|
Post by Jim on May 8, 2014 8:55:11 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 Hi FB: Did I see what? It could be that Green personally would welcome his preferred theocracy with open arms. That does not affect the issues being considered by the Court of course. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 8, 2014 19:39:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 9, 2014 7:16:11 GMT -6
Since the government's case rises and falls on Green's personal beliefs being separate from the Hobby Lobby business entity, this Bible issue is irrelevant to the health care issue before SCOTUS. If it is presented to SCOTUS, I suspect it may help Green's fight against the abortion mandate. This Bible course is definitely heading to SCOTUS at some point, Green has the $$$$ and the religious fervor to carry this out to the end.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 9, 2014 7:51:46 GMT -6
Since the government's case rises and falls on Green's personal beliefs being separate from the Hobby Lobby business entity, this Bible issue is irrelevant to the health care issue before SCOTUS. If it is presented to SCOTUS, I suspect it may help Green's fight against the abortion mandate. This Bible course is definitely heading to SCOTUS at some point, Green has the $$$$ and the religious fervor to carry this out to the end. There are already reasonably clear rules at play. More or less: * Bible taught as truth in public schools: Unconstitutional. * Bilble taught as truth in private school: Not the government's business. * Bible taught as a literature in a public school age-appropriate elective class, Constitutional - presuming the Bible is actually being taught as literature and the class is actually elective and the kids are at the right age to have a literature course and so forth. Obviously # 3 is subject to abuse, which is probably Greene's angle. The Courts will slap him down if required. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 9, 2014 16:36:29 GMT -6
Since the government's case rises and falls on Green's personal beliefs being separate from the Hobby Lobby business entity, this Bible issue is irrelevant to the health care issue before SCOTUS. If it is presented to SCOTUS, I suspect it may help Green's fight against the abortion mandate. This Bible course is definitely heading to SCOTUS at some point, Green has the $$$$ and the religious fervor to carry this out to the end. There are already reasonably clear rules at play. More or less: * Bible taught as truth in public schools: Unconstitutional. * Bilble taught as truth in private school: Not the government's business. * Bible taught as a literature in a public school age-appropriate elective class, Constitutional - presuming the Bible is actually being taught as literature and the class is actually elective and the kids are at the right age to have a literature course and so forth. Obviously # 3 is subject to abuse, which is probably Greene's angle. The Courts will slap him down if required. Jim In Oklahoma? You have way too much faith in the courts. It would take a decade for a suit to even percolate up from there to the SCOTUS, during which time he would be free to proselytize in school.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 30, 2014 13:32:08 GMT -6
Well, The Supremes have issued an opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. Discussion?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jul 1, 2014 7:44:58 GMT -6
So basically SCOTUS has ruled thar privately held companies can assume the religious character of their owners when paying for birth control health costs, how does that differ from privately business owners who choose to discriminate against gays based on religious convictions? Is the reason because the latter is a equal rights issue?
How does the government's supplimental paying for birth control fit into the equation?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 1, 2014 17:22:08 GMT -6
So basically SCOTUS has ruled thar privately held companies can assume the religious character of their owners when paying for birth control health costs, how does that differ from privately business owners who choose to discriminate against gays based on religious convictions? Is the reason because the latter is a equal rights issue? How does the government's supplimental paying for birth control fit into the equation? Hi Steve: The majority opinion was narrowly crafted under a Federal Statute. Basically the Court is saying that the owners of closely held corporations have the same rights as sole proprietors under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA (Signed by Clinton I think) says people (now including closely held corporations) cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs unless the government can genuinely find no other way to achieve a compelling public purpose. So, the RFRA sets up a huge hurdle for the government. One they did not overcome in the majority's view, because of the government programs providing birth control insurance for employees of corporations exempted from the ADA. I suppose the RFRA would be cited by an employer inclined to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, but that employer still ought to lose because the various laws prohibiting race/gender/orientation discrimination are the only way possible to achieve the public interest in eliminating those types of discrimination. the key distinction in Hobby Lobby is that the government did have an alternative available to them. Therefore, the "government's supplemental paying for birth control..." element that you point out is absolutely huge in the majority opinion. In my view this is a pretty modest opinion based in a specific statute that does not at all justify the agonized hand wringing happening on the internet about how corporations can now simply deny women birth control! It is a shame that FB has hung up her keyboard because there are obviously two sides to this story and Ginsburg's dissent is the place to look for the other side. I think that Ginsberg has gone way way over the top this time, but she is certainly a smart judge. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jul 1, 2014 20:22:09 GMT -6
Jim,
The ruling does leave the door open for some corporations(closely held) to deny birth control to women. Whether they do it remains to be seen, but surely some women are at the mercy of those owners. I don't understand how the supplemental government plan works, but if women get their birth control needs met, then it's a wash.
Hobby Lobby had issues with emergency birth control products and services that they perceived as abortion related, not all birth control needs.
Can the Dems make this an election issue?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 2, 2014 7:46:39 GMT -6
Jim, The ruling does leave the door open for some corporations(closely held) to deny birth control to women. Whether they do it remains to be seen, but surely some women are at the mercy of those owners. I don't understand how the supplemental government plan works, but if women get their birth control needs met, then it's a wash. Hobby Lobby had issues with emergency birth control products and services that they perceived as abortion related, not all birth control needs. Can the Dems make this an election issue? Hi Steve: I disagree that the ruling could be interpreted to justify denying anyone birth control of any type desired. For example, just because the employees don't get the four particular forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby objected to for free does not mean that they are denied birth control. Male employees of Hobby Lobby (and all corporations) still have to pay for their own condoms for example, since condoms are not covered under the ACA. We have a crummy lobby I guess. No sane person would say that the ACA denies men access to condoms just because they are not covered by insurance. The Dems will absolutely make this an election issue. War on Women! I guess the question is how will that theme resonate with the population of persuadable voters? Politically it all comes down to who will win the spin battles and the real impact of the actual Hobby Lobby ruling will be completely ignored. Glancing at Left and Right based analysis of the Hobby Lobby case yesterday shows that the battle lines are already entrenched. Interestingly (I think) The 9-0 Supreme Court opinion on Friday curbing the President's overuse of recess appointment power is a huge and important opinion that affects separation of powers and the working of the government to the core. All nine justices checked a power grab by the Executive Branch in. This is a big deal in reality, unlike Hobby Lobby, but it has nowhere near the apparent political impact. It is weird how the mixture of the press, the pundits, the politicians and the people seize on the issues that make for a good and stark political fight, but give much less emphasis to the stuff that has broad, wide reaching actual government consequences.... Jim
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jul 2, 2014 8:05:35 GMT -6
I can more readily agree that corporations ought to be able to regulate employee benefits according to the corporate owners' religious convictions when the nature of the business is religious. For example, if the Greens owned a Christian publishing company, chain of bookstores or ministerial supply, THEN running their corporation in accord with their personal convictions would reasonably be expected.
But a chain of craft supply stores? Not so much.
Maybe it's just that most of the decorative items they sell are gaudy, tasteless crap...
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jul 2, 2014 8:13:42 GMT -6
Jim concludes: "It is weird how the mixture of the press, the pundits, the politicians and the people seize on the issues that make for a good and stark political fight, but give much less emphasis to the stuff that has broad, wide reaching actual government consequences...."
You're talking like an insider, Jim, someone who understands how government ought to work.
The reason why such issues as the Hobby Lobby one get the attention is that they have emotional impact. "Big moneygrubbing corporation wants to dictate its employees' personal lives" or "Godly corporation seeks to offer only morally upright employee benefits" gets people riled who don't really know or understand what makes government do what it's supposed to do. And the politicians feed that gut reaction because they know doing so wins votes.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jul 2, 2014 9:28:18 GMT -6
I believe my insurance paid for most of my vasectomy operation 24 years ago. What I do remember is that the doctor was a fuckin Yankee fan who noticed my New England accent and correctly assumed I was a Sox fan. He's talking baseball and getting interrupted by his nurse in another room while I'm sitting there feeling the local anesthetic wearing off. Those last few stitches were painful. I asked him if that would happen to aYankee fan, he laughed and said something funny that even I found chuckle worthy, even under those circumstances. His name was rather appropriate for his area of expertise - Dr. Lovejoy.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jul 2, 2014 9:48:13 GMT -6
I disagree that the ruling could be interpreted to justify denying anyone birth control of any type desired. For example, just because the employees don't get the four particular forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby objected to for free does not mean that they are denied birth control. Male employees of Hobby Lobby (and all corporations) still have to pay for their own condoms for example, since condoms are not covered under the ACA. We have a crummy lobby I guess. No sane person would say that the ACA denies men access to condoms just because they are not covered by insurance. Jim What would happen if a devote Catholic owner of closely held corporation claimed that his/het religious beliefs forbade the use of all contraceptives? I know this would be an extremely rare circumstance, to the point of being negligible, but it could happen. This sort of nonsense usually finds a way into the court system nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 3, 2014 10:02:26 GMT -6
Jim concludes: "It is weird how the mixture of the press, the pundits, the politicians and the people seize on the issues that make for a good and stark political fight, but give much less emphasis to the stuff that has broad, wide reaching actual government consequences...." You're talking like an insider, Jim, someone who understands how government ought to work. The reason why such issues as the Hobby Lobby one get the attention is that they have emotional impact. "Big moneygrubbing corporation wants to dictate its employees' personal lives" or "Godly corporation seeks to offer only morally upright employee benefits" gets people riled who don't really know or understand what makes government do what it's supposed to do. And the politicians feed that gut reaction because they know doing so wins votes. This is completely true. It bugs me, but it is so true. Jim
|
|