I'm really fed up with some of my fellow Americans and the way they perceive the first amendment. For those who are unfamiliar with it it is stated as such:



For example, the Hobby Lobby retail chain is currently refusing to cover birth control for employers, stating that it's against their religious belief to cover it. I can't see it as anything other than bullshit. If I was a business owner I could claim "religious freedom" on pretty much anything I didn't want to cover so that I wouldn't have to. And my employees would suffer by not getting coverage on things they needed.

This is exactly like last summer's Chick-fil-a outburst. People boycotted and protested Chick-fil-a last year for supporting anti-gay groups, and people claimed that it infringed on free speech. This is insane, since free speech allows people to speak out against Chick-fil-a no matter what, and by protesting we are in no shape or form infringing on Dan Cathy's free speech, since he has just as many free speech rights as always.

Thoughts?

A lot of Christians interpret religious freedom as "freedom to live in a country where everybody else is Christian".

Eh, religion. Always getting in the way of something.

It always seems to me that the people who are so quick to point out the second amendment are always the same people who dismiss the first one.

I still don't understand why churches don't have to pay taxes.

This is not what that was about. The Chick-fil-a outburst was in response to a number of aldermen and mayors in a few cities saying Chick-fil-a was not welcome in their cities because of Cathy's personal beliefs. If it was just people criticizing the CEO or the company, nobody would care, but at least in Chicago in particular it was because an alderman and the Mayor openly refused to grant the company an operating license in the city on the basis of the owner's beliefs. This is, in fact, illegal.

As for this particular case, meh. PPACA is a disastrous trainwreck that is going to be a drain on the economy all while increasing the cost of health insurance (and by extension, reducing the number of people who have it), so I generally am in favor of any state or large company stalling its implementation. I also don't like the idea of forcing religious institutions to disavow their beliefs. But opposition to contraception is one of the most backward, ill-conceived, and harmful beliefs churches still adhere too, so I don't really know what to think on this one.

As far as I'm concerned, too many people don't understand that the church and state are separate things, and that one shouldn't meddle with with the other. In fact, letting religion influence government decisions is one of the most stupid and dangerous things that state officials can do.

Alternatively, you can see it as a business owner's right to run their business the way they see fit. You don't like it? Don't get a job there, and don't patronize them. It's not the government's job. Hobby Lobby could just as easily refuse to grant health care benefits altogether and no one would give a damn, but not include one part, and all of a sudden we have a problem.

I was about to say the same thing. They are a private business and as such choose how to operate. One voluntarily agree to work there under the rules and conditions that they set.

Are you in favor of forcing them to do something they disagree with, which infringes upon no ones rights, just because you personally don't like it? If so, that sets a very bad precedent, one which attacks the 1st Amendment's protections of free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.

For the record, freedom of religion means that you have the right to believe in a faith if you so choose. You also have the right to live that faith so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

but, I'm told by Americans, that the way the healthcare system works in their country, it's not a 'business owner's right' issue any more than whether or not the business pays their employees less than the minimum wage -- there are federal obligations all businesses have to meet. maybe the argument should be had about whether or not a minimum wage or healthcare coverage 'should' be an obligation they have, but that's not the issue at hand.

what makes religion so special?

don't get me wrong, I'm a right cuntish atheist, as happy to ridicule as anyone else, but I don't see any difference between killing all the Jews for economic reasons and killing all the Jews because of Christian reasons. I don't think Hitler had more or less of a right to do what he did hinging on whether or not his Christian beliefs were the main impetus

Well as an American, both a minimum wage (one higher than the national average is, by the way) and healthcare coverage from employers is something most people here support. The only people I've seen that don't support a minimum wage are people who have had enough money their entire life to never need to take a minimum wage job or even work.

Regarding the Affordable Care Act, the Congressional Budget Office has said that it will reduce the deficit and will dramatically reduce the number of people without healthcare in the United States once it's fully implemented. I personally think it should've been significantly stronger than the finished product turned out to be, mainly in terms of retaining the Public Option and the Medicare buy in as well as removing the tax against those that don't purchase HMO insurance (because honestly, fuck the HMOs), but it's a hell of a lot better than having exactly the same shitty deal we had before where insurance companies could turn down people for whatever bullshit "pre-existing condition" they decided that person had. Basically it's a good bill and will in the long run do a lot to change the insurance field from private to public, but it could have been even better by just putting the option of buying into government healthcare in there.

What in the name of fuck are you talking about?! What does the Holocaust have to do with any of this?

GODWIN ARGUMENT FOR THE WIN!

Let's get back on track, boys.

There will always be idiots and nutjobs who will be more than willing to speak their minds, and allowed to do so because of the first amendment. Likewise, there will always be people who will misunderstand or purposely try to contort what freedom of speech means. I remember a case a while ago where the state of California made it so people who are practising gay conversion therapy had to warn patients that what they were doing has no scientific basis and there is no proof that it works. The doctors argued the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't make giving a false treatment acceptable; it doesn't make malpractice legal. I also remember a case where a woman was raped and called the police and she was arrested for an outstanding warrant. She asked for birth control so she wouldn't get pregnant with the rapist's baby and the police officer said no because it violated her religious beliefs. Again, freedom of speech and religion doesn't allow you (or shouldn't allow you, in some cases) to legally impose your religion on other people and deny them medical care.

And yes, laws should never be based on ones religious views. I feel like a lot of religious convictions are cherry picked. For example, have you ever heard Christians shouting about how all people who eat shrimp are going to hell? In the case of homosexuals they are just cherry picking something from the bible and ignoring other things so they have an excuse to discriminate against a group of people they dislike.

Godwin didn't propose an argument or a fallacy, just an observation. pointing out that someone has referenced one of the few historical events everyone is familiar with doesn't change anything about the argument.

take Stalin, instead, then: why is taking the liberty from gays because of Soviet ideals any better* than doing it in the US because of Baptist ideals?

*i.e., such a fundamental kind distinction as to institute a policy (like the constitutional amendments) aiming to prevent only the one and not the other.

it seems pathetic that I can say 'I'm a Stalinist, that's why I want to put gays in prison', but I can't say 'I'm a Christian, and that's why...'. what does it coming from religion matter?

Don't see an issue. Hobby Lobby is a private company, then can run their business as they see fit.

Also, if they want to engage in "bullshit" that's within their rights.

It would also be acceptable for them to be stupid.

Don't like it? Awesome. Get a job somewhere else, and don't shop there. Tell all your friends how horrible they are.

I am calling them stupid. They are stupid because they don't understand the first amendment. You can't deny certain coverage based on religious reasons. Otherwise, Jehova's witnesses could deny coverage on basically anything. Giving an exception for the hobby lobby would be "respecting an establishment of religion", dissolving separation of church and state and giving religion more power to fuel their bullshit.

There are many things I am happy to criticize about my country, but freedom of speech and religion as far as I am concerned is where the founding fathers got right. It pisses me off when somebody can spew out whatever shit they want, hide behind "free speech" and then suddenly be seen as a patriot.

I think "religious freedom" is a concept that enjoys an incredibly loose interpretation.

It holds no water with people who consider religious ideology and practices to be arbitrary, fairy tale bullshit, but that isn't the general public. Most people in the world believe in some form of a god(s) or "higher power," and while they may disagree with each other about which is the One True God, they generally consider it a human right for people to live in accordance with their beliefs.

The big caveat here is that in many cases, the ramifications of someone's beliefs spill into other peoples' lives, as exemplified with Hobby Lobby. It's the opinion of ownership/management that birth control is morally wrong, and therefore they consider it an expression of "religious freedom" to deny birth control coverage. That doesn't mean they are possessed of the Truth, but because they believe they are, the public is coerced in to respecting that belief, which goes far beyond the notion of free speech.

In terms of American life, religious freedom is legal enforcement of a great misunderstanding.

Wait... who exactly was saying that?

The reason Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby can do what they do is because they are private business and their owners can choose to run them however they please. They don't even need a religion. And if your that upset with the policies that these two places have for their employees then don't buy their products and don't work for them. Simple?

Hobby Lobby's and other objections to provisions of the ACA are just ideologues trying to think up ways to not have to do anything President Obama wants. You need to think of the whole chain of lunatic excuses that the extremists have trotted out over the last two years, all of which have not only been false, but laughably false. This birth control thing is just the latest.

Businesses cannot pick and choose what parts of regulations the feel like adhering to. Otherwise some business would not hire blacks, or Jews, or pay minimum wage, or have an 8 hour workday, or a safe work environment, etc etc etc. Regulations apply to everybody, but they're always because of fucks like Hobby Lobby.

It never ceases to amaze me that the same groups that oppose abortion so strenuously are the same ones that don't want to do anything to prevent them.

The anti-choice side is so rampant with hypocrisy, insanity, and just plain stupidity that it's not even that funny to mock them anymore. As inherently funny as it is when an anti-abortion nut says that they support the death penalty, it becomes kinda not funny when these people are blowing up free clinics and private practices, sometimes killing children in the process, for having abortion services offered. It's just one more facet of how the Christian Right in this country has its head so fucking far up its own ass that they are starting to eat their own insides.

Chick-Fil-A is well within their rights to do what they did. I am not claiming that they shouldn't be allowed to do what they do. It's also well within my rights to call them on their bullshit. No free speech infringement on either side. I'm upset because one side claims that there is an infringement.

Hobby Lobby, on the other hand, has a far more questionably legal practice decision on their hands, as outlined by people earlier in this thread that explain it far better than I am able to.

A private company can choose not to use insurance that offers birth control or contraception... The first amendment was created to protect that private company from being discriminated against BY the government because of their religious stances. The Amendments were created to protect individuals and private companies FROM the government and FROM being forced into partaking in something that they didn't want to.

Plus, not providing contraception because it's against the owner of company's beliefs isn't denying someone coverage based on religious reasons. That employee is free to purchase private insurance (or they can while they still have a chance) if they don't like the insurance offered by their employer. It's different than if the employer specifically singled out an employee for religious reasons and told them that they weren't going to be able to use their insurance because the employer wasn't tolerant towards their beliefs, or if that employee was passed up for a promotion because they were jewish or muslim or something.

If enough employees of the company are fed up with this, they have a right to assemble and prompt their employer to change insurance policies, but that doesn't mean their employer is obligated to offer them whatever they want in terms of insurance or pay or donuts every morning or whatever. Their employer may be an asshole for not obliging if a significant proportion of employees want a particular coverage, but it's within the owners right to run their company and offer the benefits they want to offer and are financially able to offer.

Too many people forget the context behind the Constitution. It was created to protect individuals and the private market from Government intrusion and to protect the liberties of individuals. Having insurance is not a right granted by the government. Having contraception is not a right granted by the government.

Absolutely nothing, which is why the six degrees of Hitler, or something, exists. Basically, every argument on the internet will eventually turn into somebody comparing the situation to Hitler, Jews or the Holocaust in some capacity. He probably doesn't have much of an argument, which is why that comparison now exists, and he's playing into it SO HARD.

Well that's a strawman if I ever saw one. Anti-abortionists protest abortion because they don't believe that the life of an individual should be taken away without that individual having the ability to protect itself.

People support the death penalty because adults capable of making their own decisions are able to understand the consequences of committing crimes which, in some states, include the Death Penalty.

It's not really equatable... Not saying I agree with either but this is just one example of the differences between the two issues you are trying to tie together as a hypocrisy of ideals. It's not really accurate to talk about them in the same breath when it comes to a discussion on contraception.

Firstly I HATE crazy Christians, they make the rest of us look bad. Secondly @ Orion do you have any idea how much it actually costs to buy your own health insurance? The cost ranges from outrageous to fucking astronomical. And thirdly to whoever said minimum wage is a good thing let me pose this: minimum wage is an absolute joke, while it keeps going up and up and up there is less and less to separate skilled and unskilled labor. Who wants to waste time and money getting a degree or going to a trade school to make $12 or $13 an hour when they can to to a big box store and make $10 an hour instead?

I know how expensive insurance is. If someone is so offended that their employer isn't offering them the coverage they want, then they should get their own coverage at their own expense. Beggars can't be choosers.

Additionally, if that insurance is SO MUCH MORE, then why doesn't the individual just buy their own contraception? This is just another instance of people expecting that they are entitled to something which they aren't.

And I agree with your minimum wage argument. There are plenty of articles out there to support ending minimum wage but the only way you can effectively end minimum wage is also end welfare and unemployment at the same time.

You make a valid point Orion. Let me say this and then I'll be done with my ranting, I personally find the whole abstinence policy very old timey and outdated nowadays and I believe everyone should have access to birth control if they so desire. Just my feelings on the matter. That being said me and my wife have made the decision to not have children so I've had a vasectomy now the doctor has prescribed my wife birth control to help her control her period, would it be right or ok for my insurance to deny her that after it has been prescribed for such reasons?

No that would be you and any one else siding with you who does not understand the first amendment. Here let me post the part you are missing" CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" WHY THE F-ING BLINK BLINK BLINK DID HOBBY LOBBY BECOME CONGRESS?

THIS AMENDMENT IS TELLING CONGRESS WHAT THEY CAN'T DO. HOBBY LOBBY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT IT'S WITH IN THERE RIGHT. THEY ARE NOT THE F-ING GOVERNMENT.



My god you need read it better. All the frist 10 damn amendment is telling the government what they can't do it has nothing to do with a company setting up there own rules. The company is not the government.

Well, you are in a specific situation in which "birth control" is no longer birth control. The doctor is prescribing hormone treatment to help with her period. It's a different use of the same product. Like using a spoon to kill someone. Sure, you normally use a spoon to eat but in a different instance, it's a weapon. So, to answer your final question... it is the right of the insurance company to go by their policy which has been offered to you. If your policy covers hormonal treatments or medicine to regulate hormonal inbalance or something to that effect, I would wager you could argue that your situation be covered. Until we view birth control as a single-use medicine though, I doubt this will be validly argued in court.

Without trying to be an asshole or something though, your wife could still have an affair and get pregnant. Not saying she would of course, but it's still a valid possible scenario. (Please, don't take that the wrong way, I mean it totally for argument's sake.

Because healthcare provers and middle-men are exempt from federal anti-trust laws under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which inflates the cost of healthcare so it is inaccessible to a significant portion of Americans unless collectively bargained for by their employers or a freelancers union. The idea behind this is that states would regulate, which they have failed to do effectively. This law has stood for so long because money is considered speech, and those who benefit from a colluding industry stand to gain from trading human suffering for money.

The idea that people with health insurance are beggars is insulting. Should workers be begging their employers for complete healthcare, or should their employers have the discretion to chose what services these "beggars" have access to? Should we allow people employed by Christian Scientists to be denied healthcare because their boss believes that asking for a doctor to treat them, except under certain circumstances, "invites defeat"?

Non taken man I get what you're saying. And damn Zodi you just hit a home run.

In this instance, they have health insurance and are only pissed that they aren't being offered something which they believe they are entitled to - that being contraception. The seems to me like someone is begging for something that they believe they deserve. Workers can beg their employers to offer them whatever they want, that's their right, just as it's the right of the owners of a privately operated company to choose healthcare for their employees which fits within their financial and social guidelines.

Either way, you wind up infringing on someone's beliefs. You can't say that they employee's beliefs are more valid than the employer's beliefs.

Healthcare costs have to come down. I believe regulation needs to be removed and government needs to get out of the way to do so. That's my belief and I know I'm in the minority with that but I view it as the only way to make sense of the whole thing while not infringing on anyone's individual rights.

no, being a grown up who believes in fairy tales is what makes you look bad.

now, back to the topic at hand.

I said that earlier. You're not respecting it.

Welll, as far as that minimum wage thing goes, that really only applies to the States, honestly. A first year Sheet Metal Worker up here in Alberta makes, to start out, at least $15. That's with no schooling. A Journeyman makes anywhere from $26 to $36. The minimum wage here is just under $10. So, that gap REALLY isn't closing in the slightest. In fact, I don't know of any trade that requires schooling paying out $12 or $13 an hour. I don't know of any job requiring a degree paying out so little, either.

To put it into perspective my buddy is a truck driver in Minnesota and he only makes $11.50 an hour and our federal minimum wage is I think $8.25 an hour or something close to that with the potential for individual states to have it be higher.

Rather than viewing America as a system of beggars and givers, think about it this way - Citizens voted for politicians who put this into law, there was a significant national movement behind it and it is in the interest of most Americans. There is even an exemption in there for certain religious exceptions.