The right of Reddit reacting to the SCOTUS ruling. (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
41 ups - 0 downs = 41 votes
94 comments submitted at 17:17:23 on Jun 30, 2014 by 75000_Tokkul
The right of Reddit reacting to the SCOTUS ruling. (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
41 ups - 0 downs = 41 votes
94 comments submitted at 17:17:23 on Jun 30, 2014 by 75000_Tokkul
I'm shocked that the reactions betray contempt for women's sexuality rather than joy that religious freedom is restored.
It's almost as though the religious thing was just bullshit to cover their contempt for female sexuality.
Almost.
> I'm shocked that the reactions betray contempt for women's sexuality rather than joy that religious freedom is restored.
> It's almost as though the religious thing was just bullshit to cover their contempt for female sexuality.
You are misunderstanding something huge: The threads linked here are about the reactions of conservatives and libertarians. The reason that conservatives and libertarian hated the mandate is because it is part of ACA, which conservatives and libertarians want to tear down at every turn. So your deduction here is the literal definition of "selection bias".
However, there are many religious groups who, ya know, actually believe in this stuff, and should be afforded their religious freedom. If this were a thread about the reactions in various religious subreddits then you would indeed see this is more about religious freedom than anything else.
Edit: People who have downvoted this comment so far haven't actually read it. Go ahead and get your catharsis by downvoting if you want to, but you should read it too since it contains information relevant to the thread.
Serious question to anyone who knows the answer, do organizations like the NHS in England pay for these kinds of services, and do religious individuals in those countries protest having to support these services through their taxes?
Most contraceptive measures are available on the NHS. I've at least never heard of anyone protesting contraceptive measures. It probably occurs though.
In France : the answers are "yes" (fully for minors, up to a point for adults iirc) and "only very fringe movements".
There was one catholic anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-IVF and anti-stem cell search list at the last European election ; they scored around 1% depending on constituencies. While right-wing parties are opposed to gay marriage and stem cell research (mostly for the record, not to lose the catholic vote), no sane politician would dare suggest to ban abortions or stop reimbursing birth control, that would make a scandal.
Don't know how it is in the UK but in Germany they are only covered until a certain age, think it was 25. After that you have to pay for them yourself fully
/u/CATHOLIC_EXTREMIST usually I love your posts but I strongly disagree with this one.
>If this were a thread about the reactions in various religious subreddits then you would indeed see this is more about religious freedom than anything else.
It's not about religious freedom itself, it's about if companies have religious freedom, and more specifically LLC's. Personally I don't think they should have religious freedom at all.
What's an LLC? A legal form of company that provides limited liability to its owners in the vast majority of United States jurisdictions. Now, if you decide to use a judicial structure that limits your liability in case shit goes wrong, you should also accept that these LLC's lead to limited rights for the owners as well. And to me, "religious freedom" is a type of a right that should be limited.
All countries in the western world have their own types of LLC's, but the US is the only country where LLC's get so many rights attached to their own entity.
The main point my
>>If this were a thread about the reactions in various religious subreddits then you would indeed see this is more about religious freedom than anything else.
comment was making is that pro-religious freedom arguments are not just a disguise we use to oppress women or support businesses. What I was saying is that might be true for conservatives and libertarians, who have their own reasons for supporting the Hobby Lobby decision. But from a religious point of view the Hobby Lobby effort is not some scammy facade behind which to hide our oppressive efforts, but because we actually believe what we're saying.
The thing I don't understand in all of this is that I can't fathom how a corporation can have a religion in the first place.
Preach on, fb. It's a pain in the ass. I started my own company a few years ago. We do process automation for various firms, and my wife and I are Baptist. We were originally a little upset that we would be required to provide contraceptive coverage to our employees (we're just over the cap for the ACA), but we figured we'd bite the bullet and do it.
Imagine our surprise when we arrived at work one day and found out that our company is Muslim. It was complete bullshit! Until then I wasn't even aware that it was sentient, but it turns out the SCOTUS used magic to make that happen, and now it has a perceived path to spiritual ultimacy.
I don't want to waste your time with the ins and outs of dealing with a sentient document, but we decided to close our doors last month after the company enacted Sharia law on all of us and sided with ISIS.
9/10 did not expect that Shyamalan
In Hobby Lobby's case, the owners are incredibly close nit, they're family. There's no meaningful shareholders outside of them, so they set company policies and as long as those policies don't run afoul employment regulations or anti-discrimination laws. Both dissent and majority opinions bring up the unique nature of how small the ownership is of Hobby Lobby. Though I think Justice Ginsburg got this case right in saying it allows employer's religious beliefs to overshadow contrasting (a)religious beliefs of the employed. Though I'm no expert, just parroting the NPR analyst's attempt at wrapping their head around this.
That doesn't really help my understanding, though. The owners are religious, that makes sense. I don't see how the corporation can have a religion. The corporation is not its owners. It's a collection of assets and people.
The majority's opinion suggest that the owners of the corporation (all of the owners) would have to compromise their religious beliefs to comply with the law with no avenue for exemption, which is illegal under the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". That (according to the majority) a corporation is an legal entity without certain protections or attributes, it's birthed and controlled by people with certain protections that were burdened past the threshold allowed.
It's a dumb law but it's still the law. It gets complicated because the Majority opinion saw the RFRA as being the primary avenue of standing, not the first admendment. While the dissent saw this as a first admendment case, to quote Ginsburg "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities", harkening back to the Citizen's United decision.
I guess I don't understand how the owners can have standing when they do cover birth control for men in the form of a vasectomy?
Their claim is that emergency contraception is akin to abortion. I say it's hypocritical when compared to beign OK with vasectomies but evidently that belief was enough for a suit under the RFRA
Emergency contraception as in plan B? But plan B and its generics don't cause abortion, it says right there on the package that if fertilization has already occurred it won't have any effect...it works to delay ovulation, not eject an implanted zygote/embryo.
The white house press secretary got in a good snark about this, talking about "religious and scientific understandings" held by The Hobby Lobby family
Understanding is uncomfortable close to being in someone else's shoes, so, generally, I find some people on the right prefer to just not understand things.
It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion if you're incredibly unreasonable!
Their claim that it is does not make it scientifically accurate though, so I still don't understand how they have standing.
Have you understanding of bio truth. When mean have sex it is an amazing accomplishment. When women do it, it is dirty and lowers there value as a human being. So yea the compassionate conservatives as always turn out to be not so compassionate nor very conservative.
I'm not even getting that far in to it: I mean how can they have standing to say that the law violates their religious convictions when they're willingly covering male birth control already? I do not understand how they can have legal standing to even bring a case in this circumstance.
>I guess I don't understand how the owners can have standing when they do cover birth control for men in the form of a vasectomy?
You keep using standing incorrectly. Having "standing" means you've met the legal requirements to participate in a lawsuit. I think you're asking how they logically can hold these two seemingly contradictory notions about birth control, but I'm not sure.
At any rate, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart, therein nestled the intricacies of love and faith. I think they believe birth control to be a method of abortion, whereas a vasectomy is preventative. I am not them, however, and do not believe those things.
I was just using the wiki definition:
>demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.
My point was that 'the pill' is preventative birth control, which they are opposing coverage of. I do not see how they can demonstrate that they are being adversely harmed when they are already covering preventative birth control for men. That is what I meant when I said that I do not understand how they can have standing here.
Corporations are people, my friend creepy smile.
>In Hobby Lobby's case, the owners are incredibly close nit, they're family.
If they want to run their company as a family and not as an unpersonal company, they should just get rid of the LLC structure. Accept more liability if you want more control over your employees.
Best argument I've seen against this ruling is here:
> The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability. Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.
Also some good reading on the subject here. This is such a bad decision.
Why can't it, a corporation is owned by someone or a group of people not the taxpayers or government?
A person is religious, a corporation is a legal entity that is comprised of people and assets.
The people within the corporation may be religious, and the owners as well, but I don't see how an abstract concept like 'corporation' can have a religion. It can't go to church, it isn't even tangible. It's just a legal definition. The owners can say "we don't want to pay for x because it violates our religious convictions", but I don't see how any claim can be made that the corporation itself is religious.
> The owners can say "we don't want to pay for x because it violates our religious convictions", but I don't see how any claim can be made that the corporation itself is religious.
That's essentially what it means for a corporation to have a religion. They're called legal fictions, used for the convenience of analyzing the rights of corporate bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
> Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution.
That has nothing to do with it. 'Corporate personhood' means a company is a distinct individual from the people controlling it, which speaks more against the "owners should have the option to instill their religious beliefs on their employees via their company" than for it.
> The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that Hobby Lobby, as a corporation, was a person under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.[14]
>However, there are many religious groups who, ya know, actually believe in this stuff, and should be afforded their religious freedom.
What are you referring to? In no situation is having to follow your employer's religion legitimate religious freedom.
People can buy contraception if they want to.
I don't think you realize just how expensive contraception actually is, especially for low wage earners like Hobby Lobby employees.
It's cheap as hell.
ok...?
Well, do you?
For a lot of people, a pack (for the cheapest compound. Not brand. Compound. Some people can't take it.) can be an entire day's worth of wages. It largely depends on the area.
With a name like catholic extremist I am pretty sure he is trolling. I mean even my hardcore catholic family members would never refer to themselves as extremists.
To be honest I'm more of an aspiring Catholic extremist rather than a fully realized one.
Yes, but it's certainly a religious freedom issue if my religion says I should not pay for someone's contraceptives.
No religion says you can't buy them for others as far as I'm aware. If your religion says you can't use contraception, don't use contraception. Freedom of religion does not mean stopping the working class from having religious freedom.
> No religion says you can't buy them for others as far as I'm aware.
Well, Catholics, as well as the owners of Hobby Lobby, apparently think their religion forbids it. Besides, the bona fides of one's religious beliefs is a separate issue under the Free Exercise clause. Courts will generally not judge one's religious bona fides, though I think for extreme examples (e.g. my religion requires me to murder people) they will.
Your argument is full of shit, but I only downvoted for your edit.
> Your argument is full of shit
What argument? What point do you think I was making? I was just clarifying this is a thread about conservatives and libertarians, not about religious people. All I stated were facts. Sorry if you wanted to kludgeon all your enemies into one group.
Corporations exist to create profit and are afforded limited liability to do so. They are not people.
That is the argument, here, and it's expressly political.
There is no religious argument to be had.
http://i.imgur.com/TbPDr03.jpg
what a mark story