You can challenge whether they should have that right or not, but that is another topic. I am saying that as far as I understood, every employee legally has that right. So if the employer doesn't want to pay them, someone else has to. And if noone does, we have a problem.
They can pay for it themselves, why does a corporation have to pay for someone else's health insurance?
As if that was so easy for everyone... so basically, your answer is that the greed of a corporation is more important than the rights and freedom of the individual. Correct?
if you don't like the religion the company holds, or what they offer, then why work there in the first place?
They can pay for it themselves, why does a corporation have to pay for someone else's health insurance?
Are you saying they should give themselves money to cover for their own costs?
As far as I know, this employer/insurance thingie is pretty commonplace; don't ask me for technical details, I'm not even completely sure how it works in my country, let alone in the States. I don't care how it is settled in the end, but I repeat it again: if the employee has the right by law to get certain costs covered (and that is what I think is the case currently, unless proven otherwise), those costs are to be covered. If the corporation does not cover it and there is no other place to get that money, we have a problem.
if you don't like the religion the company holds, or what they offer, then why work there in the first place?
Thank you for confirming my thoughts about your answer. Now,
A), as I tried to tell you before, certain people simply rely on their job and don't have the option to just switch. Besides, I'm feeling this point is irrelevant; even if people would either change or comply, there is still the problem that a company stops providing services it is legally bound to provide (if I've understood it correctly, but feel free to tell me if I'm wrong about the legal point of view).
B), you still didn't explain how a company can have religious beliefs. Seriously, that's BS.
That's how I made it sound like? Lad, please read my comments again and tell me where I mentioned people who have constant, casual (Not a faithful relationship), sex....baffled.
Birth control is an essential thing. You can't leave a perfectly normal life without it when you're a woman and need to constantly monitor your period and cycles. Time it wrongly, and that's it. IUDs are proven to be the most effective in terms of cost and impact, so it's far far better for them to use it then just condoms. In any case, CVs are for animals for now, they're no good for human usage.
It's probably best if you could stop using slippery slopes in your argument...socialism does not lead to Communism. It is a theoratical step towards Communism, but generalizing and squeezing a completely abstract and impossibly broad political idea into a single, utterly restrictive idea that it is simply a springboard into what people view as Communism, but is not, is not going to do your reasoning any good. Lots of European nations like France, Germany, the UK, have political systems with Socialist aspects (See National Healthcare system of the UK), yet we don't see them sliding towards Communism. The Red Bogeyman is still truly well and alive, if only because frightened Conservatives keep harping on it. McCarthy would tear joyfully in his grave.
Labour unions yes....and who do the Unions turn to for help when the corporations do not compromise? The third partner in any such situation - the government. By contrast, why do workers have to give in to corporations? It would be blatant discrimination for HL board members to decide how its employees should think. Also, I don't understand this "rugged, self-reliant, Conservative" outlook. Some people aren't going to earn enough, plain and simple. And these are workers on a pitiful wage (even taking into account HL's wage packages), so one cannot complain and shriek that they are jobless parasites. Tell a minimum wage person who has to raise a family and give them a good live to be self-reliant and you'll likely get a good and deserved hiding. And that's why the women who want contraceptives to be included are mostly mothers, who do not want to bring another child into the world without being able to afford them. That's a valid reasoning for giving them said contraceptives.
Except that a company isnt legally bound to provide these services, because SCOTUS has just said they don't have to. And while I applaud your attempt to tug at my heart strings (do it for the poor single mothers!), the facet of HL employees who are female, sexually active, become pregnant while employed, decide to terminate said pregnancy, and fhen decide to do it via one of the ways the owners/board of HL said to oppose due to their religious beliefs are a very small facet of the company. And while you may be vehemently opposed to whatever stops these women from what you call a "right" it doesnt change the fact that HL's owners/board have the right to practice their religion amd run a business how they see fit.
They may be giant blooming idiots, but they have the right to be giant blooming idiots.
This isn't a matter of just HL against its employees, it's a matter of all companies who wish to act this way, since it sets a dangerous precedent.
HL board members have a right to practice their religion, but if this right extends to denying other people basic rights, then no, they can bin their beliefs. A person's physical health will always trump your right to religion.
The fact that SCOTUS said they don't have to provide such health services is just a court result, and is not a reason to justify itself. Don't confuse the two.
You can argue that contraceptives are a substantive, or even a fundamental right, but that would still cause it to be trumped by the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause (an unalienable right). Furthermore, a 1993 law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) extends this by mamdating that the government "shall not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion." unless doing so is the least restricting way to advance a compelling interest. You can believe in the practice of Vampirism all day long and have the right to believe that; but the government can still outlaw the practice of Vampirism because it has a compelling interest in ensuring it's citizens arent being munched on by Twilight wannabes.
In this instance, SCOTUS upholds HL's right to practice religion because those individuals who are affected by HL not covering 4 contraceptives (HL will still cover 16 of the 20 contraceptives mentioned in the ACA) because HLs employees have a viable alternative to pursuing healthcare, ironically through the very exchanges the ACA set up. Further, HL would supposedly be fined over 400m USD a year for violating this portion of the ACA, which it sucessfully argued was a "substantive burden" to its free exercise.
As for your second point regarding physical health trumping religious freedom, that's always the case. Individuals can recieve waivers which excuse them from the required vaccines needed for school enrollment whether for religious or philosophical reasons. While having all students vaccinated would be benefitial to society as a whole, the government cant mandate something which violates the free exercise of religion.
It's not simply a court descision; it's the highest judicial body in the US giving clarification to an issue for which the jhstification already exists via the legal code already in place.
Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It doesn't have the rights that people do. No one who works at Hobby Lobby is having their religion infringed upon, because they aren't being forced to use contraceptives if they do not believe in them. However, everyone (women) who would want to use them is being denied that choice by the owners of Hobby Lobby. THAT'S the discrimination happening - not against Hobby Lobby, but it's employees.
Now, because of this bull**** SCOTUS decision where they ruled that the government can't force Hobby Lobby to provide its employees what the law says it has to because of a religious exemption (but only for contraceptives - they know their own decision is bull when they have to make an exemption) every company can now do so and they've set the stage for further religious discrimination. Employers do not own their employees. They do not get to make decisions about what rights their employees receive based on their own beliefs.
Simply put, you're wrong. Hobby Lobby has rights through the legal principal of corporate personhood. This has been a facet of US law since the early 1800s and the fact that HL is even listed as the defendant in the case citation is evidence of this. That HL is composed of a group of people working together under one entity doesnt stop them from suddenly having rights; HL has the same individual rights as you or I.
Women arent being denied contraceptives; a link I posted above states that HL will continue to fund 16 types of contraceptives, it simply isnt paying for 4 that it is opposed to on religious grounds. And since these women can readily obtain these last 4 types of contraceptives with plans that can be obtained on the very exchanges that the ACA set up, SCOTUS ruled that no ones rights are being violated becase the only thing that changes is who pays for the confraceptive - HL or the Federal Government/Taxpayer.
Except that SCOTUS has ruled that the law which requires HL to fund contraceptives which go against it's religious beliefs are unconstitutional, rendering the appropriate portion of the law void. Aside from the first line of yoir second paragrapj, I'm not quite clear on what you're trying to say in the rest of your paragraph.
There's the other point you didn't adress that their religious beliefs aren't being infringed on, as they are not forced to use the contraceptives themselves. And it is not their right to make such decisions for others.
Hobby Lobby has rights through the legal principal of corporate personhood. This has been a facet of US law since the early 1800s and the fact that HL is even listed as the defendant in the case citation is evidence of this
I know, and it's a load of insane crap. A corporation is not a person.
Hahiha: [url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/justices-take-companies-cases-challenging-contraception-rule.html?src=recg&_r=0]Paragraphs 7-9[url] In turn upheld by SCOTUS
Kasic: It's a precedent that's been established and upheld time and time again for the last two hundred years. The fact that corporations can enter and exit from contracts, have to comply with state amd federal law, and can be taken to court and sued are benefits of being persons. Corporations are just collections of people who all have indovidual rights - this is just an extension of those rights. There are some drawbacks to it (RE campaign financing) but they're outweighed by the benefits
Corporations are just collections of people who all have indovidual rights - this is just an extension of those rights.
Yes. Those individual people have rights. The company does not. Or at least, should not, under any sane application of law. The company is simply a collection of all who work there. The decisions "it" makes are the decisions made by those people. If "the company" does something wrong, in reality, it's the people who were working there that did something wrong, and that's who gets tried/punished. Except we don't treat it that way because how we treat corporations is crazy.
Interesting video, though I'm not a big fan of AA - I tend to think he can a tad too facetious at the most unnessasary times, and some of the "issues" he raises are slightly ridiculous.
Let's suppose then you buy a new laptop from Apple. You take it home, turn it on, amd it bursts into flames and gives you third degree burns. So you decide to sue Apple to pay for your skin grafts and give you compensation for them skrewing up and making a bad product. I think we both can aggree that you would be entirely justified in doing so and that Apple should be punished.
The problem is that without corporate personhood you couldnt actually sue Apple - you'd have to sue the owners of Apple. And since Apple is a publically traded multinational corporation that is one of the most valuable companies ever, the owners are the people who own stocks. Which likely number in the hundreds of thousands, and you're stuck taking them all to court in a logistical nightmare.
Do I think Citizens United is a good thing? No; Corporations already are made of people who can contribute and I think the jjstification given in the majority is weak at best. But by and large, corporate personhood is a good thing that has beem around for the last two hundred years, amd it's not going anywhere. That the liberal judges in dissent didnt even talk about removing it as a legal principal shows you how important it is today.
And on an unrelated note, how does one go about editing posts?
The government believed there was a compelling reason that contraceptives should be mandatory provided by corporations and companies, hence it introduced the law.
We have already clarified the point about the 16 contraceptives - simply put, they are not cost effective, compared to those being excluded, and they do not serve the same purpose as the other four. That is also why people are angry. Why would you need a condom, or some preventive contraceptive when you're accidentally pregnant? Even if the women can actually get those last 4 contraceptives through health exchanges, it still leaves the serious question of the extent of corporate personhood. Just because a corporations is granted the legal recognition of an individual, does not mean it should hold all of the rights attached to that. The Fifth Amendment has not been recognised for a corporation for example. So why should the First? I find it prudent that companies should of course have all legal rights so that they are able to perform commercial activities, such as entering contracts, owning property, to be sued, to be held liable under both civil and criminal law. But I find it absurd that a company can claim to be of a certain religion, when its actually just the board. If corporations truly should be considered as people, and hence can hold a religion, where are the employees and their own religious views in the mix?
I disagree with the vaccine example. The right to a person's physical health is not overruled by a right to someone to practice their religion. A similar example to HL would be something along the lines of a clinic somehow refusing the vaccinate a person because it doesn't go according to their dogma. The religious people in this case have made the choice that they refuse to be vaccinated. But the choice has already been offered.
I am saying that your argument (that SCOTUS decided upon it), cannot be used as a justification for the end result (That SCOTUS passed such a decision). I fundamentally do not agree with the decision, and that's the bone of contention.
PS: You can only edit posts once, and only after the first ten minutes. It's a bummer. :|
If by AA you mean The Amazing Atheist, the video I linked was not him.
I think we both can aggree that you would be entirely justified in doing so and that Apple should be punished.
The problem is that without corporate personhood you couldnt actually sue Apple
Fair enough. Except, that doesn't mean we have to consider them people. That's simply corporate liability for the product they are selling. That is an entirely different thing than saying the company as a whole has a religion and that the company owner can dictate what parts of the law they wish to comply with based on religious belief.
