|
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-07-04 10:55:17
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-07-04 11:20:20
By Fumiku 2014-07-04 11:22:03
oh did I mention birth control is a personal responsibility and not a right, except that you have the right use or not use it.
thats like saying u have a right to use or not use anit-biotics, but your insurance doesnt have to make them accessible to you.
Not even close...
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-04 12:49:48
Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »Hobby Lobby also pays VERY well allowing their employees to pay for their drugs.
You assume all drugs are affordable w/o insurance.
By Triffle 2014-07-04 13:08:19
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »Hobby Lobby also pays VERY well allowing their employees to pay for their drugs.
You assume all drugs are affordable w/o insurance.
I think the guy assumes that these people don't have homes or need to buy food, clothing and other essentials. xD
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-04 13:11:14
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »Hobby Lobby also pays VERY well allowing their employees to pay for their drugs.
You assume all drugs are affordable w/o insurance.
In this case, it is irrelevant how much they cost, the issue is that they are allowed to pick and choose which kinds of medicine they will offer based on the religious beliefs of the owner(s). Fanatical Christians could decide they don't want to cover any medicine because it violates their religious beliefs. Who is going to validate the convictions of companies that deny coverage based on religion? Who is going to determine when religion is used as a front to save money? What if I as a business owner decided that I wouldn't provide health insurance beyond diagnostics because any actual care would be tampering with God's plan?
Bismarck.Bloodrose
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-04 13:14:00
"pays very well" as compared to who?
Many employers offer what they call "Competitive wages" in the context that they competitively pay the minimum amount required to hire and retain their employees, often times little more than the federal or state mandated minimum wage.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-04 13:15:35
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »"pays very well" as compared to who?
Many employers offer what they call "Competitive wages" in the context that they competitively pay the minimum amount required to hire and retain their employees, often times little more than the federal or state mandated minimum wage.
Hobby Lobby pays almost double the minimum wage. At least in this case, they aren't a crooked company, it's the broader implications that people don't seem to comprehend.
Bismarck.Bloodrose
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-04 13:27:25
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »"pays very well" as compared to who?
Many employers offer what they call "Competitive wages" in the context that they competitively pay the minimum amount required to hire and retain their employees, often times little more than the federal or state mandated minimum wage.
Hobby Lobby pays almost double the minimum wage. At least in this case, they aren't a crooked company, it's the broader implications that people don't seem to comprehend. That puts the payment plan into a much better context, however, even at almost double the minimum wage, are the employees able to get enough hours or shifts to make it noteworthy?
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-04 21:27:59
In this case, it is irrelevant how much they cost
Yeah I know. I was just addressing @Wordlifee logic that Hobby Lobby pays their employees enough to afford medications the company refuses to cover.
Additionally, OTCs are pretty cheap in comparison to some prescription medication. Most family's can't afford to dish out $2000-3000 a month on medication because it conflicts with the morals of hypothetical religious company, regardless of how much they are getting paid.
Leviathan.Andret
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1008
By Leviathan.Andret 2014-07-04 21:43:29
I don't think the issue is about Hobby Lobby. It's purely about how companies can abuse this ruling. If a company is for-profits then its primary goals would be cutting costs and raising revenue. The ruling allows companies to adopt religious practices that allow them to cut down costs that normally would violate some laws.
If you turn yourself evil and start thinking from the point of a for-profit company then you can see a lot of holes to exploit from this. A company can be any religion, it does not have to be the religion of its board members and it does not have to be a recognizable religion or even an actual religion. It could invent its own religion and impose its view into its own code of conduct and exploit that to reduce costs.
Of course, a smart company would squeeze this exploit slowly and avoid anything public or direct confrontation with other laws. You don't have to use your new power directly, you can and should always use it as leverage or pressure. Then you combine it with other rights, laws and powers to get your way. Employees without strong power of bargaining (no union or strong labor laws) will most likely caved since they can't afford lawsuits on their own, unless the company squeezes really hard.
You can say that some of this is stupid to do as it might harm the company in the long run. But if you think about it, how many companies can see further than 2 years ahead? In fact, most of them tend to favor short term gains over long term lost.
By Triffle 2014-07-04 22:35:23
Remember those religious people who don't go to doctors and trust the good ol' lordy lord to heal them. What happens when one of those runs your work place? :D
[+]
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 546
By Asura.Echandra 2014-07-04 23:35:47
Remember those religious people who don't go to doctors and trust the good ol' lordy lord to heal them. What happens when one of those runs your work place? :D
you don't have anything to worry about, the lord will show you the right path to walk and you will be saved. pray harder.
By Triffle 2014-07-05 02:02:35
Remember those religious people who don't go to doctors and trust the good ol' lordy lord to heal them. What happens when one of those runs your work place? :D
you don't have anything to worry about, the lord will show you the right path to walk and you will be saved. pray harder.
I've always seen that written, but I never understood what it meant. How do you pray harder? Do you have to pray about the same thing multiple times, yell it out loud, think it so hard you're on the verge of an aneurysm or screw your eyes tight shut, hold your hands together and take a stance like you're trying to reach Super Saiyan mode or pass a meal from that all you can eat steak buffet?
Either way that seems to be the equivalent of whining to your father for something and I don't know about you, but when I whined as a kid for toys I never got them. I'd have to earn them via chores.
Bahamut.Ravael
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13640
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-05 03:12:48
^This. I hate to sound harsh, but it seems selfish to turn down the miracle of modern medicine and demand a more divine solution to a health problem. I just don't get the reasoning.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-05 03:45:28
^This. I hate to sound harsh, but it seems selfish to turn down the miracle of modern medicine and demand a more divine solution to a health problem. I just don't get the reasoning.
Well, if the more reasonable Christians throw a ***fit out of the loss of a nebulous blob of cells that is a zygote, how ***fitty do the crazier ones get when you abort millions and millions of God's little miracles with an antibiotic pill. Bacteria is life too!
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-05 08:31:25
^This. I hate to sound harsh, but it seems selfish to turn down the miracle of modern medicine and demand a more divine solution to a health problem. I just don't get the reasoning.
Well, if the more reasonable Christians throw a ***fit out of the loss of a nebulous blob of cells that is a zygote, how ***fitty do the crazier ones get when you abort millions and millions of God's little miracles with an antibiotic pill. Bacteria is life too!
Only human life is sacred. The Earth is here for us to use (destroy). It all stems down to what I call megalomaniacal humility and selfish selflessness. In many ways, religion in general is not all that different from psychological disorders in function and manifestation. Imaginary friends, irrational rage, circular logic, etc.
By fonewear 2014-07-05 08:36:32
How does an actor get taken seriously is a more interesting question than a hypothetical question about Sharia Law.
Lakshmi.Zerowone
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2014-07-05 08:56:24
You keep trying to discredit his stance by calling him an actor. Does this also apply to the way you perceive actor turned president Ronald Reagan?
Valefor.Tsurara
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 92
By Valefor.Tsurara 2014-07-05 10:09:24
How does an actor get taken seriously is a more interesting question than a hypothetical question about Sharia Law.
Garuda.Chanti
Serveur: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11456
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-05 10:23:45
How does an actor get taken seriously is a more interesting question than a hypothetical question about Sharia Law. By speaking seriously about things that are important to some people.
Phoenix.Xantavia
Serveur: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 449
By Phoenix.Xantavia 2014-07-05 14:28:43
^This. I hate to sound harsh, but it seems selfish to turn down the miracle of modern medicine and demand a more divine solution to a health problem. I just don't get the reasoning. It reminds me of an old joke. A man is trapped on his roof while the town is flooding. A boat comes by to save him and he responds "The lord will save me". The water rises and another boat comes by. Once again, the man says "The lord will save me". Water rises some more and this time a helicopter comes to his aid. He refuses once again, saying "The lord will save me". The water rises and the man drowns. In heaven, the man asks God "Wasn't I a good man? Why did you let me drown?" God responds "I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else do you want."
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 125
By Asura.Triffle 2014-07-05 17:46:52
^This. I hate to sound harsh, but it seems selfish to turn down the miracle of modern medicine and demand a more divine solution to a health problem. I just don't get the reasoning. It reminds me of an old joke. A man is trapped on his roof while the town is flooding. A boat comes by to save him and he responds "The lord will save me". The water rises and another boat comes by. Once again, the man says "The lord will save me". Water rises some more and this time a helicopter comes to his aid. He refuses once again, saying "The lord will save me". The water rises and the man drowns. In heaven, the man asks God "Wasn't I a good man? Why did you let me drown?" God responds "I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else do you want."
Reminds me of something else. If God isn't personally saving the children starving in Africa and the people dying in the Middle-East from suicide bombers, then he probably won't save you from the flu that you have no matter how many times you ask.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-05 18:01:45
How does an actor get taken seriously is a more interesting question than a hypothetical question about Sharia Law.
I understand your point, but he isn't the typical Hollywood actor turned activist. Takei is quite articulate compared to people like Tom Cruise lol
[+]
Phoenix.Mikumaru
Serveur: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 382
By Phoenix.Mikumaru 2014-07-05 19:37:46
I don't think the issue is about Hobby Lobby. It's purely about how companies can abuse this ruling. If a company is for-profits then its primary goals would be cutting costs and raising revenue. The ruling allows companies to adopt religious practices that allow them to cut down costs that normally would violate some laws.
If you turn yourself evil and start thinking from the point of a for-profit company then you can see a lot of holes to exploit from this. A company can be any religion, it does not have to be the religion of its board members and it does not have to be a recognizable religion or even an actual religion. It could invent its own religion and impose its view into its own code of conduct and exploit that to reduce costs.
Of course, a smart company would squeeze this exploit slowly and avoid anything public or direct confrontation with other laws. You don't have to use your new power directly, you can and should always use it as leverage or pressure. Then you combine it with other rights, laws and powers to get your way. Employees without strong power of bargaining (no union or strong labor laws) will most likely caved since they can't afford lawsuits on their own, unless the company squeezes really hard.
You can say that some of this is stupid to do as it might harm the company in the long run. But if you think about it, how many companies can see further than 2 years ahead? In fact, most of them tend to favor short term gains over long term lost. This is the exact point that Takei and other political/legal pundits are pointing out. While anti-contraception supporters only see a victory for thier cause they fail to see that the supreme court has in fact not only said a company/business/corporation can claim religious beliefs/freedom but that these beliefs/freedoms trumps those of actual people.
[+]
By Fumiku 2014-07-06 09:14:53
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Bahamut.Wordlifee said: »Hobby Lobby also pays VERY well allowing their employees to pay for their drugs.
You assume all drugs are affordable w/o insurance.
In this case, it is irrelevant how much they cost, the issue is that they are allowed to pick and choose which kinds of medicine they will offer based on the religious beliefs of the owner(s). Fanatical Christians could decide they don't want to cover any medicine because it violates their religious beliefs. Who is going to validate the convictions of companies that deny coverage based on religion? Who is going to determine when religion is used as a front to save money? What if I as a business owner decided that I wouldn't provide health insurance beyond diagnostics because any actual care would be tampering with God's plan?
These are not medicine (For 99.9% of women).... These are used for personal life choices. The scope of the argument also prohibits them from using religion as way to not pay for medication. The courts disavowed these possibilities.
Also I think people are missing the big picture. The only reason I believe that Judge "Obito" let this go though is because he probably knew of the mandatory coverage when a company doesn't provide for it.
Everyone is covered though the laws of the ACA when a company doesn't approve. The Affordable care act is Affordable, Covers all my needs, and is Awesome! So if I don't like what my employer is offering! GUESS WHAT! I'll be damned! I CAN GO ON THE EXCHANGES AND FIND AN AFFORDABLE PLAN THAT FITS MY NEEDS!
So what are people still mad about?! Socialized medicine is making it's way though. People don't see that though, because they are too busy fighting for control of businesses they want control over. (even though it's not their business).
By Fumiku 2014-07-06 09:17:08
^This. I hate to sound harsh, but it seems selfish to turn down the miracle of modern medicine and demand a more divine solution to a health problem. I just don't get the reasoning. It reminds me of an old joke. A man is trapped on his roof while the town is flooding. A boat comes by to save him and he responds "The lord will save me". The water rises and another boat comes by. Once again, the man says "The lord will save me". Water rises some more and this time a helicopter comes to his aid. He refuses once again, saying "The lord will save me". The water rises and the man drowns. In heaven, the man asks God "Wasn't I a good man? Why did you let me drown?" God responds "I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter. What else do you want."
Reminds me of something else. If God isn't personally saving the children starving in Africa and the people dying in the Middle-East from suicide bombers, then he probably won't save you from the flu that you have no matter how many times you ask.
The ruling limits the scope. So this is nothing to worry about.
By FaeQueenCory 2014-07-06 09:48:00
This all ultimately stems from corporations being people...
If corporations aren't people, and thereby are not protected by the Bill of Rights... Cause... They aren't sentient, living entities... Cause they are things...
This would never have happened.
But since corporations are people now... And it appears are more of a person than the people working within it... They have freedom of religion, just like how they have freedom of speech.
Just that as with their freedom of speech not being speech, but is money... So too is their freedom of religion not the right to practice any goddamn religion it pleases... But to force the religious beliefs that "it holds" onto its employees...
Why does no one note how this violates the freedom of religion of the employee?
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 09:54:52
This all ultimately stems from corporations being people...
If corporations aren't people, and thereby are not protected by the Bill of Rights... Cause... They aren't sentient, living entities... Cause they are things...
This would never have happened.
But since corporations are people now... And it appears are more of a person than the people working within it... They have freedom of religion, just like how they have freedom of speech.
Just that as with their freedom of speech not being speech, but is money... So too is their freedom of religion not the right to practice any goddamn religion it pleases... But to force the religious beliefs that "it holds" onto its employees...
Why does no one note how this violates the freedom of religion of the employee?
I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church. It does put the company is a uniquely illegal position of being allowed to pick and choose what part of the law they want to follow and what parts they don't. In this arena, it gives companies greater rights than people. So long as they are required to pay an additional tax toward public coverage that their employees have access to, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The issue is precedence. Companies have free speech and freedom of religion. What's to stop the next case being a business owned by Aryan Christians refusing to employ minorities based on religion?
By fonewear 2014-07-06 10:08:42
This thread is not to page nine your argument is invalid !
Wow he isn't giving up!
George Takei: What if Muslims Owned Hobby Lobby and Tried Imposing Sharia Law on Employees?
Quote: I’ve often said that these conservatives wading into the tricky waters of claiming “religious freedom” to justify breaking (or passing) laws should really be careful what they wish for. It’s advice I’d give to all of those conservatives who are celebrating the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.
And based on his brilliant response to that ruling, George Takei seems to be an individual who understands this as well.
Posting his response on the website for his play Allegiance, Takei made several fantastic points concerning not only the hypocrisy of this ruling, but the dangerous precedent it could set going forward.
Takei wrote, “The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”
“Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).” he continued.
And that’s the slippery slope for which this ruling potentially opens the door. Where will the line be drawn where you say to a company, “Sorry, but your religious beliefs aren’t protected?”
What if someone who owns a corporation is anti-vaccine? What if they then say it’s against their religious beliefs for their company to offer health care that covers vaccines? Based upon this Supreme Court ruling, they could theoretically be within their rights to claim that.
But the best point Takei made was in a direct shot at right-wing ignorance. He wrote, “In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”
As we all know, when these conservatives talk about “religious freedoms” they’re really only referring to Christianity.
He also went on to make the point that Hobby Lobby has invested in companies which produce the morning after pill and it gets much of its inventory from China, a country where forced abortions are common.
In other words, they’re blatant hypocrites.
“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” Takei continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”
Once again, he’s absolutely right.
For some reason conservatives seem to think that a lack of options equates to “more” freedom. Before this ruling, women working at Hobby Lobby had the option to have access to these contraceptives. Now they won’t.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby reject specific types of contraceptives, that’s fine. They don’t have to use them. But now their beliefs are being imposed on women who might not share those same beliefs.
Take a good look, because that’s how an employer can determine an employee’s health care coverage. Because a woman working at Hobby Lobby now can’t get health care coverage for certain contraceptives, not because she’s against them, but because her employer is.
How exactly is that respecting her religious freedoms?
Takei also points out religion is a way many conservatives have tried justifying discrimination against homosexuals. These “religious freedom” bills that essentially give businesses the right to deny service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
The bottom line is, religion has no place in government or in business. If someone wants to express their religious views to others, they need to start a church – not a for-profit corporation.
|
|