|
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
By Fumiku 2014-07-06 10:09:17
This all ultimately stems from corporations being people...
If corporations aren't people, and thereby are not protected by the Bill of Rights... Cause... They aren't sentient, living entities... Cause they are things...
This would never have happened.
But since corporations are people now... And it appears are more of a person than the people working within it... They have freedom of religion, just like how they have freedom of speech.
Just that as with their freedom of speech not being speech, but is money... So too is their freedom of religion not the right to practice any goddamn religion it pleases... But to force the religious beliefs that "it holds" onto its employees...
Why does no one note how this violates the freedom of religion of the employee?
I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church. It does put the company is a uniquely illegal position of being allowed to pick and choose what part of the law they want to follow and what parts they don't. In this arena, it gives companies greater rights than people. So long as they are required to pay an additional tax toward public coverage that their employees have access to, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The issue is precedence. Companies have free speech and freedom of religion. What's to stop the next case being a business owned by Aryan Christians refusing to employ minorities based on religion?
It's funny, when you can step back and see the left road meet the right road.....
By Fumiku 2014-07-06 10:12:40
This all ultimately stems from corporations being people...
If corporations aren't people, and thereby are not protected by the Bill of Rights... Cause... They aren't sentient, living entities... Cause they are things...
This would never have happened.
But since corporations are people now... And it appears are more of a person than the people working within it... They have freedom of religion, just like how they have freedom of speech.
Just that as with their freedom of speech not being speech, but is money... So too is their freedom of religion not the right to practice any goddamn religion it pleases... But to force the religious beliefs that "it holds" onto its employees...
Why does no one note how this violates the freedom of religion of the employee?
Because the employee is still covered under the ACA. If there wasn't that option, you would have a strong argument.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 12:38:10
I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church.
Hmm I think a good example to this scenario would be circumcision between a Catholic company and Jewish employee.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 12:41:13
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church.
Hmm I think a good example to this scenario would be circumcision between a Catholic company and Jewish employee. circumcision should be outlawed anyway, except for adults, if you're an adult and want your foreskin lopped off, more power to you, that's your own stupidity.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 12:51:48
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church.
Hmm I think a good example to this scenario would be circumcision between a Catholic company and Jewish employee.
Considering the prevalence regardless of religion in the US, a company would have a hard time denying it. It's BS for a company to weasel out of prescription coverage because they don't like it, but it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 13:04:05
Considering the prevalence regardless of religion in the US, a company would have a hard time denying it.
Prevalence doesn't equate medical necessity. So no a company wouldn't have a hard time denying it. EDIT: Just looked into this, a lot of insurances don't cover this procedure. Just learned something lol
The American Academy of Pediatric's statement on the medical procedure is wish-washy:
Quote: After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.
By Lye 2014-07-06 13:54:23
circumcision should be outlawed anyway, except for adults, if you're an adult and want your foreskin lopped off, more power to you, that's your own stupidity. Why?
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 14:00:21
circumcision should be outlawed anyway, except for adults, if you're an adult and want your foreskin lopped off, more power to you, that's your own stupidity. Why?
For starters: it's medically unnecessary in most cases, and I'm not a big fan of unnecessary medical procedures, especially ones that you don't decide to make for yourself.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 14:47:37
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Considering the prevalence regardless of religion in the US, a company would have a hard time denying it.
Prevalence doesn't equate medical necessity. So no a company wouldn't have a hard time denying it. EDIT: Just looked into this, a lot of insurances don't cover this procedure. Just learned something lol
The American Academy of Pediatric's statement on the medical procedure is wish-washy:
Quote: After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.
Unnecessary maybe, but it is still being recommended by doctors for medical reasons and not religious ones. Plan B and other emergency contraceptives are a different ball of wax.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 16:21:34
Ugh did you miss the statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics?
EDIT: this is derailing the topic. Let's keep it to Lord Takei.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 17:05:18
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Ugh did you miss the statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics?
EDIT: this is derailing the topic. Let's keep it to Lord Takei.
Uh, did you miss that it's still incredibly common? It's not a parallel, move on.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 17:10:25
Rape is still incredibly common, it doesn't mean people should do it.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 17:21:31
Uh, did you miss that it's still incredibly common? It's not a parallel, move on.
Any argument you make is automatically invalidated by the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a statement on the matter. So unless you can provide an accredited American medical association, specializing in pediatrics, stating the contrary your argument is invalid.
Rape is still incredibly common, it doesn't mean people should do it. A better example would be HIV prescription protocols. Numerous IDS's still refuse to prescribe ARV's upon diagnosis. The World Health Organization, Journal of the American Medical Association and the International AIDS conference now insist ARV's be given sooner rather than later. That doesn't stop some IDS's from "thinking" ARV'S later is better.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 17:51:58
Bacon, get your *** in the kitchen and make me a bacon on bacon with bacon sammich, pronto.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 19:10:46
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Uh, did you miss that it's still incredibly common? It's not a parallel, move on.
Any argument you make is automatically invalidated by the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a statement on the matter. So unless you can provide an accredited American medical association, specializing in pediatrics, stating the contrary your argument is invalid.
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say, have you been a part of the conversation?
I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church.
How you make the leap to circumcision is iffy at best, but now you're putting words into my mouth about whether circumcision is effective.
It's not the same thing as a company denying coverage for emergency contraception. The skin is gone, get over it, move on.
Ragnarok.Sekundes
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-06 19:44:25
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Any argument you make is automatically invalidated by the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a statement on the matter. So unless you can provide an accredited American medical association, specializing in pediatrics, stating the contrary your argument is invalid. What benefits do they attribute to it? It requires a log in to view.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 20:09:39
There are none. Physicians used to say it helped prevent infection and was more hygienic at one point in tine, however that argument became archaic hence the current statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Ragnarok.Sekundes
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-06 20:38:06
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »There are none. Physicians used to say it helped prevent infection and was more hygenic at one point in fine, however that argument became archaic hence the current statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The quote you put in said "the benefits outweigh the risks". Even if they think that it should be a parent's choice, that still bluntly states it's a good thing.
Edit: I should state that my position on it is that genital mutilation is a bad thing, for either sex.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 20:48:08
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »There are none. Physicians used to say it helped prevent infection and was more hygenic at one point in fine, however that argument became archaic hence the current statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The quote you put in said "the benefits outweigh the risks". Even if they think that it should be a parent's choice, that still bluntly states it's a good thing.
Edit: I should state that my position on it is that genital mutilation is a bad thing, for either sex. no, it just clearly states that there are benefits and risks, and that the benefits outweigh the risk.
To me the benefit of scarfing down a pack of bacon outweigh the risks, but medically they sure as hell don't.
Point being: is that the phrase isn't truly quantified, for all we know it could just mean there's little to no risk.
There is an added benefit of you not having to clean under it, but that's just laziness in this day and age.
The benefit of me lopping off my sister's infected toe and searing the wound shut outweighs the risk of the infection getting worse, but it's still not the best course of action.
It's an unnecessary medical procedure performed on people that have no say in the matter much less understanding, purely for aesthetic or religious purposes in this time, unless there's an abnormality, in which case it should be medically necessary and a moot point. All medically unnecessary procedures should be outlawed on children (especially infants), in my opinion.
edit: I've read over the benefits/risks awhile back, as things change, or if I missed something blatant, Bacon anyone feel free to chime in and correct me.
Ragnarok.Sekundes
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-06 20:59:15
Eh, I agree with your points and I can see how it could be read that way. I just think that wording can be incredibly misleading. If my doctor told me something like that for some kind of medication I'd assume that they felt it would be in my best interest.
Surgery on an infant always has risks so it can't be that there is little to no risk.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 21:01:17
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »Eh, I agree with your points and I can see how it could be read that way. I just think that wording can be incredibly misleading. If my doctor told me something like that for some kind of medication I'd assume that they felt it would be in my best interest.
Surgery on an infant always has risks so it can't be that there is little to no risk. All surgery has risks, but that particular surgery doesn't have many, it's still a *** up thing to do.
Personally I think the wording is personally misleading, vague and I honestly don't trust anyone who phrases things like that, as part of my nature.
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 21:32:27
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »There are none. Physicians used to say it helped prevent infection and was more hygenic at one point in fine, however that argument became archaic hence the current statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The quote you put in said "the benefits outweigh the risks". Even if they think that it should be a parent's choice, that still bluntly states it's a good thing.
Edit: I should state that my position on it is that genital mutilation is a bad thing, for either sex.
Well i think the key part of their statement is that the benefits still don't warrant universal recommendation.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-06 22:34:23
The benefits outweigh the risks, but that doesn't warrant universal recommendation. If those aren't strong words of condemnation, I don't know what are.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-06 23:02:45
Bush's fault, because #thanksObama.
Ragnarok.Sekundes
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-06 23:59:28
The benefits outweigh the risks, but that doesn't warrant universal recommendation. If those aren't strong words of condemnation, I don't know what are.
I dunno... My words would be along the lines of.
Quote: The benefits close to nill if you wash your *** and wear a condom and as a parent you should be ashamed to even consider removing a perfectly functioning portion of your child's body and push an purely cosmetic surgery without considering your kid's rights.
But I should stop derailing.
[+]
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-07 03:39:56
Im all up for freedom of religion. But this is something i dont agree on. It's. A procedure that you so you should be given a choice on.
Edit:Didn't a German court make a ruling on this??
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 05:22:50
I think somehow my sarcasm was missed.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 05:57:14
Suddenly this conversation reminds me of a RL friend. She doesn't seem to mind partial-birth abortions. It's the mother's choice after all. Get a little foreskin involved and she immediately is all "babby's got rights!"
Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11456
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-07 09:17:26
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church. Hmm I think a good example to this scenario would be circumcision between a Catholic company and Jewish employee. You make no sense. How would that be a good example?
We circumcise our males in infancy. For us it isn't a medical procedure, it is a religious ritual. Not preformed by a doctor and not covered by any medical insurance.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 09:49:03
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I don't see this actually violating employees freedom of religion, unless emergency contraceptives are a weekly sacrament for some church. Hmm I think a good example to this scenario would be circumcision between a Catholic company and Jewish employee. You make no sense. How would that be a good example? We circumcise our males in infancy. For us it isn't a medical procedure, it is a religious ritual. Not preformed by a doctor and not covered by any medical insurance.
Personally I find that troubling in and of itself, but whatever. Genital mutilation is okay as long as it's for a good, god-fearing cause.
[+]
Wow he isn't giving up!
George Takei: What if Muslims Owned Hobby Lobby and Tried Imposing Sharia Law on Employees?
Quote: I’ve often said that these conservatives wading into the tricky waters of claiming “religious freedom” to justify breaking (or passing) laws should really be careful what they wish for. It’s advice I’d give to all of those conservatives who are celebrating the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.
And based on his brilliant response to that ruling, George Takei seems to be an individual who understands this as well.
Posting his response on the website for his play Allegiance, Takei made several fantastic points concerning not only the hypocrisy of this ruling, but the dangerous precedent it could set going forward.
Takei wrote, “The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”
“Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).” he continued.
And that’s the slippery slope for which this ruling potentially opens the door. Where will the line be drawn where you say to a company, “Sorry, but your religious beliefs aren’t protected?”
What if someone who owns a corporation is anti-vaccine? What if they then say it’s against their religious beliefs for their company to offer health care that covers vaccines? Based upon this Supreme Court ruling, they could theoretically be within their rights to claim that.
But the best point Takei made was in a direct shot at right-wing ignorance. He wrote, “In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”
As we all know, when these conservatives talk about “religious freedoms” they’re really only referring to Christianity.
He also went on to make the point that Hobby Lobby has invested in companies which produce the morning after pill and it gets much of its inventory from China, a country where forced abortions are common.
In other words, they’re blatant hypocrites.
“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” Takei continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”
Once again, he’s absolutely right.
For some reason conservatives seem to think that a lack of options equates to “more” freedom. Before this ruling, women working at Hobby Lobby had the option to have access to these contraceptives. Now they won’t.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby reject specific types of contraceptives, that’s fine. They don’t have to use them. But now their beliefs are being imposed on women who might not share those same beliefs.
Take a good look, because that’s how an employer can determine an employee’s health care coverage. Because a woman working at Hobby Lobby now can’t get health care coverage for certain contraceptives, not because she’s against them, but because her employer is.
How exactly is that respecting her religious freedoms?
Takei also points out religion is a way many conservatives have tried justifying discrimination against homosexuals. These “religious freedom” bills that essentially give businesses the right to deny service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
The bottom line is, religion has no place in government or in business. If someone wants to express their religious views to others, they need to start a church – not a for-profit corporation.
|
|