|
Post by ken on Apr 3, 2014 11:33:20 GMT -6
In summary, You've misconstrued my points, probably intentionally. You have twisted the MJ article to fulfill your weird need to vilify those who've hurt you in the past. You have fabricated laughable bull shit about "the investments as being those by Hobby Lobby" to rebut my accurate assessment of the actual source article. You must be having a really bad day. I still love ya, but this is perhaps your worst post of all time. Is that direct enough for you? Jim Welcome to my side of the world Jim.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 11:47:17 GMT -6
Oh? Actually I was just sitting here thinking that you're acting like a total prick today. I really don't know what crawled up your ass today, Jim. However, your synopsis to Dot that our conversation got off track because of a misconception on my part that you had gone personal is a pretty poor version of the day's events. Your recent devotion to directness leaves little doubt of your opinion of me or what you intended to express. Flitz 1: You took personal offense based solely upon an uncharacteristically sloppy and careless read through of my position. No, I took offense because you went on a page long rant during which you announced your intention to insult me directly, then did so. Prior to that post, we were simply arguing a point. Did I call you "fucking lazy" for ignoring the press that the Senator Ireland case had gotten? Tell you that your black and white, us/them worldview prevented you from recognizing it? Did I assign to you belittling motives that had nothing to do with your position? I have not taken personal offense at all. I was actually kind of excited yesterday because I have the upper hand on the "hypocrisy" side argument. Usually you do not argue from a weak hand. The "directness" was in fun (at your expense of course) and leveled at you because you wrongly took offense and posted an uncharacteristically factually sloppy and personal reply. You've admitted to the sloppiness and I'm presently incredulous that you don't appreciate the source and scope of my attitude yesterday. Therefore, I am positive that the things you say above like, "Actually I was just sitting here thinking that you're acting like a total prick today" or "Your recent devotion to directness leaves little doubt of your opinion of me..." are delivered by you to me in the same vein. I could be wrong, if I am, just remember that I am the calm and even-keeled one. This is something you have mentioned many times over the years. Also, my opinion of you has been conveyed enough times in private correspondence. If you don't understand this, then, well, then you are an idiot. For reals. Pile on Jim. Yes, I remember our past correspondence and meeting. Do you really expect that this mitigates the screed you've been dumped here? Oh wait...I must be just having another irrational flashback and expressing my need to vilify you as a Christian. Whatever. FWIW, I certainly haven't been thinking of you as even-keeled any time recently, but hey...go with that. It works well with your "I am the centrist" meme. Oops...bad use of quotes again. Silly biest. Well, I am a moron who has gone off the deep-end after all, at least if we are going to make a point to get our insults out directly. Also, I appreciate you and Dot's position on the merits of the underlying issue. I've mentioned that many times in this thread. I approach the underlying legal issue from a Constitutional Law perspective and therefore I see this as a complicated and reasonably difficult case because both sides have legitimate claims under the law. You and Dot approach the underlying issue from a feminist perspective and therefore see the issue as an easy one; "why should Green's personal beliefs be allowed to affect the health care choices of women who work for Hobby Lobby in any way at all..." I'm not going to argue against that position because I see the validity of it. Yes, and since Dot and I were arguing essentially the same case, I'm sure you would have unloaded on her as well had you the relational context with her to pull it off. Sometimes people have no fucking clue. Sometimes people have no clue that they have no fucking clue. The latter generally requires a mile-high self-concept. How apropos. Hey--it's all in good fun though, right? Here, for old time's sake, I'll give you my usual list of emoticons to choose from:
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 11:49:50 GMT -6
Here is the solution: The Administration should allow companies and individuals who have sincerely held religious objections a waiver to the ACA's birth control requirements. The administration could then provide funds to PP or a similar organizations to provide free or cheap birth control to the relatively small population of women insured by companies with waivers. I think that those funding mechanisms are already in place. 28 years ago when we were just starting out and did not yet have a family doctor my wife got cheap or free birth control from PP. Jim This answer is so simple. I wonder why it hasn't been viewed as an answer to the question. You do know what PP stands for right? Why do I have a hard time imaging that you would support government money going to/through PP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 13:10:01 GMT -6
This answer is so simple. I wonder why it hasn't been viewed as an answer to the question. You do know what PP stands for right? Why do I have a hard time imaging that you would support government money going to/through PP? Of course I know what PP stands for. You have a hard time imagining that I would favor tax support for PP because you insist on pigeonholing people; me, the Green's, whomever. Sadly this is the case even when the more cognitive part of your brain must remember a lot of my commentary that would make it easy for you to imagine that I would have no problem supporting the solution I laid out above. You're calling me a liar here Eric, here and in your other post. This is new and disappointing. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 13:10:24 GMT -6
Flitz 1: You took personal offense based solely upon an uncharacteristically sloppy and careless read through of my position. No, I took offense because you went on a page long rant during which you announced your intention to insult me directly, then did so. Prior to that post, we were simply arguing a point. Did I call you "fucking lazy" for ignoring the press that the Senator Ireland case had gotten? Tell you that your black and white, us/them worldview prevented you from recognizing it? Did I assign to you belittling motives that had nothing to do with your position? I have not taken personal offense at all. I was actually kind of excited yesterday because I have the upper hand on the "hypocrisy" side argument. Usually you do not argue from a weak hand. The "directness" was in fun (at your expense of course) and leveled at you because you wrongly took offense and posted an uncharacteristically factually sloppy and personal reply. You've admitted to the sloppiness and I'm presently incredulous that you don't appreciate the source and scope of my attitude yesterday. Therefore, I am positive that the things you say above like, "Actually I was just sitting here thinking that you're acting like a total prick today" or "Your recent devotion to directness leaves little doubt of your opinion of me..." are delivered by you to me in the same vein. I could be wrong, if I am, just remember that I am the calm and even-keeled one. This is something you have mentioned many times over the years. Also, my opinion of you has been conveyed enough times in private correspondence. If you don't understand this, then, well, then you are an idiot. For reals. Pile on Jim. Yes, I remember our past correspondence and meeting. Do you really expect that this mitigates the screed you've been dumped here? Oh wait...I must be just having another irrational flashback and expressing my need to vilify you as a Christian. Whatever. FWIW, I certainly haven't been thinking of you as even-keeled any time recently, but hey...go with that. It works well with your "I am the centrist" meme. Oops...bad use of quotes again. Silly biest. Well, I am a moron who has gone off the deep-end after all, at least if we are going to make a point to get our insults out directly. Also, I appreciate you and Dot's position on the merits of the underlying issue. I've mentioned that many times in this thread. I approach the underlying legal issue from a Constitutional Law perspective and therefore I see this as a complicated and reasonably difficult case because both sides have legitimate claims under the law. You and Dot approach the underlying issue from a feminist perspective and therefore see the issue as an easy one; "why should Green's personal beliefs be allowed to affect the health care choices of women who work for Hobby Lobby in any way at all..." I'm not going to argue against that position because I see the validity of it. Yes, and since Dot and I were arguing essentially the same case, I'm sure you would have unloaded on her as well had you the relational context with her to pull it off. Sometimes people have no fucking clue. Sometimes people have no clue that they have no fucking clue. The latter generally requires a mile-high self-concept. How apropos. Hey--it's all in good fun though, right? Here, for old time's sake, I'll give you my usual list of emoticons to choose from: As you wish.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 13:21:26 GMT -6
Geez, Jim. If indeed it's true that the various mutual funds involved in whatever 401K Hobby Lobby provides for employees invest in drug companies objectionable to the Greens, yes of course, Hobby Lobby as a corporation is investing in those companies albeit a wee bit indirectly in one sense since the company's contribution is on the individual employee's behalf.
The MJ story indicated as is typical of retail employer-provided 401K's that the company matches employee contributions. That's how Borders did their 401K when I worked for them.
So, yes, on that basis, Hobby Lobby IS supporting companies its owners purport to object to supporting at all.
As was suggested by FB, I think it was, the Greens don't deserve a pass if they didn't specify that the 401K offered to employees must come from a financial entity that stringently investigates what stocks matched contributions are going to and assures that no such stocks are those of morally objectionable companies.
Retail 401K's don't operate like those offered to professionals. My teacher equivalent was solely my personal contributions. It was my responsibility to look into what companies were supported by the fund selected by the school district and agree to use it or decline and find one I preferred. Some of the fundamentalist Christian teachers invested in funds offered by their church for the very reason that they wanted to be assured their money supported only morally upright companies.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 13:21:31 GMT -6
You do know what PP stands for right? Why do I have a hard time imaging that you would support government money going to/through PP? Of course I know what PP stands for. You have a hard time imagining that I would favor tax support for PP because you insist on pigeonholing people; me, the Green's, whomever. Sadly this is the case even when the more cognitive part of your brain must remember a lot of my commentary that would make it easy for you to imagine that I would have no problem supporting the solution I laid out above. You're calling me a liar here Eric, here and in your other post. This is new and disappointing. Jim My response was to Ken, genius.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 3, 2014 14:03:59 GMT -6
This answer is so simple. I wonder why it hasn't been viewed as an answer to the question. You do know what PP stands for right? Why do I have a hard time imaging that you would support government money going to/through PP? They already do... but I still wonder why it hasn't been viewed as an answer to the question
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 3, 2014 14:13:36 GMT -6
Of course I know what PP stands for. You have a hard time imagining that I would favor tax support for PP because you insist on pigeonholing people; me, the Green's, whomever. Sadly this is the case even when the more cognitive part of your brain must remember a lot of my commentary that would make it easy for you to imagine that I would have no problem supporting the solution I laid out above. You're calling me a liar here Eric, here and in your other post. This is new and disappointing. Jim My response was to Ken, genius. Yes... all of us have made that mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 14:35:03 GMT -6
You do know what PP stands for right? Why do I have a hard time imaging that you would support government money going to/through PP? They already do... but I still wonder why it hasn't been viewed as an answer to the question I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Christian right has been actively opposing funding to Planned Parenthood? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 3, 2014 15:05:46 GMT -6
They already do... but I still wonder why it hasn't been viewed as an answer to the question I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Christian right has been actively opposing funding to Planned Parenthood? Just a thought. Was it about PP? Or was it about abortions? Just a thought, I guess. Are you an avid supporter of Margaret Sanger's positions on eugenics? Or is this just another attempt at:
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 18:28:35 GMT -6
Okay, I guess I just don't perceive how Hobby Lobby has a leg to stand on even if we here were all to agree that certain IUD's and some contraceptives induce abortion. Abortion is legal whether some like that or not, and refusing to provide health insurance that covers abortion-like contraception is legally defensible how?
But then, I lived in a remote area miles from a non-Catholic hospital and knew of women considering tubal ligation after delivering their intended last child who had to drive 50 miles to find a hospital that would do that.
I'm not much in sympathy with the Green family's position obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 7, 2014 22:11:27 GMT -6
Okay, I guess I just don't perceive how Hobby Lobby has a leg to stand on even if we here were all to agree that certain IUD's and some contraceptives induce abortion. Abortion is legal whether some like that or not, and refusing to provide health insurance that covers abortion-like contraception is legally defensible how? But then, I lived in a remote area miles from a non-Catholic hospital and knew of women considering tubal ligation after delivering their intended last child who had to drive 50 miles to find a hospital that would do that. I'm not much in sympathy with the Green family's position obviously. Hi Dot: The part I bolded above is a good question and deserves a serious answer. I can only speak to the legal leg the Greens/Hobby Lobby have to stand on. This reply is not about whether one agrees with the underlying moral position of the Greens/Hobby Lobby. Also, with respect to the legal analysis, it helps to presume that the Greens/Hobby Lobby (and similarly positioned employers) sincerely believe that complying with the ACA and providing coverage for certain types of birth control is an infringement on their right to exercise their religion. Therefore, me and Flitz's "discussion" regarding the Green's sincerity is not initially relevant to the legal question. (Actually, as noted below, it is relevant, but the government is not pushing this issue in court.) This case is being decided by the Supreme Court, and there is a split among underlying circuit courts. It is a tricky one that pits the rights of religious business owners against the will of the federal government. Chapters could be written about the issues, but I'll try to be succinct. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1993. Interestingly, it was introduced by Democrats and signed by Clinton. Under the RFRA a plaintiff like Hobby Lobby can initially defeat the application of a law if they can show that the law "substantially burdens a sincere religious exercise." Congress basically broadened the Free Exercise Clause with the RFRA. If the plaintiff can make that showing then the burden shifts to the government to show that a "compelling interest" in the subject matter of the law exists. The "compelling interest" test requires that the Government prove among other things that the law uses the "least restrictive means" available to advance whatever the compelling interest might be. In the Hobby Lobby case the compelling interest claimed by the government is twofold; public health and gender equality. This kind of "compelling interest" analysis applied to the RFRA is lifted from the whole body of civil rights law which is really a huge body of law. For example, the government making it illegal for me to fire an employee based upon race or gender is constitutional, even though that law arguably might violate my constitutional rights to free exercise and free association. In this example, the government's compelling interest in fair employment practices across race and gender can only be advanced by making gender and race based termination decisions illegal - anything less than that would be ineffective. In the race example, the standard of judicial review is "strict scrutiny" which gives rise to the compelling interest test. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny In the Hobby Lobby case the standard might not have been struct scrutiny except for the fact that the RFRA says it must be. That is why I mentioned that the RFRA broadens the Free Exercise Clause somewhat. In the above legal context, Hobby Lobby has a legal leg to stand on (and may very well win) by proving 1, 2 and one of 3A or 3B below: 1. The ACA substantially burdens a sincerely held religious belief. 2. Hobby Lobby (as a corporation) is protected under the RFRA. 3A. The government has no compelling interest in requiring employers to provide insurance covering all forms of birth control, or 3B. There are less burdensome means to accomplish the government's interest. I think 1 and 2 are gimmes under the facts and law of these cases. 3A is a loser for Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby won on 3B at the circuit court. It is going to be close at the Supreme Court level. The best source for in-depth coverage of the legal (and social) issues that I know of is here: www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/ You can fine the lawyer's briefs and some very pointed and scholarly commentary on the SCOTUS Blog. It is a very valuable resource if one wants to really dig into the nuances. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 7, 2014 22:50:51 GMT -6
Any chance a Hobby Lobby victory would provide useful precedent for the defense of openly discriminatory "religious freedom" laws such as the recent AZ and MS offerings?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 7, 2014 22:56:42 GMT -6
I don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Christian right has been actively opposing funding to Planned Parenthood? Just a thought. Was it about PP? Or was it about abortions? Just a thought, I guess. Are you an avid supporter of Margaret Sanger's positions on eugenics? Or is this just another attempt at: Ken, Why don't you google "defund Planned Parenthood" and see if there is any validity to my contention that the Christian right is busy actively working to defund Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, I'll let you know if I ever come out in favor of eugenics. FWIW, I am strongly in favor of pursuing human (and animal and plant) genetic improvements through carefully controlled science, but certainly not through the sorts of mechanisms that the term eugenics typically implies. FB
|
|