Question for fellow Liberals: Difference between AZ Bill and Hobby Lobby Case?

[emilynghiem]

Dear Fellow Liberals:
Can you please help me to understand the difference, in your terms,
where I have a greater chance of understanding as a fellow Progressive Democrat:

What is the difference between the
* Arizona bill (recently passed but vetoed), which did not FORCE businesses to refuse services to certain people, but PERMIT them; and which did not DIRECTLY mention homosexuality but could have INDIRECTLY been used to deny services to gay people.

Just because it "indirectly permitted" something, people opposed it because they did not agree with what it permitted (although it was not direct and not forced by law).

and the

* Hobby Lobby case (currently pending before SC), which does not FORCE businesses to provide abortifacient drugs DIRECTLY, but does require them under penalty of law to provide insurance that REQUIRES this access, so that INDIRECTLY ALLOWS employees to access abortifacient drugs "the company does not believe in providing or promoting"

In this case, people are arguing it only PERMITS access and does not FORCE it; yet it is being protested. What is the difference? Can you please explain or discuss?

I appreciate ALL your insights, as you have all been helpful in the past,
even if you don't think so.

[MENTION=20155]paperview[/MENTION]
[MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]
[MENTION=12120]Coloradomtnman[/MENTION]

If I leave someone out, please feel free to invite them in. Thank you!

=================================================

I see both cases as being protested because of people's BELIEFS on both sides.
Why is it okay to push one side of either issue? Doesn't that discriminate against people of the opposite belief?

If you do believe in supporting one side against the other, why is it okay in one case but not okay in the other?

 

[Steven_R]

Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Let me get back to you on this one. Enjoying some wine right now and catching up on Jeopardy.

 

[RosieS]

The AZ bill, if enacted, would have been shot down by the federal court anyway. It was wise of Brrwer to veto it so as to not lose the Super Bowl again and not lose Apple moving some of their facilities to Arizona. It was a bad for Arizona business bill.

The Hobby Lobby case is a Pandora's box issue. Can companies refuse to carry insurance for circumcision due to religious qualms?

How about not paying for blood transfusions? Even if a newborn may die without them?

I cannot see the slippery slopes being tolerable for the Supremes . Perhaps the Supremes will order that the equivalent insurance cost be paid directly to the employee, absolving employers qualms about buying insurance at all.

Regards from Rosie

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Rosie, Thanks for replying! (If this does not help resolve issues, please reply again.)
These points sound to me like "after the fact" issues. That's okay, I will reply anyway but this is all "after the fact" -- after the conflict has already been imposed by govt.

The initial violation or conflict is in the spirit of the laws, that the govt is being used to push legislation or interpretations of law that are "one sided" so of course this causes the other side to complain of being infringed upon. The argument is already that govt should not be regulating the terms of commerce between companies, employees and consumers that we didn't agree or sign our names to.

I will answer anyway, but this does not address the real problem, just arguing which symptoms are worse. [I believe a consensus on policy would both resolve the problems and
stop the symptoms instead of arguing about them "after the fact."]

1.

The AZ bill, if enacted, would have been shot down by the federal court anyway. It was wise of Brrwer to veto it so as to not lose the Super Bowl again and not lose Apple moving some of their facilities to Arizona. It was a bad for Arizona business bill.

By your reasoning, the cost to Hobby Lobby and other such companies is "bad for business" -- ie paying fines from 1.3 million to 467 million because the company cannot by conscience agree to participate in any provisions of abortifacient drugs. Nothing is stopping the employees who believe in free choice of drugs and contraception from paying for their own choices, instead of abusing govt to impose the cost on employers who don't believe in that. The employers believe in letting employees have equal freedom to fund and choose their own health care; and are asking for the same respect. isn't that better for business? shouldn't the beliefs of both the company owners and employees be respected "equally" as citizens protected under law? Where is the compelling interest to sacrifice one person's belief for another?

The Hobby Lobby case is a Pandora's box issue. Can companies refuse to carry insurance for circumcision due to religious qualms?

How about not paying for blood transfusions? Even if a newborn may die without them?

Yes Rosie this IS the problem with trying to mandate health care through Govt.
People DO have different beliefs about health care. That is why it should be kept private, so none of these issues comes up.

Only if people AGREE to compromise and go along with what is publicly expedient; that's fine.
But if they don't consent to compromise their religious or civil liberty, if people DON'T agree on abortifacient drugs, prayer in schools, creation/evolution, etc.
that is WHY we should QUIT using "public funds" for policies that touch on religious issues. That is out of respect for the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
It is to PREVENT people from imposing one side's views on the other by forcing these private policies to be regulated under public institutions and funding.
It is to PREVENT religious conflicts of interest or violations of EITHER SIDE of these debated issues.

This is not like the military where the federal govt is the ONLY institution authorized, so everyone who participates agrees to follow marching orders.

With health care, education, housing etc. there is ability to use the private market for these services;
so there is NO required or compelling interest for the govt to infringe on rights where religious differences and conflicts exist.
Only when laws are passed to MAKE these forced through govt, do they become a public issue; that is why people are arguing to keep them OUT OF FEDERAL GOVT.

3.

I cannot see the slippery slopes being tolerable for the Supremes . Perhaps the Supremes will order that the equivalent insurance cost be paid directly to the employee, absolving employers qualms about buying insurance at all.

Regards from Rosie

And what if that cost was ALREADY built into the higher starting wage that Hobby Lobby offers? This is govt regulating business, and whether the company compensates employees in a way the GOVT sees fit.

If you don't like the slippery slope of opting out of blood transfusions, etc.

What about THIS slippery slope of regulating if businesses are already paying extra for employees to buy their own insurance or drugs. Do you really want federal govt and courts to be in the business of regulating each and every company and how much they pay?

How far do you want to go with that?
What about a company where all the staff invests in real estate (not insurance), using a model that allows them to retire in 5-10 years, and ALLOWS them pay for their OWN insurance, medical costs and care not covered by insurance, and all other expenses -- all
by free market/voluntary participation and investment.

If that works better than mandating insurance, why not have federal govt require ALL companies and ALL employees to invest in real estate that pays for their retirement in 5-10 years, where they can pay for their own health care whether or not they buy insurance?

Do you really want to go there? Have federal govt oversee ALL business transactions and investments between employers and employees to make sure the "most effective methods" are used (to avoid imposing costs of health care or welfare on the public). Good luck with that!