Supreme Court tosses ruling in favor of ObamaCare mandate

[US Conservative]

The Supreme Court on Monday gave new life to a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, striking down a previous ruling in favor of the federal government. The justices asked an appeals court in Cincinnati to reconsider a legal challenge that the Catholic ministries in Michigan and Tennessee filed against an ObamaCare provision that requires employers to cover birth control for all workers.

The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case in light of last year's landmark ruling on the contraception mandate. That decision, issued last June, held that the arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby could opt out of the contraception mandate for religious reasons.

Supreme Court tosses ruling in favor of ObamaCare mandate | TheHill


Its pretty clear that SCOTUS rejects forcing people to violate deeply held religious views in favor of govt intrusion.
I support the ruling but am concerned for the safety of those who brought the suit, in light of the threats Hobby Lobby received after that ruling.

 

[Chomsky]

Its pretty clear that SCOTUS rejects forcing people to violate deeply held religious views in favor of govt intrusion.

Well, that's one take on it.

Another might be:

"Why wouldn't the SC protect an employee's right to avail themselves of the full spectrum of their federally mandated health insurance, from the intrusion of the religious views & prejudices of their employer"?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Well, that's one take on it.

Another might be:

"Why wouldn't the SC protect an employee's right to avail themselves of the full spectrum of their federally mandated health insurance, from the intrusion of the religious views & prejudices of their employer"?

Who says that those employee's can't avail themselves of the full spectrum of their federally mandated health insurance? They can quite easily get insurance outside of their employer.

 

[Chomsky]

Who says that those employee's can't avail themselves of the full spectrum of their federally mandated health insurance? They can quite easily get insurance outside of their employer.

Well, then by extension we can say the employee also can get employment outside of their current employer, as well. (switch jobs)

But perhaps I could have stated more accurately: "Federally mandated employer provided health insurance".

 

[Kal'Stang]

Well, then by extension we can say the employee also can get employment outside of their current employer, as well. (switch jobs)

Which they can do. They can even keep that job and work a second job. Lots of people do so.

But perhaps I could have stated more accurately: "Federally mandated employer provided health insurance".

Still doesn't work. SCOTUS is a part of our federal government. As such them striking out that part of the bill means that the rest of the federal government doesn't have the power to force people/companies to provide contraceptives if it goes against their beliefs. Which means that part of the bill is no longer mandated as far as contraceptives goes. As such employee's do not have any more right to avail themselves of forcing a company into providing insurance for contraceptives than they have a right to avail themselves of forcing a company into providing insurance for plastic surgery.

Besides, lets face it, contraceptives is not necessary to anyone's health. Millions of people in the world go without using one single contraceptive their entire lives with no ill effects of never having taken them.

 

[Chomsky]

Which they can do. They can even keep that job and work a second job. Lots of people do so.

But the ability to find alternative employment is not reason enough to abrogate employment law - this was the result until today's ruling.

Still doesn't work. SCOTUS is a part of our federal government. As such them striking out that part of the bill means that the rest of the federal government doesn't have the power to force people/companies to provide contraceptives if it goes against their beliefs. Which means that part of the bill is no longer mandated as far as contraceptives goes. As such employee's do not have any more right to avail themselves of forcing a company into providing insurance for contraceptives than they have a right to avail themselves of forcing a company into providing insurance for plastic surgery.

I have no argument with the effect of the ruling - it is what it is - I was disagreeing with the ruling itself.

Besides, lets face it, contraceptives is not necessary to anyone's health. Millions of people in the world go without using one single contraceptive their entire lives with no ill effects of never having taken them.

No argument there - but it opens up the proverbial 'slippery slope'.

 

[Kal'Stang]

But the ability to find alternative employment is not reason enough to abrogate employment law - this was the result until today's ruling.

But it is apparently enough to abrogate ones right to not buy something from a private company? That is what I find most repugnant about Obamacare in general. (IE: The ability to provide alternative means of paying for health care other than health insurance)

I have no argument with the effect of the ruling - it is what it is - I was disagreeing with the ruling itself.

For the Hobby Lobby ruling or the ruling for the OP? Not sure which you're talking about with this one.

No argument there - but it opens up the proverbial 'slippery slope'.

As far as religious reasons for denying something, maybe. But then I'm a strong advocate for allowing businesses to discriminate for whatever reason that they choose to discriminate for. So long as they are open about it. That way I can refuse my service to bigots. The reason I'm for such is because people have a Right to associate with whomever they want to associate with. People also have a Right to do whatever they want with their own private property so long as it doesn't cause harm to other people which then violates their rights.

That said, IF we're going to allow the government to mandate people to buy health insurance from private companies then that health insurance should only be for HEALTH related insurance. Contraceptives is not health related.

 

[Chomsky]

But it is apparently enough to abrogate ones right to not buy something from a private company? That is what I find most repugnant about Obamacare in general. (IE: The ability to provide alternative means of paying for health care other than health insurance)

I agree in that being mandated to buy a private product due to the circumstance of one "being alive", is unfathomable, and I still find it hard to believe the SC found it constitutional. I can see the legal loop-hole used to mandate auto-insurance (driving is legally a 'privilege'), but I do not agree with the Obamacare mandate at all.

I personally was hoping for a single-payer system.

For the Hobby Lobby ruling or the ruling for the OP? Not sure which you're talking about with this one.

I was disagreeing with both rulings - Hobby Lobby opens-up a slippery slope, IMO.

As far as religious reasons for denying something, maybe. But then I'm a strong advocate for allowing businesses to discriminate for whatever reason that they choose to discriminate for. So long as they are open about it. That way I can refuse my service to bigots. The reason I'm for such is because people have a Right to associate with whomever they want to associate with. People also have a Right to do whatever they want with their own private property so long as it doesn't cause harm to other people which then violates their rights. [...]

Well, that sounds fine in our private lives (and I agree), but where do we draw the line when operating in the public sphere? You may not want to do business with me for some personal reason, but should Best Buy chose not to, also? How about my utility company? These are difficult things to resolve in a public context.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Well, that sounds fine in our private lives (and I agree), but where do we draw the line when operating in the public sphere? You may not want to do business with me for some personal reason, but should Best Buy chose not to, also? How about my utility company? These are difficult things to resolve in a public context.

Actually they're quite easy to resolve.

A: A private company is one that is 1: Not funded or subsidized directly by the government and does not have openly traded stock.

B: A Public company on the other hand is 1: Funded or subsidized by the government and/or has openly traded stock.

If a company falls under A then they are considered a private company and may discriminate to their hearts content. If a company falls under B then they are considered a public company and as such may not discriminate at all. So for your example of a utility company: It would fall under B because there are no utility companies that would not be funded or subsidized by the government. It would be impossible for them to exist without that funding or subsidizing.

 

[US Conservative]

Well, that's one take on it.

Another might be:

"Why wouldn't the SC protect an employee's right to avail themselves of the full spectrum of their federally mandated health insurance, from the intrusion of the religious views & prejudices of their employer"?

Because it violates the peoples first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion. Perhaps they stop coercive dictates for a time and see how that works out?

 

[US Conservative]

I agree in that being mandated to buy a private product due to the circumstance of one "being alive", is unfathomable, and I still find it hard to believe the SC found it constitutional. I can see the legal loop-hole used to mandate auto-insurance (driving is legally a 'privilege'), but I do not agree with the Obamacare mandate at all.

I personally was hoping for a single-payer system.

I was disagreeing with both rulings - Hobby Lobby opens-up a slippery slope, IMO.

Well, that sounds fine in our private lives (and I agree), but where do we draw the line when operating in the public sphere? You may not want to do business with me for some personal reason, but should Best Buy chose not to, also? How about my utility company? These are difficult things to resolve in a public context.

How specifically do you see a "slippery slope" here?

 

[Chomsky]

Actually they're quite easy to resolve.

A: A private company is one that is 1: Not funded or subsidized directly by the government and does not have openly traded stock.

B: A Public company on the other hand is 1: Funded or subsidized by the government and/or has openly traded stock.

If a company falls under A then they are considered a private company and may discriminate to their hearts content. If a company falls under B then they are considered a public company and as such may not discriminate at all. So for your example of a utility company: It would fall under B because there are no utility companies that would not be funded or subsidized by the government. It would be impossible for them to exist without that funding or subsidizing.

I have a differing opinion here: I feel allowing discrimination by entities that do business with the public, is well ... wrong.

When one decides to contract business with the public there are certain legal & other obligations they must meet, and non-discrimination (in my mind) is one of them - no different than a business license or meeting regulatory guidelines. I do understand the plight of private sole-proprietorships, especially their religious convictions - enough so that I considered the possibility of exemptions for businesses under 'x' number of employees, but in the end I don't see that as feasible either.

So I don't see anyway out of regulating entities that do business with the public, for the betterment of the public.

 

[LeoVlaming]

I have a differing opinion here: I feel allowing discrimination by entities that do business with the public, is well ... wrong.

When one decides to contract business with the public there are certain legal & other obligations they must meet, and non-discrimination (in my mind) is one of them - no different than a business license or meeting regulatory guidelines. I do understand the plight of private sole-proprietorships, especially their religious convictions - enough so that I considered the possibility of exemptions for businesses under 'x' number of employees, but in the end I don't see that as feasible either.

So I don't see anyway out of regulating entities that do business with the public, for the betterment of the public.

Bit of a broad statement. Is a hairdresser allowed to cater exclusively to female customers?

 

[Chomsky]

How specifically do you see a "slippery slope" here?

Hobby Lobby has now allowed religious belief to be used as a determining factor in the Employer Mandate. It's actually allows the possibility of being pretty broad, IMO. The slippery slope could end with a CEO with religious beliefs against medicine citing his beliefs as reason to offer no coverage at all - or picking & piecing whatever he so chooses.

I recall some orthodox Christian Scientists eschewing medical doctors.

 

[Chomsky]

Bit of a broad statement. Is a hairdresser allowed to cater exclusively to female customers?

I think you're trying to draw quite a reach here.

A hairdresser is not selecting by gender per se, but by gender hair-styles.

But now that you mention it, you may have found the next battleground: "Can a hairdresser that does women's styling end up in suit for refusing to style the hair of a trans-gendered person"?

That's an interesting question.

 

[LeoVlaming]

I think you're trying to draw quite a reach here.

A hairdresser is not selecting by gender per se, but by gender hair-styles.

But now that you mention it, you may have found the next battleground: "Can a hairdresser that does women's styling end up in suit for refusing to style the hair of a trans-gendered person"?

That's an interesting question.

I am not trying to reach. Only pointing out that making overly broad and generalized claims about "non-discrimination" can be tricky.

 

[US Conservative]

Hobby Lobby has now allowed religious belief to be used as a determining factor in the Employer Mandate. It's actually allows the possibility of being pretty broad, IMO. The slippery slope could end with a CEO with religious beliefs against medicine citing his beliefs as reason to offer no coverage at all - or picking & piecing whatever he so chooses.

I recall some orthodox Christian Scientists eschewing medical doctors.

I dont see evidence that there is an actual problem, rather than lefty abstraction and theory.
This is just about contraceptives that any man or woman should be able to provide themselves, its not the end of days.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I have a differing opinion here: I feel allowing discrimination by entities that do business with the public, is well ... wrong.

When one decides to contract business with the public there are certain legal & other obligations they must meet, and non-discrimination (in my mind) is one of them - no different than a business license or meeting regulatory guidelines. I do understand the plight of private sole-proprietorships, especially their religious convictions - enough so that I considered the possibility of exemptions for businesses under 'x' number of employees, but in the end I don't see that as feasible either.

So I don't see anyway out of regulating entities that do business with the public, for the betterment of the public.

The criteria that I listed is actually based on legal definitions for what is considered as a private company and what is a public company.

That said, I never went with that whole "for the betterment of the public" stuff as being sufficient cause to restrict peoples Rights. Lots of things could be considered as being "for the betterment of the public", yet we don't do near all of them possible for many reasons. Such "betterment" may be against individual Rights, difficulty in actually doing X betterment, what is "better" for the public is subjective etc etc etc. For example, many contend that getting rid of every single gun in America would be for the "betterment of the public". Yet that would be a violation of our Rights and as such it could not legally be done. So simply being "for the betterment of the public" is not a good enough excuse imo to deny peoples rights to association and rights associated with private property.

 

[Chomsky]

I am not trying to reach. Only pointing out that making overly broad and generalized claims about "non-discrimination" can be tricky.

Fair enough -

I assumed the context for 'discrimination' was one of the traditionally 'legally protected classes'.

 

[LeoVlaming]

Fair enough -

I assumed the context for 'discrimination' was one of the traditionally 'legally protected classes'.

I find the concept of "legally protected classes" profoundly discriminatory and fundamentally anti-democratic.

 

[Chomsky]

I find the concept of "legally protected classes" profoundly discriminatory and fundamentally anti-democratic.

Quite honestly, you're right, but it seems to be the most common definition.

 

[Chomsky]

The criteria that I listed is actually based on legal definitions for what is considered as a private company and what is a public company.

That said, I never went with that whole "for the betterment of the public" stuff as being sufficient cause to restrict peoples Rights. Lots of things could be considered as being "for the betterment of the public", yet we don't do near all of them possible for many reasons. Such "betterment" may be against individual Rights, difficulty in actually doing X betterment, what is "better" for the public is subjective etc etc etc. For example, many contend that getting rid of every single gun in America would be for the "betterment of the public". Yet that would be a violation of our Rights and as such it could not legally be done. So simply being "for the betterment of the public" is not a good enough excuse imo to deny peoples rights to association and rights associated with private property.

I think this (society vs individual), along with 'the role (or non-role) of government', form the axis' of much of the political disagreement in this country.

Rights are difficult to implement & enforce, and aren't black & white and easily delineated - we'd like to think not, but there's often some compromise involved.

"Where does my right to peace & quiet end, and my neighbor's right to jam on his guitar end"?

Neither right is absolute, and as with so many things, we meet somewhere in the middle - he can legally jam all day, but must legally stop or quiet down by 10:00P

(No, I luckily don't really have a neighbor like this!)

 

[Kal'Stang]

I think this (society vs individual), along with 'the role (or non-role) of government', form the axis' of much of the political disagreement in this country.

Rights are difficult to implement & enforce, and aren't black & white and easily delineated - we'd like to think not, but there's often some compromise involved.

"Where does my right to peace & quiet end, and my neighbor's right to jam on his guitar end"?

Neither right is absolute, and as with so many things, we meet somewhere in the middle - he can legally jam all day, but must legally stop or quiet down by 10:00P

(No, I luckily don't really have a neighbor like this!)

My criteria for when Rights may be infringed is simple. Harm. A persons Rights become violated when someone harms that person. In your example of person A's peace and quite vs persons B's jamming and being loud can demonstrate this. Simple fact is that people need sleep. If they do not get sleep then they are physically harmed. As humans naturally sleep at night such infringements on ones "right to jam and be loud" can naturally be infringed due to the harm that such jamming may cause someone if that someone is not able to get any sleep. Where as no one is actually harmed if they can't buy a cake at store Y but can buy that cake at store Z. Or in actuality no one is harmed even if they can't buy a cake period. (in fact life is healthier without cake ) Would they be offended? Quite possible. But no one has a Right to not be offended. And those claims of being psychologically harmed by being refused due to discrimination is just BS PC propaganda.

 

[countryboy]

Well, that's one take on it.

Another might be:

"Why wouldn't the SC protect an employee's right to avail themselves of the full spectrum of their federally mandated health insurance, from the intrusion of the religious views & prejudices of their employer"?

Religious freedom is Constitutionally protected. Why would you want the federal government to violate that protection?

 

[countryboy]

I have a differing opinion here: I feel allowing discrimination by entities that do business with the public, is well ... wrong.

When one decides to contract business with the public there are certain legal & other obligations they must meet, and non-discrimination (in my mind) is one of them - no different than a business license or meeting regulatory guidelines. I do understand the plight of private sole-proprietorships, especially their religious convictions - enough so that I considered the possibility of exemptions for businesses under 'x' number of employees, but in the end I don't see that as feasible either.

So I don't see anyway out of regulating entities that do business with the public, for the betterment of the public.

Please quote where in the Constitution it reads, one must give up their First Amendment rights in order to do business with the public.

BTW, exercising one's First Amendment rights is not, "discrimination". :roll: