It's Supreme Court day! Hobby Lobby VS Obamacare.

[dehotz]

Hobby Lobby is a privately run business, just a very large one. They are not publicly traded.

They practice their beliefs in running their business in such ways as keeping it closed on Sunday, piping in music to control against music that conflicts with their beliefs, and refuses to carry products that would conflict with their beliefs.

And they still don't get to contravene the laws because of their beliefs. Explain to me how this would be different than if they didn't believe that they should have to hire black people, or jews, or women. Or explain how if you allowed this you'd not allow any corporation from excusing itself from any regulation that it didn't like.

[obdigore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_birth_control

Short summery: It is seem as an attack on life by trying to prevent a child from being born. A little easier to explain is abortion coverage. The standard christian view is as soon as conception takes place the child is a person and aborting a fetus is the same as killing a baby.

And yet the bible itself notes that the punishment for someone knocking a pregnant woman over and causing her to lose the child is less than the punishment for killing a child or an adult. But hey, religious consistency...

[Orcbert]

Pretty much, yes. Though an easier solution would be for him to have a reality check.

Such as the reality check David Green is having right now? Where his business he started over 40 years ago and has been able to run according to his principles. He has created thousands of jobs. Suddenly because of the Obamacare mandate he has to leave those views aside if he wants to continue to run his business?

[Orcbert]

And yet the bible itself notes that the punishment for someone knocking a pregnant woman over and causing her to lose the child is less than the punishment for killing a child or an adult. But hey, religious consistency...

Direct reference please.

[Orcbert]

And they still don't get to contravene the laws because of their beliefs. Explain to me how this would be different than if they didn't believe that they should have to hire black people, or jews, or women. Or explain how if you allowed this you'd not allow any corporation from excusing itself from any regulation that it didn't like.

The slippery slope argument is a poor one. To be able to defend something as a religious belief you have to prove it is practiced in your religion. There are pretty much no religious text that refer to race as a qualifier.

Hobby Lobby can prove in court that this is a religious belief. You can't do that with saying you won't hire a black person.

[dehotz]

Direct reference please.

May have been referring to this(follow the reference from wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...n#cite_note-17

[Sunseeker]

I think its worth trying before going to single payer, single payer is better than the ACA but has drawbacks that can't be ignored.

Maybe, but every system has drawbacks. I'm concerned that if the ACA becomes a stepping stone, it'll be a very very difficult one to remove when we pave the way for single-payer.

[Mormolyce]

When you have to directly pay for it through government coercion. Damn, that was hard to figure out.

The Quakers tried that one to get out of paying taxes that would partially go towards a military they had religious objections to. Didn't work.

[Orcbert]

Right but we live in the real world. Can you provide an adult answer that is not based on fairy tales?

Wow, I guess there is no point in holding a discussion with you. Throwing aside someone's beliefs as "Fairy Tales" shows your complete lack of respect or ability to take anyone else's points of view into consideration. Freedom of Religion, first amendment. Read it sometime.

Frankly, you are as bad as the Westboro Baptists. Everyone else is wrong and stupid. Only you are right.

[obdigore]

Direct reference please.

Exodus 21:22-25

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe

[usiris]

Calling someone as bad as the wbc becuase he disagrees with you....

Exodus 21:22-25

There are many ways in which the person who asked the question can interpret this. Most not in your favor.

[dehotz]

The slippery slope argument is a poor one. To be able to defend something as a religious belief you have to prove it is practiced in your religion. There are pretty much no religious text that refer to race as a qualifier.

Hobby Lobby can prove in court that this is a religious belief. You can't do that with saying you won't hire a black person.

The slippery slope argument is valid when taking into account the precedent the case will set.
So your argument is that his religion is a real one so he gets to use it to discriminate but we won't allow it for any fake religions? The fact that the belief is sincere doesn't matter, neither does the mainstream-ness of the belief. The fact is the corporations have to follow the rules and laws and if they don't they should be subject to penalties like the rest of us.

[Orcbert]

May have been referring to this(follow the reference from wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...n#cite_note-17

The link was about the church debate on if an embryo is considered a child. Nothing about saying killing an unborn child is less punishable than murder.

[Mormolyce]

Direct reference please.

Exodus 21:22-25

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...25&version=KJV

You can set it to a different bible version if you like.

In short, if a pregnant woman is injured to the point of losing her child (which is a forcible killing of the unborn child, I think we can all agree that this is more serious than a voluntary abortion) the punishment is a fine. But if the woman herself is harmed it's eye for an eye (so if she were killed, the punishment is death, as it usually is for murder in the Old Testament).

The idea of unborn children having rights is a modern one.

- - - Updated - - -

There are many ways in which the person who asked the question can interpret this. Most not in your favor.

Only if they have a poor command of English.

Here's the same passage, "Contemporary English" translation:

22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage[a] as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...25&version=CEV

"Common English" translation:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a bruise for a bruise, a wound for a wound.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...25&version=CEB

Go look, there's hundreds of different versions you can click through.

[obdigore]

There are many ways in which the person who asked the question can interpret this. Most not in your favor.

No, there isn't. It shows that biblically, if you damage a woman to the point she loses a child but in no other way, you get a fine. If you damage her in other ways, eye for eye and tooth for tooth.

[dehotz]

The link was about the church debate on if an embryo is considered a child. Nothing about saying killing an unborn child is less punishable than murder.

It's a reference to a debate about whether or not it was murder. Many prominent historical Catholic thinkers believed it was not murder until after the soul had entered the fetus. Entire thing is off topic anyhow and outside any area in which I might claim some degree of expertise.

[Orcbert]

Exodus 21:22-25

2 things about this quote: One, searching it I found about 5 different translations of this passage that range from miscarriage to causing premature birth with no harm to the child. Some state that if they child is fine, then the person must pay the family money. If the child is hurt, it's an eye for an eye.

Second: Catholic beliefs see the Old Testament as largely symbolic. They hardly ever hold it as literal. They don't believe the Earth was created in 6 days as an example.

[usiris]

Only if they have a poor command of English.

Here's the same passage, "Contemporary English" translation:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...25&version=CEV

I'm familiar with the passage.

I can easily view that as "if a women is forced to give premature birth" not so much "if you kill the kid"

[stumpy]

The idea of unborn children having rights is a modern one.

As is the idea that those rights supersede those of the mother, evidently.

[Kasierith]

Such as the reality check David Green is having right now? Where his business he started over 40 years ago and has been able to run according to his principles. He has created thousands of jobs. Suddenly because of the Obamacare mandate he has to leave those views aside if he wants to continue to run his business?

More accurately, he suddenly has a problem with paying for these services to be provided by a third party when it is Obamacare requiring him to do so, when this was not the case beforehand.