9-0

BedellBrave said:
So? If a prospective employee wants one of the 4 contraceptives that Hobby Lobby doesn't cover then they could:

A. Not take the job. Or,
B. Pay for it out of pocket. Or,
C. Appeal for someone else to pay for it. Again, here's an opportunity for those who are really bothered that these 4 contraceptives aren't being covered, to put their money where their mouthes are. Help a woman out.

You may not like non-governmental agencies having that choice, but you certainly like the government picking its religious sensibilities in forming its law mandating its choices.

Again, the anger of the Left is tellingly religious. And as I've said before, free, unfetter access and provision for abortion is paramount in this "faith." And abortion is the holy sacrament. Other peoples consciences be damned.

There is little disagreement on when human life begins (or at least there shouldn't be scientifically). The disagreement is over when will that life be afforded rights.
Click to expand...

Yet another place we disagree. You and I are the government. Much as it gauls me, my representitive in my government is an idiot. Alas, my idiot
The anger of the left? Evidenced by the huge violent rallies at the local Hobby Lobby?
Where people chant, wave pictures of hungry unwanted children and challenge people trying to get in to make a purchase

Not only do we disagree when life begins - we seem disagree on the definition of life.
It once was when the egg became a fetus. Now it seems to be -

Gomez Addams once had a theory that if you skydive and keeepgoing to smaller and smaller parachutes. Logic dictates you will eventually not need a parachute at all.
Yeah, on it's face it is a ridiculous concept. That my friend is where I see the contraception is murder notion. A smaller and smaller parachute.

You never answered the big picture questions of are you in lockstep with "corporations are people" and had Lester Maddox used religion as his argument he wouldn't have had to serve those people chicken.
That is a concept championed by none other than Rand Paul . In other words, Neo Segregation/ Confederacy . To my eyes, the slippery slope of this ruling goes there too.
Do you favor that?
 
57Brave said:
(1) Yet another place we disagree. You and I are the government. Much as it gauls me, my representitive in my government is an idiot. Alas, my idiot

(2) The anger of the left? Evidenced by the huge violent rallies at the local Hobby Lobby?
Where people chant, wave pictures of hungry unwanted children and challenge people trying to get in to make a purchase

(3) Not only do we disagree when life begins - we seem disagree on the definition of life.
It once was when the egg became a fetus. Now it seems to be -

(4) Gomez Addams once had a theory that if you skydive and keeepgoing to smaller and smaller parachutes. Logic dictates you will eventually not need a parachute at all.
Yeah, on it's face it is a ridiculous concept. That my friend is where I see the contraception is murder notion. A smaller and smaller parachute.

(5) You never answered the big picture questions of are you in lockstep with "corporations are people" and had Lester Maddox used religion as his argument he wouldn't have had to serve those people chicken.

(6) That is a concept championed by none other than Rand Paul . In other words, Neo Segregation/ Confederacy . To my eyes, the slippery slope of this ruling goes there too.

(7) Do you favor that?
Click to expand...

I'll address the 7 points above later tonight.

(1) You make an unnecessary inference. I didn't define "government." No, you assume a definition for me and then chose to say we disagreed. Why did you do that? For the moment let's just say we share the same definition. That wouldn't change my point. You like the government (you and me through voting) picking its religious sensibilities in forming its law mandating its choices.

Beyond that, based on your view, SCOTUS is 57 and 57 has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. And you are galled. I understand.

(2) Is anger only displayed in "huge violent protests"? I think the second half of (2) is an allusion to protestors at abortion clinics. Am i right?

(3) I believe that a distinctive human life begins at conception. If you want to argue otherwise, that's okay. I'll just think you are wrong. If you want to say that Hobby Lobby is misguided in thinking that these 4 contraceptives have the potential to block a fertilized human egg (i.e., a human life) from implanting on the wall of the womb, then argue that. And if that scientifically is without a doubt misguided, then SCOTUS has allowed this misguided view. And again, go donate to a fund to help these women employees of Hobby Lobby purchase their choice of these four contraceptives. Or let these women change jobs. Or better yet, keep pushing for single payer where you and your fellow believers can get everything you want per the dictates of your faith commitments.

(4) I don't think contraception is murder. If these 4 contraceptives in no way can block a fertilized egg from implanting, then I'll agree with you that Hobby Lobby is misguided. Nevertheless, I still don't advocate mandating something against their consciences on questions about life. As I've said previously I think we need to move away altogether from employer provided health insurance. But such perks came into play when previous generations of politicians push for wage limits and companies had to look for other ways to try to attract employees.

And that leads me to another point - if this is such a big deal, then Hobby Lobby and others who don't provide these massively important certain contraceptives won't be attractive to potential employees. And it will hurt Hobby Lobby. That ought to be a plus for you.

(5) I am not in lockstep, nor is this ruling. The justices seem to make that clear in the narrowness of their ruling. See the First Things overview that I provided. The ruling "limits its holding to closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby..." And again, that Lester allusion is lost on me and possibly others reading this scintillating discussion. So again, if you don't mind, explain that some more. Maybe you are trying to play the racism card or something. If so, that's unnecessary fear-mongering from the left, imho. It rallies the troops but it really doesn't honestly deal with the matter at hand.

(6) Your eyes want to see the worse and I thought we couldn't use slippery slope arguments around here - or is that conservatives aren't allowed. ;-)

(7) Do I favor segregation, Jim Crow laws, and racism? No. Do you?
 
Contraceptive coverage is already free and covered by the Public. It's called abstinence. And in the case you don't like that, condoms are given out for free at your local public health office.

Next.
 
BedellBrave said:
We need to move away from Employer provided insurance anyway, imho.
Click to expand...

If only there was some large entity that could facilitate this...

Personally, I don't think this decision is that bad. I can understand the legal argument on both sides, and I think this case has a much more narrow application than most people seem to be assuming. I'm sure we will get a fair amount of "religious" claims for dumb stuff, but I would hope most of that stuff is dismissed pretty quickly.
 
Carp said:
Contraceptive coverage is already free and covered by the Public. It's called abstinence. And in the case you don't like that, condoms are given out for free at your local public health office.

Next.
Click to expand...

You do realize that plenty of women use birth control for things other than to **** right? My sister for example before birth control had debilitating cramps. Birth control helps keep them under control and hurt less. Others I know use it as a security blanket, condoms fail. Others still I'm sure have their reasons for taking it. For me they could not cover the cost of BC as long as they cover the cost of doctors visits to get a prescription for BC cause that's what costs way more.
 
Metaphysicist said:
If only there was some large entity that could facilitate this...

Personally, I don't think this decision is that bad. I can understand the legal argument on both sides, and I think this case has a much more narrow application than most people seem to be assuming. I'm sure we will get a fair amount of "religious" claims for dumb stuff, but I would hope most of that stuff is dismissed pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

And I think that's an appropriate response to the ruling and so unlike chest-thumping of conservatives and the hysterical chicken-little stuff of the libs.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I'm sure we will get a fair amount of "religious" claims for dumb stuff, but I would hope most of that stuff is dismissed pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Which is why this slippery slope argument from those of the dissenting opinion is incredibly lame. The hysteria over this whole thing is one of the more absurd things I've seen in a long time on a social issue. Some folks have officially take this whole War on Women thing to crazy town.
 
weso1 said:
Which is why this slippery slope argument from those of the dissenting opinion is incredibly lame. The hysteria over this whole thing is one of the more absurd things I've seen in a long time on a social issue. Some folks have officially take this whole War on Women thing to crazy town.
Click to expand...

The basis of Alito's ruling is the 1993 case where Native Americans secured the right to use Peyote in religious rituals. The bill was championed by (D) in fact carried around the hill by Sen Kennedy.
This ruling is the unforeseen slippery slope of this 1993 bill (forgive me I forget the title) .

No, I don't think off the wall religious exceptions will be summarily dismissed. Based on the "sincere belief" sentence Alito included.
Now, let's define "sincere"
 
BedellBrave said:
True, but does that mean we ought to advocate for more stuff to be forced on others, in violation of their consciences? When it was easy enough to carve out exemptions and make other allowances? Why must we continue at full throttle down this road?

We need to move away from Employer provided insurance anyway, imho.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating anything. We all have consciences and I am certain that everyone here has a problem with one, two, or a thousand things the government does that may be in violation of closely held spiritual beliefs.

Frankly, I think the decision is basically the correct one because these companies had provided birth control options and if they provide something like a Health Savings Account, the point is really moot. There are going to be situations on the margin where Plan B (thinking rape here) should be made available, but I don't know whether that option should fall on the employer.

My problem with the decision is that I think it could provide a foundation for all kinds of crazy crap where people somehow believe their religious beliefs (whatever they may be) trump the basics of the social contract. Alito may say it's specific, but we've seen judicial activism from both ends of the spectrum throughout our country's history and while this individual decision may not qualify as judicial activism (and I don't think it does), it could easily provide a foothold for future judicial activism.
 
57Brave said:
The basis of Alito's ruling is the 1993 case where Native Americans secured the right to use Peyote in religious rituals. The bill was championed by (D) in fact carried around the hill by Sen Kennedy.
This ruling is the unforeseen slippery slope of this 1993 bill (forgive me I forget the title) .

No, I don't think off the wall religious exceptions will be summarily dismissed. Based on the "sincere belief" sentence Alito included.
Now, let's define "sincere"
Click to expand...

I know right. People won't be able to get blood transfusions soon.
 
50PoundHead said:
My problem with the decision is that I think it could provide a foundation for all kinds of crazy crap where people somehow believe their religious beliefs (whatever they may be) trump the basics of the social contract. Alito may say it's specific, but we've seen judicial activism from both ends of the spectrum throughout our country's history and while this individual decision may not qualify as judicial activism (and I don't think it does), it could easily provide a foothold for future judicial activism.
Click to expand...

You could use the slippery slope argument for virtually anything ever. I think the dissenters on this decision have conveniently decided that now all of a sudden slippery slope is something to be concerned with. Where were you with this argument when the court was deciding on the legality of the mandate?

It's not out of the realm of possibility that this decision could have positive impacts in the end. More religious freedom isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact maybe it's a good thing?
 
weso1 said:
You could use the slippery slope argument for virtually anything ever. I think the dissenters on this decision have conveniently decided that now all of a sudden slippery slope is something to be concerned with. Where were you with this argument when the court was deciding on the legality of the mandate?

It's not out of the realm of possibility that this decision could have positive impacts in the end. More religious freedom isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact maybe it's a good thing?
Click to expand...

More freedom is never a good thing!
 
weso1 said:
You could use the slippery slope argument for virtually anything ever. I think the dissenters on this decision have conveniently decided that now all of a sudden slippery slope is something to be concerned with. Where were you with this argument when the court was deciding on the legality of the mandate?

It's not out of the realm of possibility that this decision could have positive impacts in the end. More religious freedom isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact maybe it's a good thing?
Click to expand...

You will note in my comments I said judicial activism comes from both the left and the right and the slippery slope slides in both directions. The applied rule of law is almost always built on previous precedent. In fact, this decision is largely based on a decision handed down in 1993 to allow Native Americans to smoke peyote.

The establishment of this country is based on ordered liberty. The question here is will this decision have a deleterious effect on the order part of the equation. It won't happen overnight, but one of the things that lies at the heart of this decision that isn't being talked about is that the position that corporations are people has been upheld and another brick in that wall goes up. The case is being veiled as a question of religious liberty, but I don't honestly know if that is at the heart of things.

And let's remember--and again this has been proven time and again from regimes from the far left to the far right--without order there is no liberty, or at least a liberty that can be maintained over time.

PS--We have religious liberty and I would say we always have had religious liberty. There is no state church and my guess is the number of denominations that qualify for 501 (c) 3 status is in the multiple hundreds (and many of them aren't Christian). So I don't get the more part of your comment. This decision allows for a more expansive expression of religious liberty, but I don't think it expands religious liberty and a decision in the other direction wouldn't have constricted it.
 
50PoundHead said:
You will note in my comments I said judicial activism comes from both the left and the right and the slippery slope slides in both directions. The applied rule of law is almost always built on previous precedent. In fact, this decision is largely based on a decision handed down in 1993 to allow Native Americans to smoke peyote.

The establishment of this country is based on ordered liberty. The question here is will this decision have a deleterious effect on the order part of the equation. It won't happen overnight, but one of the things that lies at the heart of this decision that isn't being talked about is that the position that corporations are people has been upheld and another brick in that wall goes up. The case is being veiled as a question of religious liberty, but I don't honestly know if that is at the heart of things.

And let's remember--and again this has been proven time and again from regimes from the far left to the far right--without order there is no liberty, or at least a liberty that can be maintained over time.

PS--We have religious liberty and I would say we always have had religious liberty. There is no state church and my guess is the number of denominations that qualify for 501 (c) 3 status is in the multiple hundreds (and many of them aren't Christian). So I don't get the more part of your comment. This decision allows for a more expansive expression of religious liberty, but I don't think it expands religious liberty and a decision in the other direction wouldn't have constricted it.
Click to expand...

I think for a slippery slope argument to not be a logical fallacy there needs to be some reasonable connection that can be shown between point A and point C. Otherwise it's just pure speculation. I just don't see anything there, because this ruling was so case specific.

I just think Meta has the right idea here. There will be some shenanigans, but it nothing significant. I mean this case really isn't significant, when just looking at the actual case and ignoring the outside impacts.

Everyone but anarchists and oppressive tyrants believe in liberty and order coalescing.
 
weso1 said:
I think for a slippery slope argument to not be a logical fallacy there needs to be some reasonable connection that can be shown between point A and point C. Otherwise it's just pure speculation. I just don't see anything there, because this ruling was so case specific.

I just think Meta has the right idea here. There will be some shenanigans, but it nothing significant. I mean this case really isn't significant, when just looking at the actual case and ignoring the outside impacts.

Everyone but anarchists and oppressive tyrants believe in liberty and order coalescing.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll play. When the Native Americans were allowed to smoke peyote as part of their ritual ceremonies per a decision more than 20 years ago, did anyone think it would be used to partially justify a corporation's refusal to provide certain types of birth control at some point in American history?

And of course it's all speculation. You are speculating there will only be shenanigans. I'm speculating it might be more than that.
 
50PoundHead said:
Okay. I'll play. When the Native Americans were allowed to smoke peyote as part of their ritual ceremonies per a decision more than 20 years ago, did anyone think it would be used to partially justify a corporation's refusal to provide certain types of birth control at some point in American history?

And of course it's all speculation. You are speculating there will only be shenanigans. I'm speculating it might be more than that.
Click to expand...

I would hardly call this ruling, 20 years after the peyote ruling, a significant slippery slope instance. It's been 20 years and the only quasi negative impact from the ruling has been to take way 4 out of 20 birth control options for a very specific corporation type. So I'm sorry, but I would argue this fits my point more than it does yours. Again, the actual ruling itself is truly not very impactful on society.

And it's not all speculation. I'm arguing that the specificity of the ruling inherently dismisses the threat of significant slippery slope consequences. So I have reasoning to support my position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top