limapea2
Shy Member
Posts: 43
Jul 2, 2014 14:50:48 GMT
|
Post by limapea2 on Jul 4, 2014 18:39:33 GMT
Premise one that you have no clue about, lynlam: corporations are not evil in the sense that they are violating any moral order. The exist to make profit, not to pray, take up collections for the poor, or ordain priests. They provide products and services that consumers can choose to purchase or not. It is neither here nor there if a certain product is desired and they supply it, whether it is abortion or beanie babies. It is HUMAN BEINGS and their value systems that support private enterprise. An unsavory human May head corporations, but consumers will drive the success or failure. No, corporations are not people, no matter how you want to twist it and defer responsibility. It is only ever individuals humans that make decisions together or singly that are morally held responsible for outcomes, whether in business or politics.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 4, 2014 18:40:50 GMT
I can't quote numbers but I do think the country is becoming more religious, or at least more religiously outspoken anyway, and more politically active.
It's rarely the majority who get things changed, it's a motivated minority, and the religious groups in this country are very motivated, more than they ever have been.
To kick back and say fewer people are going to church ergo we have nothing to worry about is a recipe for defeat.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 4, 2014 18:45:47 GMT
This is how I feel too. I also read that Hobby Lobby actually covered the types of birth control that they went to the SCOTUS about and only when some Christian organizations started to pressure them, that they decided they had a problem with it. As I said before, between this and the fact that they support the economy of the worst forced birth control in the world makes me think their beliefs really aren't very credible. Which lefty website has that info?This lefty (not) web site: www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/01/sally-kohn/did-hobby-lobby-once-provide-birth-control-coverag/
|
|
limapea2
Shy Member
Posts: 43
Jul 2, 2014 14:50:48 GMT
|
Post by limapea2 on Jul 4, 2014 18:45:56 GMT
Rainbow, there is no arguing with statistics. The number of people who report being a member of a religious group continues to remain the same, the number of people who actually show up at services has been dropping for decades. People lie. The number of agnostics and atheists continues to increase. The more educated people become the more they leave organized religion and for good reason. This country has become progressively liberal and progressive for 300 years and will continue to do so. Great news, blacks and women can vote now, gays can marry, and people are allowed to say tuck. It will not go backward, only more forward. Sorry, you're backing the wrong horse.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Jul 4, 2014 19:06:31 GMT
Using an insurance-based discount on your birth control pills at the pharmacy is not an indication that you have received no guidance or modeling about personal responsibility.
If what they want isn't covered I expect them to either find another way or simply accept it. A foot-stomping tantrum - not so much.by foot stamping do you mean like the republicans have challenged ACA in congress something around 48 times?
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 4, 2014 19:11:26 GMT
The entire ACA mandate was the slippery slope that led us here. If you don't want a government or employer to have anything to do with your healthcare decisions, then stop involving them. The ACA should have been ruled as unconstitutional three years ago. We wouldn't be on this whole slippery slope over violating freedom of religion and other Constitutional entanglements.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 4, 2014 19:12:19 GMT
I hesitate to get involved with this thread for a number of reasons, but I do have a question: How can a CORPORATION hold religious beliefs? There are so many people involved with such a large corporation that I am unclear on how they can claim one single religious belief. Are they implying that every single person involved with the corporate side of Hobby Lobby holds the exact same religious views as each other? That seems like quite a stretch to me. In this case, yes, I think that is basically the claim. I am in no way an expert on this, but I'm sure someone will correct if I get this wrong. This is has to do with the part of the decision that referenced "closely held" corporations. In the case of Hobby Lobby (and others) the business is incorporated, but stock is not publically traded and it is all owned by the Green family. Who, as far as I know, hold the same religious views...at least where it comes to this subject, I guess. I'm sure there are people who work in the corporate office or whatever, who may or may not agree with the HL position, but the owners of the corporation appear to be like-minded on the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:56:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:12:41 GMT
I'm just kind of thinking out loud here...but in the HL case, HL covered bc. In fact, they covered 16 methods of bc.
But this Christian college now won't cover ANY bc. Nada. Zip.
I wonder if the government would've given exemptions to HL and compromised with them, we would not have seen the Wheaton college decision.
In other words, had the government not tried to strong arm HL and given the exemptions to them that they were very generous in giving the unions and others who supported ACA, perhaps we wouldn't be seeing this now.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 4, 2014 19:13:05 GMT
So it wasn't that they were OK with providing it for a while and changed their minds, they didn't know it was part of their plan and when they found out they set out to change it. What is wrong with that?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 4, 2014 19:14:52 GMT
If what they want isn't covered I expect them to either find another way or simply accept it. A foot-stomping tantrum - not so much. by foot stamping do you mean like the republicans have challenged ACA in congress something around 48 times? No. I meant the tantrum lefties were having over not getting to force others to comply against their beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:56:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:22:49 GMT
Really? Because they don't want to pay for 4 out of 20 contraceptives?!? That's just freakin' ridiculous, and vindictive too.
The employees are the ones choosing to have sex. It's THEIR responsibility, not Hobby Lobby's to pay for their own contraceptives.
Can you please explain to me how not paying for contraceptives equates to meddling in the private lives of their employees, I-95? (And I've seen this from lots of liberal peas in the last week. My comments above aren't exclusively directed at you.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:56:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:38:25 GMT
At the risk of repeating myself, seeing things like "piercing the corporate veil" discussed with such glee makes me sad and angry, and has really, really bugged me this last week.
All because they didn't want to pay for four drugs. If the Obama administration had been willing to compromise on something that was just a regulation added after the passage of the law, none of the repercussions would be happening now.
Again, if I owned a business, I would be in the exact same situation. I'll be honest. I have no respect for such vindictiveness. Because as much as I despise some of the people who I believe are ruining this country, I have never wished that they lose everything. And that's what you're wishing on the Greens, and everyone who simply doesn't want to pay for drugs that they believe ends a life.
|
|
tracylynn
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,864
Jun 26, 2014 22:49:09 GMT
|
Post by tracylynn on Jul 4, 2014 19:54:55 GMT
So touts a card holding member of the Toleratti. LOL Have a Happy 4th, Lima. Traceylyn, just for curiosity's sake; did you consider my comment to be an attack on you? Or on the Huff post? In my opinion, any rational person would view it as not holding the Huff Post in high regard. To be fair, I didn't see it as an attack on myself. And I knew when I posted a Huff Po link that Lauren wouldn't be a fan. But I find it to be valid and factual.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:56:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 20:01:03 GMT
I, too, believe it's a very slippery and very dangerous slope.... I think this concept of corporate religious beliefs will eventually be undone by the courts, but in the meantime I can see this precedent being used to seriously erode many different kinds of individual and/or employment rights.
|
|
limapea2
Shy Member
Posts: 43
Jul 2, 2014 14:50:48 GMT
|
Post by limapea2 on Jul 4, 2014 20:07:38 GMT
Tracylynn, it's good that you didn't take it personally. Lauren engages in guerrilla warfare. She lobs an insult in an attempt to discredit by demeaning legitimate sources, insinuating you don't know what you're talking about. Then, when you respond, she steps back and plays the pretend game of What? I don't know what you're talking about!?! I didn't insult you, I was talking about something else! It called backlighting, trying to undermine your confidence my making passive aggressive swipes that she thinks she can distance herself from. If only I haven't dealt with it 4 billion times.
|
|
limapea2
Shy Member
Posts: 43
Jul 2, 2014 14:50:48 GMT
|
Post by limapea2 on Jul 4, 2014 20:08:54 GMT
It's called gas lighting, not backlighting.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Jul 4, 2014 20:10:26 GMT
To be more precise, It's not paying for contraceptives - it's paying for contraceptive coverage.
The reason I think that is more than semantic, and why I think it meddlesome, is this.
I am an employee. So as an employee I am compensated. My compensation package includes PTO, medical/dental/vision, and of course my monetary wages.
I earned my compensation. It's mine. My medical benefits are provided as part of my compensation. They're mine.
And the long and short of it for me is that as long as I am not violating the legal terms of my employment - which in my case includes a morality clause - and as long as I am not breaking the law, I don't see that my employer has any say what I do with my earned compensation. It's mine.
So while it is 100% fine with me that people believe that contraceptives are abortifacients, it is not fine with me at all that my employer could be allowed to tell me what I can and cannot do with what I earned by working, even if that is his or her belief. I do not have a religious conviction regarding contraception and it was not in the terms of my employment when they hired me, and as a result I don't see that my employer's religious conviction should have any bearing on my life whatsoever.
If it wouldn't violate my employer's conscience for me to use my salary to buy my birth control, then I don't see that it's any different for me to use my employer sponsored insurance to buy my birth control, being as I legitimately earned both by working as we agreed to when they hired me. Both are my earned compensation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:56:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 20:11:39 GMT
moveablefeast, I heart you.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 4, 2014 20:18:05 GMT
So it wasn't that they were OK with providing it for a while and changed their minds, they didn't know it was part of their plan and when they found out they set out to change it. What is wrong with that? They didn't know nor care that it was part of their benefits until it was brought to their attention by a right-wing legal foundation that wanted to sue the ACA, just as they didn't know nor care that investments in similar drugs were part of their retirement account profile, until the media outed them. Convenient. Very convenient. Hardly evidence of deeply-held beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 4, 2014 20:50:58 GMT
If you expect corporations to be out of your health care decisions, you should also stop expecting them to pay for it. A benefits package such as insurance is typically offered in lieu of higher wages. Maybe instead of asking companies to pay directly for insurance, we should require them to pay higher wages that would allow us to pick and choose our own insurance in accordance with our personal belief systems.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 4, 2014 21:00:26 GMT
If you expect corporations to be out of your health care decisions, you should also stop expecting them to pay for it. A benefits package such as insurance is typically offered in lieu of higher wages. Maybe instead of asking companies to pay directly for insurance, we should require them to pay higher wages that would allow us to pick and choose our own insurance in accordance with our personal belief systems. I would rather do that as well. I wish we could buy health insurance much as we purchase other insurances. If you want full coverage, you can get it...if you just want minimal, you can get that too. If you're of childbearing age, you can add benefits addressing that (maternity, BC, etc), but people like me wouldn't have to. And so on.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 4, 2014 21:58:53 GMT
To be more precise, It's not paying for contraceptives - it's paying for contraceptive coverage. <snip a lot to save space> If it wouldn't violate my employer's conscience for me to use my salary to buy my birth control, then I don't see that it's any different for me to use my employer sponsored insurance to buy my birth control, being as I legitimately earned both by working as we agreed to when they hired me. Both are my earned compensation. I was actually hoping Moveablefeast would answer this question because I knew she'd explain it well - and she did not disappoint. So, I'll just add: "What she said!"
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 16, 2024 2:56:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 22:05:40 GMT
Moveablefeast,
Respectfully, they do offer contraceptive coverage, but that's not enough for all of you until they are forced to pay for something that is against their moral beliefs.
There's really no use in me discussing this anymore unless someone has something that they would like me to respond to.
Anyway, going to enjoy my fourth!
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 4, 2014 22:16:51 GMT
X
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 4, 2014 22:19:02 GMT
Where is your shirt, Ms Bloomer???!!! Lol! Scandalous!
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 4, 2014 22:24:04 GMT
Really? Because they don't want to pay for 4 out of 20 contraceptives?!? That's just freakin' ridiculous, and vindictive too.
The employees are the ones choosing to have sex. It's THEIR responsibility, not Hobby Lobby's to pay for their own contraceptives.
Can you please explain to me how not paying for contraceptives equates to meddling in the private lives of their employees, I-95? (And I've seen this from lots of liberal peas in the last week. My comments above aren't exclusively directed at you.)
Y'know Jodster, I personally couldn't care less about the birth control, or who pays for it. As far as I'm concerned that's just smoke and mirrors. What I'm concerned about is that by recognizing that a corporation can have religious views, or as has been bandied about 'Corporations are people'...then if that's the case they should be liable for their actions too. Corporations protect the assets of individual owners, but if you're going to claim your corporation is able to have opinions and challenge laws, religious or not, and those opinions and views are really those of the owners, then the corporate veil has been lifted. You can't have it both ways. The Greens have basically said the there is no difference between what they think and what the company thinks....OK, then when the company is sued, so should the Greens.... I'm just wondering what the next challenge will be on this because you really can't hide behind that corporate veil and then pop out when it suits you. I'm concerned that this will not only affect the Greens, but the all the little 'closely held' corporation owners. If I have any objection to this ruling as it relates to birth control is that, in the past, the court has said corporations could not use religious beliefs in order to circumvent the law. That changed the other day. It bothers me that the door is open for other challenges on religious grounds. It also bothers me that, based on religious beliefs, the employees at HL are denied company paid access to the 4 drugs that other women are covered for by the ACA. It isn't about personal responsibility. It isn't about access. It isn't about whether they can afford to pay for them, or not. It's about allowing one company to deny its employees the same coverage that other women will have. It's about other companies having to, by law, offer those choices, and pay for it. It's giving preferential treatment to one for profit corporation and it's doing it based on religious beliefs....That's getting awfully close to a mingling of church and state. These are my own personal concerns with this ruling...basically how the ripple effect is going to work. Instead of sitting around b*tching about who pays for what....look at the potential long term affects this ruling will have on people, companies, future laws, challenges to laws based on the wording in this ruling. It's Pandora's Box I'm worried about, not Pandora's BC. And to those who say 'Fine, if you don't like it, don't work there'.....How about 'If HL doesn't like the law, close your stores, take your $4.3 billion in personal assets and go do something else' Both are ridiculous statements.
|
|
|
Post by marmargirl on Jul 4, 2014 22:29:00 GMT
To be more precise, It's not paying for contraceptives - it's paying for contraceptive coverage. The reason I think that is more than semantic, and why I think it meddlesome, is this. I am an employee. So as an employee I am compensated. My compensation package includes PTO, medical/dental/vision, and of course my monetary wages. I earned my compensation. It's mine. My medical benefits are provided as part of my compensation. They're mine. And the long and short of it for me is that as long as I am not violating the legal terms of my employment - which in my case includes a morality clause - and as long as I am not breaking the law, I don't see that my employer has any say what I do with my earned compensation. It's mine. So while it is 100% fine with me that people believe that contraceptives are abortifacients, it is not fine with me at all that my employer could be allowed to tell me what I can and cannot do with what I earned by working, even if that is his or her belief. I do not have a religious conviction regarding contraception and it was not in the terms of my employment when they hired me, and as a result I don't see that my employer's religious conviction should have any bearing on my life whatsoever. If it wouldn't violate my employer's conscience for me to use my salary to buy my birth control, then I don't see that it's any different for me to use my employer sponsored insurance to buy my birth control, being as I legitimately earned both by working as we agreed to when they hired me. Both are my earned compensation. This makes so much sense and you put it perfectly. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 4, 2014 22:37:24 GMT
At the risk of repeating myself, seeing things like "piercing the corporate veil" discussed with such glee makes me sad and angry, and has really, really bugged me this last week. All because they didn't want to pay for four drugs. If the Obama administration had been willing to compromise on something that was just a regulation added after the passage of the law, none of the repercussions would be happening now. Again, if I owned a business, I would be in the exact same situation. I'll be honest. I have no respect for such vindictiveness. Because as much as I despise some of the people who I believe are ruining this country, I have never wished that they lose everything. And that's what you're wishing on the Greens, and everyone who simply doesn't want to pay for drugs that they believe ends a life. I don't wish them to lose anything either, I want them to enjoy their $4.3 billion dollars. I just don't want them playing both sides of the street, and that's what they're doing. I am tired of hearing the same old story posted here over and over. That it's just 4 drugs, and why should they have to pay for them. It's not about that, but that's all people seem to be focusing on. I'm not discussing it with glee, the ramifications of this ruling freak me out! I own a corporation and I don't like the court basically saying that there is no difference between my personal beliefs and those of the company, because like it or not, that DOES pierce the corporate veil. I don't think people get that. I pay for a lot of things I don't believe in, but the law requires the company to pay them, so we do. I don't know why having a personal religious conviction should allow HL to be treated any differently than any other company that has to comply with the ACA.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 4, 2014 22:52:56 GMT
To be more precise, It's not paying for contraceptives - it's paying for contraceptive coverage. <snip a lot to save space> If it wouldn't violate my employer's conscience for me to use my salary to buy my birth control, then I don't see that it's any different for me to use my employer sponsored insurance to buy my birth control, being as I legitimately earned both by working as we agreed to when they hired me. Both are my earned compensation. I was actually hoping Moveablefeast would answer this question because I knew she'd explain it well - and she did not disappoint. So, I'll just add: "What she said!" ^^^^^. This. She said it well.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 4, 2014 22:54:15 GMT
Don't you just hate it when they spend all that money on lawyers, take up the time of the Supreme Court, when if they'd just come to you, they would have had the answer Actually, I'm serious, that's a really good solution and it makes me wonder why they didn't do that. Except....would people actually buy the insurance with their extra funds? Then we'd be back to square one with people going to the ER because they don't have insurance.
|
|