U.S. appeals court backs employer in 'contraception mandate'

[RosyDaisy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/01/usa-courts-healthcare-idUSL1N0IM0X020131101?feedType=RSS&feedName=financialsSector

This makes me angry! :angry-fire: Especially this part:

Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that as a result of the regulation, the brothers "can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong."

Grave moral wrong my ass! Fuck you Judge Brown and fuck you Francis and Philip Gilardi! I just hope this ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court!

[AnywhereButHere]

What happened to judges being fair and impartial and not interjecting thir personal beliefs into their rulings?

People like this make me want to throw things. Hard.

[salex]

So, would the same judge say it was ok not to hire women if hiring women was against their religion?

If the people who are against paying for insurance had their way, Judge Janice Rogers Brown would not be a judge, would not have gone to college, and would be home having a quiver full of kids. I guess she doesn't care about other women, if she can prove she deserves communion back at her parish?>

[RosyDaisy]

What happened to judges being fair and impartial and not interjecting thir personal beliefs into their rulings?

Have they really ever been totally fair? I don't think so. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how it's a sin to provide health insurance that includes contraceptives and abortion. Seriously, wouldn't the person using BC or having an abortion be the one sinning (for those that believe that BC and abortion are a sin that is)? Wouldn't also be sin to pay an employee who might use their paycheck to pay for BC and abortions? Oh....I forgot, were talking about fudies here. :roll:

[lizziesmom]

The thing that really makes me furious about this attitude is the narrow mindedness of those opposed to contraception. It is often prescribed for medical conditions and not just as a birth control method. You don't see these kinds of discussions when it comes to Viagra now do you?

[theologygeek]

I don't see a problem with this, the same way that I don't see a problem with bible burning. I may not agree with either one, but free speech and freedom of religion trump what I disagree with. They're a privately held company. They have the right to do this because of the freedoms given by our country. People don't have to support them if they choose not to.

[jaelh]

I don't see a problem with this, the same way that I don't see a problem with bible burning. I may not agree with either one, but free speech and freedom of religion trump what I disagree with. They're a privately held company. They have the right to do this because of the freedoms given by our country. People don't have to support them if they choose not to.

M.. no company has the right to freedom of religion. People have a right to their religious belief. Companies? Companies don't have beliefs. The owners of companies have beliefs. It's not the same thing, not by a long shot.

People create companies for tax benefits; so they aren't personally liable if the company goes kaput and for a range of other benefits. They are intentionally distinct from their owners and creators.

You can't take with one hand (tax relief and protections) but then say - no, no, it's actually me!!1! and try to take with the other. Either it's YOU, the individual, or it's your company. They are not the same thing. By design.

Skydog sense prevails and this idiocy gets shot down. It's ridiculous enough to think a corporation has a right to speech. If the HC declares the court can actually practice religion, then the lunatics have taken over the asylum and we're all damned.

[theologygeek]

M.. no company has the right to freedom of religion. People have a right to their religious belief. Companies? Companies don't have beliefs. The owners of companies have beliefs. It's not the same thing, not by a long shot.

People create companies for tax benefits; so they aren't personally liable if the company goes kaput and for a range of other benefits. They are intentionally distinct from their owners and creators.

You can't take with one hand (tax relief and protections) but then say - no, no, it's actually me!!1! and try to take with the other. Either it's YOU, the individual, or it's your company. They are not the same thing. By design.

Skydog sense prevails and this idiocy gets shot down. It's ridiculous enough to think a corporation has a right to speech. If the HC declares the court can actually practice religion, then the lunatics have taken over the asylum and we're all damned.

I thought they were privately owned. If they're not, then I agree with you.

[jaelh]

I thought they were privately owned. If they're not, then I agree with you.

I think they are privately owned too. That has nothing to do with it.

A public company has put a portion of itself on the share market to raise capital.

A private company has not been sold publicly.

That's it. Other than that, companies are companies are companies - They're the same beast.

It's also important to note that the public/private nature has nothing to do with size, power, anything else.

It also doesn't mean the company is owned by one person, or a family. A private company can be owned by (I think the max is 50 members in the US?) but def. not limited to one person or family. Everyone can have different beliefs.

take a look at this: http://www.forbes.com/largest-private-companies/list/

and tell me if you think all of these companies - that have up to 130 billion revenue + and up to quarter of a million staff members - should also be exempt from having to follow laws their owners disagree with on religious grounds.

[theologygeek]

I think they are privately owned too. That has nothing to do with it.

A public company has put a portion of itself on the share market to raise capital.

A private company has not been sold publicly.

That's it. Other than that, companies are companies are companies - They're the same beast.

They're publicly owned. I went back to read the rest of the article and the brothers are shareholders. I disagree with you on the rest. Shareholders have to answer to others. The owner of a private business can run their business as they wish within the limits of the law. If the owner of a privately owned business does not want to contribute to insurance that includes contraception, it's their right, even though I may not agree.

[Mama Mia]

And this is yet one more reason why employer and individually paid for health insurance, as opposed to universal health care, is a really bad idea. Take a couple percentage points off what goes to the military, take a couple more points off discretionary spending. Raises taxes a couple percentage points across the board and you'd have good health care for everyone without anyone having to either violate their beliefs, have their insurance cancelled, or do without important care.

[countressrascal]

Bigger issue here is- the Hobby Lobby and other Christian Right Wing Companies will cover the little blue pill but not Birth Control. I guess we are using the time machine and going back to the 1950. If women can not have birth control then men can't have the little blue pill. END OF DISCUSSION :cracking-up:

[dawbs]

They're publicly owned. I went back to read the rest of the article and the brothers are shareholders. I disagree with you on the rest. Shareholders have to answer to others. The owner of a private business can run their business as they wish within the limits of the law. If the owner of a privately owned business does not want to contribute to insurance that includes contraception, it's their right, even though I may not agree.

No one has ever decided where that line should be though.

My grandfather had a rare form of anemia that got him having blood transfusions at least once a year for most of his life.

If his employer had been Jehovah's witnesses, would it have been reasonable for them to clarify that his insurance shouldn't pay for his blood transfusions?

or does this 'owners can decide' idea only apply to contraception?

What if his employers were Christian Scientists--could they offer 'insurance' that didn't cover real doctors?

It always seems to ONLY apply to contraception.

[theologygeek]

I don't like it either. But I support our freedoms. Way back when I was young and right out of college, I worked for a devout JW. He was a pain in the ass. He had his right to his beliefs. I had my right to walk out the door and leave, which I did.

[jaelh]

They're publicly owned. I went back to read the rest of the article and the brothers are shareholders. I disagree with you on the rest. Shareholders have to answer to others. The owner of a private business can run their business as they wish within the limits of the law. If the owner of a privately owned business does not want to contribute to insurance that includes contraception, it's their right, even though I may not agree.

No. It's not their right. Because...

a company is NOT the person who owns it

it's an entirely separate entity.

the employer is NOT the individual who owns the company.

the employer is the company.

and a company cannot hold a religious belief.

if an individual wishes to act entirely in accordance with their beliefs, they can.

it's called acting as an individual, in ones individual capacity.

as soon as an individual incorporates, becomes a company and avails themselves of the benefits afforded to companies, their business ceases to be "them as an individual", who can can act according to their religious beliefs.

when mr smith, who owns smith and sons incorporated knocks on your door in his professional capacity, he is doing so as the representative of the company - even if he is the only person who owns the company. you can't sue mr smith when things go wrong; you can only sue his company.

vs

mr smith who is doing some work in his personal capacity knocks on your door, he is doing so as mr smith. you can take him to the cleaners if something goes wrong, and take the family home if it came to it.

1. the company is the "shield" between the individual who owns the business and the world. the company =/= the owner; the company is a made up, separate identity. the company, the made up imaginary thing, cannot hold a belief.

2. an individual, in their individual capacity is an individual. they can exercise their religious rights.

anyway. i'll stop now. :)

[theologygeek]

No. It's not their right. Because...

a company is NOT the person who owns it

it's an entirely separate entity.

the employer is NOT the individual who owns the company.

the employer is the company.

and a company cannot hold a religious belief.

if an individual wishes to act entirely in accordance with their beliefs, they can.

it's called acting as an individual, in ones individual capacity.

as soon as an individual incorporates, becomes a company and avails themselves of the benefits afforded to companies, their business ceases to be "them as an individual", who can can act according to their religious beliefs.

when mr smith, who owns smith and sons incorporated knocks on your door in his professional capacity, he is doing so as the representative of the company - even if he is the only person who owns the company. you can't sue mr smith when things go wrong; you can only sue his company.

vs

mr smith who is doing some work in his personal capacity knocks on your door, he is doing so as mr smith. you can take him to the cleaners if something goes wrong, and take the family home if it came to it.

1. the company is the "shield" between the individual who owns the business and the world. the company =/= the owner; the company is a made up, separate identity. the company, the made up imaginary thing, cannot hold a belief.

2. an individual, in their individual capacity is an individual. they can exercise their religious rights.

anyway. i'll stop now. :)

That's just your opinion. Courts are split on this. The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on it yet, nor settled it. I'm on the side of religious freedom, even if I don't agree with what they are fighting for.

[Stephanie66]

The Democrats successfully filibustered against this judge in 2003, but she was confirmed in 2005 under the "nuclear option" deal.

She is ruling exactly as the Democrats feared she would.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/ ... burger_bar

[smittykins]

The thing that really makes me furious about this attitude is the narrow mindedness of those opposed to contraception. It is often prescribed for medical conditions and not just as a birth control method. You don't see these kinds of discussions when it comes to Viagra now do you?

I was put on Demulen for PCOS when I was a virgin(and with the blessing of my Catholic priest, BTW).

[RosyDaisy]

Ok, so what's next? Morals clauses stating that an employee cannot use any part of their salary for BC, Plan B, or abortions? Either way an employer will end up funding contraception and abortions whether through salaries or health benefits. So this whole religious freedom crap they are yapping about is ludicrous.

[mirele]

This makes me glad that I (a) am in menopause and (b) work for an evil too big to fail financial institution that doesn't give a rat's ass about contraception.

ETA: The judge is wrong. Companies should not be free to impose their religious beliefs on employees. Fuck that noise.

[flubber]

I don't like it either. But I support our freedoms. Way back when I was young and right out of college, I worked for a devout JW. He was a pain in the ass. He had his right to his beliefs. I had my right to walk out the door and leave, which I did.

Maybe I don't get it because I'm not American. But to me freedom of religion is the freedom to practices whatever religion you believe in (no matter how cuckoo) without fear of persecution, NOT the freedom to IMPOSE your religious beliefs on others. Which is what the company (or it's directors) are trying to do. Sure they can have the freedom to believe contraception is ebil ... but not the freedom to force this on others. But refusing to provide insurance that covers contraception this is exactly what they are doing. In doing so they are also discriminating against those who don't have the same beliefs as them (i.e want access to birth control).

[Minerva]

Theologygeek, if you had had insurance through your JW employer, would he have had the right to refuse to cover your blood transfusion? Do you support ENDA?

I'm on the side of religious freedom, too, but religious freedom has to be curbed by anti-discrimination laws. Employers have power over workers, especially in an economy where many people don't have the freedom to just switch jobs, and they shouldn't be able to use that power to deny them healthcare.

[jaelh]

in another vein, if someone is a jain or buddhist, and their religious beliefs mean they find it to be wrong to take any life ever, is it a violation of their religious liberty to spend their tax $ on the armed forces?