The church of Hobby Lobby, evidently, since they believe that preventing implantation is abortion (which is not what the medical term abortion refers to), but they don’t believe that preventing fertilization is.
Hobby Lobby is a for-profit business. They split that hair to improve earnings. If they are exempt from a rule, and all other hobby stores must comply … [ka’ching] … Hobby Lobby can raise prices as much as the others and thus increase the afore mentioned earnings. I do that all the time in my business.
Unlikely. Most people seem to think that insurers prefer to cover contraception because it is cheaper than pregnancy. Were in not for the federal government stepping in to help their female employees, Hobby Lobby’s insurance would probably cost more. And even with federal intervention, I doubt it will cost less.
That doesn’t mean their belief is sincere. I think it’s probably more political than theological.
One is allowed to fire people for not adhering to their religious tenets, while the other is not. The line of demarcation has already been set by previous evaluations of religious freedom.
Freedom of religion is different from freedom of the press. Firing someone for writing something you disagree with is perfectly legal. Firing someone from a for-profit organization for not adhering to your religious beliefs is illegal discrimination.
Hence an owner can compel you to say certain things, but they cannot compel you to adhere to their religious beliefs. Hence a for-profit organization does have freedom of press but cannot actually hold a religious belief.
I’ve brought this up multiple times, and I haven’t seen a refutation. Granted, I haven’t checked the GD thread since the third time I mentioned it, but I would think that, if you can rebut it, you’d mention the rebuttal here, too. You’re already covering and “debunking” some arguments, so you’d think you’d cover all of them.
Spot on correct … these people are throwing away their money … they’ve lost their pro-choice customer base. Watch, they’ll have to close all their stores in “blue” communities when they emerge from bankruptcy court.
Ummm … it’s illegal for landlords to put up a “No [blanks] allowed” sign on his rental units. However he can put that sign up at his home up in Swanky Hills neighborhood. There are limits to a business’ Constitution rights. It’s only the number of congressmen that a business is allowed to buy that is unlimited.
… is that meant to be a response to something?
Yes, it is.
The point is that birth control businesses buy more congressmen than hobby businesses, by rights, hobby businesses must pay.
I do appreciate the religious community’s admittance that their all-powerful god is stymied by a larger than normal dose of pregnancy hormones.
Because moral responsibility cannot be divested into someone else. If you have the power to stop something immoral, you should do so. This takes priority over any idea that X is not your job.
Now, with many other positions, there’s the additional factor of making sure you stay in power to handle moral actions. Like, for example, it is immoral for a nurse not to try and save a life if possible; however, certain regulations mean that said nurse may lose her license if she does certain things. Hence she must weigh the good she can do for this one person versus the good she can do for everyone. She can save this one guy, but a lot of other people may die.
This is not a concern for the Supreme Court, due to being appointed for life. The court can legislate largely without consequence, and thus it should do so when it disagrees with Congress.
Textualism is the refuge of the amoral. Their goal is to divorce themselves of moral culpability by transferring it to someone else. This isn’t acceptable when one follows orders to murder someone for the same reason. You are responsible for what you do.
Now, I don’t preclude people actually believing that Hobby Lobby should be able to do what they did, but the idea that said people are compelled by the text of the law, and not the general good of the country is not a philosophy that I adhere to. Your moral obligation does not stop because it’s not in your job description. As I have said many, many times, morality should always trump legalism.
That’s insufficient to support the claim that IUDs and aspirin are of equally unknown risk.
The likelihood that Jameis Winston will win a second Heisman Trophy is not known. The likelihood that I will win two Heisman Trophies is also unknown.
But we can say with great confidence that the two unknowns are not of the same order of magnitude.
I am not aware of any serious scholarship which suggests that the likelihood of aspirin causing a failure of implantation of a fertilized egg is of the same order of magnitude of an IUD causing such a failure.
Are you?
So Hobby Lobby has to cover vaccines? Is that correct? What about vaccines with a sexual component? Can they get away with bullshittiing against the HPV vaccine on the grounds that the disease can be transmitted sexually?
Getting into a bit of an unnecessary tangent here, aren’t we? It’s irrelevant whether Hobby Lobby are correct.
I completely disagree. The bedrock of our national identity is resting legislative and executive power in the elected, not the unelected. Your idea would eviscerate the “We The People,” concept of sovereignty and destroy the “consent of the governed,” which Jefferson so poetically invoked.
You’re not alone in your view, so I can’t call it crazy.
But I pray that it doesn’t gain wide acceptance.
Cite?
If God didn’t want these (possibly fictional) abortions to occur he’d prevent them. Since he doesn’t, either HL is wrong or God is not omnipotent.
And the United States also does huge business with China, even though we presumably don’t like their human rights abuses.
So what?
Cite?
This statement utterly denies the existence of free will. It’s reasoning applies to any evil act. “If God didn’t want my house to be burglarized, He would have stopped it.”
Of course not. How could humans be said to have free will if God negated every act He did not want?
Have you read the RFRA?
In the middle of your hysteria, I mean.
Correct. Before fertilization, they say, not a person. After: person.
That’s been the consistent position of pro-life people for a little while now.