The Next Big Fight, If Hobby Lobby Wins
Two cases were argued at the Supreme Court this week, as the corporations Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties argued that the law (indeed, the First Amendment) should protect a corporation's right of freedom of religion. The government argued that corporations have no religion, and that granting corporations such a right would infringe on their employees' rights, which is what the law should be concerned with protecting.
The legalities involved are complicated, and nobody is sure how the justices will eventually rule (although plenty sure are having fun speculating about the outcome). The complexities cover all sorts of issues: corporate "personhood," the corporate "veil," corporate rights versus the rights of individuals, compensation law, health insurance and the new Obamacare rules, sex, birth control, and abortion.
The more liberal of the justices made their case by the questions they asked, which focused on where the slippery slope of allowing for-profit corporations religious rights would quickly lead: companies refusing to buy health insurance which covered blood transfusions or vaccines, for instance. The conservative justices slanted their questions towards a different slippery slope, asking if the government could require businesses to cover birth control in their insurance plans, what would stop it from requiring abortion coverage?
Others took a different tack, pointing out a slippery slope of their own: if businesses are allowed to ignore certain laws because of religious reasons, it would mean they could refuse to serve certain members of the public for similar religious reasons. The bill in Arizona which allowed for such discrimination against married gay customers would essentially become national law, in other words.
My reaction was a different one, perhaps because I focused on not the absolute bottom of these slippery slopes, but instead on the next legal challenge likely to pop up if Hobby Lobby wins their case. I'm actually surprised that nobody else seems to have even noticed this, and that the announcement caused absolutely no reaction whatsoever in the world of political commentary. But just over a week ago, a blog posting at the Health and Human Services Department (who sets the rules under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) stated that they will be requiring all insurance companies who offer coverage in their policies to the spouses of employees to now offer the same coverage to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples -- equally and without discrimination. Here's the key paragraph:
Today, we are clarifying that, starting next year, if an insurance company offers coverage to opposite-sex spouses, it cannot choose to deny that coverage to same-sex spouses. In other words, insurance companies will not be permitted to discriminate against married same-sex couples when offering coverage. This will further enhance access to health care for all Americans, including those with same-sex spouses.
What this could mean is that any company that wishes to buy insurance for their employees may soon not be able to limit their spousal coverage to just heterosexual marriages.
This should have been somewhat of a bombshell, at least in the conservative media. It would essentially remove the choice of discriminating against same-sex marriages from the company purchasing the insurance. Which, I am sure, some companies are probably going to object to on religious grounds (Hobby Lobby, for instance, seems like a likely candidate). Now, most big multinational corporations already offer such coverage (and most have for years, to "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions," because it is good for business and helps retain and recruit valuable employees), but many smaller corporations still do not offer such benefits. In many states, there is no law which forbids them from discriminating against same-sex spouses when it comes to employee insurance coverage.
However, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases show that there are indeed corporations out there whose owners feel strongly enough about religion in their businesses to object to insurance coverage for same-sex spouses. But, strangely, none of them has so far made a big deal out of the announced rule change -- either in the press or in the courts.
There could be multiple reasons for this. The announcement didn't exactly make a big splash in the news, for one, and it wasn't nearly as anticipated as the birth control coverage rule was. It was merely a blog posting on the H.H.S. site, as far as I know, and I only saw one media story about it, personally. So most people haven't even heard of it yet -- including most business owners, one assumes. Forcing health insurance companies to provide equality in spousal coverage isn't quite the same thing as mandating that all companies buy health insurance for same-sex spouses, although it seems almost guaranteed to lead to a court challenge one way or another. Also, the Hobby Lobby case (which could set a big precedent) was so close to being heard in the Supreme Court that perhaps anyone seeking legal action might have held off to see which way the Hobby Lobby ruling went, before spending time and money fighting marriage equality in corporate health insurance. Or perhaps it is harder to politically justify denying coverage to gay spouses, these days, than it is to deny birth control coverage.
But sooner or later someone's going to notice the new rule. Some business owner is going to be downright offended -- offended enough to file a lawsuit. When the mandated coverage for birth control was announced, it made a much bigger splash in the media, and such cases were quickly filed. With gay spousal coverage, it is obviously going to take a little longer for this to happen -- and it may not happen at all until after the Hobby Lobby verdict is handed down, in a few months. But my guess is that whichever way the court rules, this will be the next court case to be considered. Unlike the question of refusing service to gay couples which arose with the proposed Arizona law, this new rule on gay spouses also deals with health insurance benefits that corporations pay for. In other words, legally it's a lot closer to the Hobby Lobby case than being denied a wedding cake or even being denied coverage for blood transfusions.
It's easy to predict what might happen if Hobby Lobby wins their case, or if businesses are granted any sort of "religious-based" legal ability to avoid non-discrimination laws in general. I had fun doing so in an amusing parable I wrote last month, in fact, when Arizona came very close to legalizing such forms of discrimination.
But that's the end of the road, really. It's the bottom of the slippery slope. What most people are missing right now is where the next step on that road (or the next slip down that slope) will happen. My prediction is that the next legal corporate religion challenge is going to come in the form of a lawsuit against H.H.S., filed by a business that strongly objects to providing coverage to all of its employees' spouses, gay and straight.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Ya know, this world would be a so much better place if people would just mind their own business and quit trying to force other people to live by THEIR standards..
If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide some services due to religious reasons, then let them.
If such services are SOOOO important to people, then those people can choose NOT to work at Hobby Lobby..
If Acme Bakery doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple, then that's their choice. The gay couple then just goes to another bakery..
I mean, isn't the Left all about diversity?? What's with all this, "YOU MUST CONFORM" crap??
Michale
Several points, but basically, the religion of the owners of hobby lobby should have zero influence outside of their own family. They want to be conservative about birth control, that's fine, but they have ZERO right to tell anyone, including their employees, how their healthcare money should be spent. They are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on on people who do no share them, that is the exact opposite of diversity or tolerance.
And also, hobby lobby is being straight up unscientific and stupid, Abortifacients have a very specific scientific and medical definition. Plan B and the IUD do not meet that definition. End of discussion.
You don't have to choose between science and evidence based healthcare, and putting food on the table. This is the 21st century, Hobby can believe whatever it wants, and it has zero right to impose it's archaic bronze age nonsense on anyone.
Several points, but basically, the religion of the owners of hobby lobby should have zero influence outside of their own family. They want to be conservative about birth control, that's fine, but they have ZERO right to tell anyone, including their employees, how their healthcare money should be spent. They are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on on people who do no share them, that is the exact opposite of diversity or tolerance.
And yet, the Left is intolerant of Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs..
It's a circular argument..
And also, hobby lobby is being straight up unscientific and stupid, Abortifacients have a very specific scientific and medical definition. Plan B and the IUD do not meet that definition. End of discussio
Hello!?? McFly!!???
It's RELIGION!! By DEFINITION, it's unscientific...
As for "stupid"?? Hmmmmm Seems pretty intolerant of you, doesn't it??
Hobby can believe whatever it wants, and it has zero right to impose it's archaic bronze age nonsense on anyone.
This is America.. All things being equal, businesses have the right to run their business as THEY see fit.. Not as the Hysterical Left sees fit..
That's the point that ya'all just don't get..
Michale
This is America.. All things being equal, businesses have the right to run their business as THEY see fit.
Nope, they have to abide by scientific realities and government regulation. Businesses lost that particular bit of deference around the turn of the last century. And for good reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
The owners of hobby lobby can believe whatever they want, they can live by whatever standard they want, it's not intolerant to tell them that they can't impose those views on others. If some one works at hobby lobby and doesn't use birth control all the more power to them, I hope they enjoy having kids numbering in the double digits. Contraiwise if someone works at hobby lobby and wants the full range of medical options for their reproductive medical needs, then hobby lobby can't tell them no. Because that would be imposing their personal beliefs on those who do not share them.
The owners of hobby lobby can believe whatever they want, they can live by whatever standard they want, it's not intolerant to tell them that they can't impose those views on others
That's like saying that you go to a specific church yet that church doesn't have the right to espouse their views..
It's ridiculous..
Because that would be imposing their personal beliefs on those who do not share them
If those people don't want those views, then they can CHOOSE not to work at Hobby Lobby..
I own a small computer shop. Using your reasoning, I *MUST* allow my workers to worship Al Qaeda..
Bullshit..
Contraiwise if someone works at hobby lobby and wants the full range of medical options for their reproductive medical needs, then hobby lobby can't tell them no.
Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it.
If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, then you will be wrong in your assessment.
I'll repeat what I said above.
This world would be a lot better off if people would just mind their own business and quit *forcing* their beliefs on others..
Michale
That's like saying that you go to a specific church yet that church doesn't have the right to espouse their views.
No, every person has the right to "espouse" any views they want, what hobby lobby wants to do is enforce those views and impose their fundamentalist beliefs about birth control on others. You're confusing anti-birth control advocacy with anti- birth control enforcement. Hobby can print up all the material it wants about how the IUD is satan, but what it can't do it tell anyone else what medical options they can or cannot pursue.
As I said earlier, you don't have to choose between rational medical care and putting food on the table. You decry any organization getting between you and your doctor, well hobby lobby wants to be right in that space and making sure that people can't get healthcare they disapprove of.
I own a small computer shop. Using your reasoning, I *MUST* allow my workers to worship Al Qaeda.
Well since Al Qaeda isn't a religion, I'm pretty sure you're cool on that one. But you would have to respect a Muslim employee, or a Jewish employee, and you could talk to them about anything you wanted. But what you couldn't do is say "You have to live by my personal religious beliefs or there will be consequences."
This world would be a lot better off if people would just mind their own business and quit *forcing* their beliefs on others.
Agreed, but I don't think you actually know what that means or entails.
Basically what the Left is saying is that you can have a business or you can have your religion, but you can't run your business according to your religion..
And THAT is discrimination...
But let's say you are a political adviser and some Republican comes to you to help them get elected.
You refuse because of your beliefs...
How would you feel if you were FORCED to help the scumbag terrorist Republican to get elected??
It's the same concept...
I know you won't see it that way, but it is EXACTLY the same as the Hobby Lobby issue..
You have a right to run your business as you see fit.. If you want to discriminate against Republicans, you have that right..
Just like Hobby Lobby has the right to run THEIR business per THEIR beliefs..
Why would you deny Hobby Lobby the same rights that you would have??
This is America. People have the right to be bigoted against anyone they choose...
"Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right."
-The Mayor, GHOSTBUSTERS II
:D
Michale
Agreed, but I don't think you actually know what that means or entails.
I know EXACTLY what it means and entails. It is you who lack understanding.
What it means is that if people want to run their business based on their beliefs, then they have that right.
*I* have the right to adjust my actions accordingly..
NO ONE is forced to work at Hobby Lobby...
You would force Hobby Lobby to adhere to YOUR beliefs..
THAT is why you do not understand the meaning of that statement, This world would be a lot better off if people would just mind their own business and quit *forcing* their beliefs on others.
We'll see what the SCOTUS decides. I realize that it's impossible to gauge the results from the questions, but if it were, I would say your position is in peril...
Michale
The interesting thing to me about this case is how the religious right is trying to change the definition of freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion has always meant freedom of belief, not freedom of action.
A quick example. You are free to believe in human sacrifice as part of your religion. But if you reside in the United States, you must obey the laws; in other words, you're not going to be able to sacrifice people.
This example is a little extreme. Perhaps a better one is the Mormon belief in polygamy.
"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878).
Changing this definition would put religions outside of the law. Which, of course, is what some religions want.
-David
But you would have to respect a Muslim employee, or a Jewish employee...
Uh.... This is America..
No, I don't *HAVE* to respect ANYONE..
I CHOOSE to.. Not because I am FORCED to but rather because it's just the way I am..
But NO ONE is required by law to respect anyone.
You HAVE to respect Republicans...
True or false???
Michale
you can't run your business according to your religion.
Pretty much, You can advocate for your religion, you can proselytize about your religion, and you can totally live by your religion. But when you are operating in an exclusively public sphere, you do not have the freedom of action to do as you see fit, especially when your religion seems to be only focused on the sexual lives of other people.
"But let's say you are a political adviser and some Republican comes to you to help them get elected.
You refuse because of your beliefs."
See and now you're confusing being gay with being a Republican. Being a Republican is a choice, Being gay is an integral part of a person that they have zero choice over.
"I don't *HAVE* to respect ANYONE."
And again you're confusing the right of belief and the right of action. Thanks akadjian for bringing that to the fore. You can totally believe whatever you want about religious groups, but try and be anti-semitic to a Jewish person's face in the workplace? You'd get sued out of existence. Which is what I meant about respect.
you do not have the freedom of action to do as you see fit, especially when your religion seems to be only focused on the sexual lives of other peopl
Again, bullshit..
Perhaps you have seen signs around local businesses
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason
But playing Devil's Advocate here..
Let's say the SCOTUS rules as you want them to rule..
And, because Hobby Lobby will not run their business in violation of their beliefs, they close up...
20,000 Americans are immediately put out of work..
And ALL because the Left tried to FORCE Hobby Lobby to adhere to the Left's belief structure..
How would you like your "victory" then??
See and now you're confusing being gay with being a Republican. Being a Republican is a choice, Being gay is an integral part of a person that they have zero choice over.
Ignoring for the moment that there IS science that shows being gay IS a choice (once again, only accepting the science which is supported by your ideology)..... the simple fact is choice is a distinction, not a difference...
You are discriminating against Republicans, pure and simple..
You are trying to justify actions which, by your own statements, are unjustifiable..
If you discriminate against Republicans in your business, you are doing the EXACT same thing that Hobby Lobby is doing..
But, as I have said, SOME discrimination is perfectly acceptable to the Left..
As long as the discrimination is based on THEIR beliefs. To hell with anyone else's beliefs..
And THAT is why the Left is an intolerant group..
Michale
Simple question, Michale ...
Are corporations and religious groups in the U.S. subject to U.S. law?
-David
Are corporations and religious groups in the U.S. subject to U.S. law?
Some....
But there are plenty of exemptions..
And THAT is what the SCOTUS is deciding now. If Hobby Lobby should have an exemption..
MY point is that the Left is all for discrimination and forcing beliefs on others as long as it's the LEFT that gets to do the forcing and discriminating..
The point that ya'all miss is that, in America, people have a RIGHT to be bigoted if they choose to...
Michale
That's ridiculous, Michale.
All I'm arguing for is that these groups should not be outside the law.
If so, aren't the religions determining their own laws?
-David
p.s. And yes, you have a right to be bigoted. What you don't have a right to do is act on it in violation of the law.
All I'm arguing for is that these groups should not be outside the law.
Really!!???
You want to argue the LAW????
Do you HONESTLY comprehend how funny that is??? :D
Regardless of the humor, the simple fact is that it's the law to pay taxes..
Yet Churches have an exemption from that law, don't they??
As I said, that is what the SCOTUS is going to decide. Whether or not Hobby Lobby will get an exemption..
The question is, by no means, settled..
And yes, you have a right to be bigoted. What you don't have a right to do is act on it in violation of the law.
When the law says I must serve ANY customer, regardless of their actions, come talk to me.. :D
When the law says I must retain ANY employee regardless of their actions, ditto.. :D
Until then....
"I run my unit how I run my unit.."
-Col Nathan R Jessup, A FEW GOOD MEN
:D
Michale
"MY point is that the Left is all for discrimination and forcing beliefs on others as long as it's the LEFT that gets to do the forcing and discriminating."
Leaving aside the homophobia that went with the last time you tried to assert this. You're still failing to make your point. Hobby Lobby wants to get between their employees and their doctors, they are doing so because of their fundamentalist religious views. THAT is imposing your beliefs, saying religion is a private matter, and no one else can tell you how to live your life is the exact opposite.
As an aside, I love it when conservatives try and use the whole "the left are the real racists." Because while they may share this kind of nonsense among themselves
http://www.defshepherd.com/2012/10/racism-is-alive-and-well-35-incredibly.html
at least they know they should be deeply ashamed.
Leaving aside the homophobia that went with the last time you tried to assert this.
There is nothing phobic about my statement, homo or otherwise. There is no fear involved whatsoever.
I merely state a fact. There is scientific evidence that shows that being gay is a product of one's environment..
The fact that you refuse to accept this science, makes you a denier, as the Left defines the term.. :D
Hobby Lobby wants to get between their employees and their doctors, they are doing so because of their fundamentalist religious views.
Not at all..
Hobby Lobby is simply saying that, because of their religious beliefs, they will not PAY for such things..
It's a person's CHOICE to not work at Hobby Lobby...
THAT is imposing your beliefs, saying religion is a private matter, and no one else can tell you how to live your life is the exact opposite.
No, forcing Hobby Lobby to go against their religion..
THAT is imposing one's belief...
As an aside, I love it when conservatives try and use the whole "the left are the real racists."
Back 60-80 years ago, this was true. The Left WERE the real racists..
These days, it's only MOST of the Left... There is ample evidence to support such a claim..
But that's a whole nother argument. :D
Michale
Back 60-80 years ago, this was true. The Left WERE the real racists..
Put another way..
If Jim Crow was actually a real person, he would have been a Democrat.
This is undeniably factual...
Michale
And in your world Michale, just what exactly happened to the dixiecrats post 1968?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Cause I have a few theories.
Regardless, my statements still stand as factual...
Whether they morphed or disappeared to NNL, the simple fact is, the Democratic Party was the Party of racism and the KKK...
This is the heritage of your chosen ideology..
Don't blame me because it's not all peaches and cream...
That's why it's always better NOT to be enslaved by Party ideology... Just like it's better NOT to be enslaved by religious dogma...
Gives one a LOT more free will.. And a LOT more fun... :D
Michale
And the current status of your chosen ideology is that you have all the old racists in your party. No one forced conservatives to embrace white supremacists after they were kicked out of the democratic party, but hey just keep on trying to ride that moral high horse. I'm sure you'll get tired of face-planting off of it eventually.
When the law says I must serve ANY customer, regardless of their actions, come talk to me.. :D
When the law says I must retain ANY employee regardless of their actions, ditto.. :D
None of which are part of the Supreme Court case.
The Affordable Care Act, however, is a law.
Anti-Discrimination Laws are laws.
-David
The Affordable Care Act, however, is a law.
Again with "the law"...
"Mr, I AM THE LAW"
-Rob Schneider, JUDGE DREDD
If it was so sacrosanct, why has Obama ignored it a couple dozen times???
Arguing "the law" is THE weakest argument you can make..
Obama and the Democrats have no problem ignoring the law when it suits their agenda..
Ya'all are in a tizzy because a christian group is going about it the PROPER way, the LEGAL way???
Anti-Discrimination Laws are laws.
Yet, the Left has no problem discriminating against those beliefs they don't like.
Funny how that is, eh?? :D
And the current status of your chosen ideology is that you have all the old racists in your party.
That's what makes me so awesome.
I HAVE no ideology.. :D
Like I said, Democrats were the Party of the KKK... Something about stones and glass houses come to mind.. :D
Michale
BTW, how can a corporation have religious beliefs?
A corporation is not a person. It is an entity. By definition it can't have any religious beliefs.
-David
Again with "the law"...
"Mr, I AM THE LAW"
-Rob Schneider, JUDGE DREDD
Sorry, that should have had a ':D' after it... :D
Michale
BTW, how can a corporation have religious beliefs?
Same way a corporation can have by laws and Code Of Ethics and Codes Of Conduct..
That which reflects the beliefs of those who created the corporation...
A corporation is not a person. It is an entity. By definition it can't have any religious beliefs.
Says who??
Using your (lack of) reasoning, a corporation can't have a philosophy or a "dream" or any of another dozen things that corporations have...
Just because YOU don't like the corporation's beliefs doesn't mean they are not allowed to have them...
Michale
A corporation is not a person. It is an entity. By definition it can't have any religious beliefs.
Regardless, THAT is what the SCOTUS is going to decide, now isn't it??
And if they decide in favor of Hobby Lobby, will you concede the point??
Of course not... :D
Michale
A corporation is not a person. It is an entity. By definition it can't have any religious beliefs.
Regardless, THAT is what the SCOTUS is going to decide, now isn't it??
And if they decide in favor of Hobby Lobby, will you concede the point?
Wanna make a wager??? I need a new tank top... :D
Michale
And if they decide in favor of Hobby Lobby, will you concede the point?
I would concede that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
:)
-David
I would concede that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
And that my position is now the law of the land...
:D
Michale
Wanna make a wager??? I need a new tank top... :D
Hmmm. Lemme think.
I'm tempted because I don't think the Supreme Court will accept that corporations can have religious beliefs.
But, I think given the conservative nature of the court, they will try to rule in Hobby Lobby's favor.
In other words, they want to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, but they have to find some obscure way to make it a special case.
Kind of like Bush v. Gore where they made the insane ruling that we're just doing this one time, do not consider it a precedent.
I might be willing to take the straight ruling against Hobby Lobby bet though. Lemme think on it as I think HL is the favorite given the conservative makeup of the court.
Is there a way to get points on a Supreme Court ruling? :)
BTW, how's your bracket doing? I'd of been doing pretty good if Kansas hadn't of lost. As is, mine's pretty busted
-David
Whatsa "bracket"??? :D
I gave up doing Brackets after the Jaguars were so disappointing... :D
Michale
And that my position is now the law of the land...
:D
That the Supreme Courts position is the interpreted law of the land.
You've listed so many positions which are outside of even what the Supreme Court is talking about that you'd have to be more specific before I'd agree with the above statement.
But yes, if you & the Supreme Court were saying the same thing, almost by definition it's the interpreted law. (Of course, that still doesn't necessarily make it "right")
-David
But yes, if you & the Supreme Court were saying the same thing, almost by definition it's the interpreted law. (Of course, that still doesn't necessarily make it "right")
"right" like "truth" is subjective...
That it IS the law would be the objective fact..
As long as we can agree on the facts, there is hope.. :D
Michale
On another note, I don't think there is going to be a lack of Democrats for the MDDOTW awards... :D
A Dem Gun Control advocate busted for gun-running!!!
Michale
Kind of like Bush v. Gore where they made the insane ruling that we're just doing this one time, do not consider it a precedent
For the record, it wasn't an "insane" ruling.
Democrats wanted to count, recount, count again and then count some more until they got the result they wanted..
To allow that, THAT would have been insane...
Michale
There is so much worthy of comment, both in CW's article and in the comments. First, a simple statement: The US Constitution says that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court (SC) says it says. This is subtle, but important.
The SC cannot be wrong. When it overturns a precedent, it is not saying it was wrong. For the years in between a precedent and its overturning, the Constitution "said" what was in the precedent. After overturning, the Constitution says the new thing.
It's one of the ways that Scalia and other Originalists are incorrect. The Constitution is a living document, if for no other reason than the people serving on the SC change and sometimes have different views. And, they cannot be wrong (according to the Constitution).
As much as we might want to discuss the HL case as a religious case, that is a mistake in framing. We may not want to enable companies to have a religion, but arguing this makes it a debate.
Instead, this is purely a compensation issue. My compensation package may include several different components. Companies are encouraged to offer health care by the tax code. The amount of perceived benefit is more in the employee's mind than the cost is in the employer's mind. Companies could instead offer increased pay, but then they'd have to make up the difference.
If my employer is an Orthodox Jew or Muslim, they cannot prevent me from using my paycheck to purchase bacon or other pork products. Similarly, if my employer is a Muslim, Mormon, or 7th Day Adventist (for example), they cannot forbid me to purchase an alcohol-based drink when I'm not at work.
The same should be how we view any health-care compensation. The company pays. How I use my compensation is my business.
I am offended that Roberts is looking to help conservative justices rule in HLs favor by narrowly tailoring the ruling (e.g. closely held vs public corps).
The justices shouldn't go in to a case looking for a specific outcome. I know Scalia has been doing this for about 15 years, but he's senile and should have retired a long time ago.
The conservative justices so much want to come down against the ACA that they are looking for ways to do it without causing havoc. Instead, they should accept it as law (since they did just that) and not look for ways to undermine it.
If my employer is an Orthodox Jew or Muslim, they cannot prevent me from using my paycheck to purchase bacon or other pork products. Similarly, if my employer is a Muslim, Mormon, or 7th Day Adventist (for example), they cannot forbid me to purchase an alcohol-based drink when I'm not at work.
A subtle, yet important distinction..
You are absolutely correct.
If your Muslim company gives you $X.00 to use for health care as you see fit, then they cannot prevent you from using those funds to get a Bacon-ectomy...
On the FLIP SLIDE, however....
If your Muslim company actually PAYS for your health care and each item as it comes up, then they DO have the right to say, "We're not paying for your blasphemous Bacon-ectomy. And if you get one, we will have to cut your head off!!!"
I have no problem with the former. But forcing the company to do the latter against their beliefs is wrong...
I am offended that Roberts is looking to help conservative justices rule in HLs favor by narrowly tailoring the ruling (e.g. closely held vs public corps).
Did you have a problem when Roberts did the same thing to help the liberals so that TrainWreckCare became the law of the land???
I don't think you did..
Why not??
Michale
Employers don't pay for each item as it comes up. They pay for a "package." Essentially, they pay some percentage of one's premium. Therefore, they're not paying for my bacon-ectomy, they're paying a portion of my health care insurance, which I can use to get a bacon-ectomy or anything else (given co-pays, deductibles, etc).
Roberts was actually initially on the against side in the HC verdict. He switched about six weeks before the final verdict. Personally, I think that the ACA did not violate the constitution, therefore he wasn't trying to reach a specific verdict. He was reading the law in light of the constitution.
For what it's worth, I also think they made a mistake wrt the opt-out for Medicaid (given my comment above that the SC can't make mistakes). Technically, they ruled that the Gov't was overly coercive in requiring states to adopt the additional Medicaid coverages or lose all Medicaid dollars.
The Govt does have the right to end a program (at the conceptual level). That is, it would have been within the Govt's authority to end Medicaid completely and then to install a new program (call it Medicaid 2.0) that requires everything in the ACA and then to give the states the right to accept or refuse it all. Congress simply did not see that this portion of the law would be challenged legally. Their oversight.
Employers don't pay for each item as it comes up. They pay for a "package." Essentially, they pay some percentage of one's premium. Therefore, they're not paying for my bacon-ectomy, they're paying a portion of my health care insurance, which I can use to get a bacon-ectomy or anything else (given co-pays, deductibles, etc).
Agreed. Yet they have a say in what that package includes.. And they have a right to say that they won't pay for any part of any package that has a bacon-ectomy in it..
Now, if you REALLY want to muddy the waters :D what do you think about an insurance company that won't OFFER any package with a bacon-ectomy due to religious reasons.. :D
Personally, I think that the ACA did not violate the constitution,
So, you believe that the government has the right to force a citizen to initiate commerce??
Or do you buy into the argument that the mandate of TWC is a tax??
Either way, it's the slipperiest of slippery slope arguments..
Michale
Let's be clear..
Hobby Lobby isn't saying that it's employees cannot have an abortion or cannot use contraceptives or anything of the sort....
Hobby Lobby is simply saying that THEY are not going to pay for it or help pay for it.
I honestly can't see the problem with that.
Michale
As a general rule, I don't necessarily buy slippery slope cautions. Nonetheless, I consider it a tax. The Tax by any other Name precedent (I'm not looking that SC case up, but it's there).
There are more arguments to be made against your statements in [45], but I'll stop there.
Looking at [46], I said it before: By giving me a paycheck, I can buy anything, therefore, they will in fact pay for my contraceptives, abortions, gay weddings, or anything else I want to use my paycheck for. As I said, health care is simply another form of compensation, therefore, they have no say in how I spend it.
Looking at [46], I said it before: By giving me a paycheck, I can buy anything, therefore, they will in fact pay for my contraceptives, abortions, gay weddings, or anything else I want to use my paycheck for. As I said, health care is simply another form of compensation, therefore, they have no say in how I spend it.
Using that reasoning, one should be able to have Hobby Lobby pay for a boob job or a penis enlargement of one of hundreds of possible cosmetic surgeries...
While you may not "buy" slippery slope cautions, they are nonetheless, valid concerns...
:D
Michale
Using that reasoning, one should be able to have Hobby Lobby pay for a boob job or a penis enlargement of one of hundreds of possible cosmetic surgeries...
But why stop there.. I mean, if what you do with ANY and ALL forms of compensation from your employer is your own business and your employer has absolutely NO say in the matter...
Hobby Lobby MUST provide their employees with illegal drugs and prostitution, regardless of ANY moral beliefs against such actions...
Remember.. Slipperiest of slippery slopes..
Michale
They would only have to offer those things if law says they do. In the case of the ACA, they could in fact opt not to offer insurance and pay a tax/fine/penalty, instead.
The SC long ago ruled that your religious freedom is bounded. It was the Quakers who sued the gov't saying their taxes could not be used for war as it violated their religious beliefs. The SC found that they could not control how their taxes were used, except in the usual ways (voting in their preferred candidates, etc).
In fact, the US Gov't is constitutionally allowed to use your taxes to pay for boob jobs, abortions, or whatever. In the case of abortions, it is legislation (not any constitutional injunction based on religious freedom) that sets the wall between taxes and abortions (Hyde Amendment and subsequent tweaks).
Oh, and just to be a tad snarky, penis pumps are already covered under ACA and pre-ACA insurance plans (as is viagra and cialis). Hobby Lobby and others seem to have no problem with this disparity.
Note to CW: I assume that using the word "penis" is not in violation of your rules for comments as we are using it in non-rude ways. If it is, I apologize.
They would only have to offer those things if law says they do. In the case of the ACA, they could in fact opt not to offer insurance and pay a tax/fine/penalty, instead.
Interesting you should say that..
Do you know what the fine is to businesses for offering substandard Insurance under obamacare??
$35,000 per instance...
Do you know what the fine is for providing NO Insurance??
ZERO... ZILCH... NADA.... NONE....
The "logic" of TrainWreckCare..
Oh, and just to be a tad snarky, penis pumps are already covered under ACA and pre-ACA insurance plans (as is viagra and cialis). Hobby Lobby and others seem to have no problem with this disparity.
You mean!!!???? Religious people are hypcrites!!???
Say it ain't so!!!! :D
But they have a RIGHT to their beliefs..
THAT is the point that ya'all refuse to get..
And, if an employee of Hobby Lobby don't LIKE what HL's beliefs entail, then they are free to look for employment elsewhere..
But NOOOOOOOOOO... The Left wants to FORCE Hobby Lobby to acquiese to the LEFT'S beliefs..
And THAT is bullshit...
As an aside, if 'bullshit' is OK (which I RARELY use, opting (usually) for the more mundane 'carp') then I think yer safe with 'penis'..
"Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina"
-Kindergartner, KINDERGARTEN COP
:D
Michale