| Author |
|
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14920
|
| Posted: 07 July 2014 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Their faith is violated as much as it would be if one of their employees uses her paycheck to pay for an abortion. Which is to say, not at all.
----
That is not for you to decide. Like the very private decisions that are between a woman and her doctor, this is a very private matter that is between an individual and his faith.
-----
They are not alike at all.
So you would support an employer withholding an employee's paycheck because he doesn't approve of how the employee will spend the money? Or can we acknowledge that an employer has no say in what the employee will do with her compensation? And isn't a health benefit just a form of compensation?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18183
|
| Posted: 07 July 2014 at 1:18pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
A lot of this comes down to what constitutes reasonably taking offense to something.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1432
|
| Posted: 08 July 2014 at 2:24pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I mean women who are currently seeing a doctor and paying $0 copay for birth control, but who would have to choose between one or the other if the drugs go OTC.
Oh. Well if that's who you're speaking of, the choice is easy: continue seeing a doctor and paying $0 copay for birth control. I'm not sure what point your trying to make.
And isn't a health benefit just a form of compensation?
Now that's an interesting question. Prior to obamacare, employer-based health insurance plans were a voluntary form of supplemental compensation, not required by law. Employers were free to offer it, or not. But if they did choose to offer coverage for their employees, because the service was rendered at their own expense, employers were free to choose policy and provider. And employees were free to participate, or not.
But this is no longer the case, is it? Government not only now mandates that medium and large businesses provide health coverage for their employees, but they mandate what those policies must look like, despite the fact that the business owners must still bear the cost. And because this policy is dictated by the federal government, that takes us directly back to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (as currently favored by the Supreme Court) or to the First Amendment if the federal government fails show a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate in future cases.
So you would support an employer withholding an employee's paycheck...
But even post-passage of obamacare, is employer based insurance coverage truly analogous to a paycheck? Businesses can opt out and pay a fine (Hobby Lobby was not willing to do so, again because of their interpretation of their faith), can they opt out of providing a paycheck? Also, only medium and large businesses are subject to the mandate, can small businesses withhold pay for services rendered?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 09 July 2014 at 5:25am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Like the very private decisions that are between a woman and her doctor, this is a very private matter that is between an individual and his faith.
---
This is a false equivalency. It's rather disingenuous to claim privacy of faith when you are proselytizing that same faith upon your employees.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1432
|
| Posted: 09 July 2014 at 11:23am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Craig-- Do you remember, at the end of the communist era in eastern Europe, when the Solidarity movement in Poland took as their slogan: For Poland to be Poland, 2+2 must always equal 4? Do you remember how inspiring it was to see those symbols, 2+2=4, spray painted on the side of a building in Gdansk or Krakow? Do you recall the beauty of it, to see a universal truth let loose from a simple can of paint; a truth carrying the same meaning in any language whether witnessed from Moscow or London, or even from southern Indiana: objective truth does exist, and no matter how often we are told otherwise, 2+2 will never equal 5.
But since then I've learned (I was only fifteen in 1989), that authority is not the only source from which this lie is perpetrated; if a man wishes badly enough for something to be true, he will find a way to make 2+2=5.
I bring this up because you still insist upon clinging to the notion that not providing is the same as denying; that not doing for is the same as doing to. And I don't know how to help you see otherwise.
From your perspective, if Hobby Lobby (or any business) chooses not to purchase houses for their employees, are they denying their employees homes?
Edited by Joseph Gauthier on 09 July 2014 at 11:24am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 09 July 2014 at 4:07pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
HL doesn't provide any medicines that I'm aware of. Not so much as ibuprofen at the checkout. They are not a medicine provider and therefore not in a position to not provide medicine. If a woman who works for HL wants to use her insurance for an IUD because she has a hormonal incompatibility with the pill, HL's insurance is. Going. To. Deny. The. Coverage. Based on their religious objection that an IUD is an aborcient. Even though it isn't. And even though they make millions investing in Plan B. So their stance isn't just anti-women; it's anti-science. And that's a dangerous precedent in what is already the least-modern modern democracy.
Now, your turn: insert a condescending anecdote or metaphor that actually has nothing to do with the salient issues at hand.
It's rather telling that one of the very architects of the RFRA (Rep. Jerry Nadler) said that the law was designed to be a shield for employees not a sword for employers: "Once you went into the commercial sector, you couldn’t claim a religious liberty to discriminate against somebody. That never came up. It was completely obvious we weren’t talking about that.”
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14920
|
| Posted: 09 July 2014 at 4:28pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
if a man wishes badly enough for something to be true, he will find a way to make 2+2=5.
-----
This, Alanis Morissette, is what irony looks like.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1698
|
| Posted: 10 July 2014 at 7:01am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
If you pray hard enough, and believe, I mean really believe, Jesus
will turn 2 and 2 into 5.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134803
|
| Posted: 10 July 2014 at 8:33am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Not sure how self-delusion plays as irony.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1432
|
| Posted: 10 July 2014 at 1:48pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
They are not a medicine provider and therefore not in a position to not provide medicine.
I suppose it's possible that we're simply having a disconnect over semantics, so I will try again:
If A purchases an insurance policy on behalf of B, and if the policy doesn't cover x, A can not be said to be denying B of x. Nor can A even be said to be denying B of an insurance policy that covers x. The only thing, in fact, that can be said in regard to this, is that A is not providing B with and insurance policy that covers x.
Can we agree?
But I no longer believe that this is simply a disconnect over semantics, which is why I brought up 2+2=4.
I'm wondering if it's time for you to admit that in relation to this issue, there is a standard that you think should be met, and it bothers you that there are others that do not share your way of thinking, and that furthermore, it bothers you that in our (mostly) free society, the government lacks the power to compel those who disagree with your way of thinking to, if not agree with your thinking, to at least comply with your judgment.
You know, that sounds an awful lot like the behavior of the Christians of southern Indiana that you've previously described.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1756
|
| Posted: 10 July 2014 at 2:52pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
As I've demonstrated, the standard I expect is on par with what at least one of the RFRA policy framers expected: the RFRA is not meant for a business to interject itself between a woman and her doctor. Or between medical science and theo-fantasy. There is not a charmless analogy on Earth you can summon forth to distract from the actual issues pertinent to this case to magically convince me that this decision is not an egregious invasion of religion into medicine.
In a couple weeks, once this ridiculous ruling is redressed by the Senate, and reason triumphs over mysticism, I'll understand if you don't make eye contact with me for a while.
I honestly cannot tell at this point whether you actually agree with the precedent set in this decision or if you are simply contrarian. I don't mind that you don't agree with me but your whole condescending demeanor - as though only you understand what's happening here - is less and less hilarious.
I'm not here to convert anyone to my worldview. But neither is my worldview on trial. I doubt anyone on the fence is going be persuaded by either of our arguments. I'm happy to engage in further conversation if you wish, but do please drop the prosecutorial attitude. I can absolutely live with your disagreement but your constant effort to paint me into some rhetorical corner is getting us nowhere.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: 10 July 2014 at 4:28pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
If A purchases an insurance policy on behalf of B, and if the policy doesn't cover x, A can not be said to be denying B of x. Nor can A even be said to be denying B of an insurance policy that covers x. The only thing, in fact, that can be said in regard to this, is that A is not providing B with and insurance policy that covers x.
Can we agree?
---
No.
If A purchases an insurance policy and tells the insurer to scrap x and x derivatives, so that A can feel good about the policy it's buying on behalf of B, then we'd be in agreement.
B, the employees, should be able to choose what level of coverage etc they get. It's between them and the insurer. A, the employer, pays part of that insurance but should not be able to have a say what is offered.
Except, now they do.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
