• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decided?

What did SCOTUS decide?

  • They decided only those four methods of birth control can be withheld.

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • They decided a private corporation can object to all forms of birth control.

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • Don't know/unsure

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • Total voters
    15
tres borrachos said:
My employer has no power over me when I'm not working. Your employer holds power over you when you're not on their time? You may want to find another job.
Click to expand...

Many employer's do indeed exercise power of their employees when they aren't on the job. Many employers, including most public entities, will not allow their employees to smoke at all, and it is a termination offense if they do. Same with drug use, including marijuana. Also, many employees who work on contract have various clauses, including "morals" clauses, that allow termination if the employee... in the opinion of the employer... behaves in a manner that violates the employer's "moral" values.

In this market, simply "finding another job" is far from easy, and most people cannot afford the luxury of being unemployed until they find a job that doesn't exercise some control over their non-working hours.

I'm not criticizing your comments, simply pointing out that they are not all-encompassing and many, many people are affected by their employer's policies on and off the job. It is much, much more pervasive than it was even 20 years ago.
 
The government (federal and local.) doesn't always do everything that it's supposed to do.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, my boss can't sexually harass me when I'm in my house with my husband, and he is in his house with his wife.

I get lots of sick leave. I use it if and when I need it.

No, right now my employer can't dismiss me without cause. My company is closed and I'm in my house.

I make 6 figures. Not worried about poverty wages here.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Good for you.

Lots of people in the USA are living paycheck to paycheck or don't even have a steady job.
 
GailT said:
A lot of people with 6 figure incomes lost their jobs in the great recession and had a nasty introduction to life for the other 90%. And you are okay with the fact that you might get sexually harrased while on the job? And that does not affect you when you get home?
You have a very myopic and compartmentalized view of the world.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Lots of people on this planet see and hear what they want to see and hear and ignore the rest.
 
GailT said:
HL had a problem specifically with birth control, and the Roman Catholic Supreme Court applied the decision to all forms of birth control. And in any case, they are not paying birth control. Employees earn their health insurance as part of their compensation package. HL does not pay for insurance as a "gift" to their employees.
The best solution is to move to single payer health care, similar to Medicare, and get corporations out of the business of making decisions about what type of health care we have.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I totally agree and I am sure that this will happen eventually.
 
DiAnna said:
Many employer's do indeed exercise power of their employees when they aren't on the job. Many employers, including most public entities, will not allow their employees to smoke at all, and it is a termination offense if they do. Same with drug use, including marijuana. Also, many employees who work on contract have various clauses, including "morals" clauses, that allow termination if the employee... in the opinion of the employer... behaves in a manner that violates the employer's "moral" values.

In this market, simply "finding another job" is far from easy, and most people cannot afford the luxury of being unemployed until they find a job that doesn't exercise some control over their non-working hours.

I'm not criticizing your comments, simply pointing out that they are not all-encompassing and many, many people are affected by their employer's policies on and off the job.
It is much, much more pervasive than it was even 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I totally agree. The world has changed.

A lot.




And not all of that change has been for the better.
 
lizzie said:
The corporation I work for has no power over my life, except in that I am expected to follow and uphold company policies when I am on the clock.
Click to expand...

Do you live in a "at will" state, because doing your job doesn't really matter. Does your employer match your 401K, if so when do they contribute it? Some corporations seem to like to do the contribution at the end of the year. Maybe you are
okay with that.

I get that some may see the religious freedom of the business owner is important in denying coverages of some medical procedures, but what should my employer care what I do with my body and the insurance that I also pay for.

Labor and Corporations will always be having disagreements, but I think many are missing my point of my first post. If it comes to individuals making choices that directly effect me, I trust the government more then a corporation. Others may not see it that way...
 
voyager1 said:
If I had to choose who had control over my life, government or corporations... I would choose government. Just because of the slight chance voters would change the government. All this ruling does is give corporations more power which it seems the freedom loving GOP and their minions seem to be lapping up like cat to warm milk. I hope they are okay with corporations controlling their lives, since this is a slippery slope
Click to expand...
Why do we even have to choose? Have we Americans gotten so programmable that ANY tyrant or dictatorship can simply step in and crack the whip?
 
DiAnna said:
Many employer's do indeed exercise power of their employees when they aren't on the job. Many employers, including most public entities, will not allow their employees to smoke at all, and it is a termination offense if they do. Same with drug use, including marijuana. Also, many employees who work on contract have various clauses, including "morals" clauses, that allow termination if the employee... in the opinion of the employer... behaves in a manner that violates the employer's "moral" values.

In this market, simply "finding another job" is far from easy, and most people cannot afford the luxury of being unemployed until they find a job that doesn't exercise some control over their non-working hours.

I'm not criticizing your comments, simply pointing out that they are not all-encompassing and many, many people are affected by their employer's policies on and off the job. It is much, much more pervasive than it was even 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

There are employers that have a no smoking off the job policy. Same with drug use. I happen not to work for one of those companies. If I did, I'd have to give up my occasional social cigarette and my whenever I want it marijuana indulgence...or leave.

Sirius just terminated one of their DJs for stupid tweets. I actually support that decision. Employers should have the right to terminate people who they believe negatively impact the company.

But that story, like what we're discussing, all have nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby decision.
 
voyager1 said:
I get that some may see the religious freedom of the business owner is important in denying coverages of some medical procedures, but what should my employer care what I do with my body and the insurance that I also pay for.

Labor and Corporations will always be having disagreements, but I think many are missing my point of my first post. If it comes to individuals making choices that directly effect me, I trust the government more then a corporation. Others may not see it that way...
Click to expand...

To the bolded: If you aren't happy with the insurance that your employer provides, there is nothing mandating you to accept that insurance coverage. An individual is always free to find a better policy for himself.

Personally, I trust government make laws, but not to make choices for me. I want my rights protected by the government, but not my personal decisions made for me.
 
Dooble said:
Why do we even have to choose? Have we Americans gotten so programmable that ANY tyrant or dictatorship can simply step in and crack the whip?
Click to expand...

Excellent question. And I'm not even sure what the point of the post you responded to was anyway. We haven't come to a point that out lives should be controlled by anyone else.
 
lizzie said:
To the bolded: If you aren't happy with the insurance that your employer provides, there is nothing mandating you to accept that insurance coverage. An individual is always free to find a better policy for himself.

Personally, I trust government make laws, but not to make choices for me. I want my rights protected by the government, but not my personal decisions made for me.
Click to expand...

Oh sure one can go into the open market, but the whole employer based insurance pools makes for lower rates since you have a larger pool. Also prior to the ACA there was the issue of preexisting conditions.

Also saying "personal choices" is a bit broad in your response. Now if you mean you trust your employer to make health insurance choices better then the government, that is fine.
 
tres borrachos said:
There are employers that have a no smoking off the job policy. Same with drug use. I happen not to work for one of those companies. If I did, I'd have to give up my occasional social cigarette and my whenever I want it marijuana indulgence...or leave.

Sirius just terminated one of their DJs for stupid tweets. I actually support that decision. Employers should have the right to terminate people who they believe negatively impact the company.

But that story, like what we're discussing, all have nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby decision.
Click to expand...

I was merely responding to your comment, which I disagreed with, and delienated the reasons. If my disagreement had nothing to do with the topic, neither did your comment!

Let's declare it an off-topic draw! :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom