[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 05:17 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
This is the kind of response that almost makes me want to bestow that old Chinese blessing on you: May you get everything you ever want.

Almost.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 05:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
it's too bad you won't completely give in to your superiority complex.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 05:39 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
You see that in me? Go on. Don't leave it there.

Explain.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 15:43 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com
Well, instead of explaining why you thought dwer was wrong, you just made a quip (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1615106.html?thread=129336834#t129336834), which was disappointing for us following along.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 16:14 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
The subtext in the Chinese proverb I quoted is that I think getting what he seeks, and getting it consistently in this case would be perilous for all, in ways that even he would find objectionable.

I didn't 'just make a quip', it was another way to suggest that the implications might be more than he imagined and not in a good way.

A solo artist sings and has a right to sing, but the effect of what is being offered above would in essence say that the moment you join your voice with others under a paper charter, that right disappears and the group of people as a whole can be made to shut up. Legally. Because of a stupid piece of paper whose primary purpose is to define the legal structure of the group, not affect the rights of the people within the group to speak together. This is the root. If you agree with this there is no chance we're going to find a mutual understanding or answer.

Using the proverb was also a way to end the thread. We were at loggerheads.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 16:59 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com
the implications might be more than he imagined and not in a good way.

And the subsequent suffering would be sweet irony....yeah, I got it the first time.


A solo artist sings and has a right to sing, but the effect of what is being offered above would in essence say that the moment you join your voice with others under a paper charter, that right disappears and the group of people as a whole can be made to shut up. Legally. Because of a stupid piece of paper whose primary purpose is to define the legal structure of the group, not affect the rights of the people within the group to speak together.

That is a bit more substance than "you'll be sorry!"


a way to end the thread

It didn't end the thread. It devolved into this "explain" thread.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 18:37 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
It shouldn't take a paragraph to explain why eliminating rights on the basis of a group's legally defined structure on a piece of paper that deals with defining structure and has nothing to do with the rights of the group as a group of people, is a bad idea for everyone.

We had already discovered that dwer does not think any chartered group or organization has rights. Once we've established that, as I believe we already had at that point, what is there left to say but "you might not like what you get if you do"?

All I said to you was to restate what had already been said.

Why are we talking about talking?

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 18:48 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com
It shouldn't take a paragraph to explain why eliminating rights on the basis of a group's legally defined structure on a piece of paper that deals with defining structure and has nothing to do with the rights of the group as a group of people, is a bad idea for everyone.


Took a sentence, which is better than your original quip.


Why are we talking about talking?

Because you asked why your quip came across with a superior `tude.
Edited Date: 29/11/12 18:49 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 18:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
Warning that it might be dangerous to have something you want to see come about is copping a superior attitude?

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 19:16 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com
The way you did it, sure. Telling someone you see a danger of X happening is a bit different than wishing danger upon them. Also, that whole "it shouldn't take a paragraph to explain" thing is a pretty superior tude.
Edited Date: 29/11/12 19:22 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 19:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
I'm wondering who'll be the first to realize the uselessness of this exchange, and eventually return on-topic. Been following with an increasingly morbid fascination thus far.

(no subject)

Date: 29/11/12 19:44 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com
It should be noted that I would be wishing it on myself as well. Public policy has a tendency to not just burn your neighbor's house down when it goes wrong, but your own as well. Which is why I said almost, as in, it's a tempting thought tempered by what effect it would have on all of us, myself included.

And what is being said is fairly straightforward. I could belabor the point, but even before my supposedly incendiary comment, I think all had been said that could be said between the two of us.

Can both of us just let this die already? The thread is beyond saving.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Summary