*shaking head*

[sexobon]

But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by sexobon

But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole.

There might even be a Lobby for this in Washington

[Griff]

Of course, Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that make the same drugs they won't pay for...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...on-drug-makers

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole.

But then they hired Lobbyists. Great. As if we don't have enough Lobbies. Now one for religious beliefs.

What happens when religion gets Federal atttention for protecting pedophiles and laundering Mafia funds. First government threatens legal actions. Then the interest group creates a Lobby to buy government.

Now, they call it their Hobby. Just another example of political correctness - a new expression for 'purchasing politicians'. Even AIPAC is a hobby.

Purveryor of Activities with Non-financial Gain. Being a Hobby now derogatory. I must now become a Panger. And tell the IRS it is my Pang.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

If the employees aren't happy with their health care coverage, why don't they work some place else?

Because the employer [strike]is[strike] was breaking the law.

If their religious beliefs were so wonderful, they would be able to provide insurance coverage for contraception and all their good little religious employees would religiously choose not to use them.

I can't wait for the uproar from employees who are forced to keep kosher.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Because the employer [strike]is[strike] was breaking the law.
I can't wait for the uproar from employees who are forced to keep kosher.

If the employee chooses to work in a privately owned kosher business, then it would be reasonable. Remember kosher is a adhering to dietary laws for sanitary reasons. If the employee doesn't like it, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.

[tw]

Employer has the right to fire any employee caught driving on Saturday. Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not turn to Mecca and pray at sundown. Employer has the right to withhold pay from any employee who takes the name of god in vain. Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not shop in the employer's store Employer has the right to fire any employee who does not shit only kosher foods. Since the employer's religion says what is unsanitary. Courts agree.

Only religious beliefs of the employer are relevant. Screw anyone else who does not conform to those beliefs. Nobody expected a Spanish Inquisition. As Gomer Pyle said, "Surprise, surprise, surprise."

[Undertoad]

Wull that and being against sex for pleasure, their traditional stomping ground, which tells them sex should have deadly serious consequences... amongst which, strangely enough, is... abortions. And a bunch of half-parented kids.

[Clodfobble]

The inherent problem is employer-provided insurance. Has been from the beginning.

[glatt]

Yes.

We have these crazy systems in place and they only persist because that's the way it's always been. Why in the world would we end up with a system where healthcare is part of compensation? Why not food? It's equally as logical. Imagine if employers provided food coupons instead of healthcare?

[Big Sarge]

Simply choose not to work for a privately owned business that has different essential values from your own. The women of Hobby Lobby, who brought the suit, are free to work for any other business that sanctions the murder of children or worships Baal.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

Simply choose not to work for a privately owned business that has different essential values from your own.

So if an employer sexually exploits woman and grab their asses, well, the women should simply go elsewhere to work. If the boss calls every blackman a niger and every Jew a kike, well, they have the right to go work elsewhere. It again proves the employer has the right to do anything he wants because his employees have the right to quit - to become unemployed. After all, an employer has the right to impose all his values on his employees. Including his religion. That is your reasoning.

[elSicomoro]

Politifact had a good article this morning about the potential challenges that could come in the future:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ing-affect-co/

I don't know...I don't think the ruling is necessarily bad, but...

There are a lot of things I don't like to do as a (soon to be out of) businessman, but I do them. I DO worry about a slippery slope here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sexobon]

But this isn't about what the employer is doing, it's about what the employer is NOT doing; because, the employer is a conscientious objector. It's about one person's (employee) rights ending where another person's (employer) rights begin. Refraining from participating in actions unconscionable to the employer doesn't really even have to be grounded in religion; however, that's where it gains protected status. Sometimes it's employees who become conscientious objectors to something or another, like a soldier refusing to fight, and they are exempted from doing what they find to be unconscionable. It seems that all the Court is saying is that in the case of privately held businesses, this is where one constituent's rights end and another constituent's rights begin and that there isn't going to be a case by case burden of proof imposed by government because that would be infringing on the rights accorded that class of business in this regard.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

But this isn't about what the employer is doing, it's about what the employer is NOT doing; because, the employer is a conscientious objector.

So the conscientious objector still serves as, for example, a medic.

First, not doing something is an action. Let a man drown. But "I did not do anything; so I am not guilty." Almost 100 watched Kitty Genovese die on that NYC sidewalk. And did not even call the police for about 45 minutes. They watched and did nothing - their actions. Nonsense reasoning; semantics that lawyers succesfully play to confuse reality. Not doing something is an action. So the man drowned and Kitty Genovese was murdered.

Second, the employer is imposing his religion on others. A conscentious objector does not impose his religion on anyone else. Only so called 'evil' people (ie Fundamentalist terrorists) impose their religion on anyone else. This is not about imposing his religion on himself. This is only and completely about imposing his religion on others.