Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Or in the spirit of Self Governance....
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:19 am    Post subject: Or in the spirit of Self Governance.... Reply with quote

...you can accept responsibility for your own actions...

But, that just be my own opinion.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BIRTH_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-30-10-19-15
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Want birth control? Go buy it. Nobody is stopping you.

I dislike his dismissal of worries over corporate personhood and wish he had more completely dismantled the absurd "but contraceptives can be used for other stuff!" arguments, but overall it's a great breakdown of the Hobby Lobby meltdowns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honest people on either side should be uncomfortable about corporations getting special rules based on claims of religion, just like they should have about the ruling that corporate campagian spending is protected speech.

I don't understand why our health insurance system is tied up with our employment system, but I do know that these same people would be up in arms if the case was brought over something to do with Islam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well...why should Americans have to pay for actions that they do not agree with on moral grounds?

Having sex, with a couple of exceptions, is an individual choice. Thus, the individual should be responsible for his/her actions...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trueblue wrote:
Well...why should Americans have to pay for actions that they do not agree with on moral grounds?

Having sex, with a couple of exceptions, is an individual choice. Thus, the individual should be responsible for his/her actions...


Because a company is a legal structure, not a person, so forming a company and living within the rules of the law is an individual choice, and in this country, in the legal sphere, there is supposed to be a seperation of state and religion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
I don't understand why our health insurance system is tied up with our employment system


It is rather bizarre.

Quote:
but I do know that these same people would be up in arms if the case was brought over something to do with Islam.


Such as?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trueblue wrote:
Well...why should Americans have to pay for actions that they do not agree with on moral grounds?


That's a fine question. I object to aggressive warfare on ethical grounds. Should my tax dollars be exempt from such usage? I object to corporate welfare on ethical grounds. Should it be illegal to use my tax dollars to offset corporate tax breaks, subsidies, or promotion? I disagree with torture on ethical grounds. I disagree with the war on drugs on ethical grounds. And so on and so forth. So should I personally be allowed to say what my tax dollars cannot fund? Organizing the treasury around the ethical views of hundreds of millions of citizens seems impossible though, doesn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
So should I personally be allowed to say what my tax dollars cannot fund?


Ideally your tax dollars would fund none of those things, as well as abortions and abortifacients.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Leon wrote:
I don't understand why our health insurance system is tied up with our employment system


It is rather bizarre.

Quote:
but I do know that these same people would be up in arms if the case was brought over something to do with Islam.


Such as?


Many (not saying most) of the people who support this type of stuff get angry when Muslims build mosques, so I'm sure that if a Muslim company tries to follow suit and make a claim for religious exemption it would receive a different reaction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Many (not saying most) of the people who support this type of stuff get angry when Muslims build mosques, so I'm sure that if a Muslim company tries to follow suit and make a claim for religious exemption it would receive a different reaction.


I asked for a specific example, since in the general I find no problem with not forcing a Muslim employer to pay for things he disagrees with. A drunken pork BBQ soiree, for example.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Leon wrote:
Many (not saying most) of the people who support this type of stuff get angry when Muslims build mosques, so I'm sure that if a Muslim company tries to follow suit and make a claim for religious exemption it would receive a different reaction.


I asked for a specific example, since in the general I find no problem with not forcing a Muslim employer to pay for things he disagrees with. A drunken pork BBQ soiree, for example.


Hobby lobby just set the precedent, so of course there has not been a chance to see it in action yet. Although I wonder if employers will start hiring lawyers and finding religion...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a product of the RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It prevents laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. It was a reaction to the case of Employment Division v. Smith.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb

Quote:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.


Fine, so a person cannot be forced to purchase four kinds of contraception out of twenty according to a medical plan which the Affordable Care Act mandates employers must provide to their employees. I disagree, but its reasonable given the RFRA that the court might recognize the religious objection.

Quote:
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.


Quote:
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.


We can argue with the Court's application of whether the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate was a substantial burden in the case of these four out of 20 contraceptives. What really bothers me is the definition of "person." The definition section for the act lacks the term "person." Nevertheless, even if corporations have personhood for the sake of due process and certain other constitutional rights, how can corporations have sincere religious beliefs? Corporations are almost exclusively about maximizing shareholder value and profit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
trueblue



Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Affordable Care Act's


In which case, has anyone here, actually read everything that is in that legislation?

I haven't...and I will not buy into it. That was the first sign of trouble, when the government (I'm sorry, Democrats) took out the public option.

THAT would have made more sense.


Forcing people to pay for things they find unmoral based on religious grounds, is a threat to religious liberty. I do not wan my tax dollars going towards a significant number of women who demand contraception (but yet, are willing to get an abortion) to be paid for by the money of others.

People should be left alone in this regard...simple. Dependency, self-entitlement, the break of the American family, an ever expanding federal government, neo-feminism ('War on Women"..no such thing)...it is all too much to take in, at times.

Perhaps this can be traced back to LBJ's "Great Society Plan", which has fundamentally transformed American culture...especially the parts concerning out of wedlock births, amongst all ethnic groups.

I should not have to be forced for to pay for a women who demands others to pay for her lack of responsibility...

BTW...there is a great article about that in the Weekly Standard, May 19, 2014.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

trueblue wrote:

Forcing people to pay for things they find unmoral based on religious grounds, is a threat to religious liberty.
(bold is mine)

Closely held corporations aren't people, my friend. They can't have sincere religious beliefs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
trueblue wrote:

Forcing people to pay for things they find unmoral based on religious grounds, is a threat to religious liberty.
(bold is mine)

Closely held corporations aren't people, my friend. They can't have sincere religious beliefs.


If corporations are people, and if corporations get government handouts and subsidies and special rules, etc. then isn't it only right that they get attacked and shunned and metaphorically spit upon like actual people in America who receive government assistance?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International