As Yglesias notes, most liberals oppose 'conscience clauses' that allow individual pharmacists to opt out of providing contraception; and favor laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, even when religiously motivated.
Conversely, if a kosher or halal meat-packing business sued for an exemption to health or animal protection laws that interfered with ritual requirements, I think at least a substantial number of liberals would be sympathetic.
Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided; but I think it would have been equally wrong if the employers were sole proprietors. And I'm not convinced that corporations don't have religious freedom rights.
5 mistakes liberals make about corporate personhood and Hobby Lobby
VOX.COM
S.H.: I agree with you about sole props. Requiring by law, for instance, a sole prop cake designer to make a cake for a gay wedding, disregards that the legal entity of the business is the person who owns and runs it. That individual pays business taxes as a private citizen, assumes risk as a private citizen, in fact as a sole prop is regarded in every way of law both profit and liability, as a private citizen. Hell, you pay your taxes with your SSN as a sole prop. Whether or not they aren't also a complete worthless piece of shite is a completely different legal argument.
However I disagree with arguments that suggest that incorporated for-profit organizations should be allowed to exercise the right of the individual, as the corporate entity exists partly for the purpose of shielding the individual from the decisions of the business AS WELL AS shielding the business from the decisions of the individual.
Although I think it would be a good solution to just say Sure! You can opt out and/or discriminate all you want. But if your choice to opt out costs the state or federal government anything, you will be receiving a bill.
Yeah I know, crazy. Can't be done. Wish it could. I wish that every Walmart or fast food joint that put money into blocking minimum wage raise legislation would get a bill for every f/t employee who needs food stamps or housing assistance. Like an actual bill. Yes, those are your taxes, you DO still have topay those, and here's your bill, Net 30, cashiers check only, thank you!
S.H.: There's some reasoning on the idea of corporate religious freedom floating around in my head, but it will have to gel a bit more I'm afraid. I think I know what you're getting at, and I think my response has something to do with the direction the religious restriction flows.
J.C.: There are so many holes in this article it makes me want to write the Vox editors just to complain.
Me: The key component frequently not addressed is, do corporations serve the purposes of the owners, or are they an extension of the government's social agenda?
N.N.: Hobby Lobby offers 16 different types of birth control.and a full time minimum wage of 14 $ an hour.with a part time minimum wage of 9 $ an hour. They were fighting for the right to not have to puchsse abortificants. I find it amazing , that's such a huge deal is made out of this. This company takes care of its employees. And has been since its founding a religious company. Liberty does not only apply to the individual . I can understand if they carried no birth control. I don't understand what the hubbub is all about.
T.C.: Yes, a "religious company". except when it's not convinient: http://www.forbes.com/.../hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to.../
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious...www.forbes.com
In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones...
N.N.: Even God is corrupt thats why i an an atheist. But again thats Liberty. I have Read the Constitution. the Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights. And nowhere anywhere have I seen the right to force someone to do something but they don't want to do. Not talking about criminal activity or purposely harming people. Or destroying the environment. The government does not have the right to force anyone to buy anything.
Me: Hypocrisy can only be claimed when it is intentional. "AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary..." Who the hell would know every activity of every subsidiary of everything the 401k invested in?
T.C.: I guess it's a matter of how important their so-called religious ethics are to them.
Me: They get to decide their ethics, not you.
T.C.: And if they want to be inconsistent about them, I suppose that's their prerogative.
T.C.: And the rest of us can draw our own conclusions.
N.N.: Yes exactly. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes. It doesn't only protect the freedoms we like.
T.C.: And another valid point regarding their hypocrisy,...http://www.usnews.com/.../03/26/hobby-lobbys-china-hypocrisy
Me: Let's see. A "Christian" company is apparently only allowed to buy its products from approved countries that aren't evil, invest its 401k money in approved investments that aren't evil, make moral claims only when they agree with the political left... Hmmm. There's no possible way for it to transact business.
T.C.: No one said what they were or were not allowed to do. I am only making a judgement on their claim that they are a "Christian company" that operates under the guidelines of their religious faith. It seems like they only do so when convenient. Again, that is their prerogative.. It is also our prerogative to draw our own conclusions.
Me: My point is that it is not possible to run a business and isolate it from everything they, or you, or anyone else considers to be immoral. Nor does a business have an obligation to do so, your moral judgments notwithstanding.
N.N.: And you do not have to shop there.
Me: Exactly, N.N.. Freedom, baby.
T.C.: I have no reason to.
T.C.: Quite simply, one can't deny that their claim to be operating in accordance with their religious convictions is shaky at best.
T.L.: I see the term "abortifacient" being thrown around pretty liberally, without qualification. Medical science does not classify Plan B (which delays ovulation), Ella (also delays ovulation), or IUD's (prevents insemination and fertilization) as abortifacients, because they are not. And yet, this ruling allows for religious ignorance of scientific facts to trump sound medical science, personal autonomy, and the doctor/patient relationship.
Besides the discriminatory nature of this ruling against a particular gender alone, as it is limited only to female reproduction, it is religiously discriminatory. As Justice Ginsburg said, it is also violating the Establishment Clause "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
Has everyone hear read Ginsburg's dissent? I could go on for days, but I'd love to discuss this from that angle. Does anyone disagree with her dissent?
Me: Why do you insist on judging how well they conform to their own moral convictions? Who made you their judge? How do you even know such a thing?
T.C.: I need to justify having my own opinions?
T.C.: I think it's pretty obvious that they talk the talk and fail to walk the walk.
T.L.: Rich, part of the ruling states that their beliefs must be ascertained to some degree. "The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction" So, hypocrisy matters when part of the ruling requires ascertaining those religious beliefs.
N.N.: Your opinions are just that your opinions just like their opinions are their opinions. They don't have the right to enforce their opinions on you and you don't have the right to force your opinions on them.
Me: Exactly right, N.N.. Freedom, baby.
T.C.: I don't know where you got the idea that I am trying to force my opinions on them. I am just calling out what is obvious.
Me: I think N.N. is simply applying the standard to you that is typically leveled against Christians... your know, the whole "judge not" thing.
T.C.: So I shouldn't have an opinion? Because,... why, exactly?
Me: T.L., the whole premise of the Supreme court judging aspects of religious belief is repugnant.
T.L.: I don't know why I'm bothering to keep writing when you're all more interested in a pissing contest, but does the irony escape you all that Hobby Lobby is limiting the freedom of their employees based on their opinion that these medications are abortifacients? Because it's not based on fact.
T.C.: Or are you saying that I can have an opinion but I should keep it to myself?
N.N.: There's nothing wrong with having an opinion First Amendment says we can have an opinion. And its not mine to say whether your opinion is correct or incorrect. So we have to remember that our opinion may be correct in our eyes and those of like-minded individuals. But in the end it's just our opinion that does not mean it's correct for someone else.
Me: T.C.:, welcome to the rhetorical results of the Left. Actually, I welcome your spirited defense of your moral perspective. I'm just hoping you will understand and remember how the shoe fits the other foot when a religious person makes their own moral judgments.
T.C.: Where the opinion lies is if they ought to be judged for their hypocrisy or if their hypocrisy can be justified. It's simply a statement of fact to say that they do not consistently live up to the religious standards they claim.
Me: T.L., perhaps you can explain how someone's freedom is being limited?
N.N.: Hobby Lobby offers 16 different types of birth control.and a full time minimum wage of 14 $ an hour.with a part time minimum wage of 9 $ an hour. They were fighting for the right to not have to puchsse abortificants. I find it amazing , that's such a huge deal is made out of this. This company takes care of its employees. And has been since its founding a religious company. Liberty does not only apply to the individual . I can understand if they carried no birth control. I don't understand what the hubbub is all about.
T.C.: Yes, a "religious company". except when it's not convinient: http://www.forbes.com/.../hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to.../
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious...www.forbes.com
In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones...
N.N.: Even God is corrupt thats why i an an atheist. But again thats Liberty. I have Read the Constitution. the Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights. And nowhere anywhere have I seen the right to force someone to do something but they don't want to do. Not talking about criminal activity or purposely harming people. Or destroying the environment. The government does not have the right to force anyone to buy anything.
Me: Hypocrisy can only be claimed when it is intentional. "AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary..." Who the hell would know every activity of every subsidiary of everything the 401k invested in?
T.C.: I guess it's a matter of how important their so-called religious ethics are to them.
Me: They get to decide their ethics, not you.
T.C.: And if they want to be inconsistent about them, I suppose that's their prerogative.
T.C.: And the rest of us can draw our own conclusions.
N.N.: Yes exactly. Freedom can be a bitch sometimes. It doesn't only protect the freedoms we like.
T.C.: And another valid point regarding their hypocrisy,...http://www.usnews.com/.../03/26/hobby-lobbys-china-hypocrisy
Me: Let's see. A "Christian" company is apparently only allowed to buy its products from approved countries that aren't evil, invest its 401k money in approved investments that aren't evil, make moral claims only when they agree with the political left... Hmmm. There's no possible way for it to transact business.
T.C.: No one said what they were or were not allowed to do. I am only making a judgement on their claim that they are a "Christian company" that operates under the guidelines of their religious faith. It seems like they only do so when convenient. Again, that is their prerogative.. It is also our prerogative to draw our own conclusions.
Me: My point is that it is not possible to run a business and isolate it from everything they, or you, or anyone else considers to be immoral. Nor does a business have an obligation to do so, your moral judgments notwithstanding.
N.N.: And you do not have to shop there.
Me: Exactly, N.N.. Freedom, baby.
T.C.: I have no reason to.
T.C.: Quite simply, one can't deny that their claim to be operating in accordance with their religious convictions is shaky at best.
T.L.: I see the term "abortifacient" being thrown around pretty liberally, without qualification. Medical science does not classify Plan B (which delays ovulation), Ella (also delays ovulation), or IUD's (prevents insemination and fertilization) as abortifacients, because they are not. And yet, this ruling allows for religious ignorance of scientific facts to trump sound medical science, personal autonomy, and the doctor/patient relationship.
Besides the discriminatory nature of this ruling against a particular gender alone, as it is limited only to female reproduction, it is religiously discriminatory. As Justice Ginsburg said, it is also violating the Establishment Clause "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
Has everyone hear read Ginsburg's dissent? I could go on for days, but I'd love to discuss this from that angle. Does anyone disagree with her dissent?
Me: Why do you insist on judging how well they conform to their own moral convictions? Who made you their judge? How do you even know such a thing?
T.C.: I need to justify having my own opinions?
T.C.: I think it's pretty obvious that they talk the talk and fail to walk the walk.
T.L.: Rich, part of the ruling states that their beliefs must be ascertained to some degree. "The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction" So, hypocrisy matters when part of the ruling requires ascertaining those religious beliefs.
N.N.: Your opinions are just that your opinions just like their opinions are their opinions. They don't have the right to enforce their opinions on you and you don't have the right to force your opinions on them.
Me: Exactly right, N.N.. Freedom, baby.
T.C.: I don't know where you got the idea that I am trying to force my opinions on them. I am just calling out what is obvious.
Me: I think N.N. is simply applying the standard to you that is typically leveled against Christians... your know, the whole "judge not" thing.
T.C.: So I shouldn't have an opinion? Because,... why, exactly?
Me: T.L., the whole premise of the Supreme court judging aspects of religious belief is repugnant.
T.L.: I don't know why I'm bothering to keep writing when you're all more interested in a pissing contest, but does the irony escape you all that Hobby Lobby is limiting the freedom of their employees based on their opinion that these medications are abortifacients? Because it's not based on fact.
T.C.: Or are you saying that I can have an opinion but I should keep it to myself?
N.N.: There's nothing wrong with having an opinion First Amendment says we can have an opinion. And its not mine to say whether your opinion is correct or incorrect. So we have to remember that our opinion may be correct in our eyes and those of like-minded individuals. But in the end it's just our opinion that does not mean it's correct for someone else.
Me: T.C.:, welcome to the rhetorical results of the Left. Actually, I welcome your spirited defense of your moral perspective. I'm just hoping you will understand and remember how the shoe fits the other foot when a religious person makes their own moral judgments.
T.C.: Where the opinion lies is if they ought to be judged for their hypocrisy or if their hypocrisy can be justified. It's simply a statement of fact to say that they do not consistently live up to the religious standards they claim.
Me: T.L., perhaps you can explain how someone's freedom is being limited?
T.L.: The right to swing one's arm ends at my nose, Rich. Intervening in how one's compensation can be spent is limiting the freedom of the person who earned said compensation to use it as they see fit. How would you feel if your employer decided how you could spend your paycheck?
Me: T.L., the ACA created an imposition upon employers to provide certain benefits according to the government's social agenda. Businesses are not extensions of government, and should be completely free to pursue their own interests.
T.L.: @Rich: However, businesses are governed by the laws of our nation, and do not operate in a vacuum. Your argument is about the ACA, an entirely different topic than the Hobby Lobby ruling. If you'd like, we can have a whole other discussion on that topic at a later date.
T.C.: "According to the government's social agenda"???
Me: T.L.:, the ACA is what specifically created the mandate for employers to provide birth control. So it is not only relevant but central to the issue.
D.G.: T.L.--good question; I don't fully agree with Ginsburg's opinion. Will write more later.
No comments:
Post a Comment