: IUDs don’t kill babies; women kill babies.
–TP
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
Indeed, other organisations are far more consequent there and make spending any money on ‘immoral’ stuff by their employees a firing offence. But only strictly religious organisations are legally entitled to that (e.g. a kindergarten run by the RCC firing a female employee for use of contraceptives).
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
Indeed, other organisations are far more consequent there and make spending any money on ‘immoral’ stuff by their employees a firing offence. But only strictly religious organisations are legally entitled to that (e.g. a kindergarten run by the RCC firing a female employee for use of contraceptives).
It remains a mystery to me why it’s OK for the Hobby Lobbyists to pay employees in cash, which they may then use to buy offending birth control, but not okay to do it in the health insurance plan.
Indeed, other organisations are far more consequent there and make spending any money on ‘immoral’ stuff by their employees a firing offence. But only strictly religious organisations are legally entitled to that (e.g. a kindergarten run by the RCC firing a female employee for use of contraceptives).
Tony P for the win!
Tony P for the win!
Tony P for the win!
You are just assuming that they would make up the difference.
Well, no. I am employing rather basic market economic theory. A rational actor would, if given the choice as between (a.)$50 that includes health care and (b.)$50k cash wages would be rather foolish to take option B.
You, on the other hand, are essentially asserting that the employers have market power.
Welcome to the Far Left, my friend.
You are just assuming that they would make up the difference.
Well, no. I am employing rather basic market economic theory. A rational actor would, if given the choice as between (a.)$50 that includes health care and (b.)$50k cash wages would be rather foolish to take option B.
You, on the other hand, are essentially asserting that the employers have market power.
Welcome to the Far Left, my friend.
You are just assuming that they would make up the difference.
Well, no. I am employing rather basic market economic theory. A rational actor would, if given the choice as between (a.)$50 that includes health care and (b.)$50k cash wages would be rather foolish to take option B.
You, on the other hand, are essentially asserting that the employers have market power.
Welcome to the Far Left, my friend.
Tony P for the win!
No contest.
Tony P for the win!
No contest.
Tony P for the win!
No contest.
But only strictly religious organisations are legally entitled to that (e.g. a kindergarten run by the RCC firing a female employee for use of contraceptives).
IMO, the RCC will acquire the right to fire a kindergarten teacher for using contraceptives after it fires all the bishops and cardinals who were complicit in child abuse.
But only strictly religious organisations are legally entitled to that (e.g. a kindergarten run by the RCC firing a female employee for use of contraceptives).
IMO, the RCC will acquire the right to fire a kindergarten teacher for using contraceptives after it fires all the bishops and cardinals who were complicit in child abuse.
But only strictly religious organisations are legally entitled to that (e.g. a kindergarten run by the RCC firing a female employee for use of contraceptives).
IMO, the RCC will acquire the right to fire a kindergarten teacher for using contraceptives after it fires all the bishops and cardinals who were complicit in child abuse.
The sad part about all of this is if real lawyers are appointed to the Supreme Court, real lawyers who know what the role of judges should be, the Hobby Lobby case will be overturned in a millisecond.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court should work, but the ideological band of thieves have made it such that a lot of their jurisprudence will be tossed out just as soon as there is a Democratic majority of the court.
That wasn’t true for a whole lot of years, most of the 20th century. Too bad, what’s happening now.
The sad part about all of this is if real lawyers are appointed to the Supreme Court, real lawyers who know what the role of judges should be, the Hobby Lobby case will be overturned in a millisecond.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court should work, but the ideological band of thieves have made it such that a lot of their jurisprudence will be tossed out just as soon as there is a Democratic majority of the court.
That wasn’t true for a whole lot of years, most of the 20th century. Too bad, what’s happening now.
The sad part about all of this is if real lawyers are appointed to the Supreme Court, real lawyers who know what the role of judges should be, the Hobby Lobby case will be overturned in a millisecond.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court should work, but the ideological band of thieves have made it such that a lot of their jurisprudence will be tossed out just as soon as there is a Democratic majority of the court.
That wasn’t true for a whole lot of years, most of the 20th century. Too bad, what’s happening now.
sapient, you don’t need a “Democratic majority” on the Court. Just a majority who put the law above personal ideology. Republicans have appointed such Justices in the past, and could well do so in the future.
OK, none of the probable candidates for 2016 look promising in that regard. But it is not impossible. And suggesting that only Democrats would name such Justices is counterproductive IMO.
sapient, you don’t need a “Democratic majority” on the Court. Just a majority who put the law above personal ideology. Republicans have appointed such Justices in the past, and could well do so in the future.
OK, none of the probable candidates for 2016 look promising in that regard. But it is not impossible. And suggesting that only Democrats would name such Justices is counterproductive IMO.
sapient, you don’t need a “Democratic majority” on the Court. Just a majority who put the law above personal ideology. Republicans have appointed such Justices in the past, and could well do so in the future.
OK, none of the probable candidates for 2016 look promising in that regard. But it is not impossible. And suggesting that only Democrats would name such Justices is counterproductive IMO.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court should work
That’s pretty much the way it has worked throughout our history. The early 20th century was dominated by conservatives. Roosevelt, Truman, and yes, god bless you Gen. Eisenhower for Earl Warren, appointed justices who cemented the New Deal.
Alas, the worm has steadily turned since Reagan.
But our time will come. Count on it.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court should work
That’s pretty much the way it has worked throughout our history. The early 20th century was dominated by conservatives. Roosevelt, Truman, and yes, god bless you Gen. Eisenhower for Earl Warren, appointed justices who cemented the New Deal.
Alas, the worm has steadily turned since Reagan.
But our time will come. Count on it.
That’s not the way the Supreme Court should work
That’s pretty much the way it has worked throughout our history. The early 20th century was dominated by conservatives. Roosevelt, Truman, and yes, god bless you Gen. Eisenhower for Earl Warren, appointed justices who cemented the New Deal.
Alas, the worm has steadily turned since Reagan.
But our time will come. Count on it.
“Tony P for the win!”
“No contest.”
While not denigrating Tony P’s contribution in any way, I felt that he certainly got a contest from this remark:
God, Ugh, do you really need it spelled out for you? Spending money is speech. So when you spend money on a plan that includes abortifacients, you’re saying “I support these women having abortions”, whereas if you just pay their wages you’re saying “I support these women earning me money”.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide
“Tony P for the win!”
“No contest.”
While not denigrating Tony P’s contribution in any way, I felt that he certainly got a contest from this remark:
God, Ugh, do you really need it spelled out for you? Spending money is speech. So when you spend money on a plan that includes abortifacients, you’re saying “I support these women having abortions”, whereas if you just pay their wages you’re saying “I support these women earning me money”.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide
“Tony P for the win!”
“No contest.”
While not denigrating Tony P’s contribution in any way, I felt that he certainly got a contest from this remark:
God, Ugh, do you really need it spelled out for you? Spending money is speech. So when you spend money on a plan that includes abortifacients, you’re saying “I support these women having abortions”, whereas if you just pay their wages you’re saying “I support these women earning me money”.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide
And suggesting that only Democrats would name such Justices is counterproductive IMO.
People need to vote Democratic if they want decent justices on the Court. Sure, there used to be examples of Republican-appointed justices that took their job seriously, but not anymore. Maybe, by some miracle, it could happen again, but it doesn’t take a miracle to vote Democratic and get good justices.
And suggesting that only Democrats would name such Justices is counterproductive IMO.
People need to vote Democratic if they want decent justices on the Court. Sure, there used to be examples of Republican-appointed justices that took their job seriously, but not anymore. Maybe, by some miracle, it could happen again, but it doesn’t take a miracle to vote Democratic and get good justices.
And suggesting that only Democrats would name such Justices is counterproductive IMO.
People need to vote Democratic if they want decent justices on the Court. Sure, there used to be examples of Republican-appointed justices that took their job seriously, but not anymore. Maybe, by some miracle, it could happen again, but it doesn’t take a miracle to vote Democratic and get good justices.
there used to be examples of Republican-appointed justices that took their job seriously, but not anymore.
The conservative justices currently on the Court take their job very seriously. It is to push a highly partisan conservative agenda, and they are succeeding in this mission.
there used to be examples of Republican-appointed justices that took their job seriously, but not anymore.
The conservative justices currently on the Court take their job very seriously. It is to push a highly partisan conservative agenda, and they are succeeding in this mission.
there used to be examples of Republican-appointed justices that took their job seriously, but not anymore.
The conservative justices currently on the Court take their job very seriously. It is to push a highly partisan conservative agenda, and they are succeeding in this mission.
John Yoo summed it up in class one day, saying he would never want to be a judge, but a Supreme Court justice on the other hand….
John Yoo summed it up in class one day, saying he would never want to be a judge, but a Supreme Court justice on the other hand….
John Yoo summed it up in class one day, saying he would never want to be a judge, but a Supreme Court justice on the other hand….
I haven’t been particpating much here because I’ve been reading the articles at SCOTUSblog’s contraceptive mandate symposium and becoming screaming mad. None of the writers who support the decision are willing to mention *women*, who are the actual humans most directly affected.
Marty keeps saying that “contraception isn’t very expensive”. I pointed out that IUDs and similar cost up to $1000 up front, and he says “that’s only $20 a month”.[I just used my superpowers to correct this: I originally wrote “week”, which is not what Marty said.] Perhaps I shouldn’t have said he doesn’t know how contraception works, he clearly doesn’t know how *money* works. This is, in fact, an acute example of the Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory of economic injustice.
As Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, birth control is necessary for women to participate fully in society. I would phrase it more strongly: widespread choice of and access to reliable birth control is *critical* for widespread female participation in society.
To quote Ann Friedman at NY Magazine :
McKinneyTX is wondering why we need government regulations and programs to give every woman choice of & access to BC, and attributes them to some kind of desire for more government interference as an end in itself.
Nonsense. If equal respect for women’s choices (“agency”, as the saying goes these days) was built into our health and employment systems, we wouldn’t need the damn government programs. But that respect *isn’t* built in, it *isn’t* the default, so we have to band together (=government) to enforce respect.
And that inevitably leads to conflict with people’s “sincere religious beliefs”, because many of those beliefs traditionally consider women to be second-class citizens. For our own good, of course.
Bear in mind that the courts will soon be deciding whether the ruling applies to Catholic-owned businesses objecting to *all* birth control. One of you lawyerly types should explain to me how it can possibly *not*.
I haven’t been particpating much here because I’ve been reading the articles at SCOTUSblog’s contraceptive mandate symposium and becoming screaming mad. None of the writers who support the decision are willing to mention *women*, who are the actual humans most directly affected.
Marty keeps saying that “contraception isn’t very expensive”. I pointed out that IUDs and similar cost up to $1000 up front, and he says “that’s only $20 a month”.[I just used my superpowers to correct this: I originally wrote “week”, which is not what Marty said.] Perhaps I shouldn’t have said he doesn’t know how contraception works, he clearly doesn’t know how *money* works. This is, in fact, an acute example of the Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory of economic injustice.
As Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, birth control is necessary for women to participate fully in society. I would phrase it more strongly: widespread choice of and access to reliable birth control is *critical* for widespread female participation in society.
To quote Ann Friedman at NY Magazine :
McKinneyTX is wondering why we need government regulations and programs to give every woman choice of & access to BC, and attributes them to some kind of desire for more government interference as an end in itself.
Nonsense. If equal respect for women’s choices (“agency”, as the saying goes these days) was built into our health and employment systems, we wouldn’t need the damn government programs. But that respect *isn’t* built in, it *isn’t* the default, so we have to band together (=government) to enforce respect.
And that inevitably leads to conflict with people’s “sincere religious beliefs”, because many of those beliefs traditionally consider women to be second-class citizens. For our own good, of course.
Bear in mind that the courts will soon be deciding whether the ruling applies to Catholic-owned businesses objecting to *all* birth control. One of you lawyerly types should explain to me how it can possibly *not*.
I haven’t been particpating much here because I’ve been reading the articles at SCOTUSblog’s contraceptive mandate symposium and becoming screaming mad. None of the writers who support the decision are willing to mention *women*, who are the actual humans most directly affected.
Marty keeps saying that “contraception isn’t very expensive”. I pointed out that IUDs and similar cost up to $1000 up front, and he says “that’s only $20 a month”.[I just used my superpowers to correct this: I originally wrote “week”, which is not what Marty said.] Perhaps I shouldn’t have said he doesn’t know how contraception works, he clearly doesn’t know how *money* works. This is, in fact, an acute example of the Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory of economic injustice.
As Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, birth control is necessary for women to participate fully in society. I would phrase it more strongly: widespread choice of and access to reliable birth control is *critical* for widespread female participation in society.
To quote Ann Friedman at NY Magazine :
McKinneyTX is wondering why we need government regulations and programs to give every woman choice of & access to BC, and attributes them to some kind of desire for more government interference as an end in itself.
Nonsense. If equal respect for women’s choices (“agency”, as the saying goes these days) was built into our health and employment systems, we wouldn’t need the damn government programs. But that respect *isn’t* built in, it *isn’t* the default, so we have to band together (=government) to enforce respect.
And that inevitably leads to conflict with people’s “sincere religious beliefs”, because many of those beliefs traditionally consider women to be second-class citizens. For our own good, of course.
Bear in mind that the courts will soon be deciding whether the ruling applies to Catholic-owned businesses objecting to *all* birth control. One of you lawyerly types should explain to me how it can possibly *not*.
When the Taliban Meets Hobby Lobby, by Steve Coll (The New Yorker)
When the Taliban Meets Hobby Lobby, by Steve Coll (The New Yorker)
When the Taliban Meets Hobby Lobby, by Steve Coll (The New Yorker)
It is interesting to me that the court is happy to grant exemptions to a birth control mandate, but assumes that vaccinations are off limits.
If someone stated that they did not want their closely held corporation to have to check the citizenship or legal immigration status of a potential employee, because their religious convictions told them that they were to welcome the stranger, my guess is that the case would never make it to the SCOTUS. If it somehow did, it would likely not prevail.
Religious liberty for some, but not for others. That is the definition of an establishment of religion.
Exemptions that are always at the expense and inconvenience of women, or gays (in the case of the letter sent to Obama yesterday, two days after the decision was handed down). That is the definition of discrimination against protected classes of people.
This was a stupid decision, and the reasons why it was stupid have nothing to do with hating on Jesus. It was stupid because the justices failed to consider the implications of what they were doing.
Alito can bleat about it being a “narrow ruling” but that’s hand-waving. And IMO not just hand-waving, but cowardice – I think Alito knows what’s inevitably coming, but doesn’t want to own responsibility for it.
There is no legal or logical justification to exempt regulations about birth control, but not about vaccinations, or transfusions. Or about 1,000 things having nothing to do with medical care, for that matter.
The door is now open for every imaginable special case. Some will prevail, and some won’t, and which ones do or don’t will apparently depend on the personal perspective of whoever is wearing the robe that day.
Not so good.
It is interesting to me that the court is happy to grant exemptions to a birth control mandate, but assumes that vaccinations are off limits.
If someone stated that they did not want their closely held corporation to have to check the citizenship or legal immigration status of a potential employee, because their religious convictions told them that they were to welcome the stranger, my guess is that the case would never make it to the SCOTUS. If it somehow did, it would likely not prevail.
Religious liberty for some, but not for others. That is the definition of an establishment of religion.
Exemptions that are always at the expense and inconvenience of women, or gays (in the case of the letter sent to Obama yesterday, two days after the decision was handed down). That is the definition of discrimination against protected classes of people.
This was a stupid decision, and the reasons why it was stupid have nothing to do with hating on Jesus. It was stupid because the justices failed to consider the implications of what they were doing.
Alito can bleat about it being a “narrow ruling” but that’s hand-waving. And IMO not just hand-waving, but cowardice – I think Alito knows what’s inevitably coming, but doesn’t want to own responsibility for it.
There is no legal or logical justification to exempt regulations about birth control, but not about vaccinations, or transfusions. Or about 1,000 things having nothing to do with medical care, for that matter.
The door is now open for every imaginable special case. Some will prevail, and some won’t, and which ones do or don’t will apparently depend on the personal perspective of whoever is wearing the robe that day.
Not so good.
It is interesting to me that the court is happy to grant exemptions to a birth control mandate, but assumes that vaccinations are off limits.
If someone stated that they did not want their closely held corporation to have to check the citizenship or legal immigration status of a potential employee, because their religious convictions told them that they were to welcome the stranger, my guess is that the case would never make it to the SCOTUS. If it somehow did, it would likely not prevail.
Religious liberty for some, but not for others. That is the definition of an establishment of religion.
Exemptions that are always at the expense and inconvenience of women, or gays (in the case of the letter sent to Obama yesterday, two days after the decision was handed down). That is the definition of discrimination against protected classes of people.
This was a stupid decision, and the reasons why it was stupid have nothing to do with hating on Jesus. It was stupid because the justices failed to consider the implications of what they were doing.
Alito can bleat about it being a “narrow ruling” but that’s hand-waving. And IMO not just hand-waving, but cowardice – I think Alito knows what’s inevitably coming, but doesn’t want to own responsibility for it.
There is no legal or logical justification to exempt regulations about birth control, but not about vaccinations, or transfusions. Or about 1,000 things having nothing to do with medical care, for that matter.
The door is now open for every imaginable special case. Some will prevail, and some won’t, and which ones do or don’t will apparently depend on the personal perspective of whoever is wearing the robe that day.
Not so good.
it’s good if you think the people wearing the robes are likely to be sympathetic to your POV. which, given the demographics of judges and of CEOs, they probably will be.
it’s good if you think the people wearing the robes are likely to be sympathetic to your POV. which, given the demographics of judges and of CEOs, they probably will be.
it’s good if you think the people wearing the robes are likely to be sympathetic to your POV. which, given the demographics of judges and of CEOs, they probably will be.
If someone stated that they did not want their closely held corporation to have to check the citizenship or legal immigration status of a potential employee, because their religious convictions told them that they were to welcome the stranger, my guess is that the case would never make it to the SCOTUS. If it somehow did, it would likely not prevail.
Excellent point.
If someone stated that they did not want their closely held corporation to have to check the citizenship or legal immigration status of a potential employee, because their religious convictions told them that they were to welcome the stranger, my guess is that the case would never make it to the SCOTUS. If it somehow did, it would likely not prevail.
Excellent point.
If someone stated that they did not want their closely held corporation to have to check the citizenship or legal immigration status of a potential employee, because their religious convictions told them that they were to welcome the stranger, my guess is that the case would never make it to the SCOTUS. If it somehow did, it would likely not prevail.
Excellent point.
Alito can bleat about it being a “narrow ruling” but that’s hand-waving. And IMO not just hand-waving, but cowardice – I think Alito knows what’s inevitably coming, but doesn’t want to own responsibility for it.
I agree with this. There is a fair bit of “this would never happen,” and “there’s no evidence that this is likely to happen,” and “if it did happen the outcome could be different.” Etc.
A big issue is how he decided to frame his analysis, it essentially compelled the conclusion he reached. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was starting with the conclusion and then reasoning backward, but kind of like that.
Alito can bleat about it being a “narrow ruling” but that’s hand-waving. And IMO not just hand-waving, but cowardice – I think Alito knows what’s inevitably coming, but doesn’t want to own responsibility for it.
I agree with this. There is a fair bit of “this would never happen,” and “there’s no evidence that this is likely to happen,” and “if it did happen the outcome could be different.” Etc.
A big issue is how he decided to frame his analysis, it essentially compelled the conclusion he reached. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was starting with the conclusion and then reasoning backward, but kind of like that.
Alito can bleat about it being a “narrow ruling” but that’s hand-waving. And IMO not just hand-waving, but cowardice – I think Alito knows what’s inevitably coming, but doesn’t want to own responsibility for it.
I agree with this. There is a fair bit of “this would never happen,” and “there’s no evidence that this is likely to happen,” and “if it did happen the outcome could be different.” Etc.
A big issue is how he decided to frame his analysis, it essentially compelled the conclusion he reached. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was starting with the conclusion and then reasoning backward, but kind of like that.
A big issue is how he decided to frame his analysis
A bigger issue is what to do about it. And that is, make sure no Republican is ever elected again.
A big issue is how he decided to frame his analysis
A bigger issue is what to do about it. And that is, make sure no Republican is ever elected again.
A big issue is how he decided to frame his analysis
A bigger issue is what to do about it. And that is, make sure no Republican is ever elected again.
Sapient is quite right – and of course it’s not just Presidential elections that have consequences:
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5861224/the-pro-life-movement-is-winning
From a secular UK perspective, there is a strong whiff of theocracy in the US, your constitution notwithstanding.
Sapient is quite right – and of course it’s not just Presidential elections that have consequences:
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5861224/the-pro-life-movement-is-winning
From a secular UK perspective, there is a strong whiff of theocracy in the US, your constitution notwithstanding.
Sapient is quite right – and of course it’s not just Presidential elections that have consequences:
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5861224/the-pro-life-movement-is-winning
From a secular UK perspective, there is a strong whiff of theocracy in the US, your constitution notwithstanding.
Doc,
I appreciate your point of view. IMO, there are two key points buried in your comment.
First is this:
While I understand the medical necessity, or even medically better and worse, of having alternatives for some women, the implication here is that women should have the choice of whatever means of birth control simply because they feel one is more convenient/desirable than another. And that barring this right to choose whatever medical procedure they desire and have it paid for without question that somehow “we” don’t respect them. I very respectfully disagree with that premise.
Second, I understand how money works very well. And we are discussing employees of Hobby Lobby, most of whom can pay for whatever form of nonsurgical birth control they “choose”, depending on what other “choices” they make in their lives.
I am certain to be criticized for making that statement, it is a core belief of mine that something as fundamental as birth control should be prioritized with food and shelter therefore very high on the list of things limited money should pay for.
BTW, neither food nor shelter is guaranteed by the government, yet birth control is aside from exceptions for closely held corporations. I find that reflects the very high level of respect for women and women’s choices generally in our culture. I don’t think the specific exceptions we are discussing diminish that significantly.
In fact, the very fact that this is a constant ongoing discussion reflects a desire to get it right.
The challenge is that “getting it right” is not what many of the activists you refer to above want. Getting it right is not simply placing the “right” to have birth control by whatever means a woman chooses paid for 100% by society, by whatever mechanism they receive healthcare, over every other “right” of every other person in society. which IS the activists definition of respecting women.
So there, I mentioned women several times. Now you have other things to scream about.
Doc,
I appreciate your point of view. IMO, there are two key points buried in your comment.
First is this:
While I understand the medical necessity, or even medically better and worse, of having alternatives for some women, the implication here is that women should have the choice of whatever means of birth control simply because they feel one is more convenient/desirable than another. And that barring this right to choose whatever medical procedure they desire and have it paid for without question that somehow “we” don’t respect them. I very respectfully disagree with that premise.
Second, I understand how money works very well. And we are discussing employees of Hobby Lobby, most of whom can pay for whatever form of nonsurgical birth control they “choose”, depending on what other “choices” they make in their lives.
I am certain to be criticized for making that statement, it is a core belief of mine that something as fundamental as birth control should be prioritized with food and shelter therefore very high on the list of things limited money should pay for.
BTW, neither food nor shelter is guaranteed by the government, yet birth control is aside from exceptions for closely held corporations. I find that reflects the very high level of respect for women and women’s choices generally in our culture. I don’t think the specific exceptions we are discussing diminish that significantly.
In fact, the very fact that this is a constant ongoing discussion reflects a desire to get it right.
The challenge is that “getting it right” is not what many of the activists you refer to above want. Getting it right is not simply placing the “right” to have birth control by whatever means a woman chooses paid for 100% by society, by whatever mechanism they receive healthcare, over every other “right” of every other person in society. which IS the activists definition of respecting women.
So there, I mentioned women several times. Now you have other things to scream about.
Doc,
I appreciate your point of view. IMO, there are two key points buried in your comment.
First is this:
While I understand the medical necessity, or even medically better and worse, of having alternatives for some women, the implication here is that women should have the choice of whatever means of birth control simply because they feel one is more convenient/desirable than another. And that barring this right to choose whatever medical procedure they desire and have it paid for without question that somehow “we” don’t respect them. I very respectfully disagree with that premise.
Second, I understand how money works very well. And we are discussing employees of Hobby Lobby, most of whom can pay for whatever form of nonsurgical birth control they “choose”, depending on what other “choices” they make in their lives.
I am certain to be criticized for making that statement, it is a core belief of mine that something as fundamental as birth control should be prioritized with food and shelter therefore very high on the list of things limited money should pay for.
BTW, neither food nor shelter is guaranteed by the government, yet birth control is aside from exceptions for closely held corporations. I find that reflects the very high level of respect for women and women’s choices generally in our culture. I don’t think the specific exceptions we are discussing diminish that significantly.
In fact, the very fact that this is a constant ongoing discussion reflects a desire to get it right.
The challenge is that “getting it right” is not what many of the activists you refer to above want. Getting it right is not simply placing the “right” to have birth control by whatever means a woman chooses paid for 100% by society, by whatever mechanism they receive healthcare, over every other “right” of every other person in society. which IS the activists definition of respecting women.
So there, I mentioned women several times. Now you have other things to scream about.
we are discussing employees of Hobby Lobby, most of whom can pay for whatever form of nonsurgical birth control they “choose”, depending on what other “choices” they make in their lives.
I have to disagree with this. The Hobby Lobby employees were the proximate cause of the Court ruling. But the ruling applies to every employer (at least, every closely held employer). Regardless of how much they pay their employees, or what their employees can afford as a result. Supreme Court rulings, even narrow ones, are like that.
we are discussing employees of Hobby Lobby, most of whom can pay for whatever form of nonsurgical birth control they “choose”, depending on what other “choices” they make in their lives.
I have to disagree with this. The Hobby Lobby employees were the proximate cause of the Court ruling. But the ruling applies to every employer (at least, every closely held employer). Regardless of how much they pay their employees, or what their employees can afford as a result. Supreme Court rulings, even narrow ones, are like that.
we are discussing employees of Hobby Lobby, most of whom can pay for whatever form of nonsurgical birth control they “choose”, depending on what other “choices” they make in their lives.
I have to disagree with this. The Hobby Lobby employees were the proximate cause of the Court ruling. But the ruling applies to every employer (at least, every closely held employer). Regardless of how much they pay their employees, or what their employees can afford as a result. Supreme Court rulings, even narrow ones, are like that.
True enough wj, fair point. In general I think the point still applies.
True enough wj, fair point. In general I think the point still applies.
True enough wj, fair point. In general I think the point still applies.
BTW, neither food nor shelter is guaranteed by the government
Not guaranteed, but both are subsidized, using public money, for folks who can’t afford them.
Likewise, access to birth control is not “guaranteed” by the feds. The rule is that employer-provided health insurance must include coverage for any birth control method approved by the FDA, without a co-pay.
I appreciate that the Greens don’t want to be involved, in any way, with things they think are wrong. Lots of folks feel that way, about lots of things.
The solution the SCOTUS has cooked up is, to say the least, problematic. It will cause more problems than it solves.
BTW, neither food nor shelter is guaranteed by the government
Not guaranteed, but both are subsidized, using public money, for folks who can’t afford them.
Likewise, access to birth control is not “guaranteed” by the feds. The rule is that employer-provided health insurance must include coverage for any birth control method approved by the FDA, without a co-pay.
I appreciate that the Greens don’t want to be involved, in any way, with things they think are wrong. Lots of folks feel that way, about lots of things.
The solution the SCOTUS has cooked up is, to say the least, problematic. It will cause more problems than it solves.
BTW, neither food nor shelter is guaranteed by the government
Not guaranteed, but both are subsidized, using public money, for folks who can’t afford them.
Likewise, access to birth control is not “guaranteed” by the feds. The rule is that employer-provided health insurance must include coverage for any birth control method approved by the FDA, without a co-pay.
I appreciate that the Greens don’t want to be involved, in any way, with things they think are wrong. Lots of folks feel that way, about lots of things.
The solution the SCOTUS has cooked up is, to say the least, problematic. It will cause more problems than it solves.
Russell, and if you don’t have an employer then you get healthcare subsidized up to 100% from the government that pays 100% for birth control as a minimum benefit. Sounds guaranteed to me.
Russell, and if you don’t have an employer then you get healthcare subsidized up to 100% from the government that pays 100% for birth control as a minimum benefit. Sounds guaranteed to me.
Russell, and if you don’t have an employer then you get healthcare subsidized up to 100% from the government that pays 100% for birth control as a minimum benefit. Sounds guaranteed to me.
Fair enough.
IMO Doc Science’s basic point stands, however. For some reason, nobody is insisting on exemptions for vasectomies, or Viagra. And much of the emotional drive behind support for the birth control exceptions appear to be some weird sense that women are simply having too much irresponsible sex, and they should just settle down, keep their legs crossed, and leave the rest of us alone.
The folks who end up being inconvenienced by this stuff seem always to be women, or gays.
And not for nothing, but $1000 is a lot of money, in most folks’ household budgets. I make pretty good money, and it would be in mine.
Fair enough.
IMO Doc Science’s basic point stands, however. For some reason, nobody is insisting on exemptions for vasectomies, or Viagra. And much of the emotional drive behind support for the birth control exceptions appear to be some weird sense that women are simply having too much irresponsible sex, and they should just settle down, keep their legs crossed, and leave the rest of us alone.
The folks who end up being inconvenienced by this stuff seem always to be women, or gays.
And not for nothing, but $1000 is a lot of money, in most folks’ household budgets. I make pretty good money, and it would be in mine.
Fair enough.
IMO Doc Science’s basic point stands, however. For some reason, nobody is insisting on exemptions for vasectomies, or Viagra. And much of the emotional drive behind support for the birth control exceptions appear to be some weird sense that women are simply having too much irresponsible sex, and they should just settle down, keep their legs crossed, and leave the rest of us alone.
The folks who end up being inconvenienced by this stuff seem always to be women, or gays.
And not for nothing, but $1000 is a lot of money, in most folks’ household budgets. I make pretty good money, and it would be in mine.
, I am always confused by the vasectomies and Viagra line. Vasectomies, by the Greens criteria wouldn’t be a problem. I’m pretty sure the RCC objects to them. Viagra isn’t even a comparable drug. It enhances sexual capability, I haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as a part of this discussion. Your irresponsible sex line is just crap.
As far as inconvenience, I suspect for every woman inconvenienced there is likely an inconvenienced man. A little known fact, to require birth control, for birth control, you need two people.
If you decided your wife needed an iud that would last 5 years you wouldn’t think of it as a great expense. If you needed to save for it you would use other birth control in the meantime. It isn’t emergency medicine.
, I am always confused by the vasectomies and Viagra line. Vasectomies, by the Greens criteria wouldn’t be a problem. I’m pretty sure the RCC objects to them. Viagra isn’t even a comparable drug. It enhances sexual capability, I haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as a part of this discussion. Your irresponsible sex line is just crap.
As far as inconvenience, I suspect for every woman inconvenienced there is likely an inconvenienced man. A little known fact, to require birth control, for birth control, you need two people.
If you decided your wife needed an iud that would last 5 years you wouldn’t think of it as a great expense. If you needed to save for it you would use other birth control in the meantime. It isn’t emergency medicine.
, I am always confused by the vasectomies and Viagra line. Vasectomies, by the Greens criteria wouldn’t be a problem. I’m pretty sure the RCC objects to them. Viagra isn’t even a comparable drug. It enhances sexual capability, I haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as a part of this discussion. Your irresponsible sex line is just crap.
As far as inconvenience, I suspect for every woman inconvenienced there is likely an inconvenienced man. A little known fact, to require birth control, for birth control, you need two people.
If you decided your wife needed an iud that would last 5 years you wouldn’t think of it as a great expense. If you needed to save for it you would use other birth control in the meantime. It isn’t emergency medicine.
haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as a part of this discussion.
lemme help you with that
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hobby-lobby-conservatives-contraceptives-sex
haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as a part of this discussion.
lemme help you with that
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hobby-lobby-conservatives-contraceptives-sex
haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as a part of this discussion.
lemme help you with that
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hobby-lobby-conservatives-contraceptives-sex
“I haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as part of this discussion.”
Twitter and some of the blogosphere are alive with the sound of slut-shaming, unless your definition of “this discussion” is this specific thread.
But it may be true that you haven’t seen it!
Erick Erickson, Republican king-maker for one, for whom women everywhere clamp their legs shut if he’s in the vicinity on account of the fact that would be sex with dire consequences for the entire human race, given his cloven hooves.
Although I understand his wife keeps a shotgun hidden in case the Census
Bureau comes calling.
I know he also pleaded with goats to keep their hooves together to prevent his fellow Republican and Supreme Court Justice David Souter from f$cking them, in Erickson’s own cracker bohunk imagery.
So, c’mon.
To head off other claims of no sightings, yes the McDaniels campaign and supporters are on the airwaves wondering why certain people have time to vote when they should be picking cotton in Mississippi.
“I haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as part of this discussion.”
Twitter and some of the blogosphere are alive with the sound of slut-shaming, unless your definition of “this discussion” is this specific thread.
But it may be true that you haven’t seen it!
Erick Erickson, Republican king-maker for one, for whom women everywhere clamp their legs shut if he’s in the vicinity on account of the fact that would be sex with dire consequences for the entire human race, given his cloven hooves.
Although I understand his wife keeps a shotgun hidden in case the Census
Bureau comes calling.
I know he also pleaded with goats to keep their hooves together to prevent his fellow Republican and Supreme Court Justice David Souter from f$cking them, in Erickson’s own cracker bohunk imagery.
So, c’mon.
To head off other claims of no sightings, yes the McDaniels campaign and supporters are on the airwaves wondering why certain people have time to vote when they should be picking cotton in Mississippi.
“I haven’t seen ANY objection to women having sex as part of this discussion.”
Twitter and some of the blogosphere are alive with the sound of slut-shaming, unless your definition of “this discussion” is this specific thread.
But it may be true that you haven’t seen it!
Erick Erickson, Republican king-maker for one, for whom women everywhere clamp their legs shut if he’s in the vicinity on account of the fact that would be sex with dire consequences for the entire human race, given his cloven hooves.
Although I understand his wife keeps a shotgun hidden in case the Census
Bureau comes calling.
I know he also pleaded with goats to keep their hooves together to prevent his fellow Republican and Supreme Court Justice David Souter from f$cking them, in Erickson’s own cracker bohunk imagery.
So, c’mon.
To head off other claims of no sightings, yes the McDaniels campaign and supporters are on the airwaves wondering why certain people have time to vote when they should be picking cotton in Mississippi.
Thanks cleek, as usual the two or three stalwart shock media figures and a loaded question for Mike Lee. I prefer the serious discussion we were having, where no one suggests women shouldn’t have sex. And, while they are not foolproof, condoms work pretty well.
I knew we would get to slut shaming trope, though, oddly, the suggestion that a man shouldn’t have sex unless he wears a condom gets none of that reaction. I can assure you my sons were told of their responsibility over and over. No one ever accused me of shaming them.
Thanks cleek, as usual the two or three stalwart shock media figures and a loaded question for Mike Lee. I prefer the serious discussion we were having, where no one suggests women shouldn’t have sex. And, while they are not foolproof, condoms work pretty well.
I knew we would get to slut shaming trope, though, oddly, the suggestion that a man shouldn’t have sex unless he wears a condom gets none of that reaction. I can assure you my sons were told of their responsibility over and over. No one ever accused me of shaming them.
Thanks cleek, as usual the two or three stalwart shock media figures and a loaded question for Mike Lee. I prefer the serious discussion we were having, where no one suggests women shouldn’t have sex. And, while they are not foolproof, condoms work pretty well.
I knew we would get to slut shaming trope, though, oddly, the suggestion that a man shouldn’t have sex unless he wears a condom gets none of that reaction. I can assure you my sons were told of their responsibility over and over. No one ever accused me of shaming them.
Vasectomies, by the Greens criteria wouldn’t be a problem.
Agreed.
I guess what I’m trying to get across is that complaints like the Greens’ tend to make it to the courts, while complaints from folks whose issues are not like the Greens, don’t.
Your irresponsible sex line is just crap.
As noted above, by others, no, it’s not. It’s a pretty common comment, and a pretty common sentiment about the whole issue.
I.e., it’s a sentiment, and a statement, shared and made by lots of people.
To dismiss it with “that’s just the usual suspects” excludes a pretty broad swath of the folks who are actually engaged in the discussion.
I wish we could deal with the issue purely at the level of the serious discussion we’ve been able to have here. Unfortunately, we’re not the only ones in the conversation.
Vasectomies, by the Greens criteria wouldn’t be a problem.
Agreed.
I guess what I’m trying to get across is that complaints like the Greens’ tend to make it to the courts, while complaints from folks whose issues are not like the Greens, don’t.
Your irresponsible sex line is just crap.
As noted above, by others, no, it’s not. It’s a pretty common comment, and a pretty common sentiment about the whole issue.
I.e., it’s a sentiment, and a statement, shared and made by lots of people.
To dismiss it with “that’s just the usual suspects” excludes a pretty broad swath of the folks who are actually engaged in the discussion.
I wish we could deal with the issue purely at the level of the serious discussion we’ve been able to have here. Unfortunately, we’re not the only ones in the conversation.
Vasectomies, by the Greens criteria wouldn’t be a problem.
Agreed.
I guess what I’m trying to get across is that complaints like the Greens’ tend to make it to the courts, while complaints from folks whose issues are not like the Greens, don’t.
Your irresponsible sex line is just crap.
As noted above, by others, no, it’s not. It’s a pretty common comment, and a pretty common sentiment about the whole issue.
I.e., it’s a sentiment, and a statement, shared and made by lots of people.
To dismiss it with “that’s just the usual suspects” excludes a pretty broad swath of the folks who are actually engaged in the discussion.
I wish we could deal with the issue purely at the level of the serious discussion we’ve been able to have here. Unfortunately, we’re not the only ones in the conversation.
. I can assure you my sons were told of their responsibility over and over. No one ever accused me of shaming them.
a father talking to his sons about sex and a guy with a radio show saying that women should keep their knees together are two very different things, no?
. I can assure you my sons were told of their responsibility over and over. No one ever accused me of shaming them.
a father talking to his sons about sex and a guy with a radio show saying that women should keep their knees together are two very different things, no?
. I can assure you my sons were told of their responsibility over and over. No one ever accused me of shaming them.
a father talking to his sons about sex and a guy with a radio show saying that women should keep their knees together are two very different things, no?
While we’ve been discussing this, the Supreme Court appears to have moved the goal posts. On Monday, in Hobby they praised the work-around offered to religious non-profits. To wit, that the organization notify their insurer that they have religious objections, and then the insurer gets to provide contraceptives at no charge to the organization. Today, less than a week later, they have granted an injunction which allows Wheaton College to not have to notify the insurer, on the grounds that this would “trigger” the provision of contraceptives. (Note well, this is not just supposed abortificants, as in Hobby. This is contracpetives generally.)
This is, admittedly, an injunction to allow time for the Court to rule, not a final ruling. But my understanding is that injunctions are granted when there is a presumption that the the plaintiff’s suit has a substantial chance of winning. Which is to say, something that was held up as a model on Monday is questionable on Friday.
Fun for all! (And an indication that the dissenters were correct that the ruling in Hobby was not a narrow one, no matter what the majority claimed.)
While we’ve been discussing this, the Supreme Court appears to have moved the goal posts. On Monday, in Hobby they praised the work-around offered to religious non-profits. To wit, that the organization notify their insurer that they have religious objections, and then the insurer gets to provide contraceptives at no charge to the organization. Today, less than a week later, they have granted an injunction which allows Wheaton College to not have to notify the insurer, on the grounds that this would “trigger” the provision of contraceptives. (Note well, this is not just supposed abortificants, as in Hobby. This is contracpetives generally.)
This is, admittedly, an injunction to allow time for the Court to rule, not a final ruling. But my understanding is that injunctions are granted when there is a presumption that the the plaintiff’s suit has a substantial chance of winning. Which is to say, something that was held up as a model on Monday is questionable on Friday.
Fun for all! (And an indication that the dissenters were correct that the ruling in Hobby was not a narrow one, no matter what the majority claimed.)
While we’ve been discussing this, the Supreme Court appears to have moved the goal posts. On Monday, in Hobby they praised the work-around offered to religious non-profits. To wit, that the organization notify their insurer that they have religious objections, and then the insurer gets to provide contraceptives at no charge to the organization. Today, less than a week later, they have granted an injunction which allows Wheaton College to not have to notify the insurer, on the grounds that this would “trigger” the provision of contraceptives. (Note well, this is not just supposed abortificants, as in Hobby. This is contracpetives generally.)
This is, admittedly, an injunction to allow time for the Court to rule, not a final ruling. But my understanding is that injunctions are granted when there is a presumption that the the plaintiff’s suit has a substantial chance of winning. Which is to say, something that was held up as a model on Monday is questionable on Friday.
Fun for all! (And an indication that the dissenters were correct that the ruling in Hobby was not a narrow one, no matter what the majority claimed.)
Not least that the general implication (though of course only implication) of the latter is that the irresponsible, wanton women shouldn’t be having sex (full stop) if they don’t want to get pregnant, whereas the father is discussing how to have sex safely. Or for that matter of the father being unlikely to shame the sons because it’s a pre-emptive discussion with people he knows and cares about, versus dear Rush’s “ye must change yer ways” diatribe aimed at people he neither knows nor likes. That Marty did not shame his sons when discussing safe sex with them is quite beside the point, and really has nothing to do with slut shaming. Slut shaming is not sex ed.
Not least that the general implication (though of course only implication) of the latter is that the irresponsible, wanton women shouldn’t be having sex (full stop) if they don’t want to get pregnant, whereas the father is discussing how to have sex safely. Or for that matter of the father being unlikely to shame the sons because it’s a pre-emptive discussion with people he knows and cares about, versus dear Rush’s “ye must change yer ways” diatribe aimed at people he neither knows nor likes. That Marty did not shame his sons when discussing safe sex with them is quite beside the point, and really has nothing to do with slut shaming. Slut shaming is not sex ed.
Not least that the general implication (though of course only implication) of the latter is that the irresponsible, wanton women shouldn’t be having sex (full stop) if they don’t want to get pregnant, whereas the father is discussing how to have sex safely. Or for that matter of the father being unlikely to shame the sons because it’s a pre-emptive discussion with people he knows and cares about, versus dear Rush’s “ye must change yer ways” diatribe aimed at people he neither knows nor likes. That Marty did not shame his sons when discussing safe sex with them is quite beside the point, and really has nothing to do with slut shaming. Slut shaming is not sex ed.
(The above @cleek’s 2:45. Curse you for a meddling interloper, wj! Curse you!)
(The above @cleek’s 2:45. Curse you for a meddling interloper, wj! Curse you!)
(The above @cleek’s 2:45. Curse you for a meddling interloper, wj! Curse you!)
russell, Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out, and I don’t hear anyone else saying it then I think its a red herring. It makes women look more put upon and defines anyone that doesn’t agree as a sexist. I see a lot more people arguing against it than you can name people saying it, by a lot.
The outcome of birth control is, most of the time, pregnancy-less sex. Consequences come in lots of flavors.
russell, Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out, and I don’t hear anyone else saying it then I think its a red herring. It makes women look more put upon and defines anyone that doesn’t agree as a sexist. I see a lot more people arguing against it than you can name people saying it, by a lot.
The outcome of birth control is, most of the time, pregnancy-less sex. Consequences come in lots of flavors.
russell, Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out, and I don’t hear anyone else saying it then I think its a red herring. It makes women look more put upon and defines anyone that doesn’t agree as a sexist. I see a lot more people arguing against it than you can name people saying it, by a lot.
The outcome of birth control is, most of the time, pregnancy-less sex. Consequences come in lots of flavors.
NV, timing is everything! 😉
NV, timing is everything! 😉
NV, timing is everything! 😉
Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out, and I don’t hear anyone else saying it then I think its a red herring.
you’re really setting the bar at people you’ve personally heard ? and that the “conservatives” with the biggest audiences in the country don’t count ?
Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out, and I don’t hear anyone else saying it then I think its a red herring.
you’re really setting the bar at people you’ve personally heard ? and that the “conservatives” with the biggest audiences in the country don’t count ?
Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out, and I don’t hear anyone else saying it then I think its a red herring.
you’re really setting the bar at people you’ve personally heard ? and that the “conservatives” with the biggest audiences in the country don’t count ?
Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out
I don’t listen to them either. At least, I make no effort whatsoever to listen to them.
Unfortunately, unless you rigorously avoid news or current events programming of any sort, they’re unavoidable.
Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out
I don’t listen to them either. At least, I make no effort whatsoever to listen to them.
Unfortunately, unless you rigorously avoid news or current events programming of any sort, they’re unavoidable.
Since I never listen to any of the people they pointed out
I don’t listen to them either. At least, I make no effort whatsoever to listen to them.
Unfortunately, unless you rigorously avoid news or current events programming of any sort, they’re unavoidable.
one thing i haven’t seen mentioned here is that HL not only wanted to get out of paying for a insurance to provide a specific set of contraceptives (the actions of which they don’t even understand), they also wanted to get out of paying for insurance that could provide counseling for contraception:
from their complaint:
because they are assholes.
one thing i haven’t seen mentioned here is that HL not only wanted to get out of paying for a insurance to provide a specific set of contraceptives (the actions of which they don’t even understand), they also wanted to get out of paying for insurance that could provide counseling for contraception:
from their complaint:
because they are assholes.
one thing i haven’t seen mentioned here is that HL not only wanted to get out of paying for a insurance to provide a specific set of contraceptives (the actions of which they don’t even understand), they also wanted to get out of paying for insurance that could provide counseling for contraception:
from their complaint:
because they are assholes.
Yes, cleek, I did the research a while back and those conservatives you talk about have about a 3% share.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are. That’s crap.
On the other hand, The concept is laughable and presumes that women have sex by themselves, which I’m sure happens, but is unlikely to have dire consequences. Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
And see, the thread is jacked, we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
Yes, cleek, I did the research a while back and those conservatives you talk about have about a 3% share.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are. That’s crap.
On the other hand, The concept is laughable and presumes that women have sex by themselves, which I’m sure happens, but is unlikely to have dire consequences. Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
And see, the thread is jacked, we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
Yes, cleek, I did the research a while back and those conservatives you talk about have about a 3% share.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are. That’s crap.
On the other hand, The concept is laughable and presumes that women have sex by themselves, which I’m sure happens, but is unlikely to have dire consequences. Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
And see, the thread is jacked, we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are.
no, that’s not the definition.
Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
but nobody’s trying to restrict men’s access to anything. somehow it always ends up being the women who end up on the wrong side of some hypocritical, ostentatious, old white man’s loudly-proclaimed religious BS.
those conservatives you talk about have about a 3% share.
Rush and Hannity are the first and second most-listened-to radio shows in the country, across all categories. more than NPR’s AM and PM drivetime shows, more than any music show.
trying to hand-wave them away is absurd.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are.
no, that’s not the definition.
Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
but nobody’s trying to restrict men’s access to anything. somehow it always ends up being the women who end up on the wrong side of some hypocritical, ostentatious, old white man’s loudly-proclaimed religious BS.
those conservatives you talk about have about a 3% share.
Rush and Hannity are the first and second most-listened-to radio shows in the country, across all categories. more than NPR’s AM and PM drivetime shows, more than any music show.
trying to hand-wave them away is absurd.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are.
no, that’s not the definition.
Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
but nobody’s trying to restrict men’s access to anything. somehow it always ends up being the women who end up on the wrong side of some hypocritical, ostentatious, old white man’s loudly-proclaimed religious BS.
those conservatives you talk about have about a 3% share.
Rush and Hannity are the first and second most-listened-to radio shows in the country, across all categories. more than NPR’s AM and PM drivetime shows, more than any music show.
trying to hand-wave them away is absurd.
I love that cleek, people try to restrict all kinds of things all the time. You really want to put out there that birth control is the only thing limited by other peoples sense of right and wrong? How long a freaking list do you want of things I can’t do or that you would like for me not to be able to do because you think they are bad or wrong? Starting with driving over 55, drinking in public, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, eating trans fats, using Quaaludes for pain relief, walking around nude, having a real 30 day prescription of maxalt, smoking anyplace that doesn’t get rained on, driving anything that isn’t electric, buying a 24 oz soda, all because of progressives religious bs.
I am happy to have the discussion of whether this is good or bad, right or wrong even but don’t pretend that somehow only women are impacted by the beliefs of others being put into law.
I love that cleek, people try to restrict all kinds of things all the time. You really want to put out there that birth control is the only thing limited by other peoples sense of right and wrong? How long a freaking list do you want of things I can’t do or that you would like for me not to be able to do because you think they are bad or wrong? Starting with driving over 55, drinking in public, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, eating trans fats, using Quaaludes for pain relief, walking around nude, having a real 30 day prescription of maxalt, smoking anyplace that doesn’t get rained on, driving anything that isn’t electric, buying a 24 oz soda, all because of progressives religious bs.
I am happy to have the discussion of whether this is good or bad, right or wrong even but don’t pretend that somehow only women are impacted by the beliefs of others being put into law.
I love that cleek, people try to restrict all kinds of things all the time. You really want to put out there that birth control is the only thing limited by other peoples sense of right and wrong? How long a freaking list do you want of things I can’t do or that you would like for me not to be able to do because you think they are bad or wrong? Starting with driving over 55, drinking in public, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, eating trans fats, using Quaaludes for pain relief, walking around nude, having a real 30 day prescription of maxalt, smoking anyplace that doesn’t get rained on, driving anything that isn’t electric, buying a 24 oz soda, all because of progressives religious bs.
I am happy to have the discussion of whether this is good or bad, right or wrong even but don’t pretend that somehow only women are impacted by the beliefs of others being put into law.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions.
Wanting access to birth control *is* being responsible for your actions and their potential outcomes.
we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
Virtually all of the religious exemptions that have been requested are for birth control methods used by women.
Coverage for vasectomies is not actually mandated under the ACA, maybe if it was an exception for that male-only procedure would be on the table as well.
But as things stand, the only things people are upset about paying for are birth control methods and products that are used by women.
That being so, the discussion of how this will effect women is not really off-topic. IMVHO.
No doubt the discussion will expand as exemptions for even more stuff are requested. Requirements to not discriminate against gays in hiring is the latest and greatest religious scruple on the table, maybe something affecting straight men will be next.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions.
Wanting access to birth control *is* being responsible for your actions and their potential outcomes.
we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
Virtually all of the religious exemptions that have been requested are for birth control methods used by women.
Coverage for vasectomies is not actually mandated under the ACA, maybe if it was an exception for that male-only procedure would be on the table as well.
But as things stand, the only things people are upset about paying for are birth control methods and products that are used by women.
That being so, the discussion of how this will effect women is not really off-topic. IMVHO.
No doubt the discussion will expand as exemptions for even more stuff are requested. Requirements to not discriminate against gays in hiring is the latest and greatest religious scruple on the table, maybe something affecting straight men will be next.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions.
Wanting access to birth control *is* being responsible for your actions and their potential outcomes.
we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
Virtually all of the religious exemptions that have been requested are for birth control methods used by women.
Coverage for vasectomies is not actually mandated under the ACA, maybe if it was an exception for that male-only procedure would be on the table as well.
But as things stand, the only things people are upset about paying for are birth control methods and products that are used by women.
That being so, the discussion of how this will effect women is not really off-topic. IMVHO.
No doubt the discussion will expand as exemptions for even more stuff are requested. Requirements to not discriminate against gays in hiring is the latest and greatest religious scruple on the table, maybe something affecting straight men will be next.
We all agree that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, but some of us believe on religious grounds that it is forbidden to break the eggs at the big end.
Corporations with religious scruples should therefore be allowed to specify that the eggs they pay us may only be broken at the little end.
The corporations’ scruples obviously trump our lack of scruples. After all, deference to their scruples does not prevent us from making omelettes.
It makes no difference that an omelette made with scrupulously-opened eggs is indistinguishable from any other omelette. The argument is not about omelettes. It is about RELIGION.
So long as religion is afforded the sort of deference that is NOT afforded to science, logic, or just plain common sense, we will have legal arguments over whether MY religion forbids YOU to open eggs at the big end, have an abortion, or draw pictures of The Prophet.
The deference to religion I am talking about is not the deference afforded it by the Constitution. It is the deference afforded it by “moderate” people in everyday life.
It is impolite to point out that religion is just an amalgam of pointless ritual and mindless superstition, no more deserving of respect than musical theater. It is impolite to suggest that religious “moderates” who want to disavow religious extremists are in the same position as “responsible” gun owners who want to disavow mass shooters. It is impolite to point out, to our moderate fellow citizens in everyday conversation, that the extremists cite the same scriptures as they do.
So we go on arguing about how much deference religion deserves, rather than laughing at those who pretend to know how God wants His eggs broken.
–TP
We all agree that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, but some of us believe on religious grounds that it is forbidden to break the eggs at the big end.
Corporations with religious scruples should therefore be allowed to specify that the eggs they pay us may only be broken at the little end.
The corporations’ scruples obviously trump our lack of scruples. After all, deference to their scruples does not prevent us from making omelettes.
It makes no difference that an omelette made with scrupulously-opened eggs is indistinguishable from any other omelette. The argument is not about omelettes. It is about RELIGION.
So long as religion is afforded the sort of deference that is NOT afforded to science, logic, or just plain common sense, we will have legal arguments over whether MY religion forbids YOU to open eggs at the big end, have an abortion, or draw pictures of The Prophet.
The deference to religion I am talking about is not the deference afforded it by the Constitution. It is the deference afforded it by “moderate” people in everyday life.
It is impolite to point out that religion is just an amalgam of pointless ritual and mindless superstition, no more deserving of respect than musical theater. It is impolite to suggest that religious “moderates” who want to disavow religious extremists are in the same position as “responsible” gun owners who want to disavow mass shooters. It is impolite to point out, to our moderate fellow citizens in everyday conversation, that the extremists cite the same scriptures as they do.
So we go on arguing about how much deference religion deserves, rather than laughing at those who pretend to know how God wants His eggs broken.
–TP
We all agree that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, but some of us believe on religious grounds that it is forbidden to break the eggs at the big end.
Corporations with religious scruples should therefore be allowed to specify that the eggs they pay us may only be broken at the little end.
The corporations’ scruples obviously trump our lack of scruples. After all, deference to their scruples does not prevent us from making omelettes.
It makes no difference that an omelette made with scrupulously-opened eggs is indistinguishable from any other omelette. The argument is not about omelettes. It is about RELIGION.
So long as religion is afforded the sort of deference that is NOT afforded to science, logic, or just plain common sense, we will have legal arguments over whether MY religion forbids YOU to open eggs at the big end, have an abortion, or draw pictures of The Prophet.
The deference to religion I am talking about is not the deference afforded it by the Constitution. It is the deference afforded it by “moderate” people in everyday life.
It is impolite to point out that religion is just an amalgam of pointless ritual and mindless superstition, no more deserving of respect than musical theater. It is impolite to suggest that religious “moderates” who want to disavow religious extremists are in the same position as “responsible” gun owners who want to disavow mass shooters. It is impolite to point out, to our moderate fellow citizens in everyday conversation, that the extremists cite the same scriptures as they do.
So we go on arguing about how much deference religion deserves, rather than laughing at those who pretend to know how God wants His eggs broken.
–TP
Since (as far as I am aware) only women can get pregnant, when we speak of reproductive “rights” we are essentially speaking about womens’ “health”. Accessibility to all available effective avenues is a health question, not a morals question.*
If this case were about a couple of FDA approved blood pressure medications that somebody had a moral objection to** (say they were made from rare sacred mushrooms)we’d all be laughing at the silliness of it.
Let’s be blunt. This was a political decision explicitly favoring those who (a.)oppose birth control (and all the implications that flow therefrom); and (b.) the larger group that opposes abortion and their political allies.
There is no other “undue burden” issue of this nature that would generate anywhere near the controversy this one has.
So, yes. It is about sex, and the women (but not men) who choose to engage in it.
It’s about human agency, and the right’s desire to circumscribe it for women.
As to the “it’s no big deal” line. If it’s no big deal, why was the case filed to begin with? if it’s no big deal, why push it through expensive appeals? These are questions that rightly need to be answered by those supporting this decision, not those opposing it.
* Under any other circumstance, I’d bet good money that conservatives would be howling at this decision as an infringement on Liberty.
** And a lot of money to push it through appeals.
Since (as far as I am aware) only women can get pregnant, when we speak of reproductive “rights” we are essentially speaking about womens’ “health”. Accessibility to all available effective avenues is a health question, not a morals question.*
If this case were about a couple of FDA approved blood pressure medications that somebody had a moral objection to** (say they were made from rare sacred mushrooms)we’d all be laughing at the silliness of it.
Let’s be blunt. This was a political decision explicitly favoring those who (a.)oppose birth control (and all the implications that flow therefrom); and (b.) the larger group that opposes abortion and their political allies.
There is no other “undue burden” issue of this nature that would generate anywhere near the controversy this one has.
So, yes. It is about sex, and the women (but not men) who choose to engage in it.
It’s about human agency, and the right’s desire to circumscribe it for women.
As to the “it’s no big deal” line. If it’s no big deal, why was the case filed to begin with? if it’s no big deal, why push it through expensive appeals? These are questions that rightly need to be answered by those supporting this decision, not those opposing it.
* Under any other circumstance, I’d bet good money that conservatives would be howling at this decision as an infringement on Liberty.
** And a lot of money to push it through appeals.
Since (as far as I am aware) only women can get pregnant, when we speak of reproductive “rights” we are essentially speaking about womens’ “health”. Accessibility to all available effective avenues is a health question, not a morals question.*
If this case were about a couple of FDA approved blood pressure medications that somebody had a moral objection to** (say they were made from rare sacred mushrooms)we’d all be laughing at the silliness of it.
Let’s be blunt. This was a political decision explicitly favoring those who (a.)oppose birth control (and all the implications that flow therefrom); and (b.) the larger group that opposes abortion and their political allies.
There is no other “undue burden” issue of this nature that would generate anywhere near the controversy this one has.
So, yes. It is about sex, and the women (but not men) who choose to engage in it.
It’s about human agency, and the right’s desire to circumscribe it for women.
As to the “it’s no big deal” line. If it’s no big deal, why was the case filed to begin with? if it’s no big deal, why push it through expensive appeals? These are questions that rightly need to be answered by those supporting this decision, not those opposing it.
* Under any other circumstance, I’d bet good money that conservatives would be howling at this decision as an infringement on Liberty.
** And a lot of money to push it through appeals.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are.
As the others stated, this is just not so. If this is your only experience with slut shaming, you live in a glorious, myopic bubble.
On the other hand, The concept is laughable and presumes that women have sex by themselves, which I’m sure happens, but is unlikely to have dire consequences. Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
As a rule, no, in the eyes of our society consequence-free sex is generally consequence-free for one party. Sometime’s it’s consequence-free for two parties (and class tends to figure into these situations), and sometimes it’s consequence-free for no parties. But our society continues to hold that there must be consequences to someone for consequence-free sex, and popular opinion continues to nominate women for this honor if given a choice.
Seriously, refer back to the recent post about, well, slut shaming. The article linked in that OP made it very clear that society continues to judge women’s moral character on their willingness to have sex outside of marriage or (god forbid) even relationships.
Men in contemporary American society are not held to the same standard of disapprobation. At all.
And see, the thread is jacked, we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
If proponents of this ruling are praising it in terms of forcing women to face “consequences” for having sex, slut shaming is relevant to the subject at hand. I agree, however, that your strawman (or more generously, naive and sheltered) definition of slut shaming is not relevant to the topic. Nor much of anything else.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are.
As the others stated, this is just not so. If this is your only experience with slut shaming, you live in a glorious, myopic bubble.
On the other hand, The concept is laughable and presumes that women have sex by themselves, which I’m sure happens, but is unlikely to have dire consequences. Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
As a rule, no, in the eyes of our society consequence-free sex is generally consequence-free for one party. Sometime’s it’s consequence-free for two parties (and class tends to figure into these situations), and sometimes it’s consequence-free for no parties. But our society continues to hold that there must be consequences to someone for consequence-free sex, and popular opinion continues to nominate women for this honor if given a choice.
Seriously, refer back to the recent post about, well, slut shaming. The article linked in that OP made it very clear that society continues to judge women’s moral character on their willingness to have sex outside of marriage or (god forbid) even relationships.
Men in contemporary American society are not held to the same standard of disapprobation. At all.
And see, the thread is jacked, we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
If proponents of this ruling are praising it in terms of forcing women to face “consequences” for having sex, slut shaming is relevant to the subject at hand. I agree, however, that your strawman (or more generously, naive and sheltered) definition of slut shaming is not relevant to the topic. Nor much of anything else.
Slut shaming is defined nowadays as expressing any thought that women should be responsible for the outcomes of their actions. No matter what those are.
As the others stated, this is just not so. If this is your only experience with slut shaming, you live in a glorious, myopic bubble.
On the other hand, The concept is laughable and presumes that women have sex by themselves, which I’m sure happens, but is unlikely to have dire consequences. Consequence free sex is consequence free for two people.
As a rule, no, in the eyes of our society consequence-free sex is generally consequence-free for one party. Sometime’s it’s consequence-free for two parties (and class tends to figure into these situations), and sometimes it’s consequence-free for no parties. But our society continues to hold that there must be consequences to someone for consequence-free sex, and popular opinion continues to nominate women for this honor if given a choice.
Seriously, refer back to the recent post about, well, slut shaming. The article linked in that OP made it very clear that society continues to judge women’s moral character on their willingness to have sex outside of marriage or (god forbid) even relationships.
Men in contemporary American society are not held to the same standard of disapprobation. At all.
And see, the thread is jacked, we went from talking about the pros and cons of the actual event to discussing some vague notion of women being disrespected.
If proponents of this ruling are praising it in terms of forcing women to face “consequences” for having sex, slut shaming is relevant to the subject at hand. I agree, however, that your strawman (or more generously, naive and sheltered) definition of slut shaming is not relevant to the topic. Nor much of anything else.
“Men in contemporary American society are not held to the same standard of disapprobation. At all.”
I think you should talk to some number of people below the age of 50.No one is held to that standard anymore.
“Men in contemporary American society are not held to the same standard of disapprobation. At all.”
I think you should talk to some number of people below the age of 50.No one is held to that standard anymore.
“Men in contemporary American society are not held to the same standard of disapprobation. At all.”
I think you should talk to some number of people below the age of 50.No one is held to that standard anymore.
all because of progressives religious bs.
With respect to public nudity, I should think Woodstock Nation pretty well undermined that assertion some time ago. Similarly for drinking in public (though many of all political persuasions on this 4th of July holiday are doing precisely that).
It wasn’t “progressives” who instituted and enforced blue laws. It wasn’t progressives who censored books and television. It wasn’t the communist left that outlawed abortions or passed laws against using the pill. It isn’t progressives who have, since Roe continually chipped away at women’s reproductive freedom by hamstringing access at every available opportunity, and by every available means, up to and including assassination.
It was asshole Catholics and Protestants.
all because of progressives religious bs.
With respect to public nudity, I should think Woodstock Nation pretty well undermined that assertion some time ago. Similarly for drinking in public (though many of all political persuasions on this 4th of July holiday are doing precisely that).
It wasn’t “progressives” who instituted and enforced blue laws. It wasn’t progressives who censored books and television. It wasn’t the communist left that outlawed abortions or passed laws against using the pill. It isn’t progressives who have, since Roe continually chipped away at women’s reproductive freedom by hamstringing access at every available opportunity, and by every available means, up to and including assassination.
It was asshole Catholics and Protestants.
all because of progressives religious bs.
With respect to public nudity, I should think Woodstock Nation pretty well undermined that assertion some time ago. Similarly for drinking in public (though many of all political persuasions on this 4th of July holiday are doing precisely that).
It wasn’t “progressives” who instituted and enforced blue laws. It wasn’t progressives who censored books and television. It wasn’t the communist left that outlawed abortions or passed laws against using the pill. It isn’t progressives who have, since Roe continually chipped away at women’s reproductive freedom by hamstringing access at every available opportunity, and by every available means, up to and including assassination.
It was asshole Catholics and Protestants.
I think you should follow your own advice, Marty. I’m younger than you, only a few years out of college, given to frequenting some venues on the Internet with predominantly young (and male) demographics, and recently came off a tour on Active Duty in the Army where I was surrounded by essentially no one over 50 for a period of three years. Disapprobation for sexual conduct, disproportionately towards women, is alive and well in the under-fifty set, albeit not enjoying the politically correct status it did in years gone by.
I think you should follow your own advice, Marty. I’m younger than you, only a few years out of college, given to frequenting some venues on the Internet with predominantly young (and male) demographics, and recently came off a tour on Active Duty in the Army where I was surrounded by essentially no one over 50 for a period of three years. Disapprobation for sexual conduct, disproportionately towards women, is alive and well in the under-fifty set, albeit not enjoying the politically correct status it did in years gone by.
I think you should follow your own advice, Marty. I’m younger than you, only a few years out of college, given to frequenting some venues on the Internet with predominantly young (and male) demographics, and recently came off a tour on Active Duty in the Army where I was surrounded by essentially no one over 50 for a period of three years. Disapprobation for sexual conduct, disproportionately towards women, is alive and well in the under-fifty set, albeit not enjoying the politically correct status it did in years gone by.
“albeit not enjoying the politically correct status it did in years gone by.”
I’m pretty sure this is the important part.
“albeit not enjoying the politically correct status it did in years gone by.”
I’m pretty sure this is the important part.
“albeit not enjoying the politically correct status it did in years gone by.”
I’m pretty sure this is the important part.
As someone who is below the age of 50, and spends a *lot* of time with people just out of college: Marty, you’re wrong. It may not be as bad as it was – being under 50, I couldn’t say – but the culture of slut-shaming is alive and well even if it shows under different guises (e.g. “girls you f***” versus “girls you marry”).
As someone who is below the age of 50, and spends a *lot* of time with people just out of college: Marty, you’re wrong. It may not be as bad as it was – being under 50, I couldn’t say – but the culture of slut-shaming is alive and well even if it shows under different guises (e.g. “girls you f***” versus “girls you marry”).
As someone who is below the age of 50, and spends a *lot* of time with people just out of college: Marty, you’re wrong. It may not be as bad as it was – being under 50, I couldn’t say – but the culture of slut-shaming is alive and well even if it shows under different guises (e.g. “girls you f***” versus “girls you marry”).
Just because the standards aren’t politically correct doesn’t mean no one is held to them, Marty. Especially when large swathes of the country take defiant pride in the idea of being “politically incorrect”. It’s like the Limbaugh quote from the link above: Rush never says “about time those sluts stop being sluts” because he doesn’t have to; all he needs to do is nod and wink in the right way in the right place, and we know the score. Making it socially unacceptable to openly slut shame in the broad media is a good thing, and a necessary step in the right direction, but there’s a great deal of daylight between politically incorrect and non-existent. And it’s hardly even as though it is universally politically incorrect. E.g., it’s still depressingly common for promiscuity to be considered in judging the vericity of sexual assault allegations, both formally and informally. Or consider the pervasive myth that the nation is suffering from a plague of false rape accusations from women who have consensual sex but have second thoughts the next morning, when rape is falsely reported at the same rate as other crimes. These are not the behaviors of a society that rejects slut-shaming.
Just because the standards aren’t politically correct doesn’t mean no one is held to them, Marty. Especially when large swathes of the country take defiant pride in the idea of being “politically incorrect”. It’s like the Limbaugh quote from the link above: Rush never says “about time those sluts stop being sluts” because he doesn’t have to; all he needs to do is nod and wink in the right way in the right place, and we know the score. Making it socially unacceptable to openly slut shame in the broad media is a good thing, and a necessary step in the right direction, but there’s a great deal of daylight between politically incorrect and non-existent. And it’s hardly even as though it is universally politically incorrect. E.g., it’s still depressingly common for promiscuity to be considered in judging the vericity of sexual assault allegations, both formally and informally. Or consider the pervasive myth that the nation is suffering from a plague of false rape accusations from women who have consensual sex but have second thoughts the next morning, when rape is falsely reported at the same rate as other crimes. These are not the behaviors of a society that rejects slut-shaming.
Just because the standards aren’t politically correct doesn’t mean no one is held to them, Marty. Especially when large swathes of the country take defiant pride in the idea of being “politically incorrect”. It’s like the Limbaugh quote from the link above: Rush never says “about time those sluts stop being sluts” because he doesn’t have to; all he needs to do is nod and wink in the right way in the right place, and we know the score. Making it socially unacceptable to openly slut shame in the broad media is a good thing, and a necessary step in the right direction, but there’s a great deal of daylight between politically incorrect and non-existent. And it’s hardly even as though it is universally politically incorrect. E.g., it’s still depressingly common for promiscuity to be considered in judging the vericity of sexual assault allegations, both formally and informally. Or consider the pervasive myth that the nation is suffering from a plague of false rape accusations from women who have consensual sex but have second thoughts the next morning, when rape is falsely reported at the same rate as other crimes. These are not the behaviors of a society that rejects slut-shaming.
“girls you f***” versus “girls you marry”).”
This is pretty much what I’m on about. Change girls to guys and this would be just as common. But when applied to girls it has a name. The only difference is a woman might try to change a guy from a to b.
“girls you f***” versus “girls you marry”).”
This is pretty much what I’m on about. Change girls to guys and this would be just as common. But when applied to girls it has a name. The only difference is a woman might try to change a guy from a to b.
“girls you f***” versus “girls you marry”).”
This is pretty much what I’m on about. Change girls to guys and this would be just as common. But when applied to girls it has a name. The only difference is a woman might try to change a guy from a to b.
It is *not* as common, not by a long shot, when you reverse the genders. That’s the fundamental point.
It is *not* as common, not by a long shot, when you reverse the genders. That’s the fundamental point.
It is *not* as common, not by a long shot, when you reverse the genders. That’s the fundamental point.
Well, if it makes anybody feel any better, if you’re a girl, you can decide that maybe it’s better to be the girl he f*&^ed rather than the girl he married. Time sometimes proves that out.
Well, if it makes anybody feel any better, if you’re a girl, you can decide that maybe it’s better to be the girl he f*&^ed rather than the girl he married. Time sometimes proves that out.
Well, if it makes anybody feel any better, if you’re a girl, you can decide that maybe it’s better to be the girl he f*&^ed rather than the girl he married. Time sometimes proves that out.
White Saviour Cat on secularism: http://paper-bird.net/2014/04/01/white-savior-cat-on-secularism/
White Saviour Cat on secularism: http://paper-bird.net/2014/04/01/white-savior-cat-on-secularism/
White Saviour Cat on secularism: http://paper-bird.net/2014/04/01/white-savior-cat-on-secularism/
I am happy to have the discussion of whether this is good or bad, right or wrong even but don’t pretend that somehow only women are impacted by the beliefs of others being put into law.
more straw. and a whole lot of chaff.
when it comes to birth control, men have it easy. there are but a few choices: all uncontroversial. for women, most of the choices are subject to someone’s (usually male) tut-tutting and finger wagging, politicization, restrictions based on other people’s morality, etc..
and, let’s note that the “consequences” for men and women are anything but equal: they are far more consequential for women.
I am happy to have the discussion of whether this is good or bad, right or wrong even but don’t pretend that somehow only women are impacted by the beliefs of others being put into law.
more straw. and a whole lot of chaff.
when it comes to birth control, men have it easy. there are but a few choices: all uncontroversial. for women, most of the choices are subject to someone’s (usually male) tut-tutting and finger wagging, politicization, restrictions based on other people’s morality, etc..
and, let’s note that the “consequences” for men and women are anything but equal: they are far more consequential for women.
I am happy to have the discussion of whether this is good or bad, right or wrong even but don’t pretend that somehow only women are impacted by the beliefs of others being put into law.
more straw. and a whole lot of chaff.
when it comes to birth control, men have it easy. there are but a few choices: all uncontroversial. for women, most of the choices are subject to someone’s (usually male) tut-tutting and finger wagging, politicization, restrictions based on other people’s morality, etc..
and, let’s note that the “consequences” for men and women are anything but equal: they are far more consequential for women.
Consequence free is dead even, 0 to 0.
Consequence free is dead even, 0 to 0.
Consequence free is dead even, 0 to 0.
and yet you’re arguing for the people who want to make it harder for women to avoid the consequences. you’re arguing for the people who want to forbid insurance companies from even discussing how to best avoid those consequences.
and yet you’re arguing for the people who want to make it harder for women to avoid the consequences. you’re arguing for the people who want to forbid insurance companies from even discussing how to best avoid those consequences.
and yet you’re arguing for the people who want to make it harder for women to avoid the consequences. you’re arguing for the people who want to forbid insurance companies from even discussing how to best avoid those consequences.
“Consequence free” is free of certain consequences – notably the physical and subsequent financial ones. Specifically, those arising from getting pregnant. Which is a consequence that affects one sex much more than the other. “Consequence free” is not, however, always going to be 0 to 0 consequence-wise, as our society doesn’t seem like the idea of it – at least not for everyone, and less so for women than for men. I’d suppose that’s because women are dodging more significant consequences than men, so the balance needs to be restored by imposing social consequences disproportionately on them. Yes, society is not as blunt about doing so as it used to be, but just because it’s gotten more subtle doesn’t mean it quit.
“Consequence free” is free of certain consequences – notably the physical and subsequent financial ones. Specifically, those arising from getting pregnant. Which is a consequence that affects one sex much more than the other. “Consequence free” is not, however, always going to be 0 to 0 consequence-wise, as our society doesn’t seem like the idea of it – at least not for everyone, and less so for women than for men. I’d suppose that’s because women are dodging more significant consequences than men, so the balance needs to be restored by imposing social consequences disproportionately on them. Yes, society is not as blunt about doing so as it used to be, but just because it’s gotten more subtle doesn’t mean it quit.
“Consequence free” is free of certain consequences – notably the physical and subsequent financial ones. Specifically, those arising from getting pregnant. Which is a consequence that affects one sex much more than the other. “Consequence free” is not, however, always going to be 0 to 0 consequence-wise, as our society doesn’t seem like the idea of it – at least not for everyone, and less so for women than for men. I’d suppose that’s because women are dodging more significant consequences than men, so the balance needs to be restored by imposing social consequences disproportionately on them. Yes, society is not as blunt about doing so as it used to be, but just because it’s gotten more subtle doesn’t mean it quit.
(But I digressed. What cleek said more succinctly. “Consequence free” sex is relieving women of far more consequences than it is men. Pretending it isn’t is hard to take seriously.)
(But I digressed. What cleek said more succinctly. “Consequence free” sex is relieving women of far more consequences than it is men. Pretending it isn’t is hard to take seriously.)
(But I digressed. What cleek said more succinctly. “Consequence free” sex is relieving women of far more consequences than it is men. Pretending it isn’t is hard to take seriously.)
In many ways, sex is more consequence-free for men that it used to be. When I was in high school, if a guy got his girl friend prernant, he was expected to marry her. Even though that meant that he was going to have to get a job, rather than go to college, because he had a family to support.
Now, as the rising numbers of unwed mothers show, that constraint is no longer present. At most, he may be asked to provide child support. But even that, in my experience, doesn’t provide any reliable certainty that he will actually pay. Or even get a job so that he could pay.
There has definitely been an increase in consequence-free sex, but it’s far more for the guys than for the ladies.
In many ways, sex is more consequence-free for men that it used to be. When I was in high school, if a guy got his girl friend prernant, he was expected to marry her. Even though that meant that he was going to have to get a job, rather than go to college, because he had a family to support.
Now, as the rising numbers of unwed mothers show, that constraint is no longer present. At most, he may be asked to provide child support. But even that, in my experience, doesn’t provide any reliable certainty that he will actually pay. Or even get a job so that he could pay.
There has definitely been an increase in consequence-free sex, but it’s far more for the guys than for the ladies.
In many ways, sex is more consequence-free for men that it used to be. When I was in high school, if a guy got his girl friend prernant, he was expected to marry her. Even though that meant that he was going to have to get a job, rather than go to college, because he had a family to support.
Now, as the rising numbers of unwed mothers show, that constraint is no longer present. At most, he may be asked to provide child support. But even that, in my experience, doesn’t provide any reliable certainty that he will actually pay. Or even get a job so that he could pay.
There has definitely been an increase in consequence-free sex, but it’s far more for the guys than for the ladies.
Marty: “His argument is akin to: they want to paint their house red AND have running water, that doesn’t make any sense. Or it does. The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.”
That’s not true, because those two things you cite don’t have anything to do with each other, whereas the type of corporate organization does. For example, the stockholders of Hobby Lobby can’t be sued for the actions of the corporation in which they own stock (in general).
There’s a term ‘reverse piercing of the corporate veil’; I’ve seen a scathing denial of such by Scalia – before Hobby Lobby, of course.
Marty: “His argument is akin to: they want to paint their house red AND have running water, that doesn’t make any sense. Or it does. The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.”
That’s not true, because those two things you cite don’t have anything to do with each other, whereas the type of corporate organization does. For example, the stockholders of Hobby Lobby can’t be sued for the actions of the corporation in which they own stock (in general).
There’s a term ‘reverse piercing of the corporate veil’; I’ve seen a scathing denial of such by Scalia – before Hobby Lobby, of course.
Marty: “His argument is akin to: they want to paint their house red AND have running water, that doesn’t make any sense. Or it does. The two things he is comparing bear no relationship to each other.”
That’s not true, because those two things you cite don’t have anything to do with each other, whereas the type of corporate organization does. For example, the stockholders of Hobby Lobby can’t be sued for the actions of the corporation in which they own stock (in general).
There’s a term ‘reverse piercing of the corporate veil’; I’ve seen a scathing denial of such by Scalia – before Hobby Lobby, of course.
“We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for…”
Which legally means nothing. And in terms of ‘sincerely held’ beliefs, pales in contrast to the 19 men who made 9/11 what it was.
“We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for…”
Which legally means nothing. And in terms of ‘sincerely held’ beliefs, pales in contrast to the 19 men who made 9/11 what it was.
“We’re talking about beliefs that are sincerely held and religiously significant enough to very publicly go to the Supreme Court to fight for…”
Which legally means nothing. And in terms of ‘sincerely held’ beliefs, pales in contrast to the 19 men who made 9/11 what it was.
Another one.
It’s a full employment program for constitutional lawyers.
Another one.
It’s a full employment program for constitutional lawyers.
Another one.
It’s a full employment program for constitutional lawyers.
8 days since the narrow ruling.
8 days since the narrow ruling.
8 days since the narrow ruling.
Another county heard from.
Salem MA contracts with Gordon College, an evangelical liberal arts college a few miles up the coast, to run various community programs in the Old Town Hall.
There’s nothing “religious” about any of this, it’s handy for the town to outsource the job, and Gordon makes a few bucks at it. The programs in question are generally choral sing-alongs, theater productions, an arts festival, and the like.
Gordon College has asked for an exemption from federal regs requiring them to not discriminate against gays in hiring.
In response, the city of Salem has cut Gordon loose.
A possible outcome of the religious exemption claims for organizations who also want to participate in the public arena is that they will no longer be welcome there.
In this case, “possible” is “actual”.
Another county heard from.
Salem MA contracts with Gordon College, an evangelical liberal arts college a few miles up the coast, to run various community programs in the Old Town Hall.
There’s nothing “religious” about any of this, it’s handy for the town to outsource the job, and Gordon makes a few bucks at it. The programs in question are generally choral sing-alongs, theater productions, an arts festival, and the like.
Gordon College has asked for an exemption from federal regs requiring them to not discriminate against gays in hiring.
In response, the city of Salem has cut Gordon loose.
A possible outcome of the religious exemption claims for organizations who also want to participate in the public arena is that they will no longer be welcome there.
In this case, “possible” is “actual”.
Another county heard from.
Salem MA contracts with Gordon College, an evangelical liberal arts college a few miles up the coast, to run various community programs in the Old Town Hall.
There’s nothing “religious” about any of this, it’s handy for the town to outsource the job, and Gordon makes a few bucks at it. The programs in question are generally choral sing-alongs, theater productions, an arts festival, and the like.
Gordon College has asked for an exemption from federal regs requiring them to not discriminate against gays in hiring.
In response, the city of Salem has cut Gordon loose.
A possible outcome of the religious exemption claims for organizations who also want to participate in the public arena is that they will no longer be welcome there.
In this case, “possible” is “actual”.
thank you, very liberal Bill Clinton.
thank you, very liberal Bill Clinton.
thank you, very liberal Bill Clinton.