Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom and the ACA (Page 4)

Originally posted by Jackemy1 Should a business owned by a Quaker be forced to manufacturer parts for tanks? Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to serve non-kosher food? Should a restaurant owned by Muslims be required to have pork on the menu? Or are faith based moral convictions only dangerous when you don't agree with them?

Originally posted by Jackemy1 So people who assemble together for a common business interest must do so with the understanding that they leave their religious freedoms at the door? I just don't think an individual loses their rights if they join a group even if that group is a business....or a union...or a protest. Just to throw this out there....most corporations, including mine, are privately held with only one or a couple of owners.. Back to my questioning of the dangers of religion in business. There is a distinct hypocrisy to the moral relativism of the argument to suppress ones personal convictions. "I am tolerant of your beliefs as long as they are the same beliefs as mine"

Originally posted by powerman

 

This is the crux of the issue... I can't seem to reconcile how an owner can operate a business for the public and claim personal protections. ANY business owner is entering into an implied agreement... that he will provide services to a "the public". When you open yourself up to the public, there are problems that come with them.

I don't think th Green's should have to close... but they are NOT Hobby Lobby, they are the Greens that conduct their lives according to their faith. They are having abortions, they are not using contraceptives or abortion pills... and nobody is making them. That is THEIR religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby isn't even being forced to provide those thing, they are given a choice. Provide a plan with those things in it, or opt out and pay the tax just like every other American. They have a choice. They also have the CHOICE to do business in the public square and all that comes with that, or not. It's a choice.

This is no different that the baker refusing to bake the cake... they specifically did it because they were gay, and there was a specific law that said you can't do that... it's a choice. Either agree to the terms or don't.

 

What I can't seem to grasp.. and please explain... is how The Green's individual religious freedom is being infringed in any way. Because the Greens can practice their religion how ever they choose. The Greens are free.

Originally posted by dmiller5

this x1000

Originally posted by JoshR  Except I don't think the Greens are having abortions

Originally posted by dmiller5

You have made my point. Incorporating creates a legal barrier between yourself and your corporation. If the corporation has problems, it is considered a separate entity from you. It should go both ways. Your corporation does not have religious beliefs; it is separate from you. No one is making you do anything against your religion, the corporation must simply abide by the laws that say it must provide a certain type of healthcare for its full time employees if it is above a certain size.

Originally posted by powerman

 

This is the crux of the issue... I can't seem to reconcile how an owner can operate a business for the public and claim personal protections. ANY business owner is entering into an implied agreement... that he will provide services to a "the public". When you open yourself up to the public, there are problems that come with them.

I don't think th Green's should have to close... but they are NOT Hobby Lobby, they are the Greens that conduct their lives according to their faith. They are having abortions, they are not using contraceptives or abortion pills... and nobody is making them. That is THEIR religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby isn't even being forced to provide those thing, they are given a choice. Provide a plan with those things in it, or opt out and pay the tax just like every other American. They have a choice. They also have the CHOICE to do business in the public square and all that comes with that, or not. It's a choice.

This is no different that the baker refusing to bake the cake... they specifically did it because they were gay, and there was a specific law that said you can't do that... it's a choice. Either agree to the terms or don't.

 

What I can't seem to grasp.. and please explain... is how The Green's individual religious freedom is being infringed in any way. Because the Greens can practice their religion how ever they choose. The Greens are free.

Originally posted by powerman

 

This is the crux of the issue... I can't seem to reconcile how an owner can operate a business for the public and claim personal protections. ANY business owner is entering into an implied agreement... that he will provide services to a "the public". When you open yourself up to the public, there are problems that come with them.

I don't think th Green's should have to close... but they are NOT Hobby Lobby, they are the Greens that conduct their lives according to their faith. They are having abortions, they are not using contraceptives or abortion pills... and nobody is making them. That is THEIR religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby isn't even being forced to provide those thing, they are given a choice. Provide a plan with those things in it, or opt out and pay the tax just like every other American. They have a choice. They also have the CHOICE to do business in the public square and all that comes with that, or not. It's a choice.

This is no different that the baker refusing to bake the cake... they specifically did it because they were gay, and there was a specific law that said you can't do that... it's a choice. Either agree to the terms or don't.

 

What I can't seem to grasp.. and please explain... is how The Green's individual religious freedom is being infringed in any way. Because the Greens can practice their religion how ever they choose. The Greens are free.

Originally posted by Jackemy1 It doesn't matter if Hobby Lobby is a religious organization. It is irrelevant. No where in the first amendment does it restrict religious protections to only religious organizations. So in the end it doesn't matter how religious we think someone or some group is to qualify for religious freedom. The owners own the business. They purchase the plans. They make the decision. If employees and customers run for the hills because of their decision....so be it.

Originally posted by dmiller5

 

The constitution does not say you have the right not to follow a law because you don't like it, it says that it cannot force you to do something in violation of your religion. This law does not do that. No one is force feeding birth control pills to the owners. Since when is it the owner's decision whether their employees  should be able to use birth control?

Originally posted by Left Brain

I have no idea if it's relevent, but this is the Political COJ so I figured we could use a graph or two in this discussion.  

 

 

Originally posted by Jackemy1 It doesn't matter if Hobby Lobby is a religious organization. It is irrelevant. No where in the first amendment does it restrict religious protections to only religious organizations. So in the end it doesn't matter how religious we think someone or some group is to qualify for religious freedom. The owners own the business. They purchase the plans. They make the decision. If employees and customers run for the hills because of their decision....so be it.

Originally posted by powerman

No, it lays out individual rights, and government powers. It does not even specify Churches... because it is obvious it is about individual right. No where in the Constitution does it mention Corporation rights. Churches get a pass because well... that really is a group of people gathering for religion.

What is interesting is that the government has already made exceptions... so they hurt their own case doing it. You can't claim the importance of it... then say it's ok to ignore in other circumstances.

 

So then how is the option of opting out infringing on their religious freedom?

Originally posted by Jackemy1 Our rights are not laid out in a document - they are inalienable. They existed before the US Constitution and they will exist after. Constitutional rights are the negative restraints place on the government. Constitutional rights acknowledge contractually with the citizens that government's power is not unlimited. The these restriction are in place whether it is an individual or a group of individuals who have formed a legal corporation to act. A person retains their individual right regardless of what collective form they take; the Sierra Club, a University, a Church, or even a corporation whose sole purpose is to make a profit.

Originally posted by powerman

So then how is the option they are provided of opting out infringing on their religious freedom?

Originally posted by tuwood

 

If they opt out the government will take $26M by force from them every year.  So, I don't think it's fair to say that they have an option to opt out.  In the context of religious freedom, it's like me paying the government $1000/year so they will let me go to church.

Originally posted by powerman

But they already pay more than that in health care.... it's not a fine... it's a tax. 

Just like many other companies... they have the option to pay the tax, or supply health care. If they do not like the healthcare they must supply, then don't supply it. 

Originally posted by braciole i know noone probably cares and that talking about wonky legal stuff isn't as much fun as the debate everyone's having here, but I think it'd be weird to have a 100+ post thread that doesn't mention by name or talk about the statute at issue in the case. Hobby Lobby isn't a First Amendment freedom of religion case. In 1990 the Supreme Court held that there are no religious exemptions to statutes of general application, even if those statutes impose a burden on religion. Under the First Amendment, Hobby Lobby would be SOL. There was a backlash against that decision, in response to which Congress (nearly unaminously) passed a statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that a court can create a religious exemption to a law of general applicability if the law imposes a burden on religion, unless the law is intended to serve a compelling government interest and seeks to achieve that goal using the least restrictive means available. The case is about that statute, which unquestionably applies to corporations. The parties in the case are fighting about whether the statute should apply to for profit corporations, or just non-profits. Congress could have exempted the ACA from the RFRA and avoided the issue altogether, but it chose not to. So here we are.

Originally posted by dmiller5

Why do people think that their religion gives them to right to not follow the laws of this country. It doesn't.

Originally posted by dmiller5

Can I add that Hobby Lobby has provided healthcare plans in the past that do cover contraceptives. Only now are they making a stink about it because someone says that they have to.

Originally posted by dmiller5

Can I add that Hobby Lobby has provided healthcare plans in the past that do cover contraceptives. Only now are they making a stink about it because someone says that they have to.