The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-02-2014, 07:44 AM   #31
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon View Post
But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole.
But then they hired Lobbyists. Great. As if we don't have enough Lobbies. Now one for religious beliefs.

What happens when religion gets Federal atttention for protecting pedophiles and laundering Mafia funds. First government threatens legal actions. Then the interest group creates a Lobby to buy government.

Now, they call it their Hobby. Just another example of political correctness - a new expression for 'purchasing politicians'. Even AIPAC is a hobby.

Purveryor of Activities with Non-financial Gain. Being a Hobby now derogatory. I must now become a Panger. And tell the IRS it is my Pang.

Last edited by tw; 07-02-2014 at 07:52 AM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 08:05 AM   #32
Spexxvet
Makes some feel uncomfortable
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sarge View Post
If the employees aren't happy with their health care coverage, why don't they work some place else?
Because the employer [strike]is[strike] was breaking the law.

If their religious beliefs were so wonderful, they would be able to provide insurance coverage for contraception and all their good little religious employees would religiously choose not to use them.

I can't wait for the uproar from employees who are forced to keep kosher.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce
Spexxvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 08:31 AM   #33
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
The inherent problem is employer-provided insurance. Has been from the beginning.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 08:48 AM   #34
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Yes.

We have these crazy systems in place and they only persist because that's the way it's always been. Why in the world would we end up with a system where healthcare is part of compensation? Why not food? It's equally as logical. Imagine if employers provided food coupons instead of healthcare?
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 10:21 AM   #35
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Because the employer [strike]is[strike] was breaking the law.
I can't wait for the uproar from employees who are forced to keep kosher.
If the employee chooses to work in a privately owned kosher business, then it would be reasonable. Remember kosher is a adhering to dietary laws for sanitary reasons. If the employee doesn't like it, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 01:35 PM   #36
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Employer has the right to fire any employee caught driving on Saturday. Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not turn to Mecca and pray at sundown. Employer has the right to withhold pay from any employee who takes the name of god in vain. Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not shop in the employer's store Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not shit only kosher foods. Since the employer's religion says what is unsanitary. Courts agree.

Only religious beliefs of the employer are relevant. Screw anyone else who does not conform to those beliefs. Nobody expected a Spanish Inquisition. As Gomer Pyle said, "Surprise, surprise, surprise."
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 02:10 PM   #37
Big Sarge
Werepandas - lurking in your shadows
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 3,408
Simply choose not to work for a privately owned business that has different essential values from your own. The women of Hobby Lobby, who brought the suit, are free to work for any other business that sanctions the murder of children or worships Baal.
__________________
Give a man a match, & he'll be warm for 20 seconds. But toss that man a white phosphorus grenade and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 02:24 PM   #38
elSicomoro
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,486
Politifact had a good article this morning about the potential challenges that could come in the future:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-affect-co/

I don't know...I don't think the ruling is necessarily bad, but...

There are a lot of things I don't like to do as a (soon to be out of) businessman, but I do them. I DO worry about a slippery slope here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
elSicomoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 11:22 PM   #39
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Sarge View Post
Simply choose not to work for a privately owned business that has different essential values from your own.
So if an employer sexually exploits woman and grab their asses, well, the women should simply go elsewhere to work. If the boss calls every blackman a niger and every Jew a kike, well, they have the right to go work elsewhere. It again proves the employer has the right to do anything he wants because his employees have the right to quit - to become unemployed. After all, an employer has the right to impose all his values on his employees. Including his religion. That is your reasoning.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 12:47 AM   #40
sexobon
I love it when a plan comes together.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,793
But this isn't about what the employer is doing, it's about what the employer is NOT doing; because, the employer is a conscientious objector. It's about one person's (employee) rights ending where another person's (employer) rights begin. Refraining from participating in actions unconscionable to the employer doesn't really even have to be grounded in religion; however, that's where it gains protected status. Sometimes it's employees who become conscientious objectors to something or another, like a soldier refusing to fight, and they are exempted from doing what they find to be unconscionable. It seems that all the Court is saying is that in the case of privately held businesses, this is where one constituent's rights end and another constituent's rights begin and that there isn't going to be a case by case burden of proof imposed by government because that would be infringing on the rights accorded that class of business in this regard.
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 03:56 AM   #41
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
soldiers refusing to fight get court-martialled, surely?
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 08:23 AM   #42
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon View Post
But this isn't about what the employer is doing, it's about what the employer is NOT doing; because, the employer is a conscientious objector.
So the conscientious objector still serves as, for example, a medic.

First, not doing something is an action. Let a man drown. But "I did not do anything; so I am not guilty." Almost 100 watched Kitty Genovese die on that NYC sidewalk. And did not even call the police for about 45 minutes. They watched and did nothing - their actions. Nonsense reasoning; semantics that lawyers succesfully play to confuse reality. Not doing something is an action. So the man drowned and Kitty Genovese was murdered.

Second, the employer is imposing his religion on others. A conscentious objector does not impose his religion on anyone else. Only so called 'evil' people (ie Fundamentalist terrorists) impose their religion on anyone else. This is not about imposing his religion on himself. This is only and completely about imposing his religion on others.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 08:26 AM   #43
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
Beest

Please, call me Henry...
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 08:35 AM   #44
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Quote:
can simply obtain their birth control directly through the government, [...] the same way female employees of religious-based nonprofits are supposed to (religious-based nonprofits, by the way, have mounted challenges to signing a piece of paper indicating that they object to birth control,
if companies that object to offering cover on the insurance they provide also refuse to sign a piece of paper confirming that they object to providing cover for birth control, thereby ensuring that those women cannot access such provision through a government scheme, then they are absolutely imposing their religion on their employees.

For those who say they could choose to work elsewhere - yes, they could. But sometimes that choice isn't really a genuine choice. If the choice is between continuing to work for the company and being able to feed and clothe your children, or leave that job and not be able to feed and clothe your children, then that is not a truly 'free' choice.

It all depends on the employment availability for your skill set and your region - if you are working in a low paid job, in an area with high unemployment and little to no welfare, then deciding to leave your job is a very, very big deal, particularly if you have dependents.

As far as paying for this stuff out of their own wages - again, what are those wages? The vast majority of people currently accessing foodbanks and living in food poverty are in work. Many are already having to choose between fuel or food, clothes for their kids or rent.Those same people are unlikely to have the kinds of savings and back up cash that would allow them to relocate themselves and their families.

The people who object on some moral ground to providing contraceptives are no doubt the same people who will happily condemn as profligate women who have more children than they can afford to look after.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2014, 08:40 AM   #45
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
TW

"Repugnant is an emotion."

I wrote 'morally repugnant' which, to my mind, is part and parcel with 'religious objection'.

*shrug*

#

"Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees."

No.

The SC said the owners of a tightly owned/closely held company can refuse to pay (in part or in total) for services or products they, the owners, have a religious objection to.

The HL folks are evangelicals...the ruling imposes no obligations on, for example, an atheist to 'do' things the HL folks find religiously acceptable...the ruling only says the atheist 'can't' make the HL folks pay for (in part or in total) services or products the HL folks object to on religious grounds.

That's it...that's all.

There may be unintended consequences because of the ruling (as opportunists try to twist the ruling to suit themselves), but the ruling itself is unambiguous.
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.