|
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-07-07 14:18:51
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »The comparison to Sharia involves the use of religious law to dictate the secular realm.
Yes, but actually thinking that sharia law would happen in an American business as a result of the Supreme Court ruling is delusional.
Edited for clarification.
So the Supreme Court ruling was only for Christian businesses? Seems fair.
Lol. Yeah, because Muslim's wouldn't seek small accommodations like Hobby Lobby did. They'd go full-on Sharia Law. That totally makes sense.
Don't be daft. If you allow businesses to object on religious grounds then a Muslim business could easily make "small accomodations" that might not rub well with Christians which is why the Supreme Court tried to leave that pathetic caveat in before the ruling.
Said business could cite Sharia law as a basis for their objections and predictably the Supreme Court would shoot it down.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 14:21:05
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:21:16
What Nausi is saying is essentially correct as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.
The current question is, is SCOTUS full of ***and in the corporate pocket?
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 14:22:51
What Nausi is saying is essentially correct as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.
The current question is, is SCOTUS full of ***and in the corporate pocket?
Sure. But suddenly we only care when they make a ruling we don't like? Sounds... lazy.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 14:24:17
What Nausi is saying is essentially correct as far as the SCOTUS is concerned.
The current question is, is SCOTUS full of ***and in the corporate pocket?
Considering they think that Corporations are people, are they then in the people's pocket?
It's about time that somebody reminds the Supreme Court of their place.
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-07-07 14:24:37
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover your anti depressants (or in hobby lobby's case only wishes to cover 80% of anti depressants FDA approved)? Why is it their obligation to cover that for you? Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover a flu shot or cancer treatments or pregnancy?
Where does the line stop?
It is not the company's decision to decide what is covered and what is not, their ONLY responsibility is paying their part of the insurance premiums. They have no responsibility as to what is provided and don't have to feel bad about it. They shouldn't even know. Wrong wrong wrong!
It's entirely their decision what they want to cover. It's your decision to decide if you want to work for them or not.
It's absolutely not their decision. That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
This isn't about a company deciding the terms of its own benefits package. It is about a company seeking to circumvent a legal duty prescribed by statute.
[+]
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-07-07 14:26:40
And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-07-07 14:27:22
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous. That's just crazy.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-07 14:28:35
I expect to be a special exception, even amongst the special exceptions, to prove that I am as equal, or more so, than the general populace.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-07-07 14:28:49
Can't wait for the inevitable skirting around anti-discrimination laws to ban gay people from working at 'Christian' businesses. Oh wai-
Just don't work there!
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 14:28:50
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved.
Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.
So you want corporate law to change completely? That's okay. Good luck with that though. Just make sure to include the corporate exceptions that the guys on your side claim.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:29:16
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover your anti depressants (or in hobby lobby's case only wishes to cover 80% of anti depressants FDA approved)? Why is it their obligation to cover that for you? Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover a flu shot or cancer treatments or pregnancy? Where does the line stop? It is not the company's decision to decide what is covered and what is not, their ONLY responsibility is paying their part of the insurance premiums. They have no responsibility as to what is provided and don't have to feel bad about it. They shouldn't even know. Wrong wrong wrong! It's entirely their decision what they want to cover. It's your decision to decide if you want to work for them or not. It's absolutely not their decision. That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:30:26
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »And if a Muslim accommodation doesn't sit well with me, so what? I don't work for them. Problem solved. Or corporations could stop being people and conform to the laws equally. Enough with the exceptions, it will get ridiculous.
Or, better yet, no special treatment for religions or religious considerations at all. You're free to practice them. You don't get freedom from laws ( or taxes) for practicing them.
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-07-07 14:33:25
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap.
ACA applies to closely-held corporations; it applies to any employer with 50 or more employees. The closely-held issue is only relevant insofar as there are definable owners whose religious beliefs may be vindicated, as opposed to faceless shareholders.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 14:36:06
I'm up for removing all special treatment for even non-profit religious companies, there's no reason they should be able to skip it either.
The ***is complicated enough, without making more loopholes.
edit: *** better yet: single payer.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:36:16
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap. ACA applies to closely-held corporations. The closely-held issue is only relevant insofar as there are definable owners whose religious beliefs may be vindicated, as opposed to faceless shareholders.
Ah. Well then.
Either way, it's all a bunch of ***.
[+]
Ragnarok.Sekundes
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4197
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-07-07 14:49:19
If I understand it correctly, because Hobby Lobby isn't publically traded, ACA doesn't apply directly, and it is their decision. ACA would pickup the tab, but this way Hobby Lobby doesn't have to do so, so they're using religious as a way to lay the ground for further legal loopholes. It's just another step following that corporate personhood crap. ACA applies to closely-held corporations. The closely-held issue is only relevant insofar as there are definable owners whose religious beliefs may be vindicated, as opposed to faceless shareholders.
Ah. Well then.
Either way, it's all a bunch of ***.
If it was okay for them to do this, they wouldn't have had to win a court case to do it, they would have just done it.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-07-07 14:53:59
Well it's a lot like playing the game of monopoly with people who want to cheat and do stuff like borrow from the bank, or rob the bank, or rob other players when they aren't looking or cheat and put five hotels on every property they own.... and they lie and take extra turns and pretend they dropped the dice when it doesn't come up a number they like and then they roll again.
and then you have the rule nazis that want to play by each and every rule in the archaic rule book and they yell and scream and hold the book up and recite page numbers and watch everyone like a hawk and complain about everyone else cheating.
then you also have the rule changers that want to make up new rules all the time throughout the game but they never right them down or make them clear and then when someone else tries to benefit from the rull they take the rule back and change it back to the way it was.
and then you have the people that start loosing real bad and they flip the board over and scream and cry and roll on the floor and demand satisfaction and break all the things and scatter all the piles of money and start fights
and then you have the normal people who would like to enjoy a fun, friendly game of monopoly without all the drama and cheating and rule nazis and sulking....and no matter how many times the board gets flipped they are always hopeful they will one day make it to the end of the game....
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-07 14:58:29
Well it's a lot like playing the game of monopoly with people who want to cheat and do stuff like borrow from the bank, or rob the bank, or rob other players when they aren't looking or cheat and put five hotels on every property they own.... and they lie and take extra turns and pretend they dropped the dice when it doesn't come up a number they like and then they roll again. and then you have the rule nazis that want to play by each and every rule in the archaic rule book and they yell and scream and hold the book up and recite page numbers and watch everyone like a hawk and complain about everyone else cheating. then you also have the rule changers that want to make up new rules all the time throughout the game but they never right them down or make them clear and then when someone else tries to benefit from the rull they take the rule back and change it back to the way it was. and then you have the people that start loosing real bad and they flip the board over and scream and cry and roll on the floor and demand satisfaction and break all the things and scatter all the piles of money and start fights and then you have the normal people who would like to enjoy a fun, friendly game of monopoly without all the drama and cheating and rule nazis and sulking....and no matter how many times the board gets flipped they are always hopeful they will one day make it to the end of the game....
And then there are the people who just wanted to play cards and have a few beers.
[+]
By ScaevolaBahamut 2014-07-07 14:58:58
and then you have the normal people who would like to enjoy a fun, friendly game of monopoly without all the drama and cheating and rule nazis and sulking....and no matter how many times the board gets flipped they are always hopeful they will one day make it to the end of the game....
And those are the dumbest people, because they're the ones who don't even realize they're playing for their lives.
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 15:00:15
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 15:02:59
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like. isn't that the loudest ones?
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 15:04:17
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like. isn't that the loudest ones?
Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead?
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 15:06:52
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like. isn't that the loudest ones?
Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead? I was talking about people, not businesses.
There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.
Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-07 15:09:06
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like. isn't that the loudest ones?
Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead? I was talking about people, not businesses.
There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.
Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.
Even if that's the case, the consequences are being way overblown and it's not like there aren't worse laws on the books for businesses already. People are just complaining because this one is more transparent and involves religion.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-07 15:11:30
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like. isn't that the loudest ones?
Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead? I was talking about people, not businesses.
There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.
Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.
Even if that's the case, the consequences are being way overblown and it's not like there aren't worse laws on the books for businesses already. People are just complaining because this one is more transparent and involves religion. I'd say the consequences are being under blown personally, and people are complaining because it doesn't add up.
Bismarck.Bloodrose
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-07 15:18:56
And then there are the people who only complain about the rules when they aren't in their favor, but totally exploit the ones that they like. isn't that the loudest ones?
Or rather it's everyone, because what successful business doesn't exploit whatever loopholes they can to stay ahead? I was talking about people, not businesses.
There's many, but I'm afraid if we start listing them by name we'll get into further nitpicking and derail from the point.
Overall, we should be able to agree that the decision was the worst for the American people, as a whole.
Even if that's the case, the consequences are being way overblown and it's not like there aren't worse laws on the books for businesses already. People are just complaining because this one is more transparent and involves religion. I'd say the consequences are being under blown personally, and people are complaining because it doesn't add up. I'm complaining because it doesn't add up to a *** under the table while playing a game of monopoly.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11457
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-07 19:01:34
How can anyone with a strait face compare Hobby Lobby to sharia law? Its easy. An awful lot of the punishments in Sharia law come right out of the old testament. The stoning of adulteresses (but not adulterers) comes right to mind.
And some of the worst things about Christianity come RIGHT out of the old testament.
Leviathan.Redherring said: »Does Hobby Lobby insurance cover Viagra for unmarried males? I like that question.
....
Who cares if your employer doesn't want to cover your anti depressants (or in hobby lobby's case only wishes to cover 80% of anti depressants FDA approved)? Why is it their obligation to cover that for you? Waitafrickingminute.
You work for a total compensation package. You don't just work for wages, overtime, vacation, you work for your health care too. The obligation comes from the compensation package they offered when they hired you.
Its a contractual obligation you fool.
[+]
By Fumiku 2014-07-08 03:48:36
Leviathan.Redherring said: »Does Hobby Lobby insurance cover Viagra for unmarried males? I like that question.
Totally read that wrong at 5am...
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13641
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-08 03:56:45
You work for a total compensation package. You don't just work for wages, overtime, vacation, you work for your health care too. The obligation comes from the compensation package they offered when they hired you.
Yes, but the compensation package varies from company to company. It wasn't until recently that there was a health care mandate, so you only worked for your health care if they offered it in the first place. Also, the company was more able to freely choose which health care package they offered, giving them more control over what was in it. None of this would be an issue if it weren't for Obamacare. Heck, all that's really happening with this ruling is giving back a tiny portion of power that was taken away from the companies in the first place.
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.
|
|