Religion

[Brite]

I consider myself christian but I don't do many things that you're "suppose" to do. I never really read the bible, and I never try to get others to follow me. My father would hate me for it, but I'm more respectful with other people's beliefs, I pray silently to myself when eating and don't force others to grab hands and say aloud because I find it rather rude because many of my friends have different beliefs and again, it would be rude to make them bow their heads to someone they don't follow or believe in. That's why I never bring friends home for dinner or gatherings because I know my father would do all of those things. It's annoyed me for as long as I can remember..

[MasterWeavile898]

That's something like what I am

 

I am willing to share my faith though. I'm not going to try to get others to follow exactly, but they do deserve to know if they don't. and if they already know, my perspective may be (Read: is definitely) different from many others, so it may at least interest them

 

Other than that, I'm not a "good person" or whatever. I just be who I am and try to improve, or sometimes worsen depending on my sanity, and if someone asks I'll tell them what I believe (Not that I expect anyone understands what I believe...)

[Ofelia]

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

I primarily believe that we do not currently have the means to know if any higher being(s) exist. By higher being, I mean what we would generally consider a diety. Not an extraterrestrial being. That's a totally different topic to me.

 

As for what I personally feel, no. I do not believe that any higher being exists. Nor do I believe in an afterlife. It would be nice if I were wrong, but I still don't believe in any of that.

[edwardelricfreak]

So the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby for the owners to refuse contraceptive coverage in their health care for employees.

 

All the links on the story:

http://sourcefed.com/on-the-hobby-lobby-su...cision-opinion/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supr...ate-108429.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/sco...-contraception/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby...ption.html?_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby...ory?id=24364311

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30...rt-hobby-lobby/

 

Seriously though, the story is everywhere. I doubt anyone has to do more than search "supreme court hobby lobby" in any search engine to find every news outlet's webpage for the story.

 

Honestly this looks like really bad news to me. :\

 

I guess it's very very GOOD news for those who share the beliefs of the winning side. I just can't believe it. It was a very close vote, 5 to 4, but still.

 

I just don't understand why the employer's beliefs have anything to do with it. They should offer the same health care coverage to everyone. If the employee is religious and doesn't believe in the use of contraceptives, then they don't have to use their health care for that. But denying people contraceptives just because you don't? That's not fair. :\

 

I can understand if it's a private company or a non-profit religious organization, but a public company? A company isn't a person. It doesn't have beliefs.

Edited July 1, 2014 by edwardelricfreak

[7Deadly$ins]

Do note that the decision only applies to companies owned by a small amount of people, so it's taking their stance as the whole companies since they own it.

[Daxillionyx]

This Hobby Lobby case shows that, once a again, the Supreme Court is one of the most unbiased courts we have, which is a good thing. Things like DOMA are being removed. but Hobby Lobby just win this case, as an example.

 

I just don't understand why the employer's beliefs have anything to do with it. They should offer the same health care coverage to everyone. If the employee is religious and doesn't believe in the use of contraceptives, then they don't have to use their health care for that. But denying people contraceptives just because you don't? That's not fair. :\

 

I can understand if it's a private company or a non-profit religious organization, but a public company? A company isn't a person. It doesn't have beliefs.

 

Have you ever been to Hobby Lobby? Christian stuff is EVERYWHERE. They close on Sundays and play Christian music in the background. No one has to guess that the people who own the franchise are avid believers.

I can understand why the ruling went the way it did. It was 5-4, so it wasn't like it was a clear-cut decision. And this only applies to companies like HB that are owned by families and family-like structures in which most of those people share the same beliefs. So you have to be known for having such beliefs in order for you to take advantage of this ruling. It's not like any company can use this.

 

Sure, people are free to use contraceptives, and companies have to cover them now. But things are not so simple when families that own companies, like HB, view many of those contraceptives as abortion, which is against their beliefs. That is where freedom of religion comes in, and it, like every other right, has to be preserved.

[TwilitProphet]

This Hobby Lobby case shows that, once a again, the Supreme Court is one of the most unbiased courts we have, which is a good thing. Things like DOMA are being removed. but Hobby Lobby just win this case, as an example.

I don't really understand why you're calling this proof the Supreme Court is unbiased? If anything this makes me think they're pretty biased towards christian religion because this is harming the rights of the employees of companies who don't share this extreme view that contraceptives are against their religious beliefs.

 

And the removal of DOMA is a huge step forward for society. All people who are in love should be allowed to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. Because marriage is not just a religious institution. Marriage is something that allows people to visit their significant other in the hospital when they're hurt, sick, or dying, and being married allows for many different things with taxes and other such stuff as well. It is only breaking the rule of separate of church and state by refusing gay and lesbian couples to wed based on religious grounds.

 

If anything your examples simply shows the courts taking a step forward in being unbiased, but then taking steps back as well.

 

Have you ever been to Hobby Lobby? Christian stuff is EVERYWHERE. They close on Sundays and play Christian music in the background. No one has to guess that the people who own the franchise are avid believers.

Uh, Christianity is probably the biggest religious faith in America. I usually expect to see a lot of Christian bunk in stores when I'm shopping. I didn't know about the closing on Sundays though. I never once thought that Hobby Lobby was run by Christians. I just thought it was another big store chain.

 

I can understand why the ruling went the way it did. It was 5-4, so it wasn't like it was a clear-cut decision. And this only applies to companies like HB that are owned by families and family-like structures in which most of those people share the same beliefs. So you have to be known for having such beliefs in order for you to take advantage of this ruling. It's not like any company can use this.

Honestly I don't think any company should be allowed to do this, family owned or not. When a store is as big as Hobby Lobby is, I personally find it absurd that they would assume that the people they hire should share their beliefs and deal with it. Christianity may be the big fish here in America, but it's far from the only one. People take jobs where they can get them if they need employment and when they're looking for work, their religious beliefs clashing with their place of work should be the absolute last thing on their minds when applying for a job! When you run a business, you should leave any beliefs that infringe on the freedom of others at the door. You're running a business, now. You're not just looking out for yourself, you're looking out for your employees as well. It's unprofessional to flail your arms like a child and complain when someone who isn't you wants the ability to get contraceptives.

 

That is where freedom of religion comes in, and it, like every other right, has to be preserved.

Why should non-Christian employees be punished by the company because the company believes that? This isn't freedom of religion, this is freedom to press their religious beliefs onto others, simply because they are in a position of power and think that makes them allowed to ignore the beliefs of others.

 

~~~

After all of this, I'm absolutely never shopping at Hobby Lobby again. It's bigger and has a larger supply than the other stores I can go to, and is a bit closer to my house than other craft stores as well, but if they're going to behave like this when it comes to the rights of their employees, I'll drive the extra time it takes to give someone else my business.

[philpot123]

Honestly I don't think any company should be allowed to do this, family owned or not. When a store is as big as Hobby Lobby is, I personally find it absurd that they would assume that the people they hire should share their beliefs and deal with it.

This is simple nonsense. Hobby Lobby isn't asking anyone to share their religious beliefs. The act of NOT providing free access to something does not equal the act of forcing anything upon you. Hobby Lobby is not forbidding their employees to use birth control, (in fact, they cover 16 kinds of birth control that aren't considered aboritfacients). They are simply saying that they don't wish to provide it as a part of their company insurance plan. The lovely thing is that in an open job market, people can look for places to apply and work on the basis of benefits offered, so if you don't like the fact that Hobby Lobby won't pay for your post-conception birth control products, you can avoid them and apply elsewhere, or you could buy it on your own dollar! Imagine that.

 

It's unprofessional to flail your arms like a child and complain when someone who isn't you wants the ability to get contraceptives.

The way people are talking about this, you'd think Hobby Lobby is trying to forbid their employees from purchasing birth control. This sort of statement is absolutely absurd. They aren't complaining that people want the ability to get contraceptives, they are complaining that they are being coerced by an absurd statist law to pay for things that they don't wish to provide. Once again, Hobby Lobby pays for SIXTEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIRTH CONTROL as part of their healthcare plans. They object to the ones that cause post-conception termination of pregnancies. If you work at Hobby Lobby and decide to terminate a pregnancy or purchase a morning after pill, no one is stopping you, they just aren't giving you the money to do it. I'm still at a loss as to why this is even an issue. It's like saying "my boss won't buy me a company car, therefore he has invaded my garage and is trying to prevent me from owning a car."

[edwardelricfreak]

This is simple nonsense. Hobby Lobby isn't asking anyone to share their religious beliefs. The act of NOT providing free access to something does not equal the act of forcing anything upon you. Hobby Lobby is not forbidding their employees to use birth control, (in fact, they cover 16 kinds of birth control that aren't considered aboritfacients). They are simply saying that they don't wish to provide it as a part of their company insurance plan. The lovely thing is that in an open job market, people can look for places to apply and work on the basis of benefits offered, so if you don't like the fact that Hobby Lobby won't pay for your post-conception birth control products, you can avoid them and apply elsewhere, or you could buy it on your own dollar! Imagine that.

I wouldn't say they are trying to force their religious beliefs on their employees either. I just don't think that, when offering certain things in their health care plan, that they can choose to not provide something based on their religion. I think they should provide everything, including the contraceptives. And I get that they aren't forbidding employees from using BC, but they don't provide coverage for most kinds. Sure, at least they cover some, but not everyone can use certain kinds of BC, so it's possible that there will be the occasional person who can't use any of the BC that Hobby Lobby does cover. Sure, that may not seem like a huge thing to some people, but I do think it matters. :\ And anyway, from the sound of this case, they aren't going to provide coverage for any BC for working employees. They offer many kinds to retirees, though.

 

I realize that no one has to apply there, anyway. I do think that more companies now will refuse to provide coverage for contraceptives, though.

 

Yes, you can just "buy it yourself". But the whole point of a health care plan that covers BC is for people who can't afford it by themselves or would rather not spend lots of money on it.

[KageSora]

Why should non-Christian employees be punished by the company because the company believes that? This isn't freedom of religion, this is freedom to press their religious beliefs onto others, simply because they are in a position of power and think that makes them allowed to ignore the beliefs of others.

Or the Christian employees who see such forms of birth control as absolutely A-okay and not against their religion in any way.

[Daxillionyx]

When it all comes down to it, the problem was taken to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS ruled, and there you have it. Of course not everyone will agree. And they don't have to.

 

If someone still really hates the fact that they don't cover all contraceptives, they don't have to work there, or they can find an employer that does. That's all.

[edwardelricfreak]

If someone still really hates the fact that they don't cover all contraceptives, they don't have to work there, or they can find an employer that does. That's all.

...Though sometimes there are very limited options and someone might only be able to get a job at places that don't cover all contraceptives.

[Alpha1]

This Hobby Lobby case shows that, once a again, the Supreme Court is one of the most unbiased courts we have, which is a good thing. Things like DOMA are being removed. but Hobby Lobby just win this case, as an example.

 

There are five conservative justices and four liberal justices. On DOMA, Kennedy is more open (with some reservations) to gay marriage, so that’s why it swung that way.

 

I can understand why the ruling went the way it did. It was 5-4, so it wasn't like it was a clear-cut decision.

 

The ruling went the way it did because of the above. Surprise, surprise.

 

The way people are talking about this, you'd think Hobby Lobby is trying to forbid their employees from purchasing birth control. This sort of statement is absolutely absurd.

 

Besides the whole “corporations are religious people”, they arbitrarily narrowed it to only contraceptives because they don’t want to open this up to complaints from other religious beliefs that they don’t agree with (e.g. vaccination or blood transfusion would be off-base). The court also is ruling this based on “sincerely held” beliefs, not if it’s actually correct. They didn’t challenge Hobby Lobby’s claim that these IUD’s and morning-after pills are killing fertilized eggs. Moreover, many fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, so that alone should be enough to dismiss these clowns.

 

Once again, Hobby Lobby pays for SIXTEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIRTH CONTROL as part of their healthcare plans. They object to the ones that cause post-conception termination of pregnancies. If you work at Hobby Lobby and decide to terminate a pregnancy or purchase a morning after pill, no one is stopping you, they just aren't giving you the money to do it.

 

Hobby Lobby was against counseling for those contraceptives. I don’t know how that would work in practice, but there’s also the fact that others are up to bat, and they don’t want any BC coverage.

 

I'm still at a loss as to why this is even an issue. It's like saying "my boss won't buy me a company car, therefore he has invaded my garage and is trying to prevent me from owning a car."

 

What if the boss doesn’t want to pay a fair wage? Would it be in the interest of the public to have a race to the bottom by getting rid of the minimum wage? We know the Walton business model is to pay as little as possible, and then let the government sort it all out...

 

 

[Daxillionyx]

...Though sometimes there are very limited options and someone might only be able to get a job at places that don't cover all contraceptives.

Well if that happens then it looks like that person will have to make some important decisions. They are adults, or at least 16, so they can start learning whether they need to search elsewhere for employment if they do not want to alter their sexual lifestyle (which is absolutely their right, I'm not against that), or, choose the more reasonable choice and use the contraceptives that the company DOES cover instead of going for the few that the company does not.

 

And companies like Hobby Lobby, that can actually use this policy, are VERY few and far in between. Unless you are in a town where there are only a few shops to choose from, finding a company that covers all contraception is not a hard task at all.

[edwardelricfreak]

It doesn't matter that it's only a few. I think that, as a public company, they should offer coverage for all types of contraceptives.

 

Sure, someone can just "get by" with applying for a job at a place like Hobby Lobby, and yes life is full of tough decisions like that, but I don't think that they should have to make that kind of choice in this case.

 

While I often stand for separation of church and state (especially in the case of public schools), in this case, I do think that religious beliefs shouldn't have been the reason for denying certain contraceptives (or any at all) in a health care plan.

[MedievalMystic]

On the subject of HL...

 

This is simple nonsense. Hobby Lobby isn't asking anyone to share their religious beliefs. The act of NOT providing free access to something does not equal the act of forcing anything upon you. Hobby Lobby is not forbidding their employees to use birth control, (in fact, they cover 16 kinds of birth control that aren't considered aboritfacients). They are simply saying that they don't wish to provide it as a part of their company insurance plan. The lovely thing is that in an open job market, people can look for places to apply and work on the basis of benefits offered, so if you don't like the fact that Hobby Lobby won't pay for your post-conception birth control products, you can avoid them and apply elsewhere, or you could buy it on your own dollar! Imagine that.

 

This. And:

 

The way people are talking about this, you'd think Hobby Lobby is trying to forbid their employees from purchasing birth control. This sort of statement is absolutely absurd. They aren't complaining that people want the ability to get contraceptives, they are complaining that they are being coerced by an absurd statist law to pay for things that they don't wish to provide. Once again, Hobby Lobby pays for SIXTEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIRTH CONTROL as part of their healthcare plans. They object to the ones that cause post-conception termination of pregnancies. If you work at Hobby Lobby and decide to terminate a pregnancy or purchase a morning after pill, no one is stopping you, they just aren't giving you the money to do it. I'm still at a loss as to why this is even an issue. It's like saying "my boss won't buy me a company car, therefore he has invaded my garage and is trying to prevent me from owning a car."

 

This.

 

I agree with your assessment totally.

 

And there ends my participation in this ongoing debate.

 

 

[~Kat~]

I do not believe any company should have to pay for birth control.

 

To me your sex life is personal and it is up to you to know how not to get pregnant.

[Daxillionyx]

It doesn't matter that it's only a few. I think that, as a public company, they should offer coverage for all types of contraceptives.

 

Sure, someone can just "get by" with applying for a job at a place like Hobby Lobby, and yes life is full of tough decisions like that, but I don't think that they should have to make that kind of choice in this case.

 

While I often stand for separation of church and state (especially in the case of public schools), in this case, I do think that religious beliefs shouldn't have been the reason for denying certain contraceptives (or any at all) in a health care plan.

I say this in sincerity with no malice or judgement: Whether or not someone believes or thinks that all public companies should have to coverage to all contraceptives has little to no bearing on if they absolutely have to under all circumstances. The same goes for thinking that some people shouldn't have to make certain decisions. That's life. Everyone has disappointments, and everyone has had to compromise in their life.

 

What the people who took this to court did was, basically, pit the mandate that all companies cover contraceptives against the first amendment right to freedom of religion. Whether or not you practice a religion or view them as important is a huge factor on whether or not you see why one's religious beliefs are enough to challenge the total coverage of contraception.

[KageSora]

When it all comes down to it, the problem was taken to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS ruled, and there you have it. Of course not everyone will agree. And they don't have to.

 

If someone still really hates the fact that they don't cover all contraceptives, they don't have to work there, or they can find an employer that does. That's all.

That ruling can be overturned down the line, though. The ruling isn't always 100% final forever.

 

If people strongly oppose it, there's always a chance of the idea being brought up again and being ruled unconstitutional. Which I dearly hope someday down the line will happen with this kind of BS.

 

Finding another employer is all well and good... If you can. But some people HAVE to take any job they can to survive and being picky about a job means being without one or one that pays lower which in the end costs them more than if they were forced to pay out of pocket for whatever that employer won't cover.

 

choose the more reasonable choice and use the contraceptives that the company DOES cover instead of going for the few that the company does not.

...And what if the company doesn't cover the BC they need for non-sexual medical reasons? Since, y'know, certain types of BC are actually used to regulate or treat non-sexual things and all that.

 

 

Religion is supposed to be a good thing that brings people joy and peace and hope and that teaches them how to treat their fellow people. Instead I see it used much more often to try to forcibly control the way other people live their lives or what other people do with their bodies, or as a shield for bigotry.

[Daxillionyx]

 

...And what if the company doesn't cover the BC they need for non-sexual medical reasons? Since, y'know, certain types of BC are actually used to regulate or treat non-sexual things and all that.

 

That's pretty vague... Too vague for me to really grasp what you were trying to say. Perhaps you could give a few examples of post-conception birth control drugs (those are the one this whole thing is disputing over) that are used for something other than to abort the formed zygote?

 

And as for those, if you MUST use them, and you have a job that doesn't cover those certain things, you will have to buy them yourself. Tough, but true.

[KageSora]

Ah, sorry--I realized after I'd typed it that I was getting two debates on two different sites mixed up, and apparently forgot to delete it from my post. >_> The other one was about should companies be allowed to ban ALL forms of female birth control from being covered, including ones that are preventative rather than post-conception and mistook your post for one on that site.

 

My bad.

[philpot123]

Sure, at least they cover some, but not everyone can use certain kinds of BC, so it's possible that there will be the occasional person who can't use any of the BC that Hobby Lobby does cover.

Say again: Sixteen. Sixteen different types of birth control. That covers a broad enough spectrum for anybody.

 

...And what if the company doesn't cover the BC they need for non-sexual medical reasons? Since, y'know, certain types of BC are actually used to regulate or treat non-sexual things and all that.

Nobody uses Plan B for the same health reasons as hormonal birth control, so that's a non-issue in this case.

 

Religion is supposed to be a good thing that brings people joy and peace and hope and that teaches them how to treat their fellow people. Instead I see it used much more often to try to forcibly control the way other people live their lives or what other people do with their bodies, or as a shield for bigotry.

Again with the "forcing" language. Your definition of coercion must be different than mine, because the Supreme Court decision I read certainly didn't give Hobby Lobby the right to control anyone's life, or prevent them from getting birth control, or even prevent them from getting certain TYPES of birth control.

 

Is my boss preventing me from eating because he doesn't give me free food on lunch break? Is my boss preventing me from going on vacation because he doesn't pay me when I don't come to work, and I can't afford a vacation this year? Explain to me how this is different. Hobby Lobby covers all types of BC that could conceivably be used for generic health reasons and only refuses to cover those that are exclusively used to cause post-conception termination of a pregnancy. Who is being forced to do or not do ANYTHING by their ability to determine what they do and don't pay for??

[Alpha1]

Is my boss preventing me from eating because he doesn't give me free food on lunch break? Is my boss preventing me from going on vacation because he doesn't pay me when I don't come to work, and I can't afford a vacation this year? Explain to me how this is different.

 

Hey phil

 

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014...fuses-to-leave/

 

California Couple's Live-in Nanny Stops Working, Refuses To Leave

 

“But when they attempted to get her to sign a letter articulating the agreement, she refused to sign it.

“When I asked her why she wouldn’t sign the letter she said ‘It’s not legal,’ and slammed the door in my face,” Bracamonte said, according to ABC. “Once she said the word legal, I knew it wasn’t going to be fun."

Police say they cannot remove Stretton from the Bracamonte’s home, and that they have to go through an eviction process.”

 

The contraceptive part of the ACA was meant as a preventive health service to reduce the amount being spent in this country for unplanned pregnancies (babies, illness, complications etc.). It’s the law. Your analogies are invalid.

 

Hobby Lobby covers all types of BC that could conceivably be used for generic health reasons and only refuses to cover those that are exclusively used to cause post-conception termination of a pregnancy.

 

These morning after pills and IUDs aren’t abortifacients. What’s funny about the whole thing is that there’s no logic to opposing birth control and finding abortion wrong. Access to contraceptives (and the IUDs are rather effective) lessens the need for abortions and reduces the possibility of eggs being fertilized and failing to implant. Additionally, many of these people are fiscally conservative, so who do they think pays for their pregnancies and children?

 

Who is being forced to do or not do ANYTHING by their ability to determine what they do and don't pay for??

 

You act as if the managers of the companies have some significant burden while at the same time trivializing the issues that the employees face. The owners are not even a part of the decision if a woman decides to utilize contraceptives benefit in the health care plan.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Alpha1

[philpot123]

 

 

 

The contraceptive part of the ACA was meant as a preventive health service to reduce the amount being spent in this country for unplanned pregnancies (babies, illness, complications etc.).  It’s the law. Your analogies are invalid.

I'm really not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything, so I'll start with this. I realize that. I think the law is stupid and inane and coercive and illogical. The fact that something is the law doesn't change its nature of being stupid.

 

These morning after pills and IUDs aren’t abortifacients. What’s funny about the whole thing is that there’s no logic to opposing birth control and finding abortion wrong. Access to contraceptives (and the IUDs are rather effective) lessens the need for abortions and reduces the possibility of eggs being fertilized and failing to implant.  Additionally, many of these people are fiscally conservative, so who do they think pays for their pregnancies and children?

You should do some study into natural law arguments against BC. Yes, there is logic to opposing abortion and opposing birth control simultaneously. I'm not going to argue about that here, because moral opposition to the use of birth control generally is something that rests on fundamental presuppositions we don't share. But at the least, if one believes that life begins at conception, thinks like plan B and IUDs cause post-conception termination, which would be the ending of a life.

 

You act as if the managers of the companies have some significant burden while at the same time trivializing the issues that the employees face. The owners are not even a part of the decision if a woman decides to utilize contraceptives benefit in the health care plan.

I'm acting as if business managers should be able to choose what healthcare plans they want to offer as part of their incentives package and shouldn't be coerced into buying anything, much less things they morally object to. I'm also acting like the act of not buying something is fundamentally different than the act of preventing someone from getting that same thing. To say Hobby Lobby is "preventing" or "keeping" their employees from accessing anything is an outright lie.

Edited July 2, 2014 by philpot123

[sparkle10184]

I feel stupid right now. I don't quite understand what Hobby Lobby is doing..? Are they not allowing their employees to buy certain kinds of birth control? Or what? I'm sorry, I'm just confused