George Takei Vs Hobby Lobby

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
言語: JP EN FR DE
日本語版のFFXIVPRO利用したい場合は、上記の"JP"を設定して、又はjp.ffxivpro.comを直接に利用してもいいです
users online
フォーラム » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
First Page 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15
Offline
Posts: 729
By Fumiku 2014-07-06 10:09:17  
Odin.Jassik said: »
FaeQueenCory said: »
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.....
Offline
Posts: 729
By Fumiku 2014-07-06 10:12:40  
FaeQueenCory said: »
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.
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 12:38:10  
Odin.Jassik 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.
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 12:41:13  
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik 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.
[+]
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 12:51:48  
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik 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.
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 13:04:05  
Odin.Jassik 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.
 Lye
Offline
Posts: 1721
By Lye 2014-07-06 13:54:23  
Jetackuu said: »
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?
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 14:00:21  
Lye said: »
Jetackuu said: »
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.
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 14:47:37  
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik 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.
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
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.
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
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.
Offline
Posts: 42703
By Jetackuu 2014-07-06 17:10:25  
Rape is still incredibly common, it doesn't mean people should do it.
[+]
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-06 17:21:31  
Odin.Jassik 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.

Jetackuu said: »
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.
Offline
Posts: 42703
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.
[+]
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-06 19:10:46  
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik 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?

Odin.Jassik said: »
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
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Sekundes
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.
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
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
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Sekundes
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.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42703
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
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Sekundes
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.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42703
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.
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
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
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
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
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Bloodrose
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-06 23:02:45  
Bush's fault, because #thanksObama.
 Ragnarok.Sekundes
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Sekundes
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-06 23:59:28  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
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.
[+]
 Bahamut.Baconwrap
Offline
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
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 05:22:50  
I think somehow my sarcasm was missed.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
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
Offline
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11456
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-07 09:17:26  
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik 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
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Ramyrez
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 09:49:03  
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Odin.Jassik 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.
[+]
First Page 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15