- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The ACLU's disappointing stance on the Hobby Lobby decision
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:27 am to DByrd2
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:27 am to DByrd2
quote:
One could EASILY argue that HL being forced to provide those 4 contraceptives out of 20 total products in the case would be an infringement on the owner's right to his religious beliefs.
Sure... disingenuous Republicans easily argue for bullcrap all the time. The question is validity.
1
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:28 am to Sentrius
quote:
With regards to ObamaCare and the constiution, in what world do they think that statutory laws can supersede constiutional rights?
I'm definitely not a lawyer, so I may be mistaken, but wasn't this case decided on statutory law and not constitutional law? The supreme court essentially upheld RFRA, a law that came out of a democrat majority in the house and signed by Bill Clinton.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:29 am to Navtiger1
quote:
Um...Taxes
Churches don't pay them.
I do and don't like it.
You are not a non-profit corporation. People that work for churches pay taxes just like you.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:31 am to TK421
quote:
I'm definitely not a lawyer, so I may be mistaken, but wasn't this case decided on statutory law and not constitutional law?
That's correct.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:47 am to TK421
quote:
You are not a non-profit corporation. People that work for churches pay taxes just like you.
I am well aware of all of that.
You obviously missed the point of what i was responding to or chose to ignore.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:47 am to ruzil
quote:More or less true. It's a bad deal for the employee and the employer. The employee can go to the exchange but they will not get a subsidy and the employer still gets fined. It would just be easier for the employee to come out of pocket. The pills that are not covered are abortifacient pills. From what I understand you only take them when pregnant. I think they cost 100 bucks or less. A cheap price to pay to rectify a "mistake"
If the employee wants one of the types of BC that Hobby Lobby doesn't provide, they can avail themselves to the exchanges and buy their own policies.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:48 am to Rex
It's a flat out topsy turvy world where the fact I fail to buy something for another person constitutes me "imposing" my beliefs upon them.
This is what happens when 51% of the voters discover a "right" to someone else's labor.
This is what happens when 51% of the voters discover a "right" to someone else's labor.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:49 am to Navtiger1
quote:
You obviously missed the point of what i was responding to or chose to ignore.
The context of your statement does not make it any more appropriate in the current discussion.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:53 am to Sentrius
The ACLU often gets it right. But they get it wrong sometimes too. Their stance on 2A has always puzzled me.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 9:56 am to Rex
quote:
Sure... disingenuous Republicans easily argue for bullcrap all the time. The question is validity.
One of the things people bitch about when discussing politics is the more and more partisan things become, with people being far less willing to compromise.
Providing 16/20 is a pretty damned good compromise, one so good that there was no complaint until the government got involved and even then the only complaints have come from non-employees.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 10:04 am to Rex
quote:
First, the employees work for the CORPORATION,
but a corporation isn't something that can exist without people working in it. The owners of the company while they aren't the cooperation they ultimately are the highest rank when it comes to decision making. Everything that happened in the company ultimately goes back to the owner.
I think a better example of this is EWTN, they are a cooperation even though 90%+ of their employees are Catholic (I believe). The government requires that they provide contraceptives which they have full objections to. You are saying that because corporations are not persons and don't have rights, a very clearly Catholic organization which clearly is against contraceptives will be forced to provide something they have objections to. Those who are in charge of paying the insurance companies will spend company money, probably gained from Catholics to pay for something they consider morally objectionable. Corporations may not be people, but people work in corporations and they are the ones making sure that insurance salaries and so on and so forth get paid.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 11:18 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
The ACLU is one of the greatest defenders of constitutional freedoms this country has ever had. It's a knee jerk reaction to assign them a political stance, as they have represented or worked with groups on all sides of the spectrum. From the NRA to NAMBLA, it doesn't matter to them
There is a lot of stupid in this thread that I am just going to ignore and try to stick to OP's topic.
While not a fan of the ACLU, I am glad they are around. But I cannot recall them taking a pro-NRA stance. If they have, it certainly isn't their mainstay.
I used to respect their balance. Try to pray at a government meeting and they will be all over you. But try to tell a student they can't bring a cross to school and they will jump you just as quick.
Recently it seems they lean more on anti-establishment cases; and very rarely on the religious freedom cases. And they really don't care about property rights. They care about "civil" liberties. For instance they were also on the side of the gay couple, not the baker in the Denver case which I also found disappointing.
How mandated employer coverage of certain birth control methods is a "civil right" that the ACLU should be concerned about is beyond me. I can see NOW and other women's groups, sure. A civil liberty question? I don't see it, and thus their bias shows through.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 12:33 pm to Sentrius
quote:In Obama's world, of course. The ACLU stance was as predictable as it is ideological. They have evolved from a neutral party advocate of civil liberties for all, to a mouthpiece (and creature of) the ideological Left.
...in what world do they think that statutory laws can supersede constitutional rights
This post was edited on 7/3/14 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 7/3/14 at 1:01 pm to weagle99
quote:
The ACLU has never suppprted an individual's right to own a firearm IIRC.
I have mixed feelings about the organization and their tepid support of the 2nd makes it very hard for me to support them at all.
Honestly, I can envision a situation whereby the ACLU and the NRA have some sort of handshake agreement not to step on each other's turf.
Has the ACLU ever vociferously opposed any form of gun rights? Sincere question.
I'm a strong supporter of gun rights BTW.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 1:02 pm to efrad
quote:
Person A believes the law violates his religion and is exempt from it. Person B doesn't like the law but still has to follow it regardless.
Welcome to America.
Posted on 7/3/14 at 1:15 pm to efrad
quote:its not OK to exempt some and not others (though Obama has done it again and again), but that is not what the court did. It rule a provision of the mandate unconstitutional, so now the government will have to find other means to institution that provision. That creates no conflict between HL and Michael's, or any other entity for that matter.
Exempting one company from the law based on their religious beliefs and not exempting all other companies... why is that OK?
Posted on 7/3/14 at 2:05 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
It rule a provision of the mandate unconstitutional,
No, it didn't. The Court specifically said it was avoiding a First Amendment decision. It ruled instead on a statutory consideration, that the RFRA applied to the matter, and that RFRA compelled the government to excuse Hobby Lobby from having to provide contraceptive coverage because there was a less restrictive method available to the government.
This post was edited on 7/3/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 7/3/14 at 2:27 pm to Rex
quote:
It ruled instead on a statutory consideration
You do know that the ACA itself contains a statutory exemption for certain religious sects (think Amish). Don't you?
Posted on 7/3/14 at 10:22 pm to Rex
quote:
Isn't it fascinating how people such as yourself are eager to defend Hobby Lobby against charges of hypocrisy for investing retirement funds in abortion drug companies, under the premise that the money belongs to the employee, but then so rapidly abandon that rationale when an employee's EARNED healthcare coverage is the subject?
It is not earned. 1st it was provided willingly by HL, then obama and his coharts mandated that companies provide it
Posted on 7/3/14 at 11:27 pm to efrad
quote:
It's silly to have to go through your fricking employer to get healthcare. It's an antiquated system that we should be far beyond at this point.
You don't HAVE to go through your employer, you can buy your own, but have you seen the cost of individual coverage?
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News