Do you understand that step (2) would fail, because a reviewing court would find that it’s insincere?
Are you cool with the courts deciding who really is religious and who’s faking it?
Yet they don’t think it’s “sinful” to profit off the very thing they refuse to give to others. I know that morality, for some, is very fluid and all, but does that make sense even in your personal (read: non-lawyerly) opinion?
Yes, it does.
Although the Greens are not Catholic, you’re asking about my personal view; I tend to analyze things from a Catholic standpoint. And in Catholicism, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the concept of intentionality and on the nexus between the act and the result.
IN Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas reasons that killing your attacker may be justified. It depends on what your intent was. If you intended to defend yourself, and your attacker dies as a result, that is morally permissible.
This captures what Catholic moral reasoning calls the principle of Double Effect.
A mortal sin is one that must be accomplished by full advertance of the will. You must intend to do the wrong thing. A wrong thing that happens without the intention cannot qualify.
In this case, the intention was to provide a retirement plan. That plan offers a dozen different mutual funds; each fund buys shares in thousands of different companies. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to find a reasonable mutual fund which would limit its investments to only companies which don’t make problematic products. But look at the attenuation of involvement: the total holdings of the retirement plan are invested in a dozen mutual funds. One fund has a couple thousand different companies. Four of those companies make thousands of products that include Plan B and Ella. That means that less than one one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the plan’s value can be said to rest in these morally problematic products.
In contrast, the funding for the employees’ to purchase the products is more more direct, and much more intentional, and thus of much higher proportion than the investment funding is. The company chooses the insurance coverage. But it doesn’t choose the mutual funds’ investment strategy.
I would refuse to do business with a store owned by a former Nazi camp commander. I would not refuse to get a cellphone from AT&T merely because I learned that the former Nazi camp commander owned shares of AT&T.
Considering that the courts have been doing so for dozens of years, and i can’t recall hearing of a single case in which I felt a genuine religious practice was rejected as insincere, I’m fine with it. It’s a question of fact, just like a zillion other questions at trial.
You’re not? In what cases do you believe the courts improperly rejected a sincere belief as insincere?
Godwin, really?
:dubious:
You are whooshing us, right?
They might want to try convincing themselves first. Because they’re telling the entire fucking world that something is sinful while readily investing in it. They’re a bunch of religious fanatic hypocrites who are attempting to deprive women of health care in the name of their lack of understanding of science and their deep seated sexism.
As someone who has taken birth control pills solely to help conceive my children, I find their morals unconvicing, their understanding of science pathetic and their sanctimony laughable. I shall take great happiness in both not patronizing their enterprise and praying to my own deity that they go bankrupt.
I can’t go toe to toe with you on specific court cases because I’m not an attorney.
In my earlier post, I’ll admit to hyperbole WRT the three steps to profit. Having said that though, I don’t see why an employer would have too hard of a time convincing a court that they really do have spiritual beliefs that hiring homosexuals is a sin and therefore should not be made to do so. (Or Muslims or women or anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their ideology.)
ETA: Your link doesn’t work BTW.
Fixed link: here.
You don’t see why an employer would have too hard of a time convincing a court that they really do have spiritual beliefs that hiring homosexuals is a sin and therefore should not be made to do so?
Well… in some cases, they can’t be made to do so.
A church cannot be forced to hire a gay minister if they are hiring someone to teach – and live – their faith. This was established in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. But a business like, say, Hobby Lobby, would have a more difficult time, because while their belief may be sincere, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that gays are treated equally in the marketplace (relying on Windsor’s reasoning).
And the government’s method of ensuring compliance is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
So I’m not sure I see what the problem is – in that case, unless you’re talking about a ministerial position, the government’s interest in ending discrimination against gays is compelling and the scheme to do so narrowly tailored as possible.
Back to abstinence ! Of course it is fail safe and 100% effective!
And one hundred percent realistic in most marriages! Eh. I’m just one of those perfidious Jews so what the fuck do I know?
I sort of want to start a Church of the Holy Prostate but I love my husband and I have male friends so denying them access to medical care isn’t something that appeals to me.
This makes me both incredibly sad and terribly angry.
I’ve never shopped there, so a boycott by me is not going to hurt them. 
I guess none of the women in that family use birth control.
Just so we’re clear, will this ruling open the door to any other similar decisions? Sure, this one was about Hobby Lobby not wanting to provide certain types of birth control… what if they want to expand it to other types? What if another, similar, company decides they don’t want to pay for blood transfusions?
It seems to me that these will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Do you disagree?
In what way is that different from the courts ruling whether a religious belief is valid?
I suppose it’s not really relevant to the Hobby Lobby discussion but I couldn’t let this pass. The New York Times is the press. The press gets special mention in the First Amendment. So it’s not an example that proves your overall point.
I can’t quite figure that out, either. Contraception options are normally discussed at my annual gyno checkup, along with a Pap smear and any other concerns I might have that are relevant to my reproductive health and/or my wish not to reproduce. Is Hobby Lobby saying their insurance won’t cover annual checkups if contraception is discussed and/or a prescription written? Or just that they won’t cover any prescribed contraceptives? What about surgical sterilization?
I really wish we weren’t having this conversation at all because health coverage were decoupled from employment, but I haven’t gotten that wish…yet.
Bricker, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. But I do have some observations / questions…
Although I have no doubt what you say is true for practicing Catholics, 1.) I’ve read nowhere that the people behind Hobby Lobby are. It makes me wonder if they subscribe to a similar belief system or if they really don’t care where they get their profits, as long as, well, they profit. Being hypocritical may not matter as much in the hierarchy.
2.) Since this bit of information was readily available to anyone on the internet, I find it strange that they themselves might not have known. As such, you’d think with worldwide exposure looming from a Supreme Court case, you wouldn’t wish to engage in the slightest bit of impropriety. So, that said (and I know nothing of pension plans personally), wouldn’t it have been more prudent, once this was brought to light, that they change pension plans to one that wouldn’t also be contrary to their religion? I mean, if there’s literally bazillions of them out there, I can’t imagine that they couldn’t find exactly one that would allow them to be morally consistent.
And finally, 3.) going back to what you explained; just because your holy texts / spiritual leaders / dogma or church doesn’t say something is specifically wrong (or it’s really far down the list), isn’t the onus still on us as good human beings to do the right thing even when others might give us a pass? Because I’m thinking, if I were in their shoes, I’d make damn sure everything I did was beyond reproach before I launched into something that would show me to be a hypocrite.
Why not? Freedom of religion also gets special mention in the First Amendment.
The court doesn’t take any position on the validity of the belief. They do take a position on the sincerity of the belief. Those statements mean different things.
HHS mandates that employers provide coverage for twenty different contraceptives. Hobby Lobby provides sixteen of those and objects to four.
I am certain they are not Catholic. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, or their willingness to sacrifice profits in service of their beliefs.
But if they don’t regard the tiny fraction of investment in such companies as morally problematic, why would they switch? Wouldn’t such a switch be itself hypocritical – switching just because of the perception?
I’d suggest that it’s more honest to simply act according to their beliefs, rather than try to change because of the lawsuit. If they believe they are on solid ground, then that’s what they show the world.
Thanks, but that actually doesn’t answer my question at all. Contraception discussion and/or prescribing is normally a big part of an annual gyno checkup. How does this decision affect this issue which is basic to every woman of reproductive age?