|
Amused to Death posted:Social Security? It's a defacto ID number given how it's used for everything and tracks your identity. One of the things I've learned in IT is that you better not have any sort of belief in an SSN as a unique number. It was never intended to be secure and using it to track identity is broken beyond belief, although vast numbers of pointy haired bosses think that they can use them for identity. And when you have small data sets, it looks like it works. quote:More than 15 percent of SSNs are associated with two or more people. More than 140,000 SSNs are associated with five or more people. Significantly, more than 27,000 SSNs are associated with 10 or more people. http://www.idanalytics.com/news-and-events/news-releases/2010/8-11-2010.php More than 40,000 people used 078-05-1120 before that number got "cancelled". http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/woolworth.asp When people ask me for an SSN, and that they don't have any legitimate reason to have it, I give them a phone number (leaving out a different digit).
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:That may be, but if a belief is demonstrably wrong and not reflective of reality, it shouldn't be given preference or accommodation under the law. To do otherwise is to legitimize fantasy and madness. But then courts end up in the position of judging the reality of religious beliefs, and that's a big no-no. There are portions of the country where you could probably convince a jury (and some judges) that the Islamic God objectively does not exist (how can he, the Christian God is the correct God). If the truth of religious beliefs matters, then convincing the fact-finder of the non-existence of God eliminates any protection for religious beliefs. I'm not saying that this is analogous to Hobby Lobby, just pointing out that we don't want courts judging the accuracy of religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
That's why the court sticks to determining the burden on the belief so they have some cover when someone like Scalia wants to vastly privilege mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity. Employer fires you for testing hot for peyote? gently caress you and your primitive ways. Just stop smoking weed at your silly little ceremonies if you want to have a job, no big deal! A student at your religious school needs treatment for her ovarian cysts or she may become sterile, but you're afraid the pills will let her slut it up on the side? Hmm yes, it would be an awful burden for you to lay awake at night knowing some of her tuition might enable her to have sex you disapprove of. At least it has the benefit that exemptions for vaccines and blood transfusions won't follow even if Hobby Lobby wins because the conservatives will hopefully just quietly decide that since those beliefs are stupid in their opinion, the mandates aren't burdensome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's why the court sticks to determining the burden on the belief so they have some cover when someone like Scalia wants to vastly privilege mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity. I think it's simpler than that. He even hinted it at oral argument, the problem is not when a private employer restricts religion, only when the government does it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:But then courts end up in the position of judging the reality of religious beliefs, and that's a big no-no. There are portions of the country where you could probably convince a jury (and some judges) that the Islamic God objectively does not exist (how can he, the Christian God is the correct God). If the truth of religious beliefs matters, then convincing the fact-finder of the non-existence of God eliminates any protection for religious beliefs. I'm a lot less worried about that than the prospect of corporations being allowed to vastly expand their ability to manipulate the workplace environment and lives of employees, and having this justifed by said corporation legally holding a religion chosen by their owners. Besides, there have always been "certain portions" of the country which are so full of ignorant, awful people that they've held the country back since day one. It's a reoccurring theme in American history. That's one thing the federal government exists for, at least with the outcome of the Civil War. Just how wacky do you want things to get regarding the ability of corporate owners, whether individuals or bodies of people, to claim an exemption to existing law due to an unchallenged belief? You have to draw the line somewhere, might as well be when (medical) science is so firmly on the secular side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:I'm a lot less worried about that than the prospect of corporations being allowed to vastly expand their ability to manipulate the workplace environment and lives of employees, and having this justifed by said corporation legally holding a religion chosen by their owners. Besides, there have always been "certain portions" of the country which are so full of ignorant, awful people that they've held the country back since day one. It's a reoccurring theme in American history. That's one thing the federal government exists for, at least with the outcome of the Civil War. I pretty clearly said I wasn't talking about Hobby Lobby, but fine. I would draw two lines. First, I would consider the sincerity of the belief. Manufactured beliefs adopted solely to get out of some government obligation do not qualify for religious exemptions. This isn't at issue in Hobby Lobby, because the sincerity of the belief was conceded by the government. Second, I would consider the belief itself, and whether the regulation burdens the belief. For example, if I have a sincere belief that my religion compels me to not provide methods of contraception that the church (or some religious authority, or I) believe cause abortion, then the science is irrelevant. The prohibition is not dependent on science, it is dependent on belief. I don't see this an any different than someone who believes that payote opens a connection to the spirit world - it is a medically inaccurate description of payote's method of action, but that is not relevant to the religious belief. On the other hand, if the belief is that I may not cover contraception that actually causes abortion (rather than that the church teaches causes abortion), then science matters, and my belief is not burdened if I am required to cover contraceptives that do not cause abortions, regardless of what I believe about them. Now, before anyone thinks I actually think Hobby Lobby should win its case, I don't. I just don't think that the Court should be in the business of determining whether religious beliefs are scientifically supported, because I believe that necessarily leads to courts determining what religion is "correct".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:But then courts end up in the position of judging the reality of religious beliefs, and that's a big no-no. There are portions of the country where you could probably convince a jury (and some judges) that the Islamic God objectively does not exist (how can he, the Christian God is the correct God). If the truth of religious beliefs matters, then convincing the fact-finder of the non-existence of God eliminates any protection for religious beliefs. That's essentially what we already have, except instead of quibbling over whether a religious belief is "truly held" we quibble over whether whether the government has a "valid interest in restricting that conduct". To wit, you can have a truly felt conviction that peyote makes you commune with the gods all you want, but restricting that is a legitimate government interest. Now, making sure that women have access to medical care? Totally not a legitimate government interest, you need to observe employers' religious beliefs. In the end it boils down to the same practical outcome, which is whether you can convince a jury (or SCOTUS) that your particular form of religious observances should be protected. And it's not like there aren't situations where the government judges the sincerity of religious beliefs anyway, see: conscientious objectors. It's not exactly crossing the rubicon. e: I guess I misread that. Requiring objective proof to make religious belief claims would never, ever happen. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That's essentially what we already have, except instead of quibbling over whether a religious belief is "truly held" we quibble over whether whether the government has a "valid interest in restricting that conduct". That's the wrong standard. RFRA requires strict scrutiny - a compelling interest and that the government use the least restrictive means to further the interest. Also, I agree that the government should judge sincerity of religious beliefs. It shouldn't judge scientific accuracy of religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:Second, I would consider the belief itself, and whether the regulation burdens the belief. For example, if I have a sincere belief that my religion compels me to not provide methods of contraception that the church (or some religious authority, or I) believe cause abortion, then the science is irrelevant. The prohibition is not dependent on science, it is dependent on belief. I don't see this an any different than someone who believes that payote opens a connection to the spirit world - it is a medically inaccurate description of payote's method of action, but that is not relevant to the religious belief. On the other hand, if the belief is that I may not cover contraception that actually causes abortion (rather than that the church teaches causes abortion), then science matters, and my belief is not burdened if I am required to cover contraceptives that do not cause abortions, regardless of what I believe about them. This is where I feel your argument becomes nonsense. "These forms of birth control cause abortion" is an empirical claim, regardless of whether or not it's couched in religion by adding "My religion believes that" to the front of the belief. This is what differentiates the abortion claim from something like "Peyote opens a door to a spiritual realm", because nothing about the Peyote claim is falls into the realm of empirical claims. You can't just escape the reach of scientific evidence by couching your empirical claims in "My religion believes". If you're making an empirical claim, and empirical evidence proves you wrong, "But my religion!" isn't a valid retort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
I'd still prefer that the ruling not be on empirical grounds because I don't want religious exercise extended to for-profit companies that want to make decisions for their employees. Even if a new study came out tomorrow that says IUDs or Plan B cause abortions 1% of the time, I still don't think an employer should have the right to control whether women who work for them can get coverage or not. That kind of decision should be between a woman and her doctor. I think the government was entirely right to concede Hobby Lobby's empirical claim and argue that Hobby Lobby should have to provide the contraception mandated by the ACA whether they believe it risks abortion or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:That may be, but if a belief is demonstrably wrong and not reflective of reality, it shouldn't be given preference or accommodation under the law. To do otherwise is to legitimize fantasy and madness. I'm curious what percentage of goons failed hard out of Intro to Philosophy, given how often this exact sentiment is posted over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Guys do we really want cuntry judges trotting out Aquinas to Ultimately Prove Christianity? Because that's what'd be happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I'm curious what percentage of goons failed hard out of Intro to Philosophy, given how often this exact sentiment is posted over and over again. Or maybe you failed the later classes where the explained why that sort of thinking is pointless, defeatist bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
I hope this stupid derail over how something can be given realistic credentials simply by force of faith can be stopped before someone gets too deep into their sincere belief that the world is better off without six million or so people of a specific ethnic group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I hope this stupid derail over how something can be given realistic credentials simply by force of faith can be stopped before someone gets too deep into their sincere belief that the world is better off without six million or so people of a specific ethnic group. Now you're just being incoherent. I'm with the people who are hesitant about stripping otherwise permitted religious freedoms/exemptions on the basis of "nope, you're ignorant of actual science".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm with the people who are hesitant about stripping otherwise permitted religious freedoms/exemptions on the basis of "nope, you're ignorant of actual science". You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes? I guess you better tell all of jurisprudence that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes? And yet the idea of a chilling effect on free speech is accepted freely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes? It's only a fallacy when the argument is unsupported. It is a perfectly reasonable logical device when you can draw causal links between the various parts of the slope. And when it's being used in the fallacious manner you attack it by attacking on the merits instead of labeling it and moving on because you need to demonstrate that B doesn't flow from A.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:You are aware of the fact that Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, yes? Yes, but that's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope posits that one policy will lead to a completely unrelated policy. Example: "if we allow gays to get married, next thing you know they'll be asking to join the military too!" This doesn't apply when the logic used to justify one decision can also be used to justify another: "If we allow gays to get married on the basis that anyone should be allowed to marry who they love, we will also have to allow cousin marriages for the same reason!" Nor does it apply when another decision follows as a natural consequence of a previous one: "If we allow gays to get married, next thing you know they'll be adopting children together!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's only a fallacy when the argument is unsupported. It is a perfectly reasonable logical device when you can draw causal links between the various parts of the slope. And when it's being used in the fallacious manner you attack it by attacking on the merits instead of labeling it and moving on because you need to demonstrate that B doesn't flow from A. Point. My apologies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Even if their beliefs are sincerely held, they are factually wrong about how those birth control methods work, so it shouldn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Even if their beliefs are sincerely held, they are factually wrong about how those birth control methods work, so it shouldn't matter. Is there some legal basis for this argument or is this simply your opinion of how the case should be decided in some hypothetical legal system other than the one currently in place in the U.S.? I think this statement is inapposite to the Hobby Lobby case, and in fact the Supreme Court has in the past precisely avoided this line of inquiry. Religious freedom is pretty meaningless if the government can determine which of your religious beliefs are correct. One could also argue that it is factually wrong to say one will go to Hell for working on Saturday (as in Sherbert) or that school will corrupt children with worldly influences (as in Yoder).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Now you're just being incoherent. The entire problem with this notion is that Hobby Lobby wants to use their religious freedom to target the rights of women. They are specifically denying them health care coverage. Can we please get back on topic? No more of this "tolerate my intolerance" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Can someone explain/outline for me how corporate health coverage for employees works in terms of how it financially benefits the company? I thought compensation given to employees in the form of healthcare counted as a tax write off - is that not the case? Also do companies face a fine if they don't offer insurance as a part of their compensation? The reason I ask is that I understood the Hobby Lobby case to basically be Hobby Lobby wanting to continue saving money by offering healthcare as compensation (as opposed to pure wages which are not a deduction) but also wanting to dictate what coverage "counts". Am I wrong in this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Even if their beliefs are sincerely held, they are factually wrong about how those birth control methods work, so it shouldn't matter. As a practical matter, we simply don't want courts getting into the business of deciding what religious beliefs are provably incorrect and which are not. One of the reasons for religious protection and freedom of religion is essentially a truce, everyone agrees to leave each other's religious beliefs alone no matter how nutty they may be. There is absolutely zero benefit to ending that truce. What's at issue here is not the scientific validity of their beliefs. It's the extent that "religious freedom" should cover interactions between them and third parties. That's the real issue here and trying to avoid it by arguing Hobby Lobby is insincere or factually wrong simply postpones it, and it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed given the increasing use of religious freedom as an offensive weapon against gays, women, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Can someone explain/outline for me how corporate health coverage for employees works in terms of how it financially benefits the company? I thought compensation given to employees in the form of healthcare counted as a tax write off - is that not the case? Also do companies face a fine if they don't offer insurance as a part of their compensation? It benefits employers because (before Obamacare) employees could only get good health coverage through an employer and so an employer could pay less overall by paying for health coverage and giving a lower salary than paying the salary that would make an employee equally happy to work there without health coverage. Tax issues also factor into this as well, but the primary reason really was that you simply needed employer-provided health coverage to have good insurance so employers that offered it were considerably more attractive than those that didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
That makes sense. Under the law now, is there any requirement that companies provide healthcare for employees or face a fine? If there are tax incentives for offering coverage (you seemed to indicate there are, but I don't know any specifics) then it seems counterintuitive to also penalize non-coverage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Can someone explain/outline for me how corporate health coverage for employees works in terms of how it financially benefits the company? I thought compensation given to employees in the form of healthcare counted as a tax write off - is that not the case? Also do companies face a fine if they don't offer insurance as a part of their compensation? Health care costs and wages are the same to the company - both are tax deductible. The tax advantages come because the benefit of the health insurance is not taxable to the employee. It costs the employer the same to give the employee a $10,000 health plan or a $10,000 bump in salary, but the $10,000 bump in salary would only provide ~$5,000 or $6,000 of benefit to the employee because they have to pay taxes on it. Starting in 2015, companies face a fine if they don't provide health insurance - it's about $2,000 per employee but NOT tax deductible - so the actual company impact is closer to $3,000 per employee. If Hobby Lobby wanted to "make their employees whole" by bumping their salary, it might end up costing them more than they currently spend and it might cost less - there's no real way to know unless you do a pretty in-depth analysis. In general, it costs a lot of money to drop the health plan and make employees whole, and even then you have winners and losers - typically older employees will lose out because their health care plans are more expensive. Other numbers if people were interested - covering the 4 controversial contraceptives costs them $26M per year, and the penalties for not complying cost $475M per year. esquilax fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
The employees would probably benefit from government subsidies though, which would reduce the amount Hobby Lobby has to offer. That is one of the reasons for the tax: for the government to recover some part of the subsidies they'd be paying. But you're right there's no way to automatically know, which is why Hobby Lobby also argued that they believe their faith calls them to care for their employees' health (yes really!) and it would harm their beliefs if they stopped doing that (yes really!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The tax advantages come because the benefit of the health insurance is not taxable to the employee. It costs the employer the same to give the employee a $10,000 health plan or a $10,000 bump in salary, but the $10,000 bump in salary would only provide ~$5,000 or $6,000 of benefit to the employee because they have to pay taxes on it. Probably also benefits the employer, because they're not paying their share of taxes on it either, I don't think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Can't we just find some poor sap that Hobby Lobby could pay that pesky half-billion in return for patiently explaining to them once a day how covering contraceptives positively impacts their female employees' quality of life? Or am I giving too much credit to a company that eschews bar code scanning because it would summon the Antichrist? mdemone fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:This is where I feel your argument becomes nonsense. "These forms of birth control cause abortion" is an empirical claim, regardless of whether or not it's couched in religion by adding "My religion believes that" to the front of the belief. I just fundamentally disagree with you. Religious freedom should not be subject to a "scientific accuracy" test. Young earth creationists are free to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, Mormons are free to believe that American Indians are descended from the tribes of Israel, Christians who take the bible as literal truth are free to believe in a world encompassing flood, certain Christian groups are free to believe that evolution is false (well, they are all free to believe it, but only some do). All of these beliefs are empirically false, but all of these groups are free to believe them and free to develop whatever religious practices and prohibitions they choose based on them. If the government passes a law that these groups believe burden their practice of religion, the correct response is not "your religious belief is scientifically inaccurate, therefore it is not worthy of protection." The correct response is something like what we actually do - weigh the government's interest in whatever cause it is trying to further against the burden on the practice of religion. I happen to believe that RFRA's strict scrutiny standard is probably too high when laws are facially neutral and the religious practice directly burdens people not of the religion in question, but that's not related to whether we should subject religious beliefs to scientific testing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:the religious practice directly burdens people not of the religion in question
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Probably also benefits the employer, because they're not paying their share of taxes on it either, I don't think? I was looking at it from an economic standpoint, but I guess you're technically right. They don't have to pay their share of SS or medicare taxes on health insurance, but they would have to pay them on income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Can't we just find some poor sap that Hobby Lobby could pay that pesky half-billion in return for patiently explaining to them once a day how covering contraceptives positively impacts their female employees' quality of life? As I understand it they're only whining about the morning after pill. It works the same as the regular pill and in fact only works if fertilization has not occurred but Hobby Lobby says anything taken after the fact is an abortion according to their religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
It sounds like the government has conceded that there is a minuscule chance that the morning after pill could cause a situation where an egg that had dropped before taking the pill met with a sperm and was impregnated, and then failed to attach to the uterine wall due to hormonal issues. They consider that an abortion and thus I can see their logic being valid (personally I disagree) although it doesn't sound like they looked very hard at other drugs that can cause similar fringe cases and unlikely side effects. I think the more important issue is that as a corporation that shields its owners from a lot of legal issues they really have no business telling their employees how their compensation for labor should be used so I don't care if it is an abortifacient or not.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Radish posted:It sounds like the government has conceded that there is a minuscule chance that the morning after pill could cause a situation where an egg that had dropped before taking the pill met with a sperm and was impregnated, and then failed to attach to the uterine wall due to hormonal issues. They consider that an abortion and thus I can see their logic being valid (personally I disagree) although it doesn't sound like they looked very hard at other drugs that can cause similar fringe cases and unlikely side effects. I think the more important issue is that as a corporation that shields its owners from a lot of legal issues they really have no business telling their employees how their compensation for labor should be used so I don't care if it is an abortifacient or not. It should be pointed out that regular hormonal contraceptives do this too. Also like all anti inflammatories if I recall a doctor's rant on the silliness of the line of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It should be pointed out that regular hormonal contraceptives do this too. Yeah it's an absurd line of thinking like saying a bank shouldn't finance a pregnant woman buying a house with a second floor since a loose rug and some stairs could be an unintended abortifacient if a person REALLY cares that much about it to stop a fringe case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Radish posted:It sounds like the government has conceded that there is a minuscule chance that the morning after pill could cause a situation where an egg that had dropped before taking the pill met with a sperm and was impregnated, and then failed to attach to the uterine wall due to hormonal issues. They consider that an abortion and thus I can see their logic that that way being valid although it doesn't sound like they looked very hard at other drugs that can cause similar issues. I think the more important issue is that as a corporation that shields its owners from a lot of legal issues they really have no business telling their employees how their compensation for labor should be used so I don't care if it is an abortifacient or not. No issues with the rest of your post but the bolded portion is a poor interpretation that I hear a lot. They can't prevent employees from using "their compensation" on Plan B or any other contraceptive methods, or even an actual abortion. What they are doing is making sure it is not included in the health plan that they offer to the employee. If a company didn't cover Viagra or nose jobs under their health plan, you wouldn't say they are telling their employees how their compensation could be used, would you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:34
|
|