Hobby Lobby & Supreme Court Decision

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Guest
Did someone say master of debate? :cool:

All narcissistic arrogance aside, I haven't had too much time lately to post here, but some responses warrant a rebuttal I feel.


skully... are your talking about?

We have our courts over here and you have yours over there. I'm not exactly sure how you people don't recognize that.... I thought we been through this
Of course I realize that. All I did was use another nation's take on a social issue and present it as superior to yours. Maybe if enough Americans knew about it they might want to adopt this alternative method of regulation (which I doubt, sadly)



Also since we are talking about rights I believe you should have the right to have your fetus professionally killed. It doesn't matter how we feel about it there will always be people under certain circumstances that really want to do it. Wether it be with knitting needles or coat hangars.

I also believe a privately owned company should retain the right to object to government mandated contraceptive insurance coverage for such things as plan B pills. Here is why: you are free to work wherever you want. No one forces anyone to work here in this great nation of ours.
I agree with this post, although not with some of the wording in the first paragraph, but I'll come back to that later.



I disagree, as in my opinion that's having the right to commit murder.
Thanks for presenting your opinion but if you want to convince anyone ever in a debate you're going to have to present some basis for your arguments. Why do you feel like having the right, as a woman, to have control over your own body is equivalent to having the right to commit murder? I assume it is because you see abortion/early termination as murder. Allow me to educate you;
The pill this whole debate is about is a contraceptive that stops a pregnancy from progressing further, this pill can be used in the initial 9 weeks of pregnancy but it is mostly used in the first 2 weeks. During these initial few weeks the "baby" is not much more than a clump of cells, it's not even a fetus yet, it is called an embryo
criticalperiods.jpg
The embryo has no consciousness and no brain. Negative connotations aside, it is nothing more than a parasite. It could not possibly live independently. It is about equally as "murderous" as menstruating or ejaculating.



Not sure I agree with the being free to work where you want, as for many, options can be very limited.
That might be true, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not forced to work there. Regardless, if one's options are limited to the extent that they cannot decline/quit the job, I do not think they are in a position to discuss the range of their healthcare benefits.



I do however agree with all that stuff about murder options. There are many ways to get away with killing someone (which you may or may not term as "murder"), and several of them involve legal opt-outs for religious beliefs.

Kids tend to get the down side of the religious opt-outs, as they don't get to make their own decisions on whether they live or die, nor do they have the right to be given information on medical options and pros and cons at all, let alone based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. These things make killing them easy. For instance by contracting an easily curable or preventable disease and preventing medical treatment.

It would be quite amusing how these laws are used both to kill and to create children, if both were not so tragic.
I agree and I would definitely call those kind of parents murderers. The information, the factual information is easily accessible and there is absolutely no excuse to endanger your children's lives because of some unsubstantiated believe. Luckily, the UK court is rational enough to force treatment regardless of the parents' beliefs.



Genuine question, as idk the answer, but isn't the separation of church and state (religion and state) some sort of basic tenet of USAiness?

And another, isn't freedom from the constraints of other people's religions one of the precious freedoms that USAians go on about?
Let's be honest, I don't think anyone can truly say they belief that? The USA is always referred to as the last of the 'free' with their religious freedom clause in the constitution, but I would argue it's mostly nonsense. Maybe not on a legal level, but most definitely on a social/culture level. The only thing you're free to be is a christian. Every other religion or lack therefore is shunned. While this, of course, does not apply to every single American, the USA is most definitely not worthy of the "freedom of religious" trait they are so often paired with.



I don't care how some random team of "medical scientists," define contraceptives but I assumed you were talking about condoms yes. My point was they are two different things and apparently the Supreme Court has to a point agreed as well.
Your mindset is harmful to society and part of a problematic group prevalent in America that somehow doesn't acknowledge facts. You should care how "some random team of medical scientists" define contraceptives, because guess what? Medical scientists create contraceptives. They are the sole reason (the definition of) contraceptives exist. Science also generally works collectively as any claims made have to be substantiated and supported by falsifiable evidence, otherwise the scientific community doesn't even acknowledge, let alone support your claims.



Your concern about Catholics refusing to foot the bill for condoms is a valid one if you don't believe in the separation of church and state and believe the government has the right to tell businesses however religiously inclined how to run their business. However the decision reached in this case is narrowly worded just to avoid such a thing. It is viewed that the 2000 dollar fine per employee for dropping the contraceptive mandate is not the least restrictive way for an employer to provide contraceptives because less restrictive means are afforded under the Religious Freedom Reformation Act to nonprofit corporations.

Our first amendment states the freedom of religious practice.
As sirloin said, the Religious Freedom Reformation Act to non-profit corporations is irrelevant as Hobby Lobby is not non-profit.



I think your conception of seperation of church and state is misconstrued in this case due to the fact that the afca is in fact a direct violation of the first amendment. Also, this whole seperation of church and state does not appear anywhere in our constitution. In fact freedom of religion is. This nation was founded under Christian principles I'm sorry to tell you.
What is the afca?
Also, I'm sorry to tell you, but the USA actually is a secular state and religion has no place in its government. The United States does not have an official religion at either the federal or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President's oath, but neither of these are required by law. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which you quoted yourself, is written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Furthermore, Many Christian principles are very outdated and come from a world of ignorance. The only valid ones are not in any way exclusive to christianity, the vast majority is very common in other religions like the islam. They should probably be called moral principles instead of putting a religious label on them.




No need to be sorry about that. I think you would be hard pressed to find a nation that was not founded on some religion's principles, since most were founded long enough ago that scientific knowledge was only for the few, to the extent it even existed. The masses could be easily controlled by whatever gods the powerful cared to invoke, however cruel or ludicrous stories of their demands might be.

Happily most developed nations have, erm, evolved since then.
I would argue that most of the viable "religious" principles are, as I said, moral principles that have evolved alongside humans as we grew more and more social. The religions merely incorporated them in order to gain followers. However moral principles have continued evolving together with human society, religious principle, sadly, have not.


I suppose you must think you are eh master of debate. I admit I have no formal training but I see what you are doing. I will grant your wish and elucidate one more time when I get the chance but until you bring something to the table that has actual merit I'm going to have to decline to argue with you. It's clear you are either playing the devils advocate or you really feel strongly that the government should run every facet of your business.
This is silly, she raised some very valid points and there is absolutely no reason for you to back out other than the fact that you can't provide enough valid arguments to counter hers, essentially admitting your defeat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Thanks for presenting your opinion but if you want to convince anyone ever in a debate you're going to have to present some basis for your arguments. Why do you feel like having the right, as a woman, to have control over your own body is equivalent to having the right to commit murder? I assume it is because you see abortion/early termination as murder. Allow me to educate you;
The pill this whole debate is about is a contraceptive that stops a pregnancy from progressing further, this pill can be used in the initial 9 weeks of pregnancy but it is mostly used in the first 2 weeks. During these initial few weeks the "baby" is not much more than a clump of cells, it's not even a fetus yet, it is called an embryo
criticalperiods.jpg
The embryo has no consciousness and no brain. Negative connotations aside, it is nothing more than a parasite. It could not possibly live independently. It is about equally as "murderous" as menstruating or ejaculating.

I disagree, as it is still a developing human being, however undeveloped, it's birth has already been started, and therefore, in my opinion, it should still be considered a human.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I disagree, as it is still a developing human being, however undeveloped, i's birth has already been started, and therefore, in my opinion, it should still be considered a human.
It is human. Human tissue with human DNA. It is, however, not an independent organism yet and isn't even alive. Therefore you can't class it as murder.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No all she is doing is saying, "that's contrary..." and calling my statements invalid. I'm not going to argue with someone that does that. If you look up hobby lobby supreme court decision and go read the wikipedia you will have all you want to know about it including why The Affordable Care Act was deemed unconstitutional and why it was deemed the 2k dollar fine per employee (one can only assume in anuim) was not the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means to ensure that Hobby Lobby provided proper contraceptive care.

While I agree abortion is going to happen and outlawing it is silly, a pill that is essentially violating some people's beleifs shouldn't be crammed down your business's throat if you don't like it. That's government overreach. The whole Affordable Care Act is government overreach. Here's an idea people. You don't want to make a baby quit being so promiscuous. Or god forbid... wear a condom, a prophylactic, or take birth control.

Guess what? Hobby Lobby is a damn good company to work for whether you believe it or not. There starting wage is 14 an hour. To put that in perspective that is TWICE the minimum wage. If you don't like the job go work somewhere else.

Go ahead call my statements contrary and pick them apart. This argument is silly
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
It is human. Human tissue with human DNA. It is, however, not an independent organism yet and isn't even alive. Therefore you can't class it as murder.

now, now, isn't it scientifically a living organism?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No all she is doing is saying, "that's contrary..." and calling my statements invalid. I'm not going to argue with someone that does that. If you look up hobby lobby supreme court decision and go read the wikipedia you will have all you want to know about it including why The Affordable Care Act was deemed unconstitutional and why it was deemed the 2k dollar fine per employee (one can only assume in anuim) was not the LEAST RESTRICTIVE means to ensure that Hobby Lobby provided proper contraceptive care.
When she said "that's contrary" she did so because the quoted sentence did come across somewhat contradictory. I'll admit that I lack the required knowledge to discuss the afca so I won't dabble in that territory but I can only assume that is are the republicans who argue this.

Anyhow, even because she didn't elaborate on one of her points that doesn't mean you should just stop debating, if anything ask for her to elaborate. Additionally, now you have my points to rebut :D




While I agree abortion is going to happen and outlawing it is silly, a pill that is essentially violating some people's beleifs shouldn't be crammed down your business's throat if you don't like it. That's government overreach. The whole Affordable Care Act is government overreach. Here's an idea people. You don't want to make a baby quit being so promiscuous. Or god forbid... wear a condom, a prophylactic, or take birth control.

Guess what? Hobby Lobby is a damn good company to work for whether you believe it or not. There starting wage is 14 an hour. To put that in perspective that is TWICE the minimum wage. If you don't like the job go work somewhere else.

Go ahead call my statements contrary and pick them apart. This argument is silly
I'm not sure you realize but I actually agree with you on many points. Apart from the afca being an overreach I agree with everything you've said here. Contraceptive are easy enough to obtain (especially if they are 100% free like over here) and there is no excuse for having a baby you did not plan for. Unfortunately, people inevitably make mistake and I am glad that there are options out there to rectify those mistakes without drastically impacting their lives.


now, now, isn't it scientifically a living organism?
Not in the first few weeks. In biology an organism should meet 7 prerequisites to be considered alive;

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

In the early stages, especially the first three weeks or so (when the vast majority of plan B pills are taken), the embryo lacks most of these as it's literally a clump of <500 stem cells that don't really "do" anything yet.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The afca is government overreach in as much as it flys against any one of our civil rights. In this case it is a violation of the first amendment. Other than that perhaps I'm not actually aware of any unconstitutionality of the afca other than the fact that you are forced to have insurance. Which frankly, makes a good deal of sense.

Getting back on topic, I will simply reiterate the fact that many people hold the religious belief that life begins at conception. This is a very old belief as well and in fact you can find reams of ancient Chinese manuscripts carefully detailing each session of intercourse with planetary alignments for this or that emperor due to the fact that they believed the zodiac was aligned towards when you were conceived and not when you were born. You can search online and quickly find that the belief that life begins at conception is held throughout the world in many instances. So to say that the Christians at hobby lobby are just making this stuff up to be nasty conservatives would be a fallacy. I'm not sure anyone has stated that but that seems to be what people are alluding to.

On the scientific merit of what makes an egg a chicken I won't go into. I am no scientist. I will however say that if you have ever found yourself desiring to use the plan B pill you may feel a twinge of guilt. That guilt may be telling you something. I know because I have been there. Perhaps it's due to the fact that instead of preventing a pregnancy you have deliberately sabotaged one. Idk. I'm not a religious or particularly moral person either.

I personally find pro choicers to be more than a little morally reprehensible and if you are so inclined to believe it, perhaps a symptom of something sick with our society. I personally commend hobby lobby for standing up for their convictions and I have a personal reason why.

If it wasn't for people like this trying to stem the tide of what some may consider immoral the state of Texas would have never been forced to ask my, now, wife if she wanted to see the sonogram at the planned parenthood clinic. She did in fact look and she could see fingers. This was around two months after conception btw. After that we made the decision to keep him. We may not have been ready and we may not even be the best parents but if you could see my beautiful son of two years old you would agree he is a blessing.

So to sum up. The merits of what hobby lobby did are self evident if you think like I do. The overreach of the government is clear in this case to people like me. I could go on about the inherent eugenics employed by people on the left including a self admitted eugenics devotee such as the founder of planned parent hood. I could go on about the fact that if you want the damn pill so much go get it it's 50 bucks, and I could go on about the fact that the vast majority of people that can't afford it are in fact minorities and then I could point to the obvious and ask why the government wants to make sure minorities get this pill for free but I won't. That's all off topic.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The afca is government overreach in as much as it flys against any one of our civil rights. In this case it is a violation of the first amendment. Other than that perhaps I'm not actually aware of any unconstitutionality of the afca other than the fact that you are forced to have insurance. Which frankly, makes a good deal of sense.
I think maybe the US constitution suffers from a problem that is quite common in law, the fact that it was written in the past, a different time. Now I do not know enough to say this with certainty, but if I remember correctly a problem with the afca is that it forces people to buy something, which violates the constitution(??) The problem, I think, is that when the constitution was written, services like health care didn't exist yet, so the law couldn't properly incorporate them. Perhaps a revisit to the constitution is necessary to make it more compatible with modern phenomenon.


Getting back on topic, I will simply reiterate the fact that many people hold the religious belief that life begins at conception. This is a very old belief as well and in fact you can find reams of ancient Chinese manuscripts carefully detailing each session of intercourse with planetary alignments for this or that emperor due to the fact that they believed the zodiac was aligned towards when you were conceived and not when you were born. You can search online and quickly find that the belief that life begins at conception is held throughout the world in many instances. So to say that the Christians at hobby lobby are just making this stuff up to be nasty conservatives would be a fallacy. I'm not sure anyone has stated that but that seems to be what people are alluding to.
I'm not saying that Hobby Lobby made that up, it's an extremely common thing to believe, generally based on, like you said, tradition. the problem I have with that assessment of life is that it is not based on anything other than ancient beliefs. If you want to believe that personally, go ahead, that's completely fine. However I do not think this belief can be used in court to outlaw something like abortion because it is not based on scientific facts.


On the scientific merit of what makes an egg a chicken I won't go into. I am no scientist. I will however say that if you have ever found yourself desiring to use the plan B pill you may feel a twinge of guilt. That guilt may be telling you something. I know because I have been there. Perhaps it's due to the fact that instead of preventing a pregnancy you have deliberately sabotaged one. Idk. I'm not a religious or particularly moral person either.

I personally find pro choicers to be more than a little morally reprehensible and if you are so inclined to believe it, perhaps a symptom of something sick with our society. I personally commend hobby lobby for standing up for their convictions and I have a personal reason why.

I may come across as a completely analytical dude lacking any form of empathy, but really I'm not. I understand how difficult a decision like this is, even though I have never personally make the choice yet (thankfully) I have had a close call. However, when we are discussing the legality of something I tend to disregard any personal feelings in order to allow everyone to choose for themselves, rather than having my personal opinion be the law. That's why I also don't think there is any shame to be had in having an early termination. Everyone has a story and everyone has their reasons, that is why everyone should be allowed to make the choice by themselves, and not be forced to do one thing over the other.

If it wasn't for people like this trying to stem the tide of what some may consider immoral the state of Texas would have never been forced to ask my, now, wife if she wanted to see the sonogram at the planned parenthood clinic. She did in fact look and she could see fingers. This was around two months after conception btw. After that we made the decision to keep him. We may not have been ready and we may not even be the best parents but if you could see my beautiful son of two years old you would agree he is a blessing.

So to sum up. The merits of what hobby lobby did are self evident if you think like I do. The overreach of the government is clear in this case to people like me. I could go on about the inherent eugenics employed by people on the left including a self admitted eugenics devotee such as the founder of planned parent hood. I could go on about the fact that if you want the damn pill so much go get it it's 50 bucks, and I could go on about the fact that the vast majority of people that can't afford it are in fact minorities and then I could point to the obvious and ask why the government wants to make sure minorities get this pill for free but I won't. That's all off topic.
I'm very happy for you and your wife! It's not like I am advocating that everyone should always use the plan B pill if they're not ready, I just want that option to be available to everyone at any time! Also, I agree with the court decision's outcome, maybe just not with the wording of the basis.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I honestly think a better debate is what the supreme court's ruling implies. I didn't read the op so I'm not sure if that's what this thread was about, I kind of jumped in half cocked. Something about Brits criticizing the merit of American politics gets my goat every time. Not that it's unwelcome but I get a knee jerk reaction every time it happens. Especially since you people seem to be so far left of center on a lot of issues. What you have to understand about Americans is that we are actually right of center outside of New York and California.

Anyway, my apologies. If I get a chance I will formulate some sort of rebuttal.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
And thanks. He's really something else. Not in a million years would I have guessed something like that could possibly come from me. He's already mistaken for a three year old. Fingers crossed for scholarships! :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I honestly think a better debate is what the supreme court's ruling implies. I didn't read the op so I'm not sure if that's what this thread was about, I kind of jumped in half cocked. Something about Brits criticizing the merit of American politics gets my goat every time. Not that it's unwelcome but I get a knee jerk reaction every time it happens. Especially since you people seem to be so far left of center on a lot of issues. What you have to understand about Americans is that we are actually right of center outside of New York and California.

Anyway, my apologies. If I get a chance I will formulate some sort of rebuttal.
I'm Dutch, not British! We're probably even more left that the average Brit, although for a Dutchie I'm not even that far left :p

Honestly though, that's why I love debating with Americans. Even the most left Americans are right-wing to me. I love American politics just because many aspects of it seem very foreign to me. I sometimes can't understand why you guys make certain decisions over there. E.g. how the hell did Romney get that much support!? Or how religion is extremely important and influential over there. It's all part of the reason why I find it very interesting, the huge cultural difference.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Romney? Money. We don't have capitalism we have crony capitalism ie socialized corporation enterprises. We are actually in the middle of transitioning to a true oligarchy.

I am currently trying to involve myself in grass roots organizations to return power to the plebes. Look up the supreme court decision that money is equivalent to free speech. Then look up Wolf-Pac. It's left as heck but if we don't fight it the "aristocracy" already won.

Anyway, again I apologize for derailing the d&d but I think I'm emotionally and factually spent here. Maybe next time I will have .02 to chip in.

edit: to answer your question people in this great nation of ours are religious if you were to do a straw poll. We started that way and we are still, on the whole religious. It's actually logical as heck if you understood our history. Unfortunately the people that think it's fun to manipulate the masses think that religion is for idiots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Or how religion is extremely important and influential over there. It's all part of the reason why I find it very interesting, the huge cultural difference.

Just jumping in on this for a second. Religion isn't as important in the US as it seems. Many Americans claim to be part of a religious group yet they really have no true loyalty or involvement in, or even any solid understanding of, the religion in question.

Influence of religion is a big deal however.

I also find it interesting how many European country's had huge religious influence about 400-200 years ago and now have seemingly lost much of that religious influence. Maybe the US is just slow on the uptake. It probably doesn't help that the US is formed up of many different ethnicities and such.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol @ taco bell meat. He kind of missed the point there because the were fighting the 2000 dollar, per employee, punitive fine for dropping the afca. That's something which they would have to do because it's al a carte with the plan b pill.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
Loved the link, especially the last 40 sec or so about lifespan etc.

Thanks skully, as usual :)
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
The crux of the debate, as the video stated, is really whether corporations can have, practice, and be exempted to certain things due to religion.

So, can a corporation claim exemption from a governmental policy on the basis of religion? Now they can. But should they be allowed to?

I have to say yes. As every corporation has an owner (or a head of some sort), that owner is allowed to run his company how he wishes - which includes his employees so long as it does not violate their rights (coming back to this). I see this as more of an extension of the owner's ability to express religious freedom over his property (his business is technically his property).

Back to the bolded statement. If we all agree on the statement above, we are then faced with the issue of violating the employees rights. Are employees entitled the right to contraceptives and, if so, is it justifiable to force the corporations to supply it?

By my own religious views and interpretation of our rights, we do not have the sole right to contraceptives. They are a privilege and a product. However, let's assume we do have the right. Then we have to ask whether or not the corporation should be forced to supply contraceptives and whether the corporation's refusal to provide them if being forced to supply them is a violation of the employees right.

Should they be forced to provide them: No. Why? The government cannot force anyone to purchase something as a requirement to exist. They violated this when Health Care was made a requirement. You may say Car Insurance is required. Yes, but you don't have to have a car to live. Don't want to be forced to buy car insurance, don't buy a car. However, if you don't want Health insurance, you can't simply not have your Health. Sorry - rabbit trail.

Back on topic: A. The government cant constitutionally force anyone (or corporation assuming my last main point is agreed on) to buy something. B. The government, by being the one to supply the right to contraceptives, should be the provider of the right's effects: the contraceptives themselves.

Let's look at the right's currently: speech, press, freedom to express religion, etc. All of which are provided by the constitution and, effectively, by the government.

Now apply that to contraceptives: Right (contraceptives) provided by a law made by the government.

So, just as Freedom of Speech and its effects are provided by the government, so too should the right to contraceptives and it's effects be provided by the government.
 

DeletedUser5819

Guest
The crux of the debate, as the video stated, is really whether corporations can have, practice, and be exempted to certain things due to religion.

....stuff....

Should they be forced to provide them: No. Why? The government cannot force anyone to purchase something as a requirement to exist. They violated this when Health Care was made a requirement. You may say Car Insurance is required. Yes, but you don't have to have a car to live. Don't want to be forced to buy car insurance, don't buy a car. However, if you don't want Health insurance, you can't simply not have your Health. Sorry - rabbit trail.
I think that the personal and the corporate are getting mixed up again here.

Specifically on your rabbit trail....
if you don't want Health insurance, you can't simply not have your Health.
If a company doesn't want health insurance then they can simply not have your health, because it is your health not the company's. That is surely part of the point of obamacare. Companies would provide health insurance for company directors and managers because it is in their interests to keep these people in top shape, whereas a shelf stacker who falls ill is easily replaced. In this way the health of the shelf stacker is not a sound financial investment for the company. The government therefore steps in to make it worth the companies' while by requiring them to provide or opt to be fined and possibly prosecuted. The financial imperative is then successfully reversed.

Back on topic: A. The government cant constitutionally force anyone (or corporation assuming my last main point is agreed on) to buy something.
Governments routinely force people and corporations to buy stuff they may not want or may object to on religious, moral or other grounds, through taxation. The black box into which taxes are conglomerated before distribution successfully prevents people from getting away with withholding the % of their taxes which go towards arts projects or military, or educating other people's children, or whatever their objection is. Corporations don't even try, not because their owners or shareholders don't have views, but because they know they have no hope of getting away with it.

B. The government, by being the one to supply the right to contraceptives, should be the provider of the right's effects: the contraceptives themselves.
Unsurprisingly in the wake of this ruling, other hopefuls are being given leave to avoid parts of the law while they challenge them. One of these, the University of Notre Dame, a catholic non-profit entity, is now objecting to notifying the govt of instances where they refuse to provide contraceptives, because doing so results in the govt providing those contraceptives, and they object to contraceptives being provided. This is all the more ludicrous because in the past this same institution has been a strong advocate of family planning, and indeed the director leading the challenge was on the government team which decided upon this exact provision, and he supported it!
In the meantime, staff who were told they would be provided have at the last possible moment been told that they will not, while the challenge proceeds through the courts.
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
So, can a corporation claim exemption from a governmental policy on the basis of religion? Now they can. But should they be allowed to?

I have to say yes. As every corporation has an owner (or a head of some sort), that owner is allowed to run his company how he wishes
I have to object. I am unaware that religions have been made for corporations. They are rather made for humans.

Also a corporation may have a head with a religious belief, but not necessarily, owners. Most companies are owned by thousands of people, with different opinions. The head is merely making decisions for them.

If you feel the head can do things by HIS beliefs, why should govt be not allowed to do what it wants. The govt is also representing the majority.

If we all agree on the statement above, we are then faced with the issue of violating the employees rights. Are employees entitled the right to contraceptives and, if so, is it justifiable to force the corporations to supply it?By my own religious views and interpretation of our rights, we do not have the sole right to contraceptives. They are a privilege and a product. However, let's assume we do have the right. Then we have to ask whether or not the corporation should be forced to supply contraceptives and whether the corporation's refusal to provide them if being forced to supply them is a violation of the employees right.
going back to what i said, govt should be entitled to force you.

The government cannot force anyone to purchase something as a requirement to exist. They violated this when Health Care was made a requirement. You may say Car Insurance is required. Yes, but you don't have to have a car to live. Don't want to be forced to buy car insurance, don't buy a car. However, if you don't want Health insurance, you can't simply not have your Health. Sorry - rabbit trail.
You don't need to own a company to live. Or Make someone with a more open mind, the head of company. You don't want to have responsibilities, don't take a post.

So, just as Freedom of Speech and its effects are provided by the government, so too should the right to contraceptives and it's effects be provided by the government.
Didn't i say, govt should be free to exercise its beliefs and opinions?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm Dutch, not British! We're probably even more left that the average Brit, although for a Dutchie I'm not even that far left :p

Honestly though, that's why I love debating with Americans. Even the most left Americans are right-wing to me. I love American politics just because many aspects of it seem very foreign to me. I sometimes can't understand why you guys make certain decisions over there. E.g. how the hell did Romney get that much support!? Or how religion is extremely important and influential over there. It's all part of the reason why I find it very interesting, the huge cultural difference.

most right-wing Americans are left-wing to me ;)
Romney is an example of that.
 
Top