|
Post by ken on Apr 8, 2014 6:50:13 GMT -6
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 What in the world does "the Christian right is busy actively working to defund" have to do with the point made by Trout i.e. use PP as "where you can get your abortion pills at" so as not to violate religious convictions? Or is this another attempt to change the subject matter? I wish you would just stick to a subject and stop trying to build "detour" signs
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 8, 2014 7:39:49 GMT -6
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 What in the world does "the Christian right is busy actively working to defund" have to do with the point made by Trout i.e. use PP as "where you can get your abortion pills at" so as not to violate religious convictions? Or is this another attempt to change the subject matter? I wish you would just stick to a subject and stop trying to build "detour" signs You seemed to be endorsing funding of these medications through PP. You have defended efforts to defund PP before, IIRC. I'm just checking on how you justify the two positions. Have you backed off the latter? If so, then just say so.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 8, 2014 8:06:18 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? It might, it depends. No doubt a Hobby Lobby victory might embolden and energize certain plaintiffs, but I don't think that the precedent will be useful in the sense that it makes one side or the other more likely to win when any new religious freedom law is challenged in court. One key point is that Hobby Lobby is going to be decided as a RFRA case, not a straight-up 1st Amendment case. If Hobby Lobby were a 1st Amendment case, the plaintiffs would lose since they are certainly not part of a protected or suspect class and the test for the constitutionality of this portion of the ACA would be "rational relationship" instead of "strict scrutiny." (As you know there is a ton of law behind those shorthand terms) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classificationSo, if the plaintiffs who challenge any "religious freedom" law can make out a RFRA case, then Hobby Lobby might be helpful. That would be odd though, the plaintiffs would basically be saying the state religious freedom law violates their rights under the federal religious freedom law and I'm not sure what facts, under what state law, would support that kind of claim. Assuming that the state religious freedom laws discriminate more traditionally, the court challenges would be based in traditional 1st Amendment grounds, or brought under a different civil rights law or both. The standards set out in whichever civil rights law is the basis for the new action are going to be much more important than the RFRA analysis of Hobby Lobby. The facts are different in other words, so different laws will be applied to defeat the state "religious freedom" laws. A Hobby Lobby win at the Supreme Court level will be another of several wins for individual rights vs. the Government from the Roberts Court. That is encouraging I think, if one is not a fan of state "religious freedom" laws. Jim
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 8, 2014 8:07:06 GMT -6
What in the world does "the Christian right is busy actively working to defund" have to do with the point made by Trout i.e. use PP as "where you can get your abortion pills at" so as not to violate religious convictions? Or is this another attempt to change the subject matter? I wish you would just stick to a subject and stop trying to build "detour" signs You seemed to be endorsing funding of these medications through PP. You have defended efforts to defund PP before, IIRC. I'm just checking on how you justify the two positions. Have you backed off the latter? If so, then just say so. Whether I support PP or not is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Why do you keep trying to change the issue?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 8, 2014 8:35:20 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? It might, it depends. No doubt a Hobby Lobby victory might embolden and energize certain plaintiffs, but I don't think that the precedent will be useful in the sense that it makes one side or the other more likely to win when any new religious freedom law is challenged in court. One key point is that Hobby Lobby is going to be decided as a RFRA case, not a straight-up 1st Amendment case. If Hobby Lobby were a 1st Amendment case, the plaintiffs would lose since they are certainly not part of a protected or suspect class and the test for the constitutionality of this portion of the ACA would be "rational relationship" instead of "strict scrutiny." (As you know there is a ton of law behind those shorthand terms) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classificationSo, if the plaintiffs who challenge any "religious freedom" law can make out a RFRA case, then Hobby Lobby might be helpful. That would be odd though, the plaintiffs would basically be saying the state religious freedom law violates their rights under the federal religious freedom law and I'm not sure what facts, under what state law, would support that kind of claim. Assuming that the state religious freedom laws discriminate more traditionally, the court challenges would be based in traditional 1st Amendment grounds, or brought under a different civil rights law or both. The standards set out in whichever civil rights law is the basis for the new action are going to be much more important than the RFRA analysis of Hobby Lobby. The facts are different in other words, so different laws will be applied to defeat the state "religious freedom" laws. A Hobby Lobby win at the Supreme Court level will be another of several wins for individual rights vs. the Government from the Roberts Court. That is encouraging I think, if one is not a fan of state "religious freedom" laws. Jim FB: Here is an analogy that will put some meat on the bones of my post above. Let's say that a religious baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds. 1. If the state forces the baker to bake the cake based upon a state (or federal statute) the baker would no doubt play both the "new" state-level religious freedom law and the Hobby Lobby/RFRA cards in his defense. In this case, (if the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs win), it might be dispositive in the baker's favor. It might not, the Hobby Lobby opinion certainly would be important. I'm guessing that this is not where you were going with your inquiry. btw, the baker only gets to bring a court case if the state at least threatens to force him to bake the cake. 2. If the gay couple challenges the Baker (and the laws shielding him), then the gay couple will rely upon a civil rights law, or the Constitution to support their claim. Recall that discrimination is only illegal if it violates the Constitution or a statute. The gay couple will select the most appropriate cause of action to support their claim and I can't imagine that it would be the RFRA. In that case, the Hobby Lobby result won't be particularly useful. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 8, 2014 8:46:41 GMT -6
You seemed to be endorsing funding of these medications through PP. You have defended efforts to defund PP before, IIRC. I'm just checking on how you justify the two positions. Have you backed off the latter? If so, then just say so. Whether I support PP or not is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Why do you keep trying to change the issue? Ken, I see FB's point. It is hard to argue the following two things at the same time without looking hypocritical: A. Hobby Lobby should win because an avenue (PP) exists for the government to guarantee distribution of the problematic birth control that is less burdensome on Hobby Lobby's sincere religious beliefs. B. PP should be defunded. The less burdensome alternative has to be real, available, practical etc. for that argument to work under the strict scrutiny analysis required by the RFRA. Also, those two positions appear to be personally inconsistent, which is what is bugging FB and Dot. Maybe you can compartmentalize this and say "PP is going to exist whether I want to fund it or not" but that would be a stretch even for me. Jim
|
|
|
Post by ken on Apr 8, 2014 9:41:15 GMT -6
Whether I support PP or not is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Why do you keep trying to change the issue? Ken, I see FB's point. It is hard to argue the following two things at the same time without looking hypocritical:
A. Hobby Lobby should win because an avenue (PP) exists for the government to guarantee distribution of the problematic birth control that is less burdensome on Hobby Lobby's sincere religious beliefs.
B. PP should be defunded.
The less burdensome alternative has to be real, available, practical etc. for that argument to work under the strict scrutiny analysis required by the RFRA. Also, those two positions appear to be personally inconsistent, which is what is bugging FB and Dot. Maybe you can compartmentalize this and say "PP is going to exist whether I want to fund it or not" but that would be a stretch even for me.
JimI personally see that as two different issues. If I may point out that they are zeroing in on PP instead of looking at it globally as your first statement intimated (if my memory serves correctly) along with PP. This issue was to provide a guarantee distribution. Why is it only about PP? Is PP the only viable entity? Could their be a separate rider that can be purchased by whosoever wants it? Could the Government use the thousands of drug stores to provide it with a doctor prescription? Surely there are more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. On the separate issue of PP. If they were to follow their statement, it would be one thing. It is when they go beyond this statement and the misuse of funds, by pushing and promoting of abortion instead of trying to secure high-quality health care, using monies for political reasons instead of statement purpose, hiding rape and/or incest, and other such things that cause people to want to defund PP. f One would think that if they were hiding rape and/or incest, there would be an outcry from all people. I still see it as separate issues. Thank you for good discussion
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 8, 2014 18:04:12 GMT -6
You seemed to be endorsing funding of these medications through PP. You have defended efforts to defund PP before, IIRC. I'm just checking on how you justify the two positions. Have you backed off the latter? If so, then just say so. Whether I support PP or not is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Why do you keep trying to change the issue? Whether you support PP is not relevant. Whether or not you support defunding PP is, at least when you make the sort of statement you did. Why do you keep acting as if trying to clarify what you are saying (alone or in light of other things you have said) is changing the issue?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 8, 2014 19:15:20 GMT -6
Oh, great! Here we go again with unproven insistence that Planned Parenthood doesn't actually provide the healthcare it claims is its aim.
Geez, Ken, we went through all this on the Corner where it was evident you prefer to believe whatever your bizarre sources insist is true rather than documentation proving that abortions are a very small percentage of the women's services PP provides.
This crap about covering up rape and incest came from those same ridiculously biased sources, which was also clearly demonstrated.
Jim's quite right. Your position is innately contradictory when you suggest that PP can provide the forms of birth control which Hobby Lobby's owners find objectionable. Those of us who remember your insistence that PP isn't the noble organization it wants people to think it is but yet would be an appropriate source of these specific methods of birth control recognize what you're now doing as akin to Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake while we fight to shut down the one bakery that provides it."
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 8, 2014 22:45:14 GMT -6
One would think that if they were hiding rape and/or incest, there would be an outcry from all people. Unless of course the organization in question were the largest Christian denomination.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 9, 2014 7:33:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 9, 2014 9:16:26 GMT -6
Hi Steve, I think that quote about a hearing on Friday is out of place in the actual time line, which make that article completely confusing. The quote must have been made last week and was possibly referring to last Friday, since the Supremes denied to review the case this Tuesday. According to my go-to source, the Supremes unambiguously declined to hear the case, and that is the end of it. www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/case-on-refusal-of-gay-customers-denied/Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 9, 2014 9:26:11 GMT -6
Hi Steve, I think that quote about a hearing on Friday is out of place in the actual time line, which make that article completely confusing. The quote must have been made last week and was possibly referring to last Friday, since the Supremes denied to review the case this Tuesday. According to my go-to source, the Supremes unambiguously declined to hear the case, and that is the end of it. www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/case-on-refusal-of-gay-customers-denied/Jim p.s. According to the SCOTUSBlog, this case raised a new twist. Apparently the photographer originally objected to photographing the gay commitment ceremony on religious grounds. Her lawyers flipped this into an argument that photography is artistic expression and the 1st Amendment prohibits the state from compelling an artist to make an expression. Thus, the photographer is attempting to remove her motivation from the equation. The gay couple had a NM anti-discrimination statute on their side. The gay couple had won up to this point, so their victory stands. From the blog: "A number of state legislatures are passing or at least considering new legislation to give businesses the right to refuse to deal with customers based on religious objections to the customers’ character or lifestyle. For example, such a bill was recently passed in Arizona, but was blocked by a high-profile veto by the governor. At one point, the business in Elane Photography case also raised religious objections, but the studio’s lawyers dropped that issue when they took the case to the Supreme Court. Instead, they argued that, since photography is a form of expression, the government should not be allowed to compel the use of that freedom in ways that the business owners find objectionable. Whether that switch in the nature of the case played a role in the Supreme Court’s denial of review is unknown, except inside the Court; it customarily does not give reasons for such a denial. The New Mexico case involved a ruling that turning away a customer from access to a business open to the public based on the customer’s sexual identity violated the state’s law against discrimination based on sexual orientation."
www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/case-on-refusal-of-gay-customers-denied/
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 9, 2014 10:54:17 GMT -6
On a personal note, I have ten brutal years worth of medical/legal documents sitting in my garage. It's only in retrospect that I realize how those cases affected me physically and mentally. My wife wanted to write a book about educating my son, so I kept them, but I always thought it was a bad idea. She told me last Friday that it's okay to shread everything. It's gonna be tough, the highest and lowest points in my life being cut to pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 7, 2014 20:50:47 GMT -6
Jim,
Did you see this?
I think it becomes harder and harder to argue that Steve Green (Hobby Lobby) is simply a gent who, while not wanting to push his beliefs on anyone, is following his conscience on a matter of health insurance choice.
FB
|
|