Page 1 of 3 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52
  1. #1
    Veteran
    weskurtz81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,845
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    18,996 (0 Banked)

    Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling

    As I'm sure everyone has heard, the SCOTUS made the decision that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" corporations do not have to pay for certain types of contraceptives if it violates there religious beliefs. What do you guys/gals think about this ruling?

    Do you think religious freedoms apply to for profit businesses and their owners? Should for profit businesses be able to decide what they do and don't pay for when it comes to healthcare?

    e U.S. Supreme Court, in a limited decision, ruled Monday that closely held, for-profit companies can claim a religious exemption to the Obamacare requirement that they provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.For-profit corporations ó including Conestoga Wood of Pennsylvania, owned by a family of Mennonite Christians, and Hobby Lobby, a family-owned chain of arts and crafts stores founded on Biblical principles ó had challenged a provision of the Affordable Care Act.

    It requires companies with more than 50 employees to cover preventive care services, which include such contraceptives as morning-after pills, diaphragms and IUDs.

    The courtís ruling Monday was 5-4, written by Justice Samuel Alito, and the decision appeared to be extremely limited. It did not appear to open the door to other types of religious-exemption claims by companies.

    Instead, the ruling appeared to be a clear victory for the companies that brought the case and for perhaps 50 to 60 other companies like them with similar objections to the contraceptive requirement.

    The court found that there are other ways for the employees of the small companies to get contraceptive coverage. For example, the government already has insurance companies pay for the coverage for employees of certain religious nonprofits.

    The companies in the Hobby Lobby case had said that the use of some contraceptives is the equivalent of abortion, destroying a human life by interfering with a fertilized egg. For that reason, they said, providing the coverage would violate their religious beliefs.

    A principle issue for the Supreme Court was whether a for-profit corporation can claim that its religious freedom allows it to be exempt from a law.

    NBC NEWS
    The Obama administration argued that the freedom of religion applies only to the company owners individually, not to the for-profit corporations they run. It's the the corporations, not the family members themselves, who are required to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives under Obamacare, the government said.
    The companies were among more than three dozen for-profit corporations that challenged the contraceptive mandate in federal courthouses nationwide. Hobby Lobby prevailed in the lower courts, but Conestoga Wood lost its claim.

    The companies relied not only on the Constitution but also on a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the federal government cannot "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion," even if the burden results from a general law intended to apply to everyone.
    Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ontrol-n144321
    Last edited by weskurtz81; 07-02-2014 at 20:18.
    "you are both the product and the architect of your environment"


  2. #2
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    12,234
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    120,866 (18,076 Banked)
    Items Ghost in the ShellTidusLightningBruce LeeAppleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I think that's incredibly stupid, honestly. You shouldn't be singling out employee benefits because of religious beliefs. That's unfair to your employees. But whatever. They won. Good for them.
    "The biggest adversary in our life is ourselves. We are what we are, in a sense, because of the dominating thoughts we allow to gather in our head. All concepts of self-improvement, all actions and paths we take, relate solely to our abstract image of ourselves. Life is limited only by how we really see ourselves and feel about our being. A great deal of pure self-knowledge and inner understanding allows us to lay an all-important foundation for the structure of our life from which we can perceive and take the right avenues.Ē

  3. #3
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8,053
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    15,714 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    Out of all the things we have to give up when working and this is suddenly the most outrageous, not getting cussed at or hit and can't do anything or,they will fire you.

    This ruling came after obamacare hmmm funny never an issue before. And let's face it we are the same side of coin telling people they have to give up what they believe because we believe it is not neutral enough.

    on tap a talk on LG g2 and I suck at typing on phones so forgive my typo errors.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  4. #4
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,721
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    60,615 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Seems religious freedom trumps freedom.
    Or is this just a way of big corporations to save money by claiming its for religious purposes?
    Last edited by keefy; 07-02-2014 at 22:20.

  5. #5
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    15,717
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    80,502 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I think the bigger issue is why is our healthcare still tied to our place of employment? :T

    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Or is this just a way of big corporations to save money by claiming its for religious purposes?
    A lot of big companies will certainly become 'religious' after this ruling.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  6. #6
    Administrator and PSU Technical Manager
    Christopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warner Robins, GA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    8,353
    Rep Power
    109
    Points
    68,254 (1,010 Banked)
    Items Death Note LAtlusVitaPS3 FatMetal Gear Solid 4Naughty Dog360 SlimGuerrilla GamesApple
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Seems religious freedom trumps freedom.
    Or is this just a way of big corporations to save money by claiming its for religious purposes?
    Hobby Lobby didn't just discover religion in order to take advantage of this. They have Christian owners. Never open on Sundays and stuff like that.

    They aren't taking anyone's freedoms away. Why is health care suddenly about making employers pay for birth control is what I want to know. I'm sick of policies being infused with social agendas....liberal and conservative.
    My avatar* is dedicated to server errors where ever they roam. May they never return.
    *censoring provided by Ghost

    Server Error Status Thread







  7. #7
    Veteran
    weskurtz81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,845
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    18,996 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuuichi View Post
    Out of all the things we have to give up when working and this is suddenly the most outrageous, not getting cussed at or hit and can't do anything or,they will fire you.

    This ruling came after obamacare hmmm funny never an issue before. And let's face it we are the same side of coin telling people they have to give up what they believe because we believe it is not neutral enough.
    Health insurance may not have covered the morning after pill before?

    And, no one is actually giving anything up, all they're saying is the COMPANY doesn't have to pay for it. The employee is still free to get whatever pills they want, they just have to pay for it.
    "you are both the product and the architect of your environment"


  8. #8
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher View Post
    Hobby Lobby didn't just discover religion in order to take advantage of this. They have Christian owners. Never open on Sundays and stuff like that.

    They aren't taking anyone's freedoms away. Why is health care suddenly about making employers pay for birth control is what I want to know. I'm sick of policies being infused with social agendas....liberal and conservative.
    i'm gonna have to disagree with you here. they aren't saying people have to use the pill, it's there, an option. what HL is saying is that they can't have the option (in other words, they won't pay for it).

    i don't see anything wrong with covering a pill, just as not anything wrong with covering a pregnancy. both are imo two sides of a coin.

    what christians (and i say christians because they seem to be the majority and the only ones fighting this) need to understand that this isn't a christian country anymore...and it never was (maybe had christian influence) and the laws aren't based off christianity.

    freedom of religion pertains to the individuals, not everyone else that surround individuals. you can't say, well, i'm this and this and i can't wear pants because my religion states i can't wear pants.

    because this would affect others. you can't have a bunch of people walking around naked because they feel it's their right to do so. not when it affects others.

    the U.S. has decided that the place of business isn't person after you have 50+ employees and that makes total sense. after a certain point, you should not be able to discriminate. HL isn't a religious organization, they are a business, they possibly hire non-christians/atheists, it doesn't make sense to not let the employees have the option because "they" don't agree with it. that's infringing on their rights.

    really if someone has an issue, they can just leave. the point of laws here is that they should not cater to one religion, they are to either accomodate all or none. it's easier to just go none and make small exceptions.
    Last edited by Omar; 07-03-2014 at 14:59.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    weskurtz81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,845
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    18,996 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    i'm gonna have to disagree with you here. they aren't saying people have to use the pill, it's there, an option. what HL is saying is that they can't have the option (in other words, they won't pay for it).

    i don't see anything wrong with covering a pill, just as not anything wrong with covering a pregnancy. both are imo two sides of a coin.

    what christians (and i say christians because they seem to be the majority and the only ones fighting this) need to understand that this isn't a christian country anymore...and it never was (maybe had christian influence) and the laws aren't based off christianity.

    freedom of religion pertains to the individuals, not everyone else that surround individuals. you can't say, well, i'm this and this and i can't wear pants because my religion states i can't wear pants.

    because this would affect others. you can't have a bunch of people walking around naked because they feel it's their right to do so. not when it affects others.

    the U.S. has decided that the place of business isn't person after you have 50+ employees and that makes total sense. after a certain point, you should not be able to discriminate. HL isn't a religious organization, they are a business, they possibly hire non-christians/atheists, it doesn't make sense to not let the employees have the option because "they" don't agree with it. that's infringing on their rights.

    really if someone has an issue, they can just leave. the point of laws here is that they should not cater to one religion, they are to either accomodate all or none. it's easier to just go none and make small exceptions.
    Is it really discriminating by not paying for a pill? They aren't saying the employees aren't allowed to take a morning after pill, HL just doesn't want to pay for it.

    If the owner of HL believe life begins at conception then to them a morning after pill (post conception) would constitute ending life (AKA murder). I have to say, if that was my belief system then I probably wouldn't want to pay for morning after pills either.
    "you are both the product and the architect of your environment"


  10. #10
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by weskurtz81 View Post
    Is it really discriminating by not paying for a pill? They aren't saying the employees aren't allowed to take a morning after pill, HL just doesn't want to pay for it.

    If the owner of HL believe life begins at conception then to them a morning after pill (post conception) would constitute ending life (AKA murder). I have to say, if that was my belief system then I probably wouldn't want to pay for morning after pills either.
    but it's not their say, is it? it's a law.

    it's a slippery slope, i understand this is just being put under the rug but in reality, now they should honor even something like, hey, my religion doesn't believe in paying for anything to do with health.

    so they can just opt out of paying for insurance. the point isn't that they wouldn't likely do this or that the court won't allow it, the point is that why is this allowed and not the rest?

    if your worker is non-christian or non-religious, i'd think they'd like to have their pill covered.

    they shouldn't restrict that choice (or make it difficult) for them.

  11. #11
    Unbound Mercenary
    Kwes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,250
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    480,359 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I was glad to see that Hobby Lobby won this.

    A person shouldn't have to pay for what their religion is blatantly against, and everyone is acting like contraceptives are like a diabetes medicine. There is another way to not get pregnant...just don't $#@!. :/
    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.




  12. #12
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Age
    30
    Posts
    12,234
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    120,866 (18,076 Banked)
    Items Ghost in the ShellTidusLightningBruce LeeAppleUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwes View Post
    There is another way to not get pregnant...just don't $#@!. :/
    Blasphemy.
    "The biggest adversary in our life is ourselves. We are what we are, in a sense, because of the dominating thoughts we allow to gather in our head. All concepts of self-improvement, all actions and paths we take, relate solely to our abstract image of ourselves. Life is limited only by how we really see ourselves and feel about our being. A great deal of pure self-knowledge and inner understanding allows us to lay an all-important foundation for the structure of our life from which we can perceive and take the right avenues.Ē

  13. #13
    El Presidente
    podsaurus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    in a box
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,974
    Rep Power
    73
    Points
    25,148 (0 Banked)
    The real question is why did HL do this? Is it because they are truly sincere about their religious beliefs? Or is it because they are a business and not having to pay for contraceptives is better for their bottom line? We will probably never know the real reason but people do lie and stretch the truth to put themselves in a better position.

    I'm not accusing HL of doing that but there is no shortage of greedy businesses.

    Focus. Control. Conviction. Resolve. A true ace lacks none of these attributes. Nothing can deter you from the task at hand except your own fears. This is your sky.

  14. #14
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwes View Post
    I was glad to see that Hobby Lobby won this.

    A person shouldn't have to pay for what their religion is blatantly against, and everyone is acting like contraceptives are like a diabetes medicine. There is another way to not get pregnant...just don't $#@!. :/
    No you can't just say that. otherwise, we'd also have to remove all govt. services and say, yeah, don't go broke then.

    it happens. you can't put everyone in the same boat and say it's clearly black and white.

    and more importantly, even if it's in their belief, they're not only hiring christians and so this affects non-christians. which is where the problem lies.

    Religious freedom is what you do in private, not what affects others.

    there is a law to standardize contraceptive and they don't want to follow it. that's illegal and non-constitutional.
    Last edited by Omar; 07-03-2014 at 17:58.

  15. #15
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,160 (0 Banked)
    I think it is reasonable for a private company to refuse to pay for contraception. If the company was taxpayer funded then it would be a different story.

    Many (all?) businesses operate under various ethics and values. For example, a company may consider it ethical to ensure their business is environmentally friendly, but on the other hand they also may consider it unethical to pay for contraception. I don't agree with such a stance personally, but that should be the company owner's right - if a potential employee cannot accept that, they should look to work for a company that does not have such a stance.

    Such a stance may end up being bad for their business and force them to change their policy anyway - but that is for them to decide without state coercion (so long as their stances are not causing harm to others).

  16. #16
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    I think it is reasonable for a private company to refuse to pay for contraception. If the company was taxpayer funded then it would be a different story.
    ok so then you also believe that they can refuse service to someone for any reason? Because conceptually that would be the same thing, deviating from the standard and infringing on othersí rights.
    Itís their right to have the contraceptive covered, itís their right to be serviced. Businesses donít make those choices, if they still wereÖweíd still be in pre-60s era in the U.S.

    Many (all?) businesses operate under various ethics and values. For example, a company may consider it ethical to ensure their business is environmentally friendly, but on the other hand they also may consider it unethical to pay for contraception. I don't agree with such a stance personally, but that should be the company owner's right - if a potential employee cannot accept that, they should look to work for a company that does not have such a stance.
    right but if itís a law to be environmentally friendly (which there are) and you say, hey in my belief, i donít think itís necessary or not permitted to be environmentally friendlyÖguess what, no one cares. It affects others so you canít just do what you feel like doing.
    If they have more than 50+ employees, they are required to follow the federal law. In this case, I agree with the law.

    Such a stance may end up being bad for their business and force them to change their policy anyway - but that is for them to decide without state coercion (so long as their stances are not causing harm to others).
    thatís neither here or there. If we waited for karma to take effect, nothing would ever get resolved or fixed.
    Their stance doesnít need to ďharmĒ others but that would also be illegal, their stance harms ďfreedomĒ and thatís also illegal.

  17. #17
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,160 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    ok so then you also believe that they can refuse service to someone for any reason? Because conceptually that would be the same thing, deviating from the standard and infringing on othersí rights.
    Itís their right to have the contraceptive covered, itís their right to be serviced. Businesses donít make those choices, if they still wereÖweíd still be in pre-60s era in the U.S.
    No, not for any reason - many issues are grey, not black and white. You may ask me where I would draw the line, but my honest answer would be I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    right but if itís a law to be environmentally friendly (which there are) and you say, hey in my belief, i donít think itís necessary or not permitted to be environmentally friendlyÖguess what, no one cares. It affects others so you canít just do what you feel like doing.
    If they have more than 50+ employees, they are required to follow the federal law. In this case, I agree with the law.
    The point of the environment analogy is to show that businesses are not value-free just because they are businesses. They are run by people who do have values.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    thatís neither here or there. If we waited for karma to take effect, nothing would ever get resolved or fixed.
    I disagree - where possible, I'd rather rely on market forces than authoritarianism that erodes freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Their stance doesnít need to ďharmĒ others but that would also be illegal, their stance harms ďfreedomĒ and thatís also illegal.
    There are freedoms on both sides of the argument though - you are only concerning yourself with the freedoms of the potential employee. In forcing someone to pay for someone else's contraception when it is against their values, their freedoms are harmed. Under such a scenario, the freedom of the business owners should be put first because it is their business - if a potential employee does not agree with those values, they can vote with their feet.

  18. #18
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    No, not for any reason - many issues are grey, not black and white. You may ask me where I would draw the line, but my honest answer would be I don't know.
    well this issue isn’t that grey. they’re not asking them to hire prostitutes. It’s not like they have to give the contraceptive themselves. They are being asked to cover the drug.

    The point of the environment analogy is to show that businesses are not value-free just because they are businesses. They are run by people who do have values.
    and that’s fine as long as those values aren’t affecting others. That’s the only way you can do business in the U.S. that’s what has been decided, that the freedoms of the people are more important than the freedom of an individual. Basically as long as it’s not stepping over others’. If your belief is stepping over someone’s freedom, that’s not allowed.

    I disagree - where possible, I'd rather rely on market forces than authoritarianism that erodes freedom.
    that’s easier said than done. Then why have laws of any kind? The market will take care of it right? People will understand that Windows are a monopoly so let’s let MS do whatever they want, the market will respond. Doesn’t work that way. Sometimes you need laws to keep uniformity. Nvm not sometimes, a lot of times.
    That’s why we have jails for murderers, rapists, criminals etc.

    There are freedoms on both sides of the argument though - you are only concerning yourself with the freedoms of the potential employee. In forcing someone to pay for someone else's contraception when it is against their values, their freedoms are harmed. Under such a scenario, the freedom of the business owners should be put first because it is their business - if a potential employee does not agree with those values, they can vote with their feet.
    this goes back to my response earlier, the way it is decided in the U.S. is that the freedom of the many outweighs the freedom of few. Especially if it’s in direct conflict. And to me, that makes total sense.

  19. #19
    Super Moderator
    Admartian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    PSN ID
    admartian
    Age
    27
    Posts
    13,034
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    40,567 (0 Banked)
    Items ArsenalVitaUser name styleSteamPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Good luck America.

    It would totally suck if you were forced to do something just because in the name of.

    How did this get passed? I thought it didn't really have a chance...

    #IndieStation4 and proud of it.

  20. #20
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Admartian View Post
    Good luck America.

    It would totally suck if you were forced to do something just because in the name of.

    How did this get passed? I thought it didn't really have a chance...
    because no matter how much education one may have, doesn't mean they have the same amount of knowledge. or common sense in this case.

  21. #21
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,160 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    well this issue isnít that grey. theyíre not asking them to hire prostitutes. Itís not like they have to give the contraceptive themselves. They are being asked to cover the drug.
    This particular issue isn't that grey, no - they should have the right to say no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    and thatís fine as long as those values arenít affecting others. Thatís the only way you can do business in the U.S. thatís what has been decided, that the freedoms of the people are more important than the freedom of an individual. Basically as long as itís not stepping over othersí. If your belief is stepping over someoneís freedom, thatís not allowed.
    Forcing someone to pay for contraception, contrary to their beliefs, is affecting them. You're using a line of argument for one side - apply it to both sides and work from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    thatís easier said than done. Then why have laws of any kind? The market will take care of it right? People will understand that Windows are a monopoly so letís let MS do whatever they want, the market will respond. Doesnít work that way. Sometimes you need laws to keep uniformity. Nvm not sometimes, a lot of times.
    Thatís why we have jails for murderers, rapists, criminals etc.
    Where possible, legislation should not be introduced. This feels like a bit of a straw man argument to be honest. We are discussing whether or not state power should be extended to force businesses to cover contraception, not whether the state should or shouldn't jail murderers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    this goes back to my response earlier, the way it is decided in the U.S. is that the freedom of the many outweighs the freedom of few. Especially if itís in direct conflict. And to me, that makes total sense.
    I don't think that's the case. A defining feature of the Anglosphere has been the elevation of the individual. Further, it was in the context of religious freedom that British people left for North America - it was firmly in the mind of the Founding Fathers. Allowing businesses owners to not be coerced into supporting something against their religious beliefs is to defend that same liberty - liberty which we have inherited.

  22. #22
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    This particular issue isn't that grey, no - they should have the right to say no.



    Forcing someone to pay for contraception, contrary to their beliefs, is affecting them. You're using a line of argument for one side - apply it to both sides and work from there.



    Where possible, legislation should not be introduced. This feels like a bit of a straw man argument to be honest. We are discussing whether or not state power should be extended to force businesses to cover contraception, not whether the state should or shouldn't jail murderers.



    I don't think that's the case. A defining feature of the Anglosphere has been the elevation of the individual. Further, it was in the context of religious freedom that British people left for North America - it was firmly in the mind of the Founding Fathers. Allowing businesses owners to not be coerced into supporting something against their religious beliefs is to defend that same liberty - liberty which we have inherited.
    ok let's go with your argument. so what about personal beliefs? is that considered part of freedom?

  23. #23
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,160 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    ok let's go with your argument. so what about personal beliefs? is that considered part of freedom?
    Yes - that is freedom of thought.

  24. #24
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,568
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valefor View Post
    Yes - that is freedom of thought.
    so then they should be allowed to discriminate, correct?

    do you also believe in freedom of speech?

  25. #25
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,160 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    so then they should be allowed to discriminate, correct?

    do you also believe in freedom of speech?
    To discriminate, I'd say it would depend on the context. You could say, for example, a Catholic church discriminates against non-Catholics by only allowing Catholics to marry in their churches. To me, that is acceptable.

    Freedom of speech - yes.

    Cut to the chase please, Sufi.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.