the next guy probably gets a couple Supreme Court nominations

7/1/2014 1:17:47 PM

Quote :

"What if a company was owned by a Jew who strictly observed the mitvot, and was strongly opposed to driving on the Sabbath, and therefore wanted to prohibit insurance covering any medical procedures on the sabbath unless it's a life or death situation, and therefore any urgent care visits for your baby on Saturday wouldn't be covered by insurance? Or a baptist owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat any complications that arose from alcohol or tobacco consumption? Or a muslim owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat rape victims, if they had it coming (like they were around men or weren't wearing a burqa)? Or prohibit the treatment of trichinosis? Or a die-hard paleo tree-hugging health-nut who practiced the religion of healthy-living who wanted to prohibit insurance from covering any medical complications that arose from unhealthy living?"

Quote :

"What if a company was owned by a Jew who strictly observed the mitvot, and was strongly opposed to driving on the Sabbath, and therefore wanted to prohibit insurance covering any medical procedures on the sabbath unless it's a life or death situation, and therefore any urgent care visits for your baby on Saturday wouldn't be covered by insurance? Or a baptist owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat any complications that arose from alcohol or tobacco consumption? Or a muslim owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat rape victims, if they had it coming (like they were around men or weren't wearing a burqa)? Or prohibit the treatment of trichinosis? Or a die-hard paleo tree-hugging health-nut who practiced the religion of healthy-living who wanted to prohibit insurance from covering any medical complications that arose from unhealthy living?"

Quote :

"What if a company was owned by a Jew who strictly observed the mitvot, and was strongly opposed to driving on the Sabbath, and therefore wanted to prohibit insurance covering any medical procedures on the sabbath unless it's a life or death situation, and therefore any urgent care visits for your baby on Saturday wouldn't be covered by insurance? Or a baptist owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat any complications that arose from alcohol or tobacco consumption? Or a muslim owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat rape victims, if they had it coming (like they were around men or weren't wearing a burqa)? Or prohibit the treatment of trichinosis? Or a die-hard paleo tree-hugging health-nut who practiced the religion of healthy-living who wanted to prohibit insurance from covering any medical complications that arose from unhealthy living?"

Quote :

"What if a company was owned by a Jew who strictly observed the mitvot, and was strongly opposed to driving on the Sabbath, and therefore wanted to prohibit insurance covering any medical procedures on the sabbath unless it's a life or death situation, and therefore any urgent care visits for your baby on Saturday wouldn't be covered by insurance? Or a baptist owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat any complications that arose from alcohol or tobacco consumption? Or a muslim owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat rape victims, if they had it coming (like they were around men or weren't wearing a burqa)? Or prohibit the treatment of trichinosis? Or a die-hard paleo tree-hugging health-nut who practiced the religion of healthy-living who wanted to prohibit insurance from covering any medical complications that arose from unhealthy living?"

7/1/2014 1:27:19 PM

Quote :

"First action: determne whether the person has a claim involving sincere religious belief whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person's ability to act on that belief if both of those are met, only then must the government prove: that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and that it has persued that interest in the least restrictive manner Requiring a private health insurance to cover birth control, and requiring a private employer who was already been paying for that coverage previously to continue to pay for it, does not place a substantial burden on that person's ability to act on their belief. "

Note that "substantial burden" doesn't require the petitioner to previously be acting on the belief. More specifically, when there is no law requiring you to do X or Y in contravention of your religious beliefs and you do X or Y, there's no burden on your ability to exercise your beliefs because you are free to stop doing X or Y at any time. A law requiring you to continue to do X or Y on the other hand is a burden on your ability to act on your beliefs because you no longer have the option to stop or start as you and your beliefs proscribe.

As an example, consider the Salvation Army, a group which does much good around the country but also does harm based on their own religious leanings (in particular, consider their views on sex work). If you donate to the Salvation Army even though you're an atheist, there's no burden on your ability to practice your religious beliefs, even if you sincerely (like say disco_stu) believe that religion is a blight upon the earth and should never be supported in any way. If the government then subsequently mandated that all citizens must donate at least $35 worth of goods, services or money to the Salvation Army to help the poor, that would be a substantial burden on your ability to practice as you see fit because you are now required to donate to a religious organization and no longer have the choice. The fact that you previously donated should have no bearing at all on whether or not the government should be allowed to force you to donate.

Quote :

"again, the companies aren't providing contraceptives."

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby is self insured. In that case, they would be.

Quote :

"Would you think a Muslim company should be able to go out of its way to make it harder for its non-Mulsim employees to acquire alcohol?"

No, but I would equally not expect a Muslim company to be required to provide me with liquor cupons either.

Quote :

"muslim-owned companies (and jewish, and hindu owned companies) may now change their health insurance to not cover certain gelatin pills. the company i previously worked at was owned by a christian scientist who is now allowed to tell their insurance provider to not cover vacccinations or mental health care"

Nope. The narrowness of the ruling (and my understanding of how the courts have interpreted the RFRA) requires that each of these instances be taken through the court system. The ruling may or may not provide precedent, but the ruling as it stands does nothing to allow this.

Quote :

"And insurance isn't like cars, it's an incentive companies offer by using their clout to negotiate a lower rate than the private market, to replace private health insurance. It should't be viewed as different from buying your own healthcare. It's not a favor the gracious and magnanimous companies are offering."

And like all benefits offered as part of your compensation, if it's not enough for you then you can find another job. Certainly with the ACA in place there is no shortage of companies now offering insurance which provides the specific contraceptives covered by this ruling.

Quote :

"If I were an employee of this company, i'd sue them for changing my healthcare. "

Your employer does this all the time. My health care has changed 3 times in as many years as the company shopped for better rates and then as the insurer had to get into compliance with the ACA. Each time I've gained and lost various benefits. Such is the danger of having someone else buy something for you.

Quote :

"Actually, thinking about Native Americans reminded me of this awesome piece of hypocrisy and religious preference: Justice Antonin Scalia, in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), said using a religious exemption in conflict of a valid law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” "

I'm sorry, how is this hypocrisy? The court made that ruling, and in response, congress passed the RFRA. In other words, the RFRA was designed explicitly to generate this exact outcome. Since the RFRA has been found to be constitutional as it pertains to the federal government, and the Supreme Court's responsibility is to apply the law if the law is constitutional, then this outcome is exactly correct. I'm sure we'll see Harry Reid introducing a bill to repeal or amend the RFRA shortly if this was not his intended outcome when he introduced the legislation 20 years ago.

Quote :

"How does the government even measure "sincerely held religious beliefs"? How does this company claim their belief is sincere, but they've been offering the coverage?"

My understanding is they generally try to avoid it. They try to establish minimum standards like the belief in question being an accepted tenet of the religion and the petitioners being active participants in the religion. My understanding is they try to avoid going deeper into "sincerity". In general, I don't think you'd want them to get any deeper than that. The result would be that every religious institution would be rabidly and fanatically adherent to every tenet and avoid even the slighted whiff of non-compliance lest they be stripped of their religious protections at some future date. Again, imagine if you will a small company run by atheists. They provide college tuition assistance to their employees. Along comes the government and mandates that all businesses must give college assistance to their employees, including employees attending Duke Divinity or BYU. Even if the business had previously provided tuition assistance to students attending those facilities, should that prevent them from being able to challenge the government's forcing them to contribute?

Quote :

"At least people corporations can hold religious beliefs and force others to follow those beliefs now. ... I can't wait for SCOTUS to tell us what else companies can force on you via your compensation package. "

Sorry, who's being forced to adhere to what beliefs now? Are hobby lobby employees being restrained from visiting doctors? Is hobby lobby forcefully removing IUDs from their employees? Since when did "I'm not funding you" become "I'm forcing you the believe the things I believe"? Were that the case, then every time someone objected to state money going to a religious purpose it would be "forcing their beliefs on others". And yes, I'm aware that some religious organizations make that very same argument. Doesn't make it any less wrong.

Quote :

"What if a company was owned by a Jew who strictly observed the mitvot, and was strongly opposed to driving on the Sabbath, and therefore wanted to prohibit insurance covering any medical procedures on the sabbath unless it's a life or death situation, and therefore any urgent care visits for your baby on Saturday wouldn't be covered by insurance? Or a baptist owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat any complications that arose from alcohol or tobacco consumption? Or a muslim owner who wanted to prohibit using medical insurance to treat rape victims, if they had it coming (like they were around men or weren't wearing a burqa)? Or prohibit the treatment of trichinosis? Or a die-hard paleo tree-hugging health-nut who practiced the religion of healthy-living who wanted to prohibit insurance from covering any medical complications that arose from unhealthy living?"

Each case would have to individually be dragged through the courts and present their own arguments as to what compelling state interest is served and why the measure in question is the least restrictive measure to accomplish the same goal.

Of course, you could solve all of this by eliminating the dependency on employer sponsored health care. If the ACA had really been about making health care affordable for Americans, it would have eliminated the tax benefits for companies buying health insurance and would have implemented them for individuals. It would have opened up the markets more and it wouldn't have imposed heavy restrictions on what any insurance plan must offer and thus reduced the pool of available plans. In short, had the ACA actually been about affordable health care, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

7/1/2014 1:42:00 PM

dude, stop with the analogies, they are terrible and you are confusing and misleading yourself because of them

7/1/2014 1:43:58 PM

here's your compensation, oh yeh, but you can't use it to buy xyz, because what I believe in says those things are bad and because I believe that, you must now follow in at least that part of my belief system.

7/1/2014 1:48:15 PM

Quote :

"Of course, you could solve all of this by eliminating the dependency on employer sponsored health care. If the ACA had really been about making health care affordable for Americans, it would have eliminated the tax benefits for companies buying health insurance and would have implemented them for individuals."

The employer-provided healthcare was a product of the free market that the gov. later embraced. The whole idea of health-insurance came about as an employer thing. It's not clear or obvious that giving the tax benefit to employees would have even eliminated the system, or resulted in actual lower costs.

Plus, in modern day america, that tax benefit would just be on the chopping block next Republican president, and individuals don't really have as much power to fight for our tax cuts like corporations do.

Your solution is a non-solution, and doesn't really have any bearing on how terrible this decision is.

Quote :

"if it's not enough for you then you can find another job."

LOL

this is the dumbest tool in the libertarian toolbag. Maybe someone likes their job, it's near their workplace, or family, or whatever, why should they bend over for or ignore crooked bosses and owners, rather than fighting for their rights?

[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2014 1:57:54 PM

Quote :

"Each case would have to individually be dragged through the courts and present their own arguments as to what compelling state interest is served and why the measure in question is the least restrictive measure to accomplish the same goal."

I don't really understand what you're saying here. How are any of those examples any different than the one in question? And this decision just opened the floodgates for examples like those given.

7/1/2014 2:01:54 PM

if u don' like it, then u ken git da hell outta heya!

7/1/2014 2:04:48 PM

Quote :

"if it's not enough for you then you can find another job"

this is a terrible argument, by this argument there should be no worker protections at all and no regulations regarding labor at all. LoneShark might like this terrible society, but no one else wants it.

7/1/2014 2:17:33 PM

Quote :

"dude, stop with the analogies, they are terrible and you are confusing and misleading yourself because of them"

How so. How is requiring an employer to do any of the above different than requiring them to buy specific health insurance policies which cover specific things?

Quote :

"here's your compensation, oh yeh, but you can't use it to buy xyz, because what I believe in says those things are bad and because I believe that, you must now follow in at least that part of my belief system."

More like, "here is your product which I have bought you. It does not have XYZ because what I believe in says those things are bad and because I believe that, I won't buy things that have it. If you want to have XYZ, you will need to buy it with your own money, perhaps with the wages which you are also paid."

Quote :

"Your solution is a non-solution, and doesn't really have any bearing on how terrible this decision is."

That would be because this isn't a terrible decision (except in as much as it's shit-policy meets shit-policy). It's the only correct decision given the laws as passed by congress. There were two ways for this decision to not have come about:

1) The ACA was never passed, and then this wouldn't be an issue.
or
2) The RFRA was never passed, in which case Smith would have been the current standard and precedent for interpretation.

Unfortunately after Smith passed, congress nearly unanimously and with full bi-partisain support passed the RFRA. Then congress decided to get into the business of dictating what third part private products certain private parties must buy for other private parties. If none of that had happened, this wouldn't be an issue. This ruling is the direct result of congress seeking to override a previous supreme court precedent and then subsequently implementing bad laws and policies which trampled on the rights of private citizens and organizations. It was only a matter of time before the two came into conflict.

As a potential alternative, they could have not explicitly carved out an exemption to the ACA for certain religious organizations, and instead applied it equally and consistently across the board. They didn't, so they set their own precedent for having an alternative for forcing private companies to comply with the law.

Quote :

"this is the dumbest tool in the libertarian toolbag. Maybe someone likes their job, it's near their workplace, or family, or whatever, why should they bend over for or ignore crooked bosses and owners, rather than fighting for their rights?"

And why should an employer and owner have to give up their own rights because you like your job and it's convenient for you? You have a right to health insurance. Great go buy it. You have a right to contraceptives. Great go buy it. Who's stopping you? Why does your boss deciding to go into business require them to give up their rights in order that you can have your boss buy you a product from a third party? And if this is such a huge violation of employee rights, why did the law specifically exempt other religious institutions? Are their employees not deserving of the same rights?

Quote :

"I don't really understand what you're saying here. How are any of those examples any different than the one in question? And this decision just opened the floodgates for examples like those given."

Because the ruling was specifically and narrowly tailored to cover this one instance. Each company wanting a new exemption for a new item will need to go through the same court system to get an exemption for their particular interest. It's how the law and the ruling were both written.

Quote :

"this is a terrible argument, by this argument there should be no worker protections at all and no regulations regarding labor at all. LoneShark might like this terrible society, but no one else wants it."

If my pay is insufficient to buy the house I want or the food I have a right to, my options are negotiate for better pay or find another job. If I want life insurance, my options are to negotiate for it as a benefit, pay for it myself or find another job. Why is health insurance any different, especially now that we have the health insurance market place and every employer is required to provide health insurance of some sort?

Edit
---------------

Incidentally, from way back in 2009 when this whole thing was getting started:

Quote :

"And the hell with what YOU want in your insurance. Your benefits will be decided by a panel of politicians, who will determine what services are "necessary". If you are unable medically to have children, you will still pay for maternity care. No plans on doing drugs or becoming a junkie, no family history of alcoholism? Too bad, you will pay for substance abuse coverage. http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=568132"

Admittedly, I didn't expect this to be the first form, but if you didn't see this sort of shit coming, you weren't paying attention. Let the government dictate what services will be covered by health care and your available care is dictated by bureaucrats and law. Some politicians decided 20 years ago that religions get special exemptions from general law, and then later decided that contraceptives weren't essential enough that some people could have an exemption to providing them. As a result, laws and politics have determined what your coverage will have.



[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 2:46 PM. Reason : called it]

7/1/2014 2:30:04 PM

uh, your quote from 2009 is not at all what this is. can you really not see that?

[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 3:31 PM. Reason : its kinda the opposite]

7/1/2014 3:30:41 PM

Quote :

"uh, your quote from 2009 is not at all what this is. can you really not see that?"

It's all part of the same thing. I admitted it wasn't the form I expected it to take, but how can you not see that the whole reason this is even an issue is because bureaucrats decided to get involved in deciding what was and wasn't "essential" health services? Would this be an issue without the ACA and it's pre-existing exemptions for the same products for certain religious organizations? No it would not.

7/1/2014 3:37:23 PM

2009 you said that the government was going to limit your services, but that's the opposite of this. What we have today is some of the protections for services that the government provided, which were not protected before ACA, have been limited by religious individuals.

so, you were wrong...again

7/1/2014 3:40:02 PM

Quote :

"And if this is such a huge violation of employee rights, why did the law specifically exempt other religious institutions?"

One of the most influential lobbies in the world got their way, I guess the law is just.

7/1/2014 3:40:38 PM

yeah, those exemptions were included as a pragmatic approach to get the law passed and not ideological or moral reasons. because they are not exempted for ideological reasons, you can't really use that to also include things that were explicitly not included

7/1/2014 3:42:28 PM

Quote :

" 2009 you said that the government was going to limit your services, but that's the opposite of this. What we have today is some of the protections for services that the government provided, which were not protected before ACA, have been limited by religious individuals. so, you were wrong...again"

I said, and I quote:

"And the hell with what YOU want in your insurance. Your benefits will be decided by a panel of politicians, who will determine what services are "necessary"."

A panel of politicians decided that contraceptives are "necessary".
Another panel of politicians decided that contraceptives are only "necessary" if you don't work for a religious non profit.
Another panel of politicians decided that religious objections should be given special weight and consideration even in the face of broad, non religious law.
A final panel of politicians (well, judges) decided that the combination of the above means that contraceptives are not "necessary" if you also work for a religious for profit company that is privately and closely held.

In short, Hobby Lobby's employees benefits were determined by a panel (or two) of politicians and not by what they wanted.

Quote :

"One of the most influential lobbies in the world got their way, I guess the law is just."

It's almost like the ACA was a really shitty way to accomplish the goal of reforming the health system in America. Who could have seen that coming?

Quote :

"yeah, those exemptions were included as a pragmatic approach to get the law passed and not ideological or moral reasons."

Regardless of whether the exemption was included for pragmatic reasons, the exemption is an exemption for religious purposes. Our laws require equal treatment for all, require religious freedom and give explicit special protections for religious freedoms against general non-religious laws. All of this was in place before the ACA, and the exemption was passed knowing these things were in place. If this outcome was unforeseen, it was only because our politicians weren't paying attention.


You are also missing the more interesting implication of this ruling. The ACA requires every person to obtain ACA approved insurance or pay a penalty. How long before the first individuals bring suit under the RFRA to either obtain a plan that does not cover these contraceptives or get a rebate for their part of the insurance premium that goes towards those services.

7/1/2014 3:59:29 PM

if you are heralding the exemption for some religious organizations as some kind of key part of your argument, you can't also ignore that other organizations were expliclty not included in that exemption in the same law (Hobby Lobby is an organization explicitly not included in the exemption). Your position is logically inconsistent.

[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2014 5:16:08 PM

Even if they were explicitly excluded, by creating the exemption, the government established a less restrictive way of serving the laws interests. In doing so, they demonstrated that the requirement on hobby lobby was not the least restrictive way, and so at that point it was simply a matter of hobby lobby prevailing on the issues of them being burdened (they were) and having standing under the RFRA.

Note that the decision of the court explicitly calls out the exception built into the law as evidence of having a less restrictive way of accomplishing the law's ends:

Quote :

"In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious non profit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage. Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful. "

7/1/2014 5:42:40 PM

Quote :

"they demonstrated that the requirement on hobby lobby was not the least restrictive way"

that only matters if 2 criteria are first met. they were not.

i already explained the if-then nature of the Sherbert Test

[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 5:54 PM. Reason : i'm glad you googled an argument that is starting to be reasonable though]

7/1/2014 5:52:27 PM

Arguing the legal minutiae of this decision is a gigantic waste of time, because it's all based on believing that birth control is the same as an abortion. That's not a "sincerely held religious belief", that's a fucking fantasy, wholly disproven by science, which the US Supreme Court just lended validity to. It's no less absurd than denying blood transfusions or life saving medical care on religious grounds. That's what just happened here, it's that fucked.

[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 7:50 PM. Reason : :]

7/1/2014 7:49:28 PM

Yeah, I kept thinking I was going to get some insight from 1337 b4k4 that might make me change my thinking, but it keeps coming back to this^.

[Edited on July 1, 2014 at 7:58 PM. Reason : Although that^^^ is helpful. Need to chew on this some more.]

7/1/2014 7:57:09 PM

Quote :

"Deuteronomy 15 New International Version (NIV) The Year for Canceling Debts 15 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4 However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, "

Goodbye student loans! Thanks, Hobby Lobby!

7/2/2014 9:56:33 AM

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hobby-lobby-case-myths-debunked

7/2/2014 11:12:24 AM

Quote :

"That's not a "sincerely held religious belief", that's a fucking fantasy, wholly disproven by science, which the US Supreme Court just lended validity to."

They actually didn't lend any validity to it, and expressly refused to:

Quote :

"It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div. , 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does"

and later

Quote :

"This argument dodges the question that RFRA presents (whether the HHS mandate imposes a substantial burden on the ability of the objecting parties to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs ) and instead addresses a very different question that the federal courts have no business addressing (whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable). "

If anything, the validity of the argument was validated when HHS specifically exempted religious organizations. All this ruling did was confirm that the exemptions the government established for non-profit religious corporations applies to for-profit religious corporations.

It's also worth noting that HHS did not challenge the sincerity of the belief.

Quote :

"The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs."

And in fact HHS acknowledged the contraceptives in question may result in the destruction of an embryo:

Quote :

"As we have noted, the Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges, see Brief for HHS in No. 13–354, at 9, n. 4, may result in the destruction of an embryo. "

In short as I said before, given the laws passed by congress, and the exemptions the government (and HHS) put into place already for this exact same scenario for other corporations, this outcome was really the only outcome one could have expected.

7/2/2014 12:37:53 PM

Quote :

" In short as I said before, given the laws passed by congress, and the exemptions the government (and HHS) put into place already for this exact same scenario for other corporations, this outcome was really the only outcome one could have expected. "

That's not really true. It only works if you accepted the twisted belief that this puts an undue burden on the institution, and that it's "easier" for the gov. to cover this in other ways, but of which are untrue. A medical procedure being an option in healthcare isn't a religious persecution. This isn't what the RFRA was designed to protect,and it infringes on individual liberty.

Considering the religious language used by Scalia, it seems obvious this was activist judging, designed to push a religious and conservative viewpoint.

Just look at the tortured reasoning you have to try to come up with to explain how this might make sense, and you'll realize this.

Procedures and practices in medicine change all the time, what's covered is based on modern medical science, and now insurers have to discourage or question certain medical practices for religious peculiarities of employers. There's no reason an employee of a chain of hobby stores needs to be subject to the owner's oddities. The common person is objectively less free because of this ruling, and it sets a precedent for giving corporations more influence of the personal lives of the people that work for them.

It oddly is reflective of the future portrayed in the TV show Continuum.

7/2/2014 1:04:41 PM

Quote :

" It only works if you accepted the twisted belief that this puts an undue burden on the institution, and that it's "easier" for the gov. to cover this in other ways, but of which are untrue."

RFRA does not require that the method used by the government be "easier" just that it be the least restrictive way of accomplishing the goal. Since HHS and congress created an exemption for other religious corporations acknowledging that the law may require them to conflict with their religious beliefs, the government demonstrated that there was a less restrictive way and even implemented that way. Basically, the government has already admitted to Hobby Lobby's claims by exempting other religious corporations from the same requirements.

Quote :

"This isn't what the RFRA was designed to protect,and it infringes on individual liberty."

Which liberty is that? The right to have someone else buy your health care? You do realize that Hobby Lobby could (even before this ruling) eliminate the health insurance benefits for their employees right?

Quote :

"Considering the religious language used by Scalia, it seems obvious this was activist judging, designed to push a religious and conservative viewpoint."

If you had actually read the opinion, you would know both that Alito wrote the opinion, not Scalia and that very little "religious language" was used at all. Even the part quoted further upthread is taken way out of context.

Quote :

"and now insurers have to discourage or question certain medical practices for religious peculiarities of employers."

Not true. Insurers are under no obligations to do anything. Further, for the corporations already exempt, those insurers are still required to cover the treatments at no cost to the employee. The only reason this isn't necessarily true for Hobby Lobby employees right now is because Hobby Lobby still has not be granted the same exemption other religious corporations have. All it takes is a stroke of the pen by HHS and Hobby Lobby employees will have all 20 contraceptives covered again.

Quote :

"There's no reason an employee of a chain of hobby stores needs to be subject to the owner's oddities."

They aren't. They're free to buy their own coverage or to pay out of pocket, or to find a new employer. Hobby Lobby employees are no more subject to the owner's oddities because of this ruling than they are subject to their oddities because Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday.

Quote :

"The common person is objectively less free because of this ruling, and it sets a precedent for giving corporations more influence of the personal lives of the people that work for them."

How is the common person less free? Name the specific freedom which they no longer have as a result of this ruling?

7/2/2014 2:10:13 PM

Quote :

" RFRA does not require that the method used by the government be "easier" just that it be the least restrictive way of accomplishing the goal."

jesus christ, stop misrepresenting RFRA. this is only true if there is a sincere belief and also a substantial burden.

ACA does not impost a substantial burden and Hobby Lobby does not have a sincere belief

Quote :

"Name the specific freedom which they no longer have as a result of this ruling?"

right now those employees will not have insurance pay for many types of birth control, and this opens the door to many other losses

Quote :

" this outcome was really the only outcome one could have expected."

false. RFRA requires decisions to be made based on case law up to that point, which means the court should have decided the belief was not sincere

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2014 2:17:09 PM

The religious right is a well-funded group, it is a very real danger

Meet the Billionaire Brothers You Never Heard of Who Fund the Religious Right

PETER MONTGOMERY JUNE 13, 2014
The Wilks brothers, whose fortune comes from fracking, give tens of millions to right-wing groups and anti-choice "pregnancy centers," anti-LGBT groups, and organizations affiliated with ALEC.

http://prospect.org/article/meet-billionaire-brothers-you-never-heard-who-fund-religious-right

Quote :

"CBN’s Brody reported: “The Wilks brothers worry that America’s declining morals will especially hurt the younger generation, so they’re using the riches that the Lord has blessed them with to back specific goals.” One of those goals may be David Lane’s insistence that politicians make the Bible a primary textbook in public schools. Here’s Dan Wilks speaking to Brody: “I just think we have to make people aware, you know, and bring the Bible back into the school, and start teaching our kids at a younger age, and, uh, you know, and focus on the younger generation.” And here’s Farris: “They’re being taught the other ideas, the gay agenda, every day out in the world so we have to stand up and explain to them that that’s not real, that’s not proper, it’s not right.” That was the first time we had heard of the billionaire Wilks brothers, who have become generous donors to right-wing politicians and Republican Party committees. While both Farris and Dan have given to conservative groups and candidates, it is older brother Farris whose foundation has become a source of massive donations to Religious Right groups and to the Koch brothers’ political network. Farris also funds a network of “pregnancy centers” that refuse, on principle, to talk to single women about contraception. (Married women need to check with their husband and pastor.)"

7/2/2014 2:27:13 PM

Quote :

"jesus christ, stop misrepresenting RFRA. this is only true if there is a sincere belief and also a substantial burden. ACA does not impost a substantial burden and Hobby Lobby does not have a sincere belief"

The court (and for that matter, the government in exempting other religious corporations) found it does. And since the government never challenged the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's beliefs, that was not up for consideration by the supreme court. You do know how the supreme court works right?

Quote :

"right now those employees will not have insurance pay for many types of birth control, and this opens the door to many other losses"

But what is the freedom that has been lost? Hobby Lobby even before this ruling was under no obligation to provide health insurance. What is the specific freedom that has been lost? Are the employees not still able to purchase their own health insurance on the markets?

Quote :

"false. RFRA requires decisions to be made based on case law up to that point, which means the court should have decided the belief was not sincere"

Under what facts entered before the court should they have found the belief insincere? Again, recall that even HHS didn't challenge the sincerity of the belief.

7/2/2014 2:45:21 PM

I love how the religious right gets all bent out of shape regarding a fertilized egg and a clump of cells but is the first to renounce any sort of aid to those in need in society.

7/2/2014 2:48:22 PM

Quote :

"and for that matter, the government in exempting other religious corporations"

i think you meant:
and for that matter, not even the government since they explicitly included organizations like Hobby Lobby as not exempted

Quote :

" But what is the freedom that has been lost? Hobby Lobby even before this ruling was under no obligation to provide health insurance. What is the specific freedom that has been lost? Are the employees not still able to purchase their own health insurance on the markets?"

right now those employees will not have insurance pay for many types of birth control, and this opens the door to many other losses

Quote :

"Under what facts entered before the court should they have found the belief insincere? "

their insurance previously covered it and they didn't give a shit about it before 2012. it's also not a substantial burden.

7/2/2014 2:49:56 PM

Quote :

"and for that matter, not even the government since they explicitly included organizations like Hobby Lobby as not exempted"

And the court found that to be illegal under statutes previously enacted by congress.

Quote :

"right now those employees will not have insurance pay for many types of birth control, and this opens the door to many other losses"

They are still free to buy their own insurance. So again, what rights have been lost? Enumerate the specific right that has been lost. I'll even get you started:

People have a right to X, and as a result of this ruling they no longer have a right to X

solve for X please.

Quote :

" it's also not a substantial burden."

To be clear, you think the choice between being able to freely exercise your religion or paying millions of dollars in fines is not a substantial burden? Then what would you define as a substantial burden?

7/2/2014 3:53:48 PM

Quote :

" So again, what rights have been lost? Enumerate the specific right that has been lost. I'll even get you started:"

1: right now those employees will not have insurance pay for many types of birth control, and
2-infinity: this opens the door to many other losses

Quote :

"To be clear, you think the choice between being able to freely exercise your religion or paying millions of dollars in fines is not a substantial burden? Then what would you define as a substantial burden?"

covering those items does not prevent them from freely exercising their religion, they had no problem freely exercising their religion when their health insurance covered those things previously. it is both not a sincere belief and not a burden because of this.

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 4:03 PM. Reason : &infin]

7/2/2014 3:55:49 PM

Linda Harvey Horrified That Soldiers And Scouts Marched In LGBT Pride Parades

Quote :

"Is anyone who insists on open homosexual behavior in our military the kind of soldier we need? I don’t think so. And here’s the basic issue: no one needs to be doing this behavior in the first place. It’s an insult to fellow soldiers, and in a Boy Scout situation, it’s an insult to the boys. And yes, open that door and there will be a flood of those interested in having sexual contact with young males. It’s the reality that has existed since the beginning of human history, some people insist on this sin and they insist on it with children. It’s the really selfish adults or clueless ones who would expose kids to danger like this. Friends, if you have a son or daughter in the Scouts, remove them as soon as possible. They’re already hearing about this and learning misinformation. This lifestyle is not how anyone is born and it is certainly not gay. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/linda-harvey-horrified-soldiers-and-scouts-marched-lgbt-pride-parades#sthash.8wqRGOww.dpuf"

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2014 4:05:33 PM

Quote :

" covering those items does not prevent them from freely exercising their religion"

7/2/2014 4:12:45 PM

Quote :

"RFRA does not require that the method used by the government be "easier" just that it be the least restrictive way of accomplishing the goal. Since HHS and congress created an exemption for other religious corporations acknowledging that the law may require them to conflict with their religious beliefs, the government demonstrated that there was a less restrictive way and even implemented that way. Basically, the government has already admitted to Hobby Lobby's claims by exempting other religious corporations from the same requirements. "

The exemption for religious groups doesn't admit it's a less restrictive way, that's a very odd way of interpreting that. That exemption was the government using its power to add an extra burden to insurance companies requiring them to eat those costs, as a deference to cultural perceptions of churches. There's no inherently rational reasons church's should get an exemption (it's not a burden to them either), this was just done as a politically expedient fix to put out a fire (that I doubt they anticipated would be used in this case).

You're arguing that it's better for the government to cater to the psychology of religion by letting employers interfere with doctor/patient decisions, and simultaneously requiring insurance companies to eat the costs of offering a service that premiums technically aren't being paid for, instead of just telling companies to stay out of their employees personal lives in what could have been a nod to freedom and the American belief in the pursuit of happiness.

If the same ruling that allows churches to get an exemption also applies to Hobby Lobby, then all that means is that employees still get whatever birth control options they want, it's just that the insurance companies aren't being paid for this coverage. I personally am fine with insurance companies being forced to eat these costs as a solution to this supreme court ruling, they can blame religion for their losses, but I somehow see conservatives fighting this too.

*

Quote :

"Under the new plan, a religiously affiliated institution would not be required to provide contraception coverage. Rather, the institution's insurance company would offer the coverage for free and without raising premiums."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/obama-birth-control-religious-groups-exempted_n_1269587.html

7/2/2014 4:55:13 PM

HHS will change the rule to cover birth control similar to religious institutions now that the court case is over, they just weren't going to offer that concession needlessly because they had a strong case

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2014 5:01:25 PM

Quote :

"They are still free to buy their own insurance.... They can still buy their own birth control."

Yes, technically they can. But freedom is more than technically being able to do something. It's also having the MEANS to do something. Most people don't have the $500-1000 that it costs for an IUD. Thus, their freedom of choice is limited.

7/2/2014 5:14:10 PM

It's odd that Alito noted that the government could just pay for the coverage, but didn't bring up (to my recollection) the fact that the government just required insurance companies to cover that stuff anyway, at a loss, and this in effect is what he was advocating.

^ i think to libertarians and lawyers, all that matters is what's technically possible. Standard of living and quality of life are irrelevant.

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2014 5:20:57 PM

Quote :

"at a loss, and this in effect is what he was advocating."

i think there was some HHS justification that it's cost neutral for the provider

(although i doubt that analysis included "religious" for-profit organizations)

7/2/2014 5:23:35 PM

^ you're right, it is. The cost of 1 pregnancy is way more than the costs of lots of peoples' birth controls.

But still, i don't think this was brought up in the majority opinion.

Regardless, this doesn't fix the problems from the other court cases waiting in the wings that this decision affects.

edit: I wonder though if any insurance company has calculated the actual projected cost of a pool of people using less birth control as a result of no coverage.

Quote :

"Here’s a list of the 149 for-profit companies whose cases are already pending, including several that object to all forms of contraception. Now that the Supreme Court has sanctioned their standing to make those claims and classified the coverage requirement as a substantial burden, they only have to show the sincerity of their beliefs to win. "

list: http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2014 5:27:45 PM

Quote :

"But still, i don't think this was brought up in the majority opinion."

i think i remember the majority opinion mentioning that it was cost nuetral

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 5:31 PM. Reason : spelling whatevs]

7/2/2014 5:31:46 PM

There's been a cost savings demonstrated for employers:

Quote :

"The direct costs of providing contraception as part of a health insurance plan are very low and do not add more than approximately 0.5% to the premium costs per adult enrollee.[6] Studies from three actuarial firms, Buck Consultants, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) have estimated the direct costs of providing contraception coverage. In 1998, Buck Consultants estimated that the direct cost of providing contraceptive benefits averaged $21 per enrollee per year.[7] PwC actuaries completed an analysis using more recent, 2003 data from MedStat for the National Business Group on Health, and determined that a broader range of services (contraceptive services, plus lab and counseling services) would cost approximately $41 per year.[8] The most recent actuarial analysis, completed by the Actuarial Research Corporation in July 2011, using data from 2010, estimated a cost of about $26 per year per enrolled female.[9] However, as indicated by the empirical evidence described above, these direct estimated costs overstate the total premium cost of providing contraceptive coverage. When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero.[10],[11] One study author concluded, "The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money."[12] When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer. Global Health Outcomes developed a model that incorporates costs of contraception, costs of unintended pregnancy, and indirect costs. They find that it saves employers $97 per year per employee to offer a comprehensive contraceptive benefit.[13] Similarly, the PwC actuaries state that after all effects are taken into account, providing contraceptive services is “cost-saving.”[14] "

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

7/2/2014 5:35:23 PM

but saving $97 per year is a substantial burden, they would have to decide how to spend all that money

congress could always just replace or remove RFRA... hahaha who am I kidding lol

[Edited on July 2, 2014 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2014 5:37:00 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/30/dana-loesch-puts-her-own-spin-on-leftist-chants-after-supreme-courts-contraceptive-ruling/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

\/ oh look... throwing insults again without actually responding to content. you are very good at this tactic.

[Edited on July 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM. Reason : ]

7/3/2014 12:06:14 AM

Anyone who posts theblaze.com links without making fun of that place has zero credibility in TSB.

7/3/2014 12:24:21 AM

Quote :

"1: right now those employees will not have insurance pay for many types of birth control, and 2-infinity: this opens the door to many other losses"

So then no actual rights have been lost then. Glad to see we're on the same page.

Quote :

"covering those items does not prevent them from freely exercising their religion, they had no problem freely exercising their religion when their health insurance covered those things previously."

Covering them does not no. Mandating that they cover them or pay penalties on the magnitude of millions of dollars per year on the other hand does. Again, its the difference between you putting money in the salvation army kettle every christmas and the government mandating that you do so, or the difference between a muslim grocery store selling alcohol and the government mandating that they do so. One is not a burden on the free exercise of religion, and the other is.

Quote :

"The exemption for religious groups doesn't admit it's a less restrictive way, that's a very odd way of interpreting that. That exemption was the government using its power to add an extra burden to insurance companies requiring them to eat those costs, as a deference to cultural perceptions of churches."

It was in fact a deference to the religious objections of those institutions. From the opinion, footnote 33:

Quote :

"Nevertheless, as discussed, HHS and the Labor and Treasury Departments authorized the exemp- tion from the contraceptive mandate of group health plans of certain religious employers, and later expanded the exemption to include certain nonprofit organizations with religious objections to contracep- tive coverage. 78 Fed. Reg. 39871. When this was done, the Govern- ment made clear that its objective was to “protec[t]” these religious objectors “from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage.” Ibid."

but the exemption doesn't have to "admit" to being a less restrictive way of accomplishing the government's aims to be so under the RFRA. The RFRA merely requires that the government encroachment on the religious objectors be the least restrictive method available. By making an exemption for other religious institutions that was less restrictive on those institutions, by definition, the burden placed on others not covered by the exemption is not the least restrictive method.

Quote :

"You're arguing that it's better for the government to cater to the psychology of religion by letting employers interfere with doctor/patient decisions, and simultaneously requiring insurance companies to eat the costs of offering a service that premiums technically aren't being paid for, instead of just telling companies to stay out of their employees personal lives in what could have been a nod to freedom and the American belief in the pursuit of happiness. "

If we wanted companies staying out of their employees personal lives, we wouldn't be mandating that companies buy their employees health insurance. By making the companies pay for the health insurance we are by, even if only by the fact of it and not in any law, making them party to their employee's personal lives.

Quote :

"If the same ruling that allows churches to get an exemption also applies to Hobby Lobby, then all that means is that employees still get whatever birth control options they want, it's just that the insurance companies aren't being paid for this coverage. I personally am fine with insurance companies being forced to eat these costs as a solution to this supreme court ruling, they can blame religion for their losses, but I somehow see conservatives fighting this too."

I'm sure they would, but that wasn't a concern for the court to address in this ruling. The government created these laws and created the exemption. The only thing that happened here is that the supreme court found these laws and that exemption combine to create a violation of the RFRA for certain closely held for profit corporations.

Quote :

"Yes, technically they can. But freedom is more than technically being able to do something. It's also having the MEANS to do something. "

It's almost like a right that requires someone else to act on your behalf in order to be exercised is no right at all.

Quote :

"It's odd that Alito noted that the government could just pay for the coverage, but didn't bring up (to my recollection) the fact that the government just required insurance companies to cover that stuff anyway, at a loss, and this in effect is what he was advocating. "

Doesn't bring it up except for the 3 paragraphs he spends talking about it. To whit:

Quote :

"In the end, however, we need not rely on the option of a new, government-funded program in order to conclude that the HHS regulations fail the least-restrictive-means test. HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its dis- posal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections. See supra, at 9–10, and nn. 8–9. Under that accommodation, the organization can self- certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services. See 45 CFR §§147.131(b)(4), (c)(1); 26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(a)(4), (b). If the organization makes such a certification, the organization’s insurance issuer or third-party administrator must “[e]xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan” and “[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” without imposing “any cost-sharing requirements . . . on the eligi- ble organization, the group health plan, or plan partici- pants or beneficiaries.” 45 CFR §147.131(c)(2); 26 CFR §54.9815–2713A(c)(2).38 We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims.39 At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plain- tiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well.40 The principal dissent identifies no reason why this accommodation would fail to protect the asserted needs of women as effectively as the contraceptive mandate, and there is none.41 Under the accommodation, the plaintiffs’ female employees would continue to receive contraceptive coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved con- traceptives, and they would continue to “face minimal logistical and administrative obstacles,” post, at 28 (inter- nal quotation marks omitted), because their employers’ insurers would be responsible for providing information and coverage, see, e.g., 45 CFR §§147.131(c)–(d); cf. 26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(b), (d). Ironically, it is the dissent’s approach that would “[i]mped[e] women’s receipt of bene- fits by ‘requiring them to take steps to learn about, and to sign up for, a new government funded and administered health benefit,’” post, at 28, because the dissent would effectively compel religious employers to drop health- insurance coverage altogether, leaving their employees to find individual plans on government-run exchanges or elsewhere. This is indeed “scarcely what Congress con- templated.” Ibid."

For the record, since so many commenting appear to have not actually read the option, or appear to have forgotten large chunks of it, here is the link http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

7/3/2014 1:02:29 AM

^^^ you must be confused about what an insult is...

7/3/2014 1:20:08 AM

Quote :

"Covering them does not no. Mandating that they cover them or pay penalties on the magnitude of millions of dollars per year on the other hand does."

no. your problem, and the majority opinion's problem, is using the value of the penalty to determine the amount of the burden. this does not work, because if their insurance covered tho required items they would not pay a penalty and would have nothing obstructing them from freely practicing their religion.

maybe we can use an analogy that you are so fond of and look at your analogy of the athiest and the Salvation Army. If an Atheist person with sincere beliefs pays the Salvation Army to provide a service, and then later that service that I've been paying for becomes a legal requirement, I have no burden and there is nothing stopping me from freely practicing my Athiest religion. Also, if I say that it is suddenly a burden then that is not a sincere belief since it never previously interfered with my ability to freely exercise religion.

7/3/2014 8:01:08 AM

Quote :

"It's almost like a right that requires someone else to act on your behalf in order to be exercised is no right at all."

Actually, it is a right, and it's called economic freedom, which relates to the pursuit of happiness, general welfare, and all that. And yes, without society's assistance, there is none.

From your point of view, it seems, a person with nothing to his name has as much freedom as a CEO of a Fortune 500. When in reality, that person would be homeless and powerless, without society's assistance.

The fact is that certain Hobby Lobby employees, and perhaps their families, now have less economic freedom because its owners decided that particular kinds of birth control are against their beliefs.

7/3/2014 5:51:08 PM