That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Apparently so.Smoove_B wrote:I can't even think straight. They're allowed to create corporate policy based on religious beliefs that impact workers. A corporation...is allowed to create policy based on religious beliefs.
That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.RunningMn9 wrote:Apparently so.Smoove_B wrote:I can't even think straight. They're allowed to create corporate policy based on religious beliefs that impact workers. A corporation...is allowed to create policy based on religious beliefs.
A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
No, it's not.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include corporations, . . . as well as individuals.”
...
HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot “exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this
conclusion. The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputably protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit-making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the Court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599. Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law. States, including those in which the plaintiff corporations were incorporated, authorize corporations to pursue any lawful purpose or business, including the pursuit of profit in conformity with the owners’ religious principles.
How about the Incorporated Man? The first two books were pretty good, and I should get around to reading the third.Smoove_B wrote:I mean...the idea that corporations are people and that some corporations now have the ability to impose religious beliefs on workers. It's like something out of a Douglas Adams novel.
RunningMn9 wrote:No, it's not.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING.
Until today anyway.
I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).Smoove_B wrote:A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
I was just pondering converting to Islam.Pyperkub wrote:I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing closely held corporations to impose Sharia law on their (female) employees.
Masks - we need masks! Bring on the dance of the seven veils!Rip wrote:I was just pondering converting to Islam.Pyperkub wrote:I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing closely held corporations to impose Sharia law on their (female) employees.
Virginity tests for all unmarried female applicants.
Any accusation of sexual harassment must be witnessed by three male employees.
No females allowed to drive company vehicles.
Any theft or misappropriation of company property will result in the offenders hands being cut off.
I will have to work on the rest of my list.
I would like to thank SCOTUS for the refill, my emergency vial of liberal tears was woefully low.
Actually, it's likely to increase the number of abortions.stessier wrote:I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).Smoove_B wrote:A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
"We have really good evidence for that. If you use science here, you're talking about this decision increasing the number of women having abortion if they do not cover emergency contraception and IUDs."
The evidence comes from studies that examined whether rates of abortions fell if women received the most effective methods of contraception, free of charge. In one research project, conducted in the St. Louis area in Missouri, of the 10,000 participating women, 75 percent opted for long-acting methods of contraception such as IUDs or implants, and the rest chose short-acting methods such as pills, hormonal patches or cervical rings.
The results showed that increasing the availability and use of the most effective contraception methods, such as IUDs, reduced abortion rates by 20 percent, Wiebe said.
For GODCORP so loved the shareholders that he gave his one and only subsidiary, Jesus Christ (a Limited Liability Company) that whoever invests in him shall not perish but have profitable quarterly earnings. Now turn in your hymnals to page twenty six, "A mighty fortress is our Walmart".
On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.Kraken wrote:"We have really good evidence for that. If you use science here, you're talking about this decision increasing the number of women having abortion if they do not cover emergency contraception and IUDs."
The evidence comes from studies that examined whether rates of abortions fell if women received the most effective methods of contraception, free of charge. In one research project, conducted in the St. Louis area in Missouri, of the 10,000 participating women, 75 percent opted for long-acting methods of contraception such as IUDs or implants, and the rest chose short-acting methods such as pills, hormonal patches or cervical rings.
The results showed that increasing the availability and use of the most effective contraception methods, such as IUDs, reduced abortion rates by 20 percent, Wiebe said.
Question for you guys: Let's rewind to the day before the SCOTUS decision. Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. Why can't the owner also say that he doesn't believe in these contraceptives and therefore opt out of providing for them? In other words, what is the dividing line between the owner being able to close on Sunday because of his beliefs and not being able to opt out of contraceptives because of his beliefs?stessier wrote:RunningMn9 wrote:No, it's not.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING.
Until today anyway.
Okay, but fast forward to today. Why is Hobby Lobby the person able to do what you said but the owner was previously not able to do so? I'm asking because I genuinely want to know and I'm curious to see if there was another way Hobby Lobby could have chosen to resolve this.RunningMn9 wrote:It's perfectly reasonable for the owner of a company to choose the hours of operation for the company, based on whatever criteria he chooses. It's less reasonable for the owner of a company to impact specific medical choices of his or her employees, for any reason. The owner can make a business decision to not provide insurance to anyone. But to specifically target female employees and to not cover specific medical procedures or medications because you don't believe in them?
That's what's even more confusing about this. If I am interpreting this correctly, the Court essentially said that even if the methods Hobby Lobby disapprove of don't actually function that way, it's enough that Hobby Lobby believes that they do for them to have an objection. Belief in something that isn't true is enough for legal support. I...what in the hell?raydude wrote:On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.
IF anything, there are laws specifying the opposite ("Blue" laws)malchior wrote:That is Apples and Oranges. There is no law specifying the store must be open on Sunday.
Wait, I'm not a medical person, I just read what's on wikipediaSmoove_B wrote:That's what's even more confusing about this. If I am interpreting this correctly, the Court essentially said that even if the methods Hobby Lobby disapprove of don't actually function that way, it's enough that Hobby Lobby believes that they do for them to have an objection. Belief in something that isn't true is enough for legal support. I...what in the hell?raydude wrote:On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.
. Are you saying that it isn't legally true that these contraceptives are, or can be used, post conception? Or are you saying that it isn't legally true that life starts at conception? I use the term "legally" because I'm assuming the Supreme Court is only using legal precedent and stuff.For the two IUDs they're objecting to:"Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking their pills."
All from here.“Prevalent social myth holds that IUDs are abortifacients. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent from the majority opinion in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, subscribed to this belief. Scientists, including developers of IUDs, have believed it. The key element underlying this myth is that IUDs act only at the uterine level, either to prevent implantation or to destroy developing embryos in the uterus before implantation. Today, however, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization, diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and incapacitating them.”
So why would the Supreme Court blindly accept the assertion by the Greens and their fellow plaintiffs that these contraceptive methods cause abortion?
Because all that matters, in this religious freedom case, is that the Greens believe it.
“When the court looks at religion claims,” said Melling, “one of the elements raised is the sincerity of the religious belief. And the court is usually quite deferential to what somebody says is their belief. In that respect, it’s less unusual than people might think that the court didn’t look behind that assertion.”
RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.Smoove_B wrote:According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.
Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.
Probably doesn't need "abortion" in it. Anything where you thought you were saving a human life would probably work.raydude wrote:RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.Smoove_B wrote:According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.
Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.
That's a little over generous of you. While clearly a man is involved - he isn't the one that is pregnant, may not even know that she is, and may never know, not to mention care or deal with it at all.stessier wrote:I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).Smoove_B wrote:A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
Affects or impacts might not be the best words to use. How about "targets"?Unagi wrote:That's a little over generous of you. While clearly a man is involved - he isn't the one that is pregnant, may not even know that she is, and may never know, not to mention care or deal with it at all.stessier wrote:I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).Smoove_B wrote:A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.stessier wrote:That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.
Maybe they aren't trying to prevent 'virgin births', just pregnancies they are not about to go through with or make public.
I don't read the opinion that way, Smoove.Smoove_B wrote:According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.
I'm not sure where this comes from. As I read it, they were explicitly warning that courts can't be in the business of weighing the value of different beliefs. My take was that it's not about the importance saving or not saving human life. It's about a religious belief that you're not supposed to do something, regardless of what that is.stessier wrote:Probably doesn't need "abortion" in it. Anything where you thought you were saving a human life would probably work.raydude wrote:RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.Smoove_B wrote:According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.
Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.
And I appreciate your feedback. IANAL -- I'm only reporting what has been repeated by various media outlets - that this ruling is limited in scope and shouldn't have any impact outside of this case <nudge nudge>. I have no way to academically argue as to why this was a bad case other than to me (an regular dude) it seems wonky. Regarding the vaccination issue - one that I do have academic knowledge about - our existing legal authority comes from a 1905 Supreme Court case. Since this 2014 case involves "whoring it up" and not "the protection of the community against infectious disease", they're clearly different however I don't know legal Kung-Fu and wouldn't make the assumption there isn't a team of lawyers somewhere drooling over the idea of tackling a case from over a hundred years ago that was just used in NYC to craft a ruling.Kurth wrote:I don't read the opinion that way, Smoove.
Kuntz’s ruling drew from a 1905 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state of Massachusetts’ right to fine a citizen $5 for refusing to be vaccinated against smallpox. The man claimed that his religion forbade it, but the Supreme Court ruled that public health concerns take precedence over religious objections.
Which is exactly what the court tried to do with gay marriage and look how wrong they were.Smoove_B wrote:According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.
Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.