SCOTUS Decisions on Hobby Lobby and Massachusetts Buffer Zones

The "can always get another job" argument don't work when the unemployment rate > 0.

SocialChameleon wrote:

The "can always get another job" argument don't work when the unemployment rate > 0.

For unskilled labor especially.

Malor wrote:

It's pretty clear that all but a tiny number of conservatives don't think that fetuses are really people. You'd see a hell of a lot more funerals if they did, you'd see a huge crash social drive to prevent miscarriages, and fertility clinics would be treated as roughly equivalent to Auschwitz.

It's just a convenient, painful handle to twist, a method to punish the sluts.

A point of order: Your assumption is that people who recognize a difference between a fetus and, say, a baby should therefore recognize the fetus should be terminated or kept per the will of the mother. I don't think that is a true assumption.

You are really setting up a false dichotomy here.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

You have to wonder what is going through HL's accountants' heads here. One unplanned-to-term pregnancy is so much more of a cost than any of the birth control methods they've passed the buck on here being used multiple times. Hell, you could have multiple IUDs put in and removed and still not be coming close to the cost of a delivery and hospital stay for mother and child.

That is a mystery. Maybe it's not really about the money for them after all. ;)

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

While we focus, rightly, on granting rights to conceptual entities, in practice, this just grants, like, double rights to certain powerful individuals. And the rights they're getting, like "The Right to Dictate what your Employees Use their Earned Compensation On," are not rights as we usually conceive of them.

Pretty much. That's why I think the best response to this would be for as many people as possible to file the paperwork to create a corporation to front their lives. Since corporations are apparently like people++.

SocialChameleon wrote:

The "can always get another job" argument don't work when the unemployment rate > 0.

That's not what I said. I said that this power had always been in the hands of employers. You can take the deal or not, but you can't dictate what the packages look like unless you're the employer.

You can always go up to your employer and demand to be compensated in coffee, but they're not obligated to comply.

I have not stated whether that's acceptable or not, just that it's been that way historically.

LarryC wrote:
SocialChameleon wrote:

The "can always get another job" argument don't work when the unemployment rate > 0.

That's not what I said. I said that this power had always been in the hands of employers. You can take the deal or not, but you can't dictate what the packages look like unless you're the employer.

You can always go up to your employer and demand to be compensated in coffee, but they're not obligated to comply.

I have not stated whether that's acceptable or not, just that it's been that way historically.

Fair. I didn't mean to imply that was your position. My apologies.

LarryC wrote:

Technically, employers have always had and are expected to always have that right. Most employers functionally don't exercise it, though. The balance on that deal has always been the employer making the offer and selecting how (and how much) to compensate the employee, and the employee deciding whether to take the job or not. The end result of this is generally a negotiated deal, but most employees can't, for instance, insist on having their employers pay them in foreign currencies, fruits, metals, or any such like.

If your employer pays out in slaps on the back, you can either quit or ask for more slaps. Normally can't demand to be paid in beef, instead.

At least in the United States, most jobs and corporate entities are compelled by various state and federal regulations to pay in a manner usually referred to as "customary" or similar language (depending on the regulatory clause). This is not specific to dollar amounts (except in the case of the minimum wage), but is very much in regards to people wanting to pay in slaps on the back. An employer can offer a job where that is the offered wage, but it's possible that they've just tripped over several laws. You could make a case for it, but you're in a gray area where you're already two inches from being firmly wrong.

Additionally, to SPP's actual point -

And the rights they're getting, like "The Right to Dictate what your Employees Use their Earned Compensation On," are not rights as we usually conceive of them.

Employers certainly do not have that right. Or shouldn't, anyway. That's much less of a gray area.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Employers certainly do not have that right. Or shouldn't, anyway. That's much less of a gray area.

Agreed. That's why Ginsberg rightly described this as wading into a minefield. After this ruling why can't some pro-environment NGO state they they won't support medical coverage for pregnancies beyond replacing the parents? Why can't a company with strongly held beliefs on GMOs and organic food refuse to pay the bills of employees that eat poorly? If all that's required is that you have "beliefs" then what's to stop any company from legislating their morality into their health care plan? Or from suddenly "getting religion" to save some money?

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

DSGamer wrote:

After this ruling why can't some pro-environment NGO state they they won't support medical coverage for pregnancies beyond replacing the parents? Why can't a company with strongly held beliefs on GMOs and organic food refuse to pay the bills of employees that eat poorly?

Because the ruling was explicity narrow.

Just to point out - that slippery slope has already started. There's at least one company in the Midwest where smoking (alone, on your property, during non work hours) is a fireable offense, and at least one company flirting with making exercise mandatory.

So far I've seen these attempts at health insurance cost reduction posed as carrots (discounts for non smokers and people who take health assessments and accept coaching afterward), but there's not much of an interpretive dance to call a non-smoker's discount on health insurance a smoker's penalty.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

The fact that they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions? Is their opposition to those things not false?

Seems like this is the Bush v. Gore of the Roberts court. A terrible piece of jurisprudence shoved through for ideological reasons. It's too bad that the old men of the legislature will have no interest in correcting it.

SixteenBlue wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

The fact that they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions? Is their opposition to those things not false?

It's pretty simple, actually, Norman. They're multi-millionaires who are using their power to force people to do as they (the rich and powerful) want and spending other money for the ability to discriminate against members of its work force ($65 million to discriminate against LGBT employees, man, I'm sure Jesus would be so proud!).

Jesus was pretty much against every part of that sentence. Unless we're talking about Republican Jesus, in which case I'm sure he approves and is disappointed he can't shoot the baby-killers with their IUDs himself with his AR-15.

Tanglebones wrote:

Seems like this is the Bush v. Gore of the Roberts court.

Gore got greedy and only wanted left-leaning counties recounted, had he asked for a statewide recount, it probably would have been granted and he would have won.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Seems like this is the Bush v. Gore of the Roberts court.

Gore got greedy and only wanted left-leaning counties recounted, had he asked for a statewide recount, it probably would have been granted and he would have won.

I'm talking about the weird specificity of the ruling by the highest court of the land, and the attempt to write in 'no slippery slope' to the ruling, regardless of how illogical it might be to try not to use it to establish precedents.

SixteenBlue wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

The fact that they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions? Is their opposition to those things not false?

If I were a Christian, this is the reason I'd be deeply, deeply concerned by this ruling - while it's not a strong likelihood due to the way our society works, this certainly does open the door for the Supreme Court (and others) to get to decide just how real of a Christian or whatever I am.

Demosthenes wrote:

It's pretty simple, actually, Norman. They're multi-millionaires who are using their power to force people to do as they (the rich and powerful) want

Are you describing business owners or the Obama adminstration here...

Unless we're talking about Republican Jesus, in which case I'm sure he approves and is disappointed he can't shoot the baby-killers with their IUDs himself with his AR-15.

Okay well nice debating with you.

Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Seems like this is the Bush v. Gore of the Roberts court.

Gore got greedy and only wanted left-leaning counties recounted, had he asked for a statewide recount, it probably would have been granted and he would have won.

I'm talking about the weird specificity of the ruling by the highest court of the land, and the attempt to write in 'no slippery slope' to the ruling, regardless of how illogical it might be to try not to use it to establish precedents.

You're describing Roe v Wade.

DSGamer wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

Employers certainly do not have that right. Or shouldn't, anyway. That's much less of a gray area.

Agreed. That's why Ginsberg rightly described this as wading into a minefield. After this ruling why can't some pro-environment NGO state they they won't support medical coverage for pregnancies beyond replacing the parents? Why can't a company with strongly held beliefs on GMOs and organic food refuse to pay the bills of employees that eat poorly? If all that's required is that you have "beliefs" then what's to stop any company from legislating their morality into their health care plan? Or from suddenly "getting religion" to save some money?

From what I've been reading (haven't been keeping too close tabs on this) it seems what happened is that exemption to the contraception mandate for non-profits gave Hobby Lobby the wiggle room to get Justice Kennedy on their side. Kennedy seemed to want to be convinced by someone whether the contraception mandate was necessary for the government to accomplish its goals with Obamacare. He was looking for someone to give him an argument as to why the non-profit exemption wasn't big enough to blow a hole in the overall law, yet the closely-held-corporation exemption was big enough.

So what stops the NGO from following up is the exception in the law was only for this particular law and for this particular mandate. There's no pregnancy or eating poorly exceptions to form the basis of another case. Also, it's not just belief, it's religious belief protected by the RFRA--it's not even a 1st Amendment case from what I've read.

Is this a situation where the people arguing on behalf of the contraception mandate...screwed up? Like I said, I haven't read much about this or looked at the arguments, I've just been following the news, but did they not get Kennedy on board because they didn't do a good enough job of answering his questions? From what I'm reading, his concurring opinion is weird in that he joins the majority opinion, but his concurring opinion isn't very, um, 'concurring'.

Norman, are you just going to keep throwing gotchas around or are you also going to address this?

SixteenBlue wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

The fact that they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions? Is their opposition to those things not false?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

It's pretty simple, actually, Norman. They're multi-millionaires who are using their power to force people to do as they (the rich and powerful) want

Are you describing business owners or the Obama adminstration here...

Unless we're talking about Republican Jesus, in which case I'm sure he approves and is disappointed he can't shoot the baby-killers with their IUDs himself with his AR-15.

Okay well nice debating with you.

So... jokes about Democrats, totally ok... jokes about what is sadly becoming something of a real phenomena of Republican lawmakers, media outlets, and Christian activist groups making Jesus into a capitalist and social Darwinist who is ok with discrimination and basically falls lockstep into the Republican platform and considers everything that Democrats are trying to do as sinful or evil... not ok?

And frankly, after using that first bit to single out Obama versus, oh, I don't know, all lawmakers... do you really think you have a leg to stand on there? Either way, I'd say it's time to stop ignoring the larger question. Hobby Lobby has no problem profiting in its 401K off of the very contraceptions it refuses to pay for for employees. How is that legit?

I wish I could get people to admit the fact that abortions will never. Ever. EVER. go away.

Because since they don't admit that, I suppose the huge growth in DIY abortions in Texas is an unrelated matter to them.

jigoku wrote:

I wish I could get people to admit the fact that abortions will never. Ever. EVER. go away.

Because since they don't admit that, I suppose the huge growth in DIY abortions in Texas is an unrelated matter to them.

It's willful ignorance to the fact that not everyone believes the same thing you do. It's like trying to ban alcohol. Look how well that worked out. Or the decades long war on drugs that has done next to nothing to stop the manufacture, distribution and usage of drugs. It's like states that have codified abstinence only education as the state's ONLY sexual education... and then being surprised or confused when teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates go through the roof.

Farscry wrote:

Norman, are you just going to keep throwing gotchas around or are you also going to address this?

SixteenBlue wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

The fact that they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions? Is their opposition to those things not false?

Well, politely, the statement "they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions" is simply not true, if "they" here means Hobby Lobby.

Demosthenes wrote:
jigoku wrote:

I wish I could get people to admit the fact that abortions will never. Ever. EVER. go away.

Because since they don't admit that, I suppose the huge growth in DIY abortions in Texas is an unrelated matter to them.

It's willful ignorance to the fact that not everyone believes the same thing you do. It's like trying to ban alcohol. Look how well that worked out. Or the decades long war on drugs that has done next to nothing to stop the manufacture, distribution and usage of drugs.

Or the whole rape culture thing, since there's no way to completely eliminate rape.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Norman, are you just going to keep throwing gotchas around or are you also going to address this?

SixteenBlue wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

No, it's about false piety and using a bullying position to inflict your small-mindedness on those you see as your minions. You know, like Jesus intended.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning in judging the owners' religious convictions "false". And since you brought it up, Jesus' underlying message certainly wasn't passive acceptance and support of immorality as long as society is okay with it.

The fact that they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions? Is their opposition to those things not false?

Well, politely, the statement "they invested in and profited off contraception and abortions" is simply not true, if "they" here means Hobby Lobby.

And you know this... how?

The rape culture analogy is flawed but acceptable. I agree that some people are animals and should be treated as such. Furthermore, common sense protections against these animals are commendable. Schrödinger's rapist being the easiest protection.

The flaw is in equating a society in which rapists exist (inevitable) with a society that celebrates their existence (adjustable). America is very much the latter.

(let's imagine for a moment if America was an abortion culture...)

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
jigoku wrote:

I wish I could get people to admit the fact that abortions will never. Ever. EVER. go away.

Because since they don't admit that, I suppose the huge growth in DIY abortions in Texas is an unrelated matter to them.

It's willful ignorance to the fact that not everyone believes the same thing you do. It's like trying to ban alcohol. Look how well that worked out. Or the decades long war on drugs that has done next to nothing to stop the manufacture, distribution and usage of drugs.

Or the whole rape culture thing, since there's no way to completely eliminate rape.

Realize that when you make this analogy, the rape victim is like the baby, and the rapist is like the mother. Do you really want to be the guy asking us to consider 'Rape Clinics' where rapists can rape away in a safe and sterile environment?

And this thread, like so many before it, is totally getting locked.

Obviously I was pointing out the flaws in that line of reasoning - in a vacuum (har har) the argument that something's inevitable, therefore it should be okay is clearly spurious. That argument only holds weight if you already judge the act itself inherently not harmful - which is the real underlying case you're making.