Corporate Religion
28/11/12 17:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA 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?
* 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: 2/12/12 00:09 (UTC)Of those, dental plan is the only one that appears to be a replacement for primary health insurance.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 00:12 (UTC)i think its pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 05:45 (UTC)So wait, you just defeated your own point, didn't you? That these things aren't replacements?
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 05:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 19:33 (UTC)But I guess we're just arguing semantics now.
Canada's system is better than the US, so I'm glad you're at least educating yourself about the clearly superior system, while America continues to wallow in its inefficient, outdated model.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 19:42 (UTC)I said,
even if the government provided coverage, there would still be a market for private coverage, and there would be corporations offering coverages in that market.
you eventually said,
Why do we not see this in actual examples of countries with socialized medicine?
i showed you examples of corporations offering insurance coverage in Canada. instead of just admitting you were wrong, you say,
I was clearly talking about a REPLACEMENT for their primary health plans.
which is funny, beause in Canda this is illegal.
then you say,
I'm glad you're at least educating yourself about the clearly superior system
which is even funnier, because you obviously don't even know how their system works.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/12 06:07 (UTC)Anyway, you're just going for internet points now, you know exactly what my point is now and your only goal now is internet points.
I mean really, the life insurance stuff was just hilarious and you know it.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/12 06:25 (UTC)no, you're just making excuses for yourself.
I was clearly talking about a plan that replaces the public plan.
not clearly at all, but great, lets check out sweden. (http://www.thelocal.se/36648/20111010/)
While Sweden has long taken pride in its public healthcare system, lengthening queues and at times inconsistent care have prompted many Swedes to opt for private healthcare with many gaining the benefit through insurance policies offered by employers, currently responsible for 80 percent of healthcare insurance market.
i mean, at what point do you act like an adult and admit that you had no clue what you were talking about?
the life insurance stuff was just hilarious and you know it
i don't even know what you are talking about, but the real comedy here is listening to your pathetic arguments.