Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's absurd to think that a (for-profit) corporation can have religious values. It's not a person, it's a legal entity. The Supreme Court's decision to side with Hobby Lobby is kinda laughable, regardless of one's stance on contraception.

Speaking of how Christian Hobby Lobby is... they claim "we're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles," yet their products are made in China...where state-sponsored abortions kill millions every year as a result of their one-child policy. When it comes to contraception: super duper Christian, when it comes to profit margin...ehhhhh.

So what we have here is a shitstormy trinity of hypocritical Christians, their corporations claiming the pieces of paper forming said corporation have religious values, and a Supreme Court with its head so far up its own ass it must make the faux-Christians uncomfortable.

...is how I put it on Facebook.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Mostly I think it's just another reason why having one's insurance tied to employment is asinine.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's absurd to think that a (for-profit) corporation can have religious values. It's not a person, it's a legal entity. The Supreme Court's decision to side with Hobby Lobby is kinda laughable, regardless of one's stance on contraception.

Speaking of how Christian Hobby Lobby is... they claim "we're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles," yet their products are made in China...where state-sponsored abortions kill millions every year as a result of their one-child policy. When it comes to contraception: super duper Christian, when it comes to profit margin...ehhhhh.

So what we have here is a shitstormy trinity of hypocritical Christians, their corporations claiming the pieces of paper forming said corporation have religious values, and a Supreme Court with its head so far up its own ass it must make the faux-Christians uncomfortable.

What is this triune shitstorm you speak of? Or was it more grabby?

At least you make your prejudice honest, anyone who would like to run a business and also abide by their religious views has no place in your world. A business owner must give up his religious freedom the moment he applies for a business loan or hangs a shingle or registers his LLC. At that point, he is no longer afforded the ability of following his conscience. Which of course squarely aims at anyone with deeply held values that run counter to the mob.

Naturally, the next step is to find anything about the company that seems exploitive and use it against them. You couldn't find them treating their coworkers poorly or discriminatory hiring practices, instead they are less Christian because they buy things that are made in a country that aborts children. News flash: they sell items in a country that aborts many children.

But I'm sure you received many thumbs up, bumper sticker logic pervades.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't know what to think about this case. I think it's a very complex ruling. But I think Ginsberg is right that the seemingly narrow interpretation is bound to be expanded like crazy.

Another point I read today...why don't these same Christians have problems with providing insurance that includes coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs for single men?

 

[Bluto]

What is this triune shitstorm you speak of? Or was it more grabby?

At least you make your prejudice honest, anyone who would like to run a business and also abide by their religious views has no place in your world. A business owner must give up his religious freedom the moment he applies for a business loan or hangs a shingle or registers his LLC. At that point, he is no longer afforded the ability of following his conscience. Which of course squarely aims at anyone with deeply held values that run counter to the mob.

Naturally, the next step is to find anything about the company that seems exploitive and use it against them. You couldn't find them treating their coworkers poorly or discriminatory hiring practices, instead they are less Christian because they buy things that are made in a country that aborts children. News flash: they sell items in a country that aborts many children.

But I'm sure you received many thumbs up, bumper sticker logic pervades.

Hobby Lobby has deeply held values. Give me a break. Any company that makes their crap in China doesn't have any "deeply held" values other than money.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

An example of what I was talking about.

From Ginsberg's dissent...

"Would the exemption ... extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus)?"

 

[Buster Bluth]

What is this triune shitstorm you speak of? Or was it more grabby?

At least you make your prejudice honest, anyone who would like to run a business and also abide by their religious views has no place in your world.

They can abide by their religious views all day every day. Can the corporation? No. That's a joke.

A business owner must give up his religious freedom the moment he applies for a business loan or hangs a shingle or registers his LLC.

The moment he makes a deal with society to protect himself from litigation/liability/etc, he certainly owes society in return. When his religious beliefs, whether it be beheading gays or denying certain contraceptives, is not congruent with the law...toss that shit overboard.

At that point, he is no longer afforded the ability of following his conscience. Which of course squarely aims at anyone with deeply held values that run counter to the mob.

"mob" huh?

Naturally, the next step is to find anything about the company that seems exploitive and use it against them. You couldn't find them treating their coworkers poorly or discriminatory hiring practices, instead they are less Christian because they buy things that are made in a country that aborts children. News flash: they sell items in a country that aborts many children.

That's one way to put it. Or, one could say that they're putting their factories in the country that aborts more fetuses than any other on Earth, which just so happens to have a repugnant record on human rights, and whose relationship towards Christianity is shaky at best.

They could put their sweatshops in Brazil and skip most of the hypocrisy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

They can abide by their religious views all day every day. Can the corporation? No. That's a joke.



The moment he makes a deal with society to protect himself from litigation/liability/etc, he certainly owes society in return. When his religious beliefs, whether it be beheading gays or denying certain contraceptives, is not congruent with the law...toss that shit overboard.



"mob" huh?



That's one way to put it. Or, one could say that they're putting their factories in the country that aborts more fetuses than any other on Earth, which just so happens to have a repugnant record on human rights, and whose relationship towards Christianity is shaky at best.

They could put their sweatshops in Brazil and skip most of the hypocrisy.

Does hobby lobby make things or are they merely a retailer?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Does hobby lobby make things or are they merely a retailer?

They make products in-house as well as serving as a retailer. Not that it matters one bit, they are totally mum on the issue of Chinese human rights issues/abortions/etc.

And not that any of that matters anyway either, a corporation cannot believe in a god or have religious values.

 

[pkt77242]

They make products in-house as well as serving as a retailer. Not that it matters one bit, they are totally mum on the issue of Chinese human rights issues/abortions/etc.

And not that any of that matters anyway either, a corporation cannot believe in a god or have religious values.

I more or less agree with this. The Supreme Court is granting corporations the rights of individuals, and is letting these few corporations have their cake and eat it too by granting them all the positives of being a corporation and some of the positives of being an individual. I would support a Sole Proprietorship in opting out but not a for-profit corporation.

I also think that there will be some unintended consequences for this decision.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I don't know what to think about this case. I think it's a very complex ruling. But I think Ginsberg is right that the seemingly narrow interpretation is bound to be expanded like crazy.

Another point I read today...why don't these same Christians have problems with providing insurance that includes coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs for single men?

The erectile dysfunction drug, in itself, is not viewed as morally illicit. Therefore, providing it to anyone is not forcing them to violate their moral conscience, or act immorally. There is a clear line between the two.

Hobby Lobby has deeply held values. Give me a break. Any company that makes their crap in China doesn't have any "deeply held" values other than money.

Got it. If you do anything with China, you have no right to claim anything. Perchance you could tell us how you can make such a value judgement? Then provide a list of countries where we can run a business and still be seen as possessing a "deeply held" faith.

I just want to make sure we are all on the same page moving forward.

An example of what I was talking about.

From Ginsberg's dissent...

Blood transfusions can be a life-saving requirement so you cannot withhold this from a person. Antidepressants, again, have value as judged by the DSM-IV manual in treating an illness so you cannot prevent access.

medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus)? - see above. Any of these can be required to treat or save lives and is therefore unable to be refused, while those who don't want such drugs are free to decline.

The key here is each thing you listed, or Ginsberg listed, actually treats a disease or can be used in a life-saving measure. Birth control serves to prevent and/or exterminate a life that has been conceived. Given a large majority of birth control include abortifacients.

No woman has ever been wheeled into the OR/ER and the first words you here from the attending are, "Give me a line of birth control, stat!" These are drugs that are not required for normal health and cannot be grouped as you suggest.

1. They can abide by their religious views all day every day. Can the corporation? No. That's a joke.

2. The moment he makes a deal with society to protect himself from litigation/liability/etc, he certainly owes society in return. When his religious beliefs, whether it be beheading gays or denying certain contraceptives, is not congruent with the law...toss that shit overboard.

3. "mob" huh?


4. That's one way to put it. Or, one could say that they're putting their factories in the country that aborts more fetuses than any other on Earth, which just so happens to have a repugnant record on human rights, and whose relationship towards Christianity is shaky at best.

They could put their sweatshops in Brazil and skip most of the hypocrisy.

1. You keep referring to all businesses as "Corporations", while in the trial this was true, it serves for every mom and pop store across the country. You have no interest in allowing a religious person to have a business and honor their conscience.

2. Nice, conflation of beheading gays and denying birth control without even dropping a "ha ha". So, let me follow your line of reasoning. A man can have faith. A man can own a business. As soon as that man opens his business, he must magically transform into someone who does not care what his business sponsors. Even if he finds some decisions as making him morally culpable? So, in essence: You are not allowed to be faithful to your belief, while owning a business, if you want no part of ending conceived pregnancies. Got it.

3. Yes, democracy is a mob.

4. They are not sponsoring abortions in China by producing goods in the country. I understand the religious persecution that also occurs. I have no interest in defending Hobby Lobby, I'm defending the ruling. This ruling was not about producing things in China, which I'd like to see us decrease so I'm not going to trot down that road but I do find it strange that a very large percentage of goods are produced over there and yet, it's rarely talked about except when it's convenient to try and use against a company claiming faith.

They make products in-house as well as serving as a retailer. Not that it matters one bit, they are totally mum on the issue of Chinese human rights issues/abortions/etc.

And not that any of that matters anyway either, a corporation cannot believe in a god or have religious values.

Per the ruling, they can. Corporations are not some nebulous conglomerate of swirling ideas, they are owned by people who have values and consciences. Requiring people to violate their conscience or be complicit in immoral activity in the land of freedom would be an interesting turn in history.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The ruling only affected 4 of the 20 contraceptives that are currently provided for women so the argument that somehow women working at Hobby Lobby won't be able to get contraceptives is completely false and merely talking points for those that agree with abortion.

I do not believe for a second that my tax dollars should go to fund abortions and salute the SCOTUS for agreeing.

As far as the China argument, I see both sides to a degree. But before we all throw stones at Hobby Lobby, we probably need to look in the mirror at ourselves as well. I mean, don't talk that talk while you are lacing up your Nike's or sporting that new UA shirt.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The erectile dysfunction drug, in itself, is not viewed as morally illicit. Therefore, providing it to anyone is not forcing them to violate their moral conscience, or act immorally. There is a clear line between the two.

That's why I asked specifically about "single" men. No need for an ED drug except to have sex. If your male employee is single and having sex, should you have to pay for his immorality?

What about drugs that treat sexually transmitted diseases?

I think you're wrong if you don't think this is a slippery slope. And not all "closely held" companies (or their owners...corporations are people, I guess) have the same religious beliefs as you.

 

[Rack Em]

That's why I asked specifically about "single" men. No need for an ED drug except to have sex. If your male employee is single and having sex, should you have to pay for his immorality?

What about drugs that treat sexually transmitted diseases?

I think you're wrong if you don't think this is a slippery slope. And not all "closely held" companies (or their owners...corporations are people, I guess) have the same religious beliefs as you.

The slippery slope was cut off when Hobby Lobby objected to abortion-inducing drugs. They were okay with paying for other forms of birth control so they would be paying "for his immorality."

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

That's why I asked specifically about "single" men. No need for an ED drug except to have sex. If your male employee is single and having sex, should you have to pay for his immorality?

What about drugs that treat sexually transmitted diseases?

I think you're wrong if you don't think this is a slippery slope. And not all "closely held" companies (or their owners...corporations are people, I guess) have the same religious beliefs as you.

I'm thinking it's failed comprehension of my explanations above. I never claimed everyone had to have the same religious beliefs as me.

Single men may be single and they may want an ED drug but providing it is not immoral. Paying for someone's ED drug is not immoral, it is not immoral to take ED drugs while single. The culpability starts and ends with the person using the ED drug. By providing the ED drug, you have not violated any moral guidelines.

Treating a sexually transmitted disease is a good thing. Why would that violate a moral conscience?

This isn't a company saying, "I don't want to cover things that help my employees sin". It's the company saying, "I don't want to be complicit with moral failure". There is a very distinct line and I see no slippery slope.

 

[BobD]

I want to sue Hobby Lobby for the pain and suffering I've endured having to look at hideous crafts people have made. Rhinestone & bead covered sweat shirts, fake flower arrangements and horribly painted garden gnomes have damaged me.

 

[wizards8507]

Can we stop for a second and step back? We're getting way too deep into the weeds of "whether an organization can have religious beliefs" or "if so-and-so should pay for my immorality."

How about this: Why shouldn't a business be able to decline providing ANY form of compensation SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE IT? We accept this premise that it's okay for the government to force people and organizations to do things unless they make the argument that it violates their religious beliefs. It's a major mistake to concede the first part of the argument, that it's okay to force anyone to do anything for anyone else, REGARDLESS of religious or other beliefs.

EDIT: Others will make the incorrect argument that nobody will have health insurance if companies aren't forced to provide it, or that people will be working 97 hour weeks without overtime laws. This, frankly, is bullshit. While businesses have an interest in keeping costs down, they also have an interest in attracting and retaining the best employees. All the way back to high school, I earned more than minimum wage at my McDonald's job because I was worth more than a minimum wage employee. My current company has offered health insurance to same-sex domestic partners long before the ACA was in place. The vast majority of organizations offer retirement plans above and beyond any government mandates because it's in the best interest of the business to attract and retain employees.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The slippery slope was cut off when Hobby Lobby objected to abortion-inducing drugs. They were okay with paying for other forms of birth control so they would be paying "for his immorality."

Correct. But the Left will argue, and the liberal media will simply forget to report that. They are already trying to frame the argument that Hobby Lobby, and the GOP, do not want women to have forms of contraceptives. That is simply not true. The abortion inducing drugs - which is only four out of twenty - is what Hobby Lobby was against.

If people disagree on the ruling because they are in favor of abortion, then say so. But don't misrepresent the facts or the facts contained in the ruling.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

BREAKING NEWS: if you paid for and used birth control yesterday, you can pay for it and use it today.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So you respond to my biased sources (including a nobel laureate in economics and direct quotes from the CBO) by bringing me articles from two Rupert Murdoch owned publications, the national review, and an article by the chairman of the RNC?

I read your articles.

The national review basically talks about cash for clunkers. That was a small part of the stimulus (about .3%) at the time. It states that 45% of those who bought new cars would have done so anyway. Two points...
1. That means that 55% of those who bought new cars wouldn't have done so otherwise.
2. The people in the 45% were more financially solvent than they would have been otherwise.

Those points aside...
The other articles basically argue that Obama over-promised. That much seems clear. That is largely because the hole was much deeper than we thought at the time. That's why I posted the revised GDP numbers. And this is where I think you have selective memory. As the BEA noted...

How did the recent GDP revisions change the picture of the 2007–2009 recession and the recovery?


That said, as the CBO noted in my other post...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/op...shed.html?_r=0



It worked. It wasn't as robust a success (i.e., unemployment climbed higher than Obama suggested it would) because we were in a bigger hole than anyone knew.

Spent the past 3 days moving. If you think the numbers above are good enough for you to say the stimulus "worked", then we will agree to disagree. I will argue two points: 1) the stimulus delayed this "recovery" we're in, and 2) the money spent to give local and state gov's temporary relief was nowhere near worth it.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm thinking it's failed comprehension of my explanations above. I never claimed everyone had to have the same religious beliefs as me.

Single men may be single and they may want an ED drug but providing it is not immoral. Paying for someone's ED drug is not immoral, it is not immoral to take ED drugs while single. The culpability starts and ends with the person using the ED drug. By providing the ED drug, you have not violated any moral guidelines.

Treating a sexually transmitted disease is a good thing. Why would that violate a moral conscience?

This isn't a company saying, "I don't want to cover things that help my employees sin". It's the company saying, "I don't want to be complicit with moral failure". There is a very distinct line and I see no slippery slope.

If I am against sex before marriage, can't I claim that providing viagra for single men is against my personal morality? Why would the government force me to pay for something like that after this decision?

Treating sexually transmitted diseases could be viewed as aiding people engage in risky, immoral behavior. Shouldn't there be consequences for their actions? I've heard the same argument made about the Hobby Lobby case.

I honestly don't know what I think about all of this. But I don't see the case of the majority (worth noting that all five are Catholic males) as being very strong. Ginsberg's dissent is much more compelling to me.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

BREAKING NEWS: if you paid for and used birth control yesterday, you can pay for it and use it today.

And every female hobby lobby employee who wants to use some legal forms of birth control has just taken a pay cut.

 

[wizards8507]

If I am against sex before marriage, can't I claim that providing viagra for single men is against my personal morality? Why would the government force me to pay for something like that after this decision?

EXACTLY! Why would the government force you to pay for anything ever? Doesn't anyone else see how perverted it is that we just ACCEPT the notion that our overlords can force us to do shit unless we provide a Ph.D caliber legal argument about why they shouldn't?

 

[wizards8507]

And every female hobby lobby employee who wants to use some legal forms of birth control has just taken a pay cut.

You can't be serious. Buying your own contraception is a "pay cut" but I bet you love taxing the rich, don't you? What do condoms cost, like 50 cents?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Correct. But the Left will argue, and the liberal media will simply forget to report that. They are already trying to frame the argument that Hobby Lobby, and the GOP, do not want women to have forms of contraceptives. That is simply not true. The abortion inducing drugs - which is only four out of twenty - is what Hobby Lobby was against.

If people disagree on the ruling because they are in favor of abortion, then say so. But don't misrepresent the facts or the facts contained in the ruling.

According to the FDA, the drugs in question prevent fertilization. How is the removal of an unfertilized egg considered abortion? Corporations don't get their own science.

 

[wizards8507]

According to the FDA, the drugs in question prevent fertilization. How is the removal of an unfertilized egg considered abortion? Corporations don't get their own science.

Please address my previous posts because I'm honestly curious what you have to say. Who CARES if it's a moral / ethical / scientific issue? All of that crap is peripheral to the main point. Why can the government force us to do things against our will, regardless of WHY it is our will?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

If I am against sex before marriage, can't I claim that providing viagra for single men is against my personal morality? Why would the government force me to pay for something like that after this decision?

Treating sexually transmitted diseases could be viewed as aiding people engage in risky, immoral behavior. Shouldn't there be consequences for their actions? I've heard the same argument made about the Hobby Lobby case.

I honestly don't know what I think about all of this. But I don't see the case of the majority (worth noting that all five are Catholic males) as being very strong. Ginsberg's dissent is much more compelling to me.

You can claim it but you'll fail and I've already given you the reason why. Providing viagra to any man does not make you complicit in his immoral choices. It's highly likely he'll use the drug immorally but the mechanism of action for the drug is not immoral so by providing it, you have done nothing wrong.

Treating sexually transmitted diseases is no different than what I put above. You are helping restore functional health by reducing disease. There is nothing immoral in that.

You haven't heard that argument here so it has no relation. I've seen a lot of dumb arguments on both sides, I won't hold those against your position now that we are down to the brass tacks.

If Ginsberg's dissent is more compelling, then you either don't grasp what we've been discussing or you harbor prejudice against anyone with an active faith that they want to live out in all arenas of their life.

 

[Domina Nostra]

(1) Paying for someone's ED drug is not immoral, it is not immoral to take ED drugs while single. The culpability starts and ends with the person using the ED drug. By providing the ED drug, you have not violated any moral guidelines.

(2) Treating a sexually transmitted disease is a good thing. Why would that violate a moral conscience?

(3) This isn't a company saying, "I don't want to cover things that help my employees sin". It's the company saying, "I don't want to be complicit with moral failure". There is a very distinct line and I see no slippery slope.

1) What is your source for what is and isn't immoral? Under this logic, you could sell porn or buy a crack addict all the crack he wanted with a perfectly clean conscience. Even bartenders can get in trouble for continuing to sell a drunk person more drinks (in some cases). For Catholics, sex before marriage is a mortal sin. Unless ED drugs have some alternative purpose, the only use a single man would have for them is to commit a mortal sin. If you knowingly supply someone with the means for committing a moral sin, you may be culpable for that sin too.

2) Gore Vidal famously remarked that antibiotics really opened up the sexual horizons of men in New York-- talking about the bath house culture. If you are using medicine to allow you to engage in immoral behavior, that is very differnt than simply curing a disease. I am not saying you withhold the medicine, but the two situations are obviously different-- just like pain killers in a hospital or NFL locker room.

3) The pill is dual-use in that it treats certain conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy. If a person is using it to treat a conidtion, and then ends up using it for birth control, your assertion makes sense. However, providing a sailor in port with condoms, for example, is giving them the instrumentality for sinning. Same analysis as above.

I understand disagreeing with the argument, but do you really not understand it?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

You can claim it but you'll fail and I've already given you the reason why. Providing viagra to any man does not make you complicit in his immoral choices. It's highly likely he'll use the drug immorally but the mechanism of action for the drug is not immoral so by providing it, you have done nothing wrong.

Treating sexually transmitted diseases is no different than what I put above. You are helping restore functional health by reducing disease. There is nothing immoral in that.

You haven't heard that argument here so it has no relation. I've seen a lot of dumb arguments on both sides, I won't hold those against your position now that we are down to the brass tacks.

If Ginsberg's dissent is more compelling, then you either don't grasp what we've been discussing or you harbor prejudice against anyone with an active faith that they want to live out in all arenas of their life.

I see. Anyone who disagrees with you has to be stupid or prejudiced against religious people.

I'm out.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Please address my previous posts because I'm honestly curious what you have to say. Who CARES if it's a moral / ethical / scientific issue? All of that crap is peripheral to the main point. Why can the government force us to do things against our will, regardless of WHY it is our will?

I care!