Rea Carey, [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]'s executive director, said in an interview that “If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can't have access to certain health care, it’s a hop, skip and a jump to an interpretation that a private company could have religious beliefs that LGBT people are not equal or somehow go against their beliefs and therefore fire them. We disagree with that trend. The implications of Hobby Lobby are becoming clear. We do not take this move lightly.... We've been pushing for this bill for 20 years."...Well, this is great news for people who want to see politics get more vigorously contentious on the social issues, but it's very unpleasant for people in the middle — like me — who care about both gay rights and religious freedom.
A new, separate push to rewrite ENDA may serve as a useful political tool for gay rights organizations that have used previous election cycles to pressure Democrats to take up legislation important to their concerns. The threat of withholding campaign donations during the 2010 campaign cycle helped push Obama and congressional Democrats to push for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And Obama's decision to announce his support for same-sex marriage before his reelection in 2012 also was seen as a nod to the gay community, a reliable and leading source of campaign donations to Democratic candidates....
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), a lead sponsor of ENDA and the Senate’s first openly lesbian member, said Tuesday that she was reviewing the decision of groups to withdraw support for the bill. She noted that the bill’s religious exemption language had been tweaked last year to secure more support from Democrats and Republicans, “and there was clearly discomfort expressed at that point” by gay rights groups concerned that the changes might make it easier for employers to seek religious exemptions.
After the Supreme Court issued its Hobby Lobby opinion, I blogged about the difference between a religious exemption from covering contraceptives for employees and a religious exemption from a ban on employment discrimination. That's about how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) might apply, and Congress has the power to exclude ENDA from RFRA. Senator Baldwin is talking about an exemption (in addition to RFRA) that is written into ENDA itself. You can read the ENDA exemption here. I don't read that as applying to businesses like Hobby Lobby, but it shows congressional intent to accommodate religion, so it would be hard to read that as excluding the applicability of RFRA.
So I can see why the gay rights groups want explicit language saying RFRA does not apply, unless they want to show some empathy for the religious needs of those who feel compelled to discriminate against gay people. Why would they?! (Answer: To help the Democratic Party.) Clearly, some of them have chosen to take a stand and make this conflict an issue right now. I think it's good that there are special interest groups like this that are not simply fully allied with the political interests of Democrats (or Republicans). That's healthy. And painful.
Posts
75 comments:
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how someone could cite to Hobby Lobby to fire someone who is ... well, anything.
The left is into forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
Then they're surprised when everything turns into a battle.
Just leaving people alone is not an option with the left.
They remain convinced there is some super-secret way to revoke the First Amendment.
They remain mistaken.
This doesn't really make any sense. How would Hobby Lobby apply here? If the goal of the legislation is to end workplace discrimination based on sexual preference, and the employer claims that this violates their religious beliefs (to hire gay people), then how can they argue that there is a less restrictive means (per the RFRA) to achieve the goal of preventing workplace discrimination?
There has to be some other reason.
It's an interesting question. On the one hand, if stopping employment discrimination based on sexual preference is a compelling state purpose, than banning employment discrimination based on sexual preference might well be the least intrusive means to achieve that purpose. On the other hand, the fact that Congress exempts religious organizations from the act -- allowing employment discrimination by religious organizations -- might indicate that the purpose isn't that compelling.
In the 80s an Orthodox Presbyterian (the denomination of Bowe Bergdahl's parents)congregation in San Francisco was sued after firing an organist who revealed he was gay.
If there is an RFRA exemption to ENDA, would churches not be able to dismiss employees who were gay?
Shorter Althouse:
Gays unwilling to tolerate disagreement and using the power of government to enforce endorsement of their position is a good thing!
So I can see why the gay rights groups want explicit language saying RFRA does not apply....
I can see why the gay rights groups would want that, too --- especially if they're suicidal. But, don't expect Congress to be.
There are a lot more "traditional" Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. in the voting population than gays; or even gays plus their liberal strong supporters, and Congress knows it.
The idea of "live & let live" has strong emotional appeal to the American population, and that idea now covers gay people. However, if the gay community tries to push past tolerance into a forced acceptance that pushes into the churches or into personal conscience, they will face a societal pushback that will end up undoing all of their gains so far. The cultural Left assumes that the arrow of history goes one way --- with their treasured ideas ascendant. Anyone with an inkling history knows that's utter bullshit.
The Gay Agenda is being re-purposed to make Christian faith into illegal hate crime. They first need to repeal the statute that made the protections in the Hobby Lobby decision and stretch that to deny any exemtions for faith.
The First Amendment itself can always be ignored. The liberty to practice religion has had no traction among modern folks since 1962.
A false logic shift being applied here in an attempt to show a political meme that protections for religious people need to be restricted to save the gays from persecution that is not happening.
“If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can't have access to certain health care, ...
Hyperbole trigger warning!
Since "pay for it yourself" isn't remotely like "can't have access", I guess it's good that the above "If" is not happening.
Not fully allied with Democrats? Are you kidding?
It was a decision to allow an employer to not cover abortive drugs. That company covered and covers contraception drugs.
I'm against unjust discrimination, but we're changing the definition of phobia/hate.
with Illinois just releasing original birth certificates of adoptees, individuals have a right to know who they are.
I source of 'hate' does not come from orientation, but sperm/egg/surrogacy. My hate is against the rich. Sure it is being sold as hate towards gay people, but a lot if conflict would be resolved if we were not messing with birth certificates to begin with. The gay lobby isn't about concerns with the gay community, just rich people screwing with public policy.
How can I listen to Catholic radio, telling us to love our gay children/friends, and the gay lobby is telling them that the Church hates gays.
Maybe we should ask the question why should it not be OK to discriminate against people who engage in gay sex?
It is legal to discriminate, in health insurance, against people who smoke. They can be charged higher premiums because they can be expected to have higher medical costs.
It is legal, in some states, to discriminate against smokers in hiring. Some companies flat will not hire smokers. Supposedly smokers are not as productive and take more time off.
That's been going on for 20-30 years but there was an article on Drudge the other day about a hospital that initiated a policy of firing any employee who smoked anywhere. Not not hiring but firing current employees.
Men who engage in gay sex have significantly higher health costs than men who do not. Why should they not have to pay additional for that? (Assuming that it is true that they do have higher costs. Perhaps they do not.)
Note that I am not talking about gay men, I am talking about men who engage in gay sex. Lots of overlap there but they are not necessarily the same. One is an inborn characteristic (so we are told), the other is a behavior.
I am not sure about lesbians and their medical costs. If they do not have higher costs, then no discrimination against them on that grounds.
Why should a business not be able to discriminate against a behavior?
(Just playing devil's advocate, here.)
John Henry
"people in the middle — like me — who care about both gay rights and religious freedom"
Moral conscience, not religious freedom:
"...places undue emphasis on the registrant's interpretation of his own beliefs... all those whose consciences, spurred by deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, would give them no rest or peace if they allowed themselves to become a part of an instrument of war." - Justice Black, Welsh V United States
The Gay Mafia would force a jewish seamstress to make gestapo uniforms for a KKK rally. They would force a baker to make a gay wedding cake, or lose his business and go to prison for 12 months.
Would they force a gay print shop to make "God Hates Fags" signs?
Companies are allowed to "discriminate" against smokers due to their higher risks of disease and insurance cost impact.
Male homosexuals are at a higher risk of both STDs (Especially AIDS/HIV) and other diseases (eg TB).
Is that a parallel and sufficient reason for not hiring such persons OR to require them to stop smoking-like, high risk sexual, behaviors?
Perhaps they are concerned that with normalization of homosexual relationships, that there is no principled defense to exclude other relationships, including: bigamy, polygamy, incest, et cetera. The concern for moral hazards created by selective exclusion is forward thinking that has been noticeably missing from diversity advocates, homosexual activists, and other loose groups. The slippery slope is not the progressive inclusion of dysfunctional behaviors, but their unprincipled exclusion.
"Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see how someone could cite to Hobby Lobby to fire someone who is ... well, anything."
Imagine a gay employee that gets fired (or doesn't get a promotion or perceives anti-gay sentiment in the workplace). He sues the employer claiming sexual orientation discrimination in violation of ENDA, and the employer attempts to defend itself by saying ENDA doesn't apply because we only did what our religious beliefs required.
"It was a decision to allow an employer to not cover abortive drugs. That company covered and covers contraception drugs."
But on the level of legal principle, it was about what is a substantial burden on religion under RFRA. It set a low standard for what counts as a substantial burden, because the employer only complained about participating in an insurance plan, when the employee would be making the decisions about which benefits to use. You take the same standard into everything else that is covered by federal law, unless that law excludes the applicability of RFRA.
Hobby Lobby is a precedent with far-reaching applications (as we've already seen in Wheaton College, which was about all forms of contraception).
"“If a private company can take its own religious beliefs and say you can't have access to certain health care…' Hyperbole trigger warning! Since "pay for it yourself" isn't remotely like "can't have access""
Well, the company is talking about a burden on its religious exercise and using it as a basis for putting a burden on access to health care.
Making someone pay for something is limiting access. The govt chose to open up access beyond what it would be when you had to pay for contraceptives yourself, and the company used its religion to restrict that access again.
(Except not really, because the govt has other ways to make contraceptives available at no extra cost, and all the invocation of religious burden does is require government to create the access by another means).
re: selective exclusion
That said, an individual should not experience discrimination based on their choices in the bedroom. It is their external behaviors which warrant societal rejection, tolerance, or normalization.
That doesn't make any sense. They are withdrawing support from a bill they have championed for years because the Supreme Court may not support enforcing it to the degree they wish?
?
From a strategic standpoint, how do they conclude this is the right move?
I know that Christian universities already fire people who violate their codes of sexual ethics and related issues.
I know stories of people being fired because they were gay, came out as transgender, had an affair, etc.
Sexuality is a religious issue, going back millenia. It used to be explicitly religious in fact in terms of fertility cults. It is impossible to argue that sexual behavior is not substantive to religious belief. So, it seems that there's a substantive protection for institutions to maintain a standard of sexual expression, one protected by the 1st amendment.
In trying to bypass that, in rejecting forms of religious protection, the argument is essentially being made that sexuality and religion are of separate spheres, which is itself a religious argument, telling religion what it can and can't consider important.
(note this comment negates a bit my previous one)
Elective abortion is not health care. The penumbra from which that conclusion was pulled is both illogical and illegitimate in light of our respect for human and civil rights. Elective abortion is the casual termination of human life for money, sex, ego, and convenience. It is is advanced by interests which want to reduce the problem set (i.e. population control), increase taxable activity, create political leverage, etc.
I'm uncomfortable with the resort to "religion" as the one and only and final refuge of opponents of federally (Constitutionally) normalized homosexual relations.
I don't care to look to my religion (I happen to be a United Methodist, same as Hillary Rodham Clinton; and I have news for Mrs. Clinton that she might want to think about looking for a new church now that she has recently decided to reverse her public position on same-sex marriage) for guidance on the laws concerning homosexual conduct.
This whole framing presumes that the only valid objection to normalized homosexuality is religiously-based.
I'm reminded of a song.
"Making someone pay for something is limiting access."
Got it. Making someone pay for something is limiting access. Making someone else pay for something is increasing access.
Imagine a gay employee that gets fired (or doesn't get a promotion or perceives anti-gay sentiment in the workplace). He sues the employer claiming sexual orientation discrimination in violation of ENDA, and the employer attempts to defend itself by saying ENDA doesn't apply because we only did what our religious beliefs required.
Going to first principles, he ought to be able to hire whoever he wants for any reason.
Freedom of association.
The exception is a monopoly market.
In the usual case, if gays are discriminated against, it's a good deal to hire gays, so it can't persist.
If there's political monopoly-making (hiring blacks is illegal) or private violence (nice business you have here, don't hire blacks or it might burn down), then there's a state interest in forcing you to do what you'd want to do anyway, to get out from under outside coercion.
A bunch of whiny little girls. (That quote by Bruce Campbell in the Burn Notice trailers sticks with me).
Plenty of places where gays get preferential treatment - one is mid to large law firms. Friend of mine told me that she was a twofer (while I was a zerofer), and the only thing that would have been better is if she had been Black, Hispanic, or fake American Indian like Elizabeth Warren (ok, I added the latter - twofers like her are rarely sensitive to the hypocrisies of the left). The firms have a punch list that they provide potential clients, and the more women, gays, minorities, etc., the better. Which is why twofers, and even the threefer or two, are so valuable. They cover for all the people hired on their merits, because if they just had those minorities, quality would be down significantly (ok, take the women out of the last statement).
To this day, I have never understood the rational for giving special treatment to people because of their voluntary sexual activities.
Of course, the other problem with this sort of legislation is that it opens itself up for abuse. What about NAMBLA? For a long time, they were allowed to march in gay pride parades. Do we really want to keep schools from firing pedophiles? (Ok, there is Harry Reid, who has yet to rebut those allegations that he is a pederast). Or, even maybe, making it harder to fire them? (I am thinking of the NY "rubber rooms" where pedophile teachers end up, along with other types of miscreants, essentially unfireable, but too dangerous to put in classrooms). Probably before NAMBLA pedophiles, we would likely have to deal with polygamists. Sexual orientation is the sort of door that is very hard to close, once opened in the way so desired by the LGBT... crowd.
@John
I think you mean anal sex, the same risk applies gay or straight. Anal sex is becoming more common with heterosexuals.
unless they want to show some empathy for the religious needs of those who feel compelled to discriminate against gay people. Why would they?! (Answer: To help the Democratic Party.)
How does caving on this point help the Democratic Party? Anyone who believes that corporations have religious beliefs that allow them to discriminate is unlikely to vote Democratic any way.
I can't see rhhardin or Bruce Hayden saying: "hey those Democrats were pretty nice letting us discriminate against gay people if we truly believe it is against God's Will to be gay. I think I'll vote for Hillary in 2016."
Well, this is great news for people who want to see politics get more vigorously contentious on the social issues, but it's very unpleasant for people in the middle — like me — who care about both gay rights and religious freedom.
So what is the middle ground position on religious exemptions to employment discrimination laws? I know that I am on the side for permitting broad exemptions, and I assume these LGBT activists are opposed to almost all exemptions. What's the compromise?
Bill Crawford said: If there is an RFRA exemption to ENDA, would churches not be able to dismiss employees who were gay?
Churches (and related organizations, like religious schools) have traditionally gotten around discrimination liability by stating that basically every employee has "minister" duties. First Amendment jurisprudence holds that the court cannot really question who is and is not a minister or what is required for a minister role in the church, since that's a question of religious belief. This is bigger than the RFRA, so churches would likely still be exempted.
Non-church private companies, like HL, would not be, though.
I can understand why Dana Milbank feels the need to address the Tea Party candidates on their messaging, but why does he not similarly assist major gay rights groups?
That said, an individual should not experience discrimination based on their choices in the bedroom. It is their external behaviors which warrant societal rejection, tolerance, or normalization.
So as long as they don't "act gay", you have no problem? What about a wedding picture on the desk of a homosexual, but rugged, man. Would that constitute disturbing you religious sensibilities?
Why do you think you are you in the middle on this? They are being absolutists. They are saying that religious freedom should be subsidiary to their notion of gay rights. That notion is actually one of total victory. Their slippery slope argument (that somehow sexual orientation inquiry will be part of hiring) is absurd. They simply want no religious issues to be impactful.
It would not be hard to write the statute in such a way that it would avoid the Hobby Lobby result in hiring.
You say "Imagine a gay employee that gets fired (or doesn't get a promotion or perceives anti-gay sentiment in the workplace). He sues the employer claiming sexual orientation discrimination in violation of ENDA, and the employer attempts to defend itself by saying ENDA doesn't apply because we only did what our religious beliefs required."
I can imagine that. But I can also imagine a pretty simple argument that a properly drafted statute is the least restrictive alternative.
I favor gay marriage and have no problem with outlawing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But gay rights are not the only rights. You are not caught in the middle. They want to obliterate the middle.
Well, this is great news for people who want to see politics get more vigorously contentious on the social issues, but it's very unpleasant for people in the middle — like me — who care about both gay rights and religious freedom.
Hee...gays v. Jesus freaks. I'm making popcorn!
Here's the key, as I see it:
RFRA talks about using the least restrictive (to religious freedom) means to achieve a goal. For the ACA, the Court determined that there was a way to accomodate consciencious-objector employers while still reaching the same goal -- which, as was discussed at length yesterday, wasn't "ensuring that employers pay for their female employees' contraception" but "trying to get as many women as possible to use the most reliable means of birth control available and suited to their situation."
In this case, what is the goal? Is it really "eliminate discrimination against gays and lesbians"? In the case of the Civil Rights Act, the concern was that blacks were suffering financially and in other ways. Is the objective of the ENDA to remedy financial disadvantage, or to compel social acceptance, or both? And, based on that goal, what degree of religious accomodation can be tolerated? -- what about a schoolteacher at a parochial school, for instance?
Anyone who believes that corporations have religious beliefs that allow them to discriminate is unlikely to vote Democratic any way.
Anyone who believes corporations have FIRST AMENDMENT rights is/is not likely to vote Democratic any way.
Which path?
For those who contend that they are only asking for equal rights, try this: A boss has two kids, a boy and a girl. Both of the age of consent. One male employee is diddling the girl, another the boy. He fires the one diddling his daughter, but cant' fire the one diddling his son. Why not? Because that would be discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Sure, it doesn't look that way yet, but after the lawyers get done pointing out the homophobic bigotry of the boss, I suspect that a good case could be made.
And, when it comes to firing someone, how do you show that it wasn't because of sexual orientation, if everything else is close to even?
CStanley said...So what is the middle ground position on religious exemptions to employment discrimination laws? ... What's the compromise?
My own opinion is that employers should have a completely free hand on issues related to ability to do the job. Issues unrelated to ability to do the job are none of the employer's business.
In the case of a religious institution, I think it is completely reasonable for the church to require that the employee be a member in good standing of that faith. For obvious reasons, the church gets to define "member in good standing" however it wishes, so long as it is a real standard (applied generally to the whole congregation) and not just something invented for employment purposes.
"Going to first principles, he ought to be able to hire whoever he wants for any reason."
We're pretty far from those first principles. For all practical purposes, there really isn't "at will" employment in this country, as there are so many impermissible reasons to fire someone that employers basically have to find good cause to terminate.
This would just add another category of employees to be protected from discharge on the federal level (a number of states already consider sexual preference protectible)--after race, religion, gender, age (over 40), and public policy reasons (firing employees for taking jury duty, or whistleblowers).
Perhaps such protection is necessary and desirable, but there is a definite cost to employers for such protections.
Companies are allowed to "discriminate" against smokers due to their higher risks of disease and insurance cost impact.
Male homosexuals are at a higher risk of both STDs (Especially AIDS/HIV) and other diseases (eg TB).
Someone did point out that this sort of sex is becoming more popular among straight couples. BUT, the propensity for AIDS/HIV, etc. doesn't appear to be going up quite as quickly, since straight women, in particular, don't appear, even yet, to be nearly as promiscuous as many gay males.
And, then there is the opposite situation, where Lesbians have a much lower likelihood to contract HIV/AIDS (but maybe a higher likelihood of contracting throat cancer and the like from cunnilingus). Still, it would seem to be unfair to penalize them for the sins of their male gay brethren. And, lesbians are highly unlikely to need contraceptives for anything except medical reasons. Still, they are likely to cost more in insurance than a straight couple, which by necessity, includes one low cost male.
Since "pay for it yourself" isn't remotely like "can't have access"
That is exactly what I think every time someone says "school choice" when they are pushing for private school vouchers.
In this case, what is the goal? Is it really "eliminate discrimination against gays and lesbians"? In the case of the Civil Rights Act, the concern was that blacks were suffering financially and in other ways. Is the objective of the ENDA to remedy financial disadvantage, or to compel social acceptance, or both? And, based on that goal, what degree of religious accomodation can be tolerated? -- what about a schoolteacher at a parochial school, for instance?
As usual, Jane asks good questions. Not being Gay, I don't really know - but suspect that it is more acceptance than financial, since in a lot of fields gays (and esp. gay males) make more than straights do. Already, a lot of big companies (and law firms) give gays of either sex hiring preferences, akin to that given oppressed racial or ethnic minorities. Except gays are often safer hires, since they are much less likely to have the educational weaknesses that true AA candidates often exhibit (i.e. the gays in question went to the same high schools and colleges as their straight brethren, and are thus similarly prepared, as contrasted to true AA candidates who often come from bad schools and broken homes).
madisonfella said...
Since "pay for it yourself" isn't remotely like "can't have access"
That is exactly what I think every time someone says "school choice" when they are pushing for private school vouchers.
7/9/14, 1:06 PM
Hahahaha, that there is funny!
I see what you did there, you conflagrated a new taking (demanding more of my money to give someone else more free BC) with me having the option of spending my child's already allocated school funds at the school I wish to send him to verses the one that happens to be closest to where I live.
School choice is about allowing a parent to determine the target of state funds instead of a zip code.
Liberals don't like that though because someone (not their kids) has to go to the crappy public schools in order to keep the teacher's union fed.
ENDA sounds as bad as DOMA. I'm pro marriage, but DOMA was offensive. How can you screw up defining marriage in 1998, amazes me. We define things for what they are, not that they are not.
In Massachusetts we had our anti discrimination laws to protect orientation in 1988. No problems, until. . . Goodridge. You have to R ad the whole legal history. The SJC in Mass. did allow room to define marriage as one man/one woman but the gay lobby bought enough legislative votes.
Were fighting against casinos, which followed the gay lobby handbook. Only this time progressives and social conservatives are united.
I know that Christian universities already fire people who violate their codes of sexual ethics and related issues.
I know that retailers already fire employees who disparage their business and promote the interests of their competitors.
I know that law firms already fire employees who say that the partners are idiots and wrong.
I know that schools already fire employees who are hired to teach one subject, but instead teach something else.
I know that lawyers already get fired and disbarred for doing what they want and thereby harming the interests of their clients.
And, I know that Christian employers by and large have little problem with employing someone who is not morally perfect, recognizing that we are ALL sinners, but who have a BIG problem with those who would hold that what is objectively wrong is right and what is objectively false is true and then demand that the employer is obligated to put up with the scandal (leading others astray) that inevitably results.
Since "pay for it yourself" isn't remotely like "can't have access"
That is exactly what I think every time someone says "school choice" when they are pushing for private school vouchers
It could be said also whenever someone is pushing for public schools.
With school choice, people are already "paying for it themselves." It is called taxes.
The purpose of public financing of education is to finance education, not to finance some government institution. In a real free society, funds are paid toward the education itself, with parents and students having the freedom to choose where that is, rather than being automatically enslaved to the government schools and their public teacher union cronies.
If they want to go to the public schools, by all means, they should be able to apply the funding there, but if they wish to go to an independent non-government school, they are entitled to do so as well as a matter of fundamental justice and equity. School choice is not just for the one-percenters and other wealthy.
Imagine a gay employee that gets fired (or doesn't get a promotion or perceives anti-gay sentiment in the workplace). He sues the employer claiming sexual orientation discrimination in violation of ENDA, and the employer attempts to defend itself by saying ENDA doesn't apply because we only did what our religious beliefs required.
This is why I hate non-discrimination laws like ENDA. It's too easy to claim discrimination when you are fired or passed over for a promotion.
Would ENDA have protected Brendan Eich?
Althouse: Well, the company is talking about a burden on its religious exercise and using it as a basis for putting a burden on access to health care.
Refusing to help you with a burden is not "putting a burden" on you, Ann.
My understanding of RFRA is that, in your case of the fired gay person, the government would have to show why there is a compelling public interest for their laws against discrimination to supersede the business owner's religious objection. That should be a tap-in argument to win (except maybe for the Holder Justice Dept.)
but if they wish to go to an independent non-government school, they are entitled to do so as well as a matter of fundamental justice and equity
Great, just have the parents send a check to the school of their choice and everyone is happy.
Women having anal sex. Another great accomplishment of the sexual revolution. Anyway, I'm really not sure more women are engaging in anal sex, at least not on a regular basis. And even for those who do it now and then, it's more than likely done to "achieve men’s approval both in and out of the bedroom. We starve ourselves. We rip off all the hair around our vaginas after pouring hot wax around it. And now we’re having anal sex, even though it hurts and we don’t like it, to show we’re adventurous, submissive and eager to please." You go, sisters.
garage mahal said...
but if they wish to go to an independent non-government school, they are entitled to do so as well as a matter of fundamental justice and equity
Great, just have the parents send another check to the school of their choice and everyone is happy.
7/9/14, 3:01 PM
There, fixed that for you.
Ann Althouse said...
"Making someone pay for something is limiting access."
I'm sure that principle won't have any far-reaching consequences. "Making" someone pay for something for which they are the primary beneficiary is limiting access? I never realized how damn limited I have been!
My first rule of economics is someone pays. The universe "makes" the rule that you must produce in order to consume; it's the default position of, ah, reality. I understand the specific question here is how that cost is borne (by whom), but by any definition individual contraception is NOT a public good. It's excludable! It's (at effective production volume) rivalrous!
You believe encouraging the use of birth control medication has society-wide benefits. Good. It does not therefore follow that society (through government) MUST provide birth control medication free of charge (to the user). Lots of behaviors, products, etc. have (in my opinion) society-wide benefits. Does the failure of the gov. to provide any of those to me free of charge mean my access to them is limited? Apparently!
Johan Goldberg had a column a while back arguing that despite the media's characterization of the "culture wars" as being driven by the Right most cultural conflicts are in fact dirven by those styling themselves as Progressive--that the Left is almost always the agressor in the culture wars. It occurs to me that the Hobby Lobby case is a good example of that point.
I've heard it said that Satan isn't a horned devil with red skin. He isn't the Hollywood caricature. Instead, if you believe in such things, he is an angel of light. Very powerful. Attractive, persuasive, and charismatic.
The gay lobby is exactly what I would expect if Satan were real and had infuence over the world.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that to the gay lobby, the Christian Church is the enemy and in need of eating the forbidden fruit in order to see the light.
Why should they go through all that work and compromise in the legislative process. All they have to do is wait for the federal courts to enact their political agenda via judicial fiat just like the abortionists did.
"Making someone pay for something is limiting access. The govt chose to open up access beyond what it would be when you had to pay for contraceptives yourself, and the company used its religion to restrict that access again."
Professor, you are too smart to write this kind of stuff.
The government is FORCING companies (i.e. other people, person A), through penalty of law to provide a good and health service to person B at no cost to person B. And yet, somehow, you think person B is a victim when person A is protected from providing a good and service to person B which violated their sincerely held and valid religious beliefs.
ALL of the coercion in this case is from the government enforcing left wing political goals. None of the coercion comes from person A.
unless they want to show some empathy
Oh right. Empathy
Like what they did to proponents of Proposition 8? That kind of empathy?
Cry me a river.
Though I'm totally gay-friendly, I have to withhold my support for the gay political agenda, since gays overwhelmingly favor Democrats.
Women having anal sex. Another great accomplishment of the sexual revolution. Anyway, I'm really not sure more women are engaging in anal sex, at least not on a regular basis.
Well, there is always Ana Marie Cox, aka Wonkette, who seems to have risen to prominence as a blogger through talking about anal sex. (Interestingly, looking her up, I found this post by our esteemed hostess from last fall: I'm having trouble reading Ana Marie Cox's "Dear Senate women: grow up and don't pass Hillary Clinton 'secret notes.'")
Still, it makes sense that most women would not be all that excited about anal sex. Gay males use it because they really don't have a viable alternative, but women do - a part of their bodies especially designed for sexual intercourse.
Though I'm totally gay, I have to withhold my support for the gay political agenda, since the loud-mouth gay left is a shill for the social democratic agenda and a willing tool of the "progressive"/rent-seeker axis.
richard mcenroe said...
They remain convinced there is some super-secret way to revoke the First Amendment.
Why do you think is secret, Richard?
Senator Tom Udall has sponsored and 40 senators have co-sponsored, a bill to amend the 1st Amendment.
Not to worry, though, it would do nothing to ban "reasonable speech".
The bill is SJ Res 19. Congresswoman Kaptur is leading the battle in the house.
Text of the bill is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148408191/Udall-Constitutional-Amendment-on-Campaign-Finance
Nothing secret about it at all. Just that the news media doesn't seem to be reporting it. Robert Cook, you were defending your local paper in another thread. Have they been covering this?
John Henry
A constitutional law question for you, Professor Althouse:
All my life I have heard that the 1st 10 Amendments are sacrosanct and cannot be abolished or changed.
Whenever I ask why, the reply is usually along the lines of "humma, humma, STFU, look, a squirrel!"
As far as I can tell, there is nothing at all in the constitution that can't be changed or deleted providing enough people agree. We could even abolish the 13th Amendment. (All together now, "This is what democracy looks like")
So, in your professional opinion, is there any bar to changing any of the Bill Of Rights/1st 10 Amendments?
Not that it would not be a good idea or that there would be strong moral pressure not to. Is there any legal or constitutional reason it could not be done?
John Henry
Here's a clue for the clueless:
If your boss doesn't like you, you do not want to work for him. Forcing him to hire you anyway is not going to make your work experience more enjoyable.
Unless you are so hopelessly unskilled and/or unemployable that Billy Bob McFagbasher's Guns and Bait Shop is literally the only place you can find work -- just go work someplace else. There are plenty of places out there, virtually all of them run by people who realize that hiring based on personal biases is a terrible way to do business.
To answer your question, John Henry, there's two legal and constitutional way to repeal any amendment. In fact that was done with Prohibition, the 18th Amendment established it, and the 21st Amendment repealed it.
Either you can get your amendment created by passage via a 2/3 super majority of the House and Senate or by a national convention assembled by the request of 2/3 the state legislatures. Once the text of the proposed amendment is agreed on via these means, it must be ratified by either the legislatures of 3/4 the states, or by state ratifying conventions in 3/4 the states.
I would not want to work for anyone who didn't want to hire me on account of my being female. Why would I want to make money for that person?
Does ENDA end up with RAFA?
Scott,
Thanks for your answer but that was not my question. I know the Amendment process.
My question for the prof was whether it can be applied to the first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights.
I have never seen any reason why it would not.
On the other hand, I have been hearing most of my life that the BOR is unamendable.
So, which is is it?
John Henry
I listened to NPR on this yesterday. The pres of whatever LGBT org said that the act was intended to allow, say, Catholics to hire Catholics instead of Jews to manage a hospital. Because that's OK. That's freedom of religion. However, not hiring a gay to work in the hospital cafeteria, that's not OK. So according to her, it's OK to discriminate on the basis of religion but not OK to discriminate on the basis of having a sexual identity not actually related to sex (note: noun).
I am really amused to see how deep left-wing solidarity goes. Or is it just left-wing hatred of all those who have religious beliefs?
Homosexuals don't need to worry about contraception. But that Left hates Hobby Lobby, so all leftists must rail against it, no matter what.
Post a Comment