If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Quantum Windbag]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

I have no idea, other than a massive delusion that seems to have infected every progressive hack in the country.

You melt down amusingly when your hypocrisy is mocked.

And I'm torn as to whether I should keep playing poke-the-loony with you.

Oh, I thank all the loons willing to use the term "statist", since it instantly reveals the speaker as a crank whiner. That saves a lot of time for the reader.

My hypocrisy?

I oppose everything you listed above, how am I being a hypocrite?

 

[dblack]

Once again, the insurance policy is part of the employee's compensation package and it has a value part of which can be exchanged for birth control.

That is no different than the employee's paycheck.

Hobby Lobby is objecting to having to provide compensation that can be used to acquire a product they object to and yet they already provide that compensation.

Once again, it is different in that the government is requiring the employer to spend their money on it instead of allowing the employee to make a personal choice. One of those is about fredom, the other is about fascism.

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Yeah. What exactly did you mean by that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, the insurance policy is part of the employee's compensation package and it has a value part of which can be exchanged for birth control.

That is no different than the employee's paycheck.

Hobby Lobby is objecting to having to provide compensation that can be used to acquire a product they object to and yet they already provide that compensation.

Once again, it is different in that the government is requiring the employer to spend their money on it instead of allowing the employee to make a personal choice. One of those is about fredom, the other is about fascism.

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Businesses are required to spend their money on all sorts of government regulation and only a few nuts on the fringe think it's fascism.

Where I used to work they once changed the usage of a building and as a consequence had to add a 2nd restroom so they'd have men's and women's.

To you that's fascism, because you're a nut.

There is nothing new about people being free to be bigots. I wish there was something new about your attempt to force people to think the same way you do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, the insurance policy is part of the employee's compensation package and it has a value part of which can be exchanged for birth control.

That is no different than the employee's paycheck.

Then why is it an issue? If there's no difference, where is the justification for mandating insurance at all?

Since I'm for some sort of single payer or any worthwhile system that will get the employer out of the healthcare business entirely you're asking the wrong person.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, it is different in that the government is requiring the employer to spend their money on it instead of allowing the employee to make a personal choice. One of those is about fredom, the other is about fascism.

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Businesses are required to spend their money on all sorts of government regulation and only a few nuts on the fringe think it's fascism.

Where I used to work they once changed the usage of a building and as a consequence had to add a 2nd restroom so they'd have men's and women's.

To you that's fascism, because you're a nut.

There is nothing new about people being free to be bigots. I wish there was something new about your attempt to force people to think the same way you do.

It's when you claim, in the name of liberty or freedom, the right to act out on your bigotry at the expense of others that you cross the line that ought not be crossed.

 

[dblack]

Once again, the insurance policy is part of the employee's compensation package and it has a value part of which can be exchanged for birth control.

That is no different than the employee's paycheck.

Then why is it an issue? If there's no difference, where is the justification for mandating insurance at all?

Since I'm for some sort of single payer or any worthwhile system that will get the employer out of the healthcare business entirely you're asking the wrong person.

I'm asking someone who is, presumably, attempting to justify government mandates on employers to provide specific kind of insurance coverage as compensation for employment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again, it is different in that the government is requiring the employer to spend their money on it instead of allowing the employee to make a personal choice. One of those is about fredom, the other is about fascism.

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Yeah. What exactly did you mean by that?

I mean that more and more we are hearing that laws against discrimination are assaults on liberty.

 

[dblack]

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Yeah. What exactly did you mean by that?

I mean that more and more we are hearing that laws against discrimination are assaults on liberty.

They are. Just like assaults on all kinds of unpopular opinions are assaults on liberty. Anytime we try to dictate what people think, we're overstepping proper limits on government authority.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is the company's obligation to its employees because they have the means to do so.

Is this to be taken as a general legal principle?

No, it's a general MORAL principle. The employees are the reason that these corporations are so successful. The corporation then has a moral obligation to share that wealth with its employees. Thus "a rising tide lifts all boats". Right now, the rising tide only lifts the boats of people who can afford a boat.

???

The employees who believe their employers should pay for certain prescriptions
ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO GO WORK FOR THIS COMPANY

THEY COULD GO WORK FOR SOME OTHER COMPANY OR PAY FOR THEIR OWN DRUGS
NOBODY IS STOPPING THEM BY LAW FROM DEFENDING THEIR BELIEFS AND CHOICES.

However, the employers who do NOT believe in paying for certain drugs that could be kept private ARE required by this law to PAY FOR PRIVATE DRUG USE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN.

The employers DON'T have a choice, but the employees DO.

KNB if you and the employees REALLY believe this about companies,
then NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU FROM SETTING UP YOUR OWN COMPANY.

What makes you think you (a) don't have any other choice or (b) have any right
to use govt to force a company to pay for private drug use you could pay for yourself?

I can't believe this legal argument that the ACA is unconstitutional is being pushed to this nitpicky level when the principle itself is already off base to begin with.

Am I the only one here who feels like people might as well be arguing if fabric samples provided are enough to prove if "the Emperor clothes" do or do not meet certain conditions. When the FU Emperor is naked and has no clothes at all. Am I the only one????

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

 

[dblack]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

Uh....

 

[emilynghiem]

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Yeah. What exactly did you mean by that?

I mean that more and more we are hearing that laws against discrimination are assaults on liberty.

And likewise, on the other hand, DEFENSES of liberty
are being denounced as "attempts to justify discrimination"

I just found out a friend of mine "does not believe that any objections to ACA
are EVEN REAL" -- he thinks they are ALL political. And people "for States rights"
are just using that as an excuse! So people's beliefs "aren't real" and they have no REAL issues to defend?
These are "ALL attempts" to oppose and discriminate politically?

This is like saying prolife people "aren't really" about stopping abortion
but "waging war on women." Really?

All I have found in this ACA debate is the OPPOSITE.
Where the people I TRUSTED to be "prochoice" suddenly turn out to be
ALL FOR GOVERNMENT IMPOSING MANDATES, REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS.

So if anything, I found it was the PROCHOICE side that wasn't really fighting on principle
of "choice" and "freedom" but threw all that out the window for political party points.

Now I see this "politicizing" of the issue of choice
is further projected and blamed on the opponents instead!

So from what I can see, the PROCHOICE side has sold out "CHOICE" to Party Agenda.
While "accusing" the opponents for pimping "LIBERTY" for Party Agenda.

I don't get this at all, sorry. Maybe it's all "bad karma" come back,
where the shoe is on the other foot. With "right to life" people now screaming for choice,
and "right to health" people putting govt mandates and controls over the "right to choose."

If this is some stage people have to go through, to act like the very people they oppose,
I hope we all figure it out soon, this game of pots and kettles calling each other black.

 

[eflatminor]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Personally, I do not think any business should have to comply with minimum wage or social security withholding regardless of their religious beliefs. Bad laws written by central planners doing more harm than good. They should be held unconstitutional. No hypocrisy there.

As to environmental and safety regs, I'd say the same thing to the extent that a business's activities neither harm nor infringe on the rights of others. Now, if your company pollutes or creates an environment that harms another, be that an employee, a customer or anyone, well, that's a different story. Already plenty of laws against harming others, which we all agree are necessary and just.

So no, no hypocrisy and yes, businesses and individuals for that matter should not have to comply with bullshit laws enacted by central planners violating the enumerated powers of the Constitution under some misguided belief that they know what's best for everyone else.

 

[emilynghiem]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

If you really had those beliefs, yes, I'm sure there are ways you could work out a system consistent with them.

For example, what if your organization offered free housing, education, and other services in exchange for "volunteer hours" where nobody worked so none of that was regulated.

There wouldn't be any conflict or fight if everyone agreed to "volunteer" and provide services freely with respect to a truly "free market" without regulations by govt.

The point is, you are still free to set up alternatives that don't violate your beliefs.

In this case of Hobby Lobby, the employees are still free to get the same drugs elsewhere, without forcing the company to provide them. So that could be worked out easily.

In fact, the employees could have MORE freedom to make their own health policy decisions
if this WASN'T imposed on the company by the government with MANDATORY regulations.

What is especially disturbing to me, is that at least Hobby Lobby is consistent with its beliefs, believing in "free market choices" for employees to buy their own drugs.

but the employees and advocates pushing this mandate seem to be contradicting themselves: (a) on one hand, these same people want "free choice" and govt out of private health care decisions, but keep inserting and imposing govt controls and regs on health care (b) and also, the people screaming "against discrimination" don't seem to respect or even recognize the owners' beliefs as "valid" at all, so isn't that a form of discrimination, exclusion and denial? the owners' aren't blocking the employees, but encouraging them to exercise their freedom to buy the policies and drugs of their choice without restrictions.
Where is the same courtesy and respect for the owners' beliefs? Why is this one sided?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Businesses are required to spend their money on all sorts of government regulation and only a few nuts on the fringe think it's fascism.

Where I used to work they once changed the usage of a building and as a consequence had to add a 2nd restroom so they'd have men's and women's.

To you that's fascism, because you're a nut.

There is nothing new about people being free to be bigots. I wish there was something new about your attempt to force people to think the same way you do.

It's when you claim, in the name of liberty or freedom, the right to act out on your bigotry at the expense of others that you cross the line that ought not be crossed.

How does that work in your pathetic excuse for a brain? Does my insistence that WBC is free to protest funerals, and that people are free to counter protest them, somehow lead to less freedom? Both sides are expressing their bigotry, and everyone is happy because the WBC is the minority in that equation. The only reason to resort to force is if you are wrong, and can't stand the thought of other people disagreeing with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like I said awhile ago, bigotry is the new liberty.

Yeah. What exactly did you mean by that?

I mean that more and more we are hearing that laws against discrimination are assaults on liberty.

If the government passed a law that required you to go to church you would be screaming bloody murder. There is no moral difference between passing a law requiring people to attend church and passing a law requiring people to attend a wedding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are the only person on the planet that believes in your religion it is no less valid, legally, than Catholicism or Islam.

 

[emilynghiem]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

Dear Dr: I come from the opposite angle as you on this.

I believe in "consent of the governed" and making decisions by consensus, so that all conflicts are resolved to prevent imposing views values or beliefs against people's will.
I believe any policy that is right good and true CAN be structured to meet people's conditions. If it is not universally good for all people, it should not be pushed anyway, but any bias, flaw or objection can and should be corrected; and if it is that good, people would be willing to contract by agreement, by informed consent. If people object or dissent, I believe this indicates there is a REASON for that, which should be addressed and resolved to ensure representation is accurate and effective (and doesn't overlook a problem or grievance by dismissing objections instead of answering them).
(If people are mentally or legally incompetent, they should be assisted in making decisions but never by force by coercion or exclusion. I believe in non coercive conflict resolution.)

When it comes to "free exercise of religion" I believe that restricting this to ONLY recognized or collectively established groups is UNFAIR because it favors the protection of some people more than others.
This is NOT "equal protection of the law" but discriminates and excludes people on the basis of religion.
So to include and treat all people equally, regardless how they may express their "beliefs"
I go to the opposite extreme, and count ALL beliefs (moral, political, personal, etc.) as part of someone's "free will" and "consent."

Every person has EQUAL right of consent or dissent, regardless of political, religious or personal views or affiliations,
and it is the job of govt to represent this in public policy and to redress grievances accordingly by democratic due process.

Where beliefs conflict, I believe in either working out an agreement or separating jurisdiction so nobody's beliefs are violated, nobody is forced to take responsibility for beliefs they don't agree with, people are free to exercise their beliefs as long as they accept responsibility for all ramifications, costs, or conditions involved, don't impose these on others, and there are no consequences that impose on others who don't agree either.

If everyone did this, we would either organize around solutions we all agree on, or
we would organize systems of separating jurisdiction in areas we know we do not agree.

We would not waste time, effort or resources trying to push or bully our way by 'majority rule' or political force, but would more likely use our Party system to separate and invest in our own systems and remove the excess burdens and conflicts from government. I think govt would work effectively by reserving it for just the areas of public agreement, and address all other political, religious and personal issues and agenda with private programs.

The closest terms I have ever found for this type of belief is either "isocracy" (thanks to Tom Wayburn) or "isonomy" which is probably closer. I believe every person should have equal right to exercise their own beliefs using their own systems of representation, and any conflicts with any other persons or groups should be resolved by mediation and consensus to protect all persons and interests equally.

I believe if we practiced Constitutional principles and ethics consistently, this is where our pluralistic/diverse society would head -- a system of including all people's systems equally without imposing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

What's stopping you from drawing up false equivalencies? Nothing, it seems.

How are we "forcing" any of our beliefs on anyone, when all we want is to not be made to do things that violate our faith? Hmm? Nothing is stopping these women from buying their own abortifacients, or buying a plan not sponsored by the company. They have a plethora of other choices, yet choose to rob the pious of theirs. Is this really about a choice? Or is this all more of your liberal talking points?

You have a lot of gall preaching to us about forcing our beliefs on anyone, when you wish to instill the belief that a woman has more right to an abortion than a man has to his faith.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religious sects, and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

You haven't a clue. When 2.2 billion people worship Christianity, I'd say that's a broad enough basis. Christianity also does not need to be accepted by other non-Christian religious sects in order to practice, and it does meet the standards of a religious organization, seeing as how its been in existence for over 2000 years. Christianity is also widely accepted seeing as how almost a quarter of the people on this planet believe in it. I'm not sure what you're trying to hit at, but you are woefully uninformed about my faith, whoever you are.