Agree Agree:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28
  1. #16
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by dryrunguy View Post
    I would want absolutely nothing to do with any religious institution or train of thought that so willfully and so calculatedly goes out of its way to cause such injury and suffering to others.
    And that's the beauty of the First Amendment - you don't have to have anything to do with such a religion. And you're also free to criticize their belief structure as much as you wish.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  2. #17
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    52,424
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    And that's the beauty of the First Amendment - you don't have to have anything to do with such a religion. And you're also free to criticize their belief structure as much as you wish.
    No. There's nothing beautiful about it at all. People of faith are free the do whatever they please, but those who do not subscribe to what they're told to think are not afforded similar freedoms and protections.

    The First Amendment was designed to afford freedom of religion, which I support, and freedom from religion, which is summarily ignored.

    There is absolutely nothing beautiful about how this portion of the U.S. Constitution is usually applied.
    Winston, a.k.a. Alvena Rae Risley Hiatt (1944-2019), RIP

  3. #18
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,079

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    The idea of a la carte health insurance based on your employer's beliefs is deeply troubling on many different fronts. Not just religious grounds, but gender grounds in these specific cases. We're less than a stone's throw away from a myriad of violations. You have had cancer. You may have a greater impact on the cost of health insurance we provide our employees. We don't have to hire you (or we can fire you). It's frightening.

  4. #19
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,707
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    I find myself on an unfamiliar side of the these particular tracks. I'm no fan of organized religion; I spent a substantial amount of my early adult life waiting for religion to make good on its promises. Promises that were never honored. And the religious-right holds way too much influence in our political system.

    But, they certainly don't get everything they want. After decades of organized opposition, abortion is still legal in all 50 states. In addition, they're rapidly losing their grip on their anti-gay agenda. And it's not like these two cases that The Supremes are going to hear are seeking to outlaw contraceptives altogether.

    But now I have nothing new to add. So I'll shut up.

  5. #20
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,079

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirkus View Post
    And there it is.

    To deny a woman employment because she uses contraception would never stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

    At the risk of losing my Liberal Membership Card, and speaking as the Atheist I am, I don't see how an employer should be made to pay for contraception coverage if it violates their religious beliefs. I don't have a clue what constitutional crevice The Supremes will find the text to justify whatever decision they make. This is just my own personal belief.
    Disparate impact. An employment policy may be considered discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on a minority. In this case, women.

  6. #21
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by shtexas View Post
    Disparate impact. An employment policy may be considered discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on a minority. In this case, women.
    If male contraceptive coverage is not covered/ provided either, how can it be considered to have a disproportionate impact?
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  7. #22
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,079

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    If male contraceptive coverage is not covered/ provided either, how can it be considered to have a disproportionate impact?
    That's the whole point. The policy appears neutral, but disproportionately harms one group over the other. The problem is I think the Supreme Court needs a claimant. As far as I know, employees did not bring the case before the court.

  8. #23
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Quote Originally Posted by shtexas View Post
    That's the whole point. The policy appears neutral, but disproportionately harms one group over the other. The problem is I think the Supreme Court needs a claimant. As far as I know, employees did not bring the case before the court.
    The two appeals SCOTUS agreed to hear involve employers (Hobby Lobby, and a Mennoinite woodworking company). The way the law currently reads, I don't believe you could get an employee-claimant, since the law as currently written requires providing these services, with narrow exceptions for religious institutions.
    Last edited by Moose; 11-27-2013 at 07:46 AM.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  9. #24
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,079

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    The two appeals SCOTUS agreed to hear involve employers (Hobby Lobby, and a Mennoinite woodworking company). The way the law currently reads, I don't believe you could get an employee-claimant, since the law as currently written requires providing these services, with narrow exceptions for religious institutions.
    Of course, not having a claimant doesn't stop the supreme court. We thought they needed someone to be penalized for not getting health care before they could decide the tax issue of the ACA. They preemptively answered the question. Sometimes the court stops themselves; sometimes they don't.

    I was just thinking they may be looking for a way out of deciding the tough issues here. Does an incorporated entity have religious beliefs that can be trampled on? Is an employer's religious beliefs more important than an employee's? Is the administration violating separation of church and state by requiring coverage? Disparate impact was just a thought because it could preemptively stop the myriad of other cases on the way from non-profits and then employees. There may be some other way they can get around it. I don't know.

  10. #25
    SP Creator
    Awards Showcase

    Moose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenixville PA
    Posts
    39,136
    Blog Entries
    28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Is an employer's religious beliefs more important than an employee's?
    The easy answer to this, based on what would seem to be years of jurisprudence, is that the employee does not have to go to work for an employer who operates in part out of their religious beliefs, and by accepting employment with such a company, they also accept that employment conditions might be different than they would be in another workplace.

    It seems from what I have read of Hobby Lobby, they certainly do not go out of their way to mask that they operate their business based on Christian priniciples - they are closed on Sundays, and this statement appears right on their website:
    At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to:
    Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
    Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
    Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
    Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
    I can see an employee who came on board, perhaps, prior to a change in company philosophy as having an argument - but when this is their clear philosophy, and you choose to go to work for a company that operates on these principles, I think there is more respect accorded the company's operating philosophy.
    With Lucas Pouille at Indian Wells (2018)

  11. #26
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,079

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Companies have those sorts of lovely statements, and then abandon their commitment to the Lord when something threatens their bottom line. I think I mentioned the cancer example above here. That company had such a lovely statement, but the second his illness impacted their profits...

    But, that's a question for another time.

  12. #27

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Corporations are artificial constructs that shield the owners from direct responsibility for profit and loss. A corporation may go bankrupt but the owners don't.

    For me it all comes down to whether the Court, having already declared corporations people, will continue along those lines and say the beliefs of the individuals behind the corporation trump the constitutional standard of separation of church and state. I'm thinking that the chose a "secular" corporation and one run by a religious group for that very reason.
    There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.

    ― Frank Zappa





  13. #28
    Head Cheese
    Awards Showcase

    Kirkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    37,707
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    I've also heard reports that Hobby Lobby is only asking to not provide 4 types of contraception (those that they consider abortive?), not all types. I don't know what that has to do with anything, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •