|
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
By Fumiku 2014-07-08 04:23:41
t until recently that there was a health care mandate, so you only worked for your health care if they offered it in the first place. Also, the company was more able to freely choose which health care package they offered, giving them more control over what was in it. None of this would be an issue if it weren't
And it isn't giving them much power, since the mandate covers it in the event the employer doesn't.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 06:25:18
You work for a total compensation package. You don't just work for wages, overtime, vacation, you work for your health care too. The obligation comes from the compensation package they offered when they hired you.
Yes, but the compensation package varies from company to company. It wasn't until recently that there was a health care mandate, so you only worked for your health care if they offered it in the first place. Also, the company was more able to freely choose which health care package they offered, giving them more control over what was in it. None of this would be an issue if it weren't for Obamacare. Heck, all that's really happening with this ruling is giving back a tiny portion of power that was taken away from the companies in the first place.
Oh no, companies lost a little bit of the iron grip they had over their employees' lives. That's just terrible for freedom.
t until recently that there was a health care mandate, so you only worked for your health care if they offered it in the first place. Also, the company was more able to freely choose which health care package they offered, giving them more control over what was in it. None of this would be an issue if it weren't
And it isn't giving them much power, since the mandate covers it in the event the employer doesn't.
Much like Walmart paying ***wages thus requiring employees to need food stamps, it's a matter of greed and making it "someone else's problem". Because this was never about their flimsy religious excuse.
They want to save as much money as possible and make the government foot the bill whilst decrying the government spending money on these things in the first place. They found a way (religion) to test the waters of what they can get away with. No one should be surprised. Religion has been used in this fashion for literally as long as man's pretended there's a cosmic being(s) controlling our lives.
It's funny. You hear "personal responsibility" a lot from these "conservatives". Yet once corporations are given "personhood", they don't really want that personal responsibility.
[+]
Carbuncle.Sasaraixx
Serveur: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 14
By Carbuncle.Sasaraixx 2014-07-08 07:36:19
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.
The Supreme Court says otherwise. Griswold v. Connecticut. Check it out.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 07:42:04
Carbuncle.Sasaraixx said: »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. The Supreme Court says otherwise. Griswold v. Connecticut. Check it out.
Didn't you hear? This is America. You have a responsibility to make babies. And if you're a woman, society demands you be its brood mare, otherwise they will treat you like a pariah.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 08:04:37
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees.
I really don't know where it comes from...
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 08:17:14
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees. I really don't know where it comes from...
No, we think employers are obliged to provide health insurance and shouldn't have a say how that insurance applies to their employees personal medical treatment, much like they don't get a say in how an employee spends his or her wages.
Their beliefs don't come into play.
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-08 08:31:27
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees.
I really don't know where it comes from...
So worried about the rights of a company but care so little for the rights of an individual... does it stem from some deep inferiority complex that you feel the need to be "better" than your peers on an intangible figurative level? Do you enjoy beating up effigies of kids who picked on you in junior high?
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 08:35:59
Let's look at this in reverse and see where you come down, Nausi.
If I'm a business owner, as an atheist, and I have Christian employees who go to church and put money in the collection plate, should I be allowed to lower their wages by a comensurate amount of what they would put into the plate because I don't believe that money should be going to a church?
And don't skirt this question by saying "it's not the same".
Because it's exactly the same. It's just physical and social well-being versus spiritual well-being.
Edit: and if you still truly think it isn't the same, then you're saying that someone's physical well-being is trumped by their employer's spiritual well-being, ipso facto you're saying that an unsubstantiated spiritual existence should be given legal precedent over obvious physical and social issues.
Either way, there's nothing good about this decision for the freedom of religion or the health of our society as a whole.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 08:52:07
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees. I really don't know where it comes from...
No, we think employers are obliged to provide health insurance and shouldn't have a say how that insurance applies to their employees personal medical treatment, much like they don't get a say in how an employee spends his or her wages.
Their beliefs don't come into play.
This whole notion is ridiculous. As the entity providing you something, I get to have input on what it is that I provide.
It is an entirely incorrect comparison to say the benefit I provide (or don't provide) is akin to telling one how they spend their money. If I choose to not provide it, the employee can simply buy it themselves (can't they?). If you were complaining about an employer insisting that your don't ever use birth control, I might be more sympathetic, but you're not.
You sit back in one respect and insist that others cannot tell you what to believe, but insist that other's conform to your beliefs. Like it or not, your employer is a real person. and you don't get to force him/her against their will on how to spend their money.
In all reality you and your kind just want legal protection to treat your employers like second class citizens.
[+]
By Keido 2014-07-08 08:54:23
Does Hobby Lobby cover Penish pills?
Siren.Mosin
Serveur: Siren
Game: FFXI
By Siren.Mosin 2014-07-08 08:55:48
Does Hobby Lobby cover Penish pills?
you'll have to get a job there, & check it out, then report back to us.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 09:08:51
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees. I really don't know where it comes from... No, we think employers are obliged to provide health insurance and shouldn't have a say how that insurance applies to their employees personal medical treatment, much like they don't get a say in how an employee spends his or her wages. Their beliefs don't come into play. This whole notion is ridiculous. As the entity providing you something, I get to have input on what it is that I provide. It is an entirely incorrect comparison to say the benefit I provide (or don't provide) is akin to telling one how they spend their money. If I choose to not provide it, the employee can simply buy it themselves (can't they?). If you were complaining about an employer insisting that your don't ever use birth control, I might be more sympathetic, but you're not. You sit back in one respect and insist that others cannot tell you what to believe, but insist that other's conform to your beliefs. Like it or not, your employer is a real person. and you don't get to force him/her against their will on how to spend their money. In all reality you and your kind just want legal protection to treat your employers like second class citizens.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So instead you argue for business owners' and corporations' continued rights to treat employees like second class citizens instead. Don't begin trying to refute that. There are decades of evidence of these companies doing just that.
There's just no reasoning with you. Whatever, Nausi. You're not always the most unreasonable person, but in this case you are. I know nothing about your personal situation in regard to what you do for a living, employment, compensation, or any related facts.
But I have to think you're somehow connected to or otherwise benefitting from these greedy ***.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 09:09:51
Let's look at this in reverse and see where you come down, Nausi.
If I'm a business owner, as an atheist, and I have Christian employees who go to church and put money in the collection plate, should I be allowed to lower their wages by a comensurate amount of what they would put into the plate because I don't believe that money should be going to a church?
And don't skirt this question by saying "it's not the same".
Because it's exactly the same. It's just physical and social well-being versus spiritual well-being.
Edit: and if you still truly think it isn't the same, then you're saying that someone's physical well-being is trumped by their employer's spiritual well-being, ipso facto you're saying that an unsubstantiated spiritual existence should be given legal precedent over obvious physical and social issues.
Either way, there's nothing good about this decision for the freedom of religion or the health of our society as a whole.
It's not entirely the same thing, but I'll humor you, cause they're close enough.
As an employer I absolutely have the right to lower your pay for whatever the *** reason I want to, it's MY money, and it's my right to cancel or alter your pay based on the agreement in which you were hired. If you don't like how I lower your pay, you can quit and find another job. If you really want to give money to a church collection plate you are free to do so, you just can't work for me if you do so.
A person's constitutional right to personal/religious freedom takes precedence over someone else's entitlement to birth control.
It doesn't matter what laws you pass saying otherwise, laws don't trump rights.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-08 09:10:44
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees. I really don't know where it comes from...
No, we think employers are obliged to provide health insurance and shouldn't have a say how that insurance applies to their employees personal medical treatment, much like they don't get a say in how an employee spends his or her wages.
Their beliefs don't come into play.
This whole notion is ridiculous. As the entity providing you something, I get to have input on what it is that I provide.
It is an entirely incorrect comparison to say the benefit I provide (or don't provide) is akin to telling one how they spend their money. If I choose to not provide it, the employee can simply buy it themselves (can't they?). If you were complaining about an employer insisting that your don't ever use birth control, I might be more sympathetic, but you're not.
You sit back in one respect and insist that others cannot tell you what to believe, but insist that other's conform to your beliefs. Like it or not, your employer is a real person. and you don't get to force him/her against their will on how to spend their money.
In all reality you and your kind just want legal protection to treat your employers like second class citizens.
The point you're missing is that ACA required all companies to provide a standard minimum of care, emergency contraceptives being part of that. Your hypocrisy is astounding. ANY nonuniformity of application of the law has been a soapbox for your to rant about for 2+ years, but this exception is perfectly ok. And what about the government being legally obligated now to provide that coverage to Hobby Lobby's employees? Does it not get your jimmies rustled to think of having even MORE people on the teet?
It doesn't matter what laws you pass saying otherwise, laws don't trump rights.
Also want to address this little gem, because the "rights" you're talking about don't actually exist. You have the right to free practice of religion in private, that means that the government can't persecute you based on your religion and you can practice your religion in the privacy of your home and place of worship without bias. That's a very very different thing than this perceived right of business owners to cite religion as an excuse to skirt laws.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 09:13:46
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees. I really don't know where it comes from... No, we think employers are obliged to provide health insurance and shouldn't have a say how that insurance applies to their employees personal medical treatment, much like they don't get a say in how an employee spends his or her wages. Their beliefs don't come into play. This whole notion is ridiculous. As the entity providing you something, I get to have input on what it is that I provide. It is an entirely incorrect comparison to say the benefit I provide (or don't provide) is akin to telling one how they spend their money. If I choose to not provide it, the employee can simply buy it themselves (can't they?). If you were complaining about an employer insisting that your don't ever use birth control, I might be more sympathetic, but you're not. You sit back in one respect and insist that others cannot tell you what to believe, but insist that other's conform to your beliefs. Like it or not, your employer is a real person. and you don't get to force him/her against their will on how to spend their money. In all reality you and your kind just want legal protection to treat your employers like second class citizens. The point you're missing is that ACA required all companies to provide a standard minimum of care, emergency contraceptives being part of that. Your hypocrisy is astounding. ANY nonuniformity of application of the law has been a soapbox for your to rant about for 2+ years, but this exception is perfectly ok. And what about the government being legally obligated now to provide that coverage to Hobby Lobby's employees? Does it not get your jimmies rustled to think of having even MORE people on the teet?
Didn't you hear? If you don't want to have babies you just don't have sex. Sex is only for making babies. It says so in the Bible.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 09:14:26
It doesn't matter what laws you pass saying otherwise, laws don't trump rights.
They didn't until now.*
Edit:*they didn't until now in this regard. Laws have been trumping rights in other ways for years centuries.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 09:27:55
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Right! There you go but apparently our peers live in this world where they think employers are obliged to give up their beliefs and live according in full support the lifestyle of their employees. I really don't know where it comes from... No, we think employers are obliged to provide health insurance and shouldn't have a say how that insurance applies to their employees personal medical treatment, much like they don't get a say in how an employee spends his or her wages. Their beliefs don't come into play. This whole notion is ridiculous. As the entity providing you something, I get to have input on what it is that I provide. It is an entirely incorrect comparison to say the benefit I provide (or don't provide) is akin to telling one how they spend their money. If I choose to not provide it, the employee can simply buy it themselves (can't they?). If you were complaining about an employer insisting that your don't ever use birth control, I might be more sympathetic, but you're not. You sit back in one respect and insist that others cannot tell you what to believe, but insist that other's conform to your beliefs. Like it or not, your employer is a real person. and you don't get to force him/her against their will on how to spend their money. In all reality you and your kind just want legal protection to treat your employers like second class citizens.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So instead you argue for business owners' and corporations' rights to treat employees like second class citizens instead. Don't begin trying to refute that. There are decades of evidence of these companies doing just that.
There's just no reasoning with you. Whatever, Nausi. You're not always the most unreasonable person, but in this case you are. I know nothing about your personal situation in regard to what you do for a living, employment, compensation, or any related facts.
But I have to think you're somehow connected to or otherwise benefitting from these greedy ***.
Your sense of entitlement is on FULL display. An employer's choice to not pay for your birth control is not equivalent to treating you like a second class citizen. Where do you come up with this stuff? In the end the employer doesn't have the authority to "make you" do anything. (You don't really have the authority to make your employer do anything either but you advocate for the government to do it for you) If you and your employer have differing viewpoints that cannot be reconciled, you can always quit, you are free to do so.
However, governments who pass laws forcing employers to pay for things that violate their personal beliefs IS treating them like second class citizens. One class gets penalized when another class doesn't.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 09:33:37
It doesn't matter what laws you pass saying otherwise, laws don't trump rights.
They didn't until now.*
Edit:*they didn't until now in this regard. Laws have been trumping rights in other ways for years centuries.
Again, its just your sense of entitlement. You think the things you are entitled to are not entitlements, but rights.
I am entitled to birth control is not the same as I have a right to birth control.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 09:39:16
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"?
Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-08 09:46:20
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"?
Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now.
Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 09:51:27
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"? Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now. Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control.
Well, what he's proposing is the same thing he and his have been proposing all along, that the ACA isn't allowed to broaden the scope of "rights" and that the only "rights" are those given by God to devout Christian Capitalists who have a divine directive to make as much money as possible on the backs of those working for them.
They'll belittle anything someone tries to tell them is a humanitarian "right" by calling it an "entitlement", because "entitled" is a dirty word to them, even though it literally only means to have a right, title, or claim to something.
Rights are what you get once you have money.
Entitlements are the things demanded by those with less money working for those with rights.
Clear?
By Keido 2014-07-08 09:53:25
Does Hobby Lobby cover Penish pills?
you'll have to get a job there, & check it out, then report back to us.
I am so signing up.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 09:55:45
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"? Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now. Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control.
Well, what he's proposing is the same thing he and his have been proposing all along, that the ACA isn't allowed to broaden the scope of "rights" and that the only "rights" are those given by God to devout Christian Capitalists who have a divine directive to make as much money as possible on the backs of those working for them.
They'll belittle anything someone tries to tell them is a humanitarian "right" by calling it an "entitlement", because "entitled" is a dirty word to them, even though it literally only means to have a right, title, or claim to something.
Rights are what you get once you have money.
Entitlements are the things demanded by those with less money working for those with rights.
Clear?
If you truly think rights are only for those who have money then you haven't the slightest conception of what rights really are.
L-O-L
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 09:56:27
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"? Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now. Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control. Well, what he's proposing is the same thing he and his have been proposing all along, that the ACA isn't allowed to broaden the scope of "rights" and that the only "rights" are those given by God to devout Christian Capitalists who have a divine directive to make as much money as possible on the backs of those working for them. They'll belittle anything someone tries to tell them is a humanitarian "right" by calling it an "entitlement", because "entitled" is a dirty word to them, even though it literally only means to have a right, title, or claim to something. Rights are what you get once you have money. Entitlements are the things demanded by those with less money working for those with rights. Clear? If you truly think rights are only for those who have money then you haven't the slightest conception of what rights really are. L-O-L
I'm saying you think rights are only for those with money. Because that's how it comes across when you speak.
Edit:Specifically, you imply that rights are only for those who can afford to hold financial sway over others.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-08 09:58:57
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"? Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now. Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control.
Well, what he's proposing is the same thing he and his have been proposing all along, that the ACA isn't allowed to broaden the scope of "rights" and that the only "rights" are those given by God to devout Christian Capitalists who have a divine directive to make as much money as possible on the backs of those working for them.
They'll belittle anything someone tries to tell them is a humanitarian "right" by calling it an "entitlement", because "entitled" is a dirty word to them, even though it literally only means to have a right, title, or claim to something.
Rights are what you get once you have money.
Entitlements are the things demanded by those with less money working for those with rights.
Clear?
Sarcasm and whatnot aside, this is a pretty sickening commentary about modern Christianity. Jesus was VERY outspoken about the need to support the poor. Jesus didn't say anything about birth control or homosexuality, but he did talk at length about the poor.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 10:01:25
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"? Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now. Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control. Well, what he's proposing is the same thing he and his have been proposing all along, that the ACA isn't allowed to broaden the scope of "rights" and that the only "rights" are those given by God to devout Christian Capitalists who have a divine directive to make as much money as possible on the backs of those working for them. They'll belittle anything someone tries to tell them is a humanitarian "right" by calling it an "entitlement", because "entitled" is a dirty word to them, even though it literally only means to have a right, title, or claim to something. Rights are what you get once you have money. Entitlements are the things demanded by those with less money working for those with rights. Clear? Sarcasm and whatnot aside, this is a pretty sickening commentary about modern Christianity. Jesus was VERY outspoken about the need to support the poor. Jesus didn't say anything about birth control or homosexuality, but he did talk at length about the poor.
I don't even buy into Jesus as the zombie child of divine rape and I think most of the things the Bible attributes to him were great ideas. The problem is religion isn't about a moral code in American society.
It's a way to stratify people socially and position and posture yourself favorably. Actually behaving in a way that reflects what your religious doctrine dictates is out of the question; it's about warping it to fit the situation you want it to fit.
Much like the majority of SCOTUS in this decision, they start with the result they want and find ways to rationalize it.
[+]
By Keido 2014-07-08 10:03:56
Sarcasm and whatnot aside, this is a pretty sickening commentary about modern Christianity. Jesus was VERY outspoken about the need to support the poor. Jesus didn't say anything about birth control or homosexuality, but he did talk at length about the poor.
The bible also says usury is a Sin so anyone with loans its time to forgive them they are against Christianity.
http://www.tentmaker.org/lists/UsuryScriptureList.html
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-08 10:06:30
Much like the majority of SCOTUS in this decision, they start with the result they want and find ways to rationalize it.
I've always felt that was the biggest folly of people like Scalia, he's very good at rationalizing blatant corporate and religious bias, but boy does he get it wrong most of the time.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-08 10:08:16
An oldie but goodie.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-08 10:22:47
Out of curiousity, how are you defining "rights"? Because if you're just basing it off that *** Ayn Raynd, we can stop talking right now. Also forgetting that under ACA, people ARE entitled to birth control. Well, what he's proposing is the same thing he and his have been proposing all along, that the ACA isn't allowed to broaden the scope of "rights" and that the only "rights" are those given by God to devout Christian Capitalists who have a divine directive to make as much money as possible on the backs of those working for them. They'll belittle anything someone tries to tell them is a humanitarian "right" by calling it an "entitlement", because "entitled" is a dirty word to them, even though it literally only means to have a right, title, or claim to something. Rights are what you get once you have money. Entitlements are the things demanded by those with less money working for those with rights. Clear? If you truly think rights are only for those who have money then you haven't the slightest conception of what rights really are. L-O-L
I'm saying you think rights are only for those with money. Because that's how it comes across when you speak.
Edit:Specifically, you imply that rights are only for those who can afford to hold financial sway over others.
You don't have a RIGHT to have your employer pay for your birth control. Nor does your emplyer have the right to force you to pay for theirs.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
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.
|
|