Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

#52 Mar 25 2014 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So if tomorrow we pass a law requiring that every employer must provide bible study courses to their employees
Would it hurt you to come up with a hypothetical that is, in some way, I don't know, plausible maybe?


Would it hurt for you to stop being an asshat, just once?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Mar 25 2014 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And no, the correct answer is don't pass laws which mandate that employers must do things that violate their religious beliefs.

Impossible unless you want to either (a) regulate what is and isn't a valid religious belief or (b) toss all regulation and law out the window.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Mar 25 2014 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Would it hurt for you to stop being an asshat, just once?
Treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

At least we now have a definite answer that plausible hypotheticals do hurt you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Mar 26 2014 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The fact that our laws lend any exemptions at all to 'religious' beliefs is contradictory to our constitution. Extending those exemptions to non-living things is nothing more than catering to cry-babies.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#56 Mar 26 2014 at 6:17 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
And today I learned that when you don't have a good answer you just pretend that the other guy is wrong in some undefined way. Oh wait! I've known that for years. Notice how you didn't actually say I was wrong,

You are wrong. The reason bother going into it further is your complete lack of understanding of what a corporation is, legally. Sorry if there was some confusion. You are completely, utterly wrong, In no way did i mean to infer by lack of inclusion that I in any way thought you had made a valid or non idiotic point that was in any way defensible.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#57 Mar 26 2014 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Impossible unless you want to either (a) regulate what is and isn't a valid religious belief or (b) toss all regulation and law out the window.

Nah, it'll be fine. Muslim owners can run their businesses under Sharia, Mormons can require their employees to wear magic underpants, what could possibly go wrong?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#58 Mar 26 2014 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You are wrong. [...] You are completely, utterly wrong,
Still too subtle.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Mar 26 2014 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Impossible unless you want to either (a) regulate what is and isn't a valid religious belief or (b) toss all regulation and law out the window.

Nah, it'll be fine. Muslim owners can run their businesses under Sharia, Mormons can require their employees to wear magic underpants, what could possibly go wrong?

Peyote party at my place!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#60 Mar 26 2014 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
gbaji wrote:
And no, the correct answer is [b]don't pass laws which mandate that employers must do things that violate their religious


So Jehovah's witness employers shouldn't have to offer their employees coverage that includes any procedure that may allow them to have a blood transfusion?

That's moronic. If business owners don't want to use contraception - that's their business. I don't see how providing health coverage to other people that gives them that option is a violation of anything. Religious belief shouldn't EVER be used to impose something on someone who doesn't share that belief, period.
#61 Mar 26 2014 at 7:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And no, the correct answer is don't pass laws which mandate that employers must do things that violate their religious beliefs.

Impossible unless you want to either (a) regulate what is and isn't a valid religious belief or (b) toss all regulation and law out the window.


Yup. Which is something the Court should have thought about before making the unfortunate prior ruling. That was kind of my point. By allowing the mandate to stand, they lost the opportunity to simply say "forcing people to buy something is a violation of their rights" and now have to cherry pick which things can or can't be forced based on this person or that groups particular religious beliefs. You end out with a CF of judicial rulings, all of which could have been avoided if they'd applied just a tiny bit of common sense earlier in the process.


As I said earlier, the hope is that this (and a host of other similar cases) will open the courts eyes to the mistake they made not just rejecting the mandate as unconstitutional in the first place. It's why I keep saying that while this specific case may be about a religious objection, the issue itself should not be. Making it about religious exceptions forces the government to do exactly that which you just said is impossible.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Mar 26 2014 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yup. Which is something the Court should have thought about before making the unfortunate prior ruling. That was kind of my point.

And ignores the larger, real, point. I can say anything is against my religious beliefs and therefore I -- or my company -- shouldn't be bound by laws involving it. It doesn't have to be insurance mandates so that ruling isn't at fault here.
Quote:
Making it about religious exceptions forces the government to do exactly that which you just said is impossible.

But they shouldn't. We abridge people's "religious" rights all the time under the general protection of the law for the common good. There's innumerable things you're not allowed to do or not do regardless of whether or not you want to claim "religion" as a reason why you're special and should get to ignore the law. This shouldn't be any different. We avoid having to decide what constitutes a legitimate religious belief and what doesn't by largely requiring people to obey the law regardless.

Edited, Mar 26th 2014 8:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63gbaji, Posted: Mar 26 2014 at 7:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Then lets not make it about religion. See how that clears everything up? Let's just pretend for a moment that we live in a free society where you are the one who has the right to decide how you spend your own money. And if you choose to provide health insurance for your employees, you get to decide what kind of coverage you are giving them. Cause you are giving it to them. You're not denying them anything. You're giving them something. You get to decide what that gift is. Not the government.
#64 Mar 26 2014 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
they're free to go work for someone else who offers something they like more
That's a real world solution.

Was that too subtle? I'm saying you're wrong. Was that too subtle as well?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Mar 26 2014 at 7:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yup. Which is something the Court should have thought about before making the unfortunate prior ruling. That was kind of my point.

And ignores the larger, real, point. I can say anything is against my religious beliefs and therefore I -- or my company -- shouldn't be bound by laws involving it. It doesn't have to be insurance mandates so that ruling isn't at fault here.


Then let's not make it about religion. Let's make it about everyone having the freedom to make their own purchasing decisions and then we avoid the entire problem. Get it?

I shouldn't have to have a religious reason for deciding I'm just going to provide health insurance that only covers hospitalization, or no health benefits at all. I should just have the freedom to make that choice. And if we didn't take that freedom away from people, this entire problem of trying to have the government determine which religious beliefs are legitimate and which aren't goes away.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Mar 26 2014 at 7:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
they're free to go work for someone else who offers something they like more
That's a real world solution.

Was that too subtle? I'm saying you're wrong. Was that too subtle as well?


Yup. Still an asshat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Mar 26 2014 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Then let's not make it about religion.

But it is. Tell Hobby Lobby to make it about "freedom" and maybe it'll mean something but the real case here is leaning entirely on "religion" as its crutch.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Mar 26 2014 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Impossible unless you want to either (a) regulate what is and isn't a valid religious belief or (b) toss all regulation and law out the window.

Nah, it'll be fine. Muslim owners can run their businesses under Sharia, Mormons can require their employees to wear magic underpants, what could possibly go wrong?


How about "everyone can choose what health care to provide to their employees for any reason they want". Done. See how by simply *not* infringing our rights in the first place solves the whole problem?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Mar 26 2014 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yup. Still an asshat.
Yeah, but an asshat that's right. Smiley: grin
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#70 Mar 26 2014 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Nah, it'll be fine. Muslim owners can run their businesses under Sharia, Mormons can require their employees to wear magic underpants, what could possibly go wrong?
How about "everyone can choose what health care to provide to their employees for any reason they want". Done. See how by simply *not* infringing our rights in the first place solves the whole problem?

It doesn't. If I want to run my business under Sharia rule, what right does the government have to infringe on my religious beliefs? Has nothing to do with your raging butthurt over losing the ACA fight -- why should the government be allowed to regulate my business against my religious beliefs regardless of the status of the health care law?

Edited, Mar 26th 2014 8:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Mar 26 2014 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about "everyone can choose what health care to provide to their employees for any reason they want". Done. See how by simply *not* infringing our rights in the first place solves the whole problem?

It doesn't. If I want to run my business under Sharia rule, what right does the government have to infringe on my religious beliefs?


Be specific. What do you mean by "run my business?". If we're talking about what benefits I offer to my employees, which is above and beyond their legally required monetary compensation, aren't I completely free to decide what that entails? No one's saying that you can force employees to bow to Mecca or anything. We're talking about benefit packages here. The government really has no business mandating anything in that area and some of us have been trying to make this point for 4+ years now.

Quote:
... why should the government be allowed to regulate my business against my religious beliefs regardless of the status of the health care law?


That's the correct statement. They should have ruled that the government should not be allowed to regulate in this way. Period. But because they stupidly let the mandate stand, now they're forced to decide which religious beliefs should qualify for exceptions. Which leads us to exactly this problem which you are all crying about. It should not be about religious exceptions. The government should not be empowered to mandate this at all. Once you fix that, then the entire question of which religion gets what goes away.

Failing to recognize that fact dooms you to eternally trying to legislate and adjudicate religious belief. The longer they go with this, the farther down the rabbit hole we'll end out going. At some point, you will run smack into unassailable constitutional problems though. It's inevitable.

Edited, Mar 26th 2014 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Mar 26 2014 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Making it about religious exceptions forces the government to do exactly that which you just said is impossible.

But they shouldn't. We abridge people's "religious" rights all the time under the general protection of the law for the common good. There's innumerable things you're not allowed to do or not do regardless of whether or not you want to claim "religion" as a reason why you're special and should get to ignore the law.


And I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that there's a difference between limiting what people can do to others, and mandating what what people must do for others. Saying that you can't perform an action in accordance with your religious beliefs if that action would harm another is one thing. But requiring someone to perform an action which violates their religious beliefs on the grounds that it would help someone else is entirely different. We normally allow the former and don't allow the latter (except in rare and extreme cases and even then it's not exactly a settled issue. See: Forcing parents to vaccinate their children for an example of this).

The ACA clearly steps well past previous limits on that sort of infringement. So just saying "well, we infringed religious rights before, so this is ok" is a terrible argument.

Quote:
This shouldn't be any different.


Why? By that reasoning, all slippery slopes are valid, then right? I mean, if we allow the government to infringe the right of a Satanist to sacrifice live human babies, then I guess it's just ok to make it illegal to hold mass on Sunday then. Clearly, there's more to it than just allowing any infringement we want because we allowed the previous one. So where's the dividing line? Where is the point at which we decide that the harm to society by not infringing that right is so massive that we must do so? Cause I don't see it here. The harm we're talking about is not paying for someone else's birth control. Seriously. Do you honestly think that's worth infringing rights for?

I don't. Not even close. I don't think it's worth violating normal property rights for. IMO, we shouldn't even have gotten to the point of having to decide whether it's worth violating the 1st amendment rights over. But having arrived at the absurd position of having to decide if the religious rights violation exceeds that which should be allowable in this case, I think the answer is clearly "yes". The harm caused by *not* buying something for someone else? Are we seriously even asking this question?

Quote:
We avoid having to decide what constitutes a legitimate religious belief and what doesn't by largely requiring people to obey the law regardless.


We'd avoid it even more if we just decided that requiring one person to pay for another persons health care is a violation of the first persons rights (not special religious rights, just plain rights) in the first place and be done with the issue. That's where we should be with the issue.

Edited, Mar 26th 2014 7:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Mar 26 2014 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Cause I don't see it here.
A truly shocking revelation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Mar 26 2014 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Cause I don't see it here.
A truly shocking revelation.


That I don't see things that aren't there? Sure. Are you saying that the harm to society by person A not paying for person B's birth control is so massive that it justifies violating the 1st amendment rights in order to avoid it?

I'm more than willing to stand by my position on this one. That's not harm at all, much less harm that justifies *any* infringement of rights.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Mar 26 2014 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
That I don't see things that aren't there?
Yes. Exactly that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Mar 26 2014 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That I don't see things that aren't there?
Yes. Exactly that.


So you're saying that you see things that aren't there? Have you sought out help for this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)