It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bone75
I don't see anything wrong with a company that says "I'm going to give you a full time job and pay you 80% above minimum wage. I'm going to provide you with health insurance, but our healthcare plan doesn't cover abortion inducing medication. That you will have to pay for yourself."
It seems everyone here would rather see this guy "free his workers from the 40 hour work week" and cut their hours to 29 a week so that he doesn't have to provide health insurance at all.
CB328
No Christian should be forced to pay for someone's contraception
But you don't want to pay for their unwanted kids either that they can't afford to pay for. Either way you're going to pay, but it'll be a lot less to pay for birth control.
mOjOm
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
It doesn't matter what "HIS" beliefs are because this is about Hobby Lobby the Corporate "Person" not the owner "Person". The owner is an entity which can hold religious beliefs but the Corp. Hobby Lobby cannot. It's really just that simple and that is what the Supreme Court is going to be looking at. The fact that there IS a separation between Hobby Lobby and it's owners is the matter at hand. If they were the same entity then fine, but they aren't.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..
Washington Post
The writer is a professor at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.
The First Amendment’s establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don’t. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: “The First Amendment . . . gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities.”
If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners’ anti-contraception religion. After all, but for the business’s religious objection, the cost of contraception would be fully covered by insurance.
Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Well I believe you have misinterpreted the establishment clause.
One persons rights end where another's begin.
Make your case as to how providing health coverage violates this. Be specific. How can he not exercise his religion? Remember his religion has no bearing on another persons beliefs. I looked for cases as they pertain to "the free exercise" and I can find none that pertain. If you know of any please post them.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from accommodating religion and granting a religious exemption, if granting exemption would impose substantial burdens on anyone who does not benefit from that exemption.
The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Within this amendment are two clauses: the Establishment Clause, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause essentially allows people to avoid following generally applicable laws if they are doing so for religious reasons. Such as contraception is a sin, and they don’t want to participate in it.
Now with the Establishment Clause
Allowing these companies an exemption would impose significant burdens on their female employees (as well as the wives and daughters of their male employees) and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
The Establishment Clause prohibits imposing those sorts of burdens on third parties—burdens which can include up-front costs of contraception that can be close to $1,000 per year. In a recent article from Washington Post.
Washington Post
The writer is a professor at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.
The First Amendment’s establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don’t. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: “The First Amendment . . . gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities.”
If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners’ anti-contraception religion. After all, but for the business’s religious objection, the cost of contraception would be fully covered by insurance.
Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Reread what I wrote.
Aside from that your assumption that it is $30 even if true does not matter. You also cannot claim how substantial it would be to the employee because to some it is quite substantial which makes it your opinion, and this is about law.
It has also been reported nay I say confirmed that contraception is neutral if not less for insurance plans because they factor the cost of pregnancy vs contraception which is why they make it either less or neutral. Prove me wrong on that because I am sure in prior debates with you that information has been provided. Here is a link saying there is no added cost to premiums. So nothing you said applies so far.
Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I can tell you have nothing to add anymore. As you were the one who brought up the $30 and now you say I am throwing it around. I would say with that you did misrepresent unlike when I said you misinterpreted and you must have miss read.
LOL it has taken some effort just to try and keep you from going off of on tangents. For anyone who goes back to read our exchange it is quite comical.
If you get around to addressing any of what I posted pertaining to the law I will get to it tomorrow because it seems this has run its course. I did say this is an emotional subject for many it is OK for emotion govern people but not countries.edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
No, you brought up substantial burden, I showed it only costs $30, thus is not a substantial burden.
Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
No, you brought up substantial burden, I showed it only costs $30, thus is not a substantial burden.
This is my last post to you tonight on the subject.
One of the tangents you are going on ATM is the cost. I said the unsubstantiated amount you claim it would be is a matter of opinion as to whether it is a burden. You are not an authority as to how much is a burden to anyone. There are many types of birth control where cost varies as well as the cost of doctors visits for birth control and subsequent checkups. Not all women can use the same type of birth control nor should they have to.
In the end though your claim that the amount would not be a burden to women is your opinion unless you an provide evidence to the contrary. This issue is a matter of law not opinion.edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)