A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Psychosplodge]

How to get on as an [URL="http://castingcallwoe.tumblr.com/"]actress[/URL]

[Earl Harbinger]

I can actually argue that since my faith says the world population is unsustainable and I am not allowed to bring fresh life into it until I can support that life, that a company banning contraception is directly infringing on my religious beliefs. I wonder how that would fly? I suspect despite it being true I'd stand no chance, because I'm not christian and only christians get laws made in their favour. Seriously, as much I hate Cromwell there are times I think he had the right idea of how to treat a churchian monopoly.

Companies aren't banning contraception, employees are still free to seek whatever form of birth control they want. Many things are not covered by health insurance plans for a myriad of reasons. Nobody has the power to force somebody else to pay for something against their religious convictions. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

[Psychosplodge]

Which when you take part of you renumaration as healthcare is effectively a ban.

[Earl Harbinger]

Except he isn't, women are being denied control over their own medical insurance which is provided to them as part of their remuneration for employment.

[URL="http://feministbatwoman.tumblr.com/post/90607092937/whovianfeminism-i-have-very-tenuously-tied-my"]Source[/URL]. By allowing a company to not provide something though medical insurance if they have a religious objection to it women are being denied those things.

The health insurance benefits you receive from your employer in addition to your salary/wage is a remuneration for their labor, yes. However, the fact that benefits are remuneration doesn't change the fact that it is illegal for the Federal govt to force people to act in violation of their religious convictions.

Instead of quoting an opinion about the decision why don't you quote the court's opinion itself since that is what actually matters.

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substan-tially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compel-ling government interest. In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies for-feited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprie-torships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not dis-criminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the man-ner required by their religious beliefs. Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would. Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also consti-tute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contra-ceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/06/30/supreme-court-decision-in-burwell-secretary-health-and-human-services-et-al-v/[/url]

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993.[1] The bill was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act[/url]

If you have a problem with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act then you can take that up with the 433 members of Congress who voted for it and President Clinton who signed it into law.

Once again, it is against the law to force people, including owners of corporations to violate their religious convictions or penalize them for holding those beliefs. You don't have to like their beliefs, you don't have to agree with their beliefs but it is illegal for the govt to force people to act against their religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Which when you take part of you renumaration as healthcare is effectively a ban.

No, you are still free to buy whatever contraceptive you want.

My company health insurance plan doesn't cover the cost of condoms. Many of my coworkers are single males and their preferred method of contraception and STD prevention is the use of condoms. They all have to buy their own condoms. Nobody is violating their rights, they are not being oppressed, nothing has been banned.

[Psychosplodge]

ffs
You don't require a prescription to buy condoms.
A more accurate comparison is viagra which they provide.
Which also is probably against religion as when you think about it its only use is recreational sex at an age you're generally past procreation.

Nobody is asking them to pay for anything as individuals.
The entire point of a corporation is that it is separate from the individual, so they shouldn't be able to apply their lifestyle views to limiting the healthcare they provide as a corporation.

[Earl Harbinger]

So, how does your National Health Care work?

Oh that's right, you don't have any, not really. Because apparently Socialism (you know, actually getting something out of your taxes beyond a bloated military) is evil and wrong. And not, you know, a sign of a mature society that likes to make sure it's populace are looked after.

And tell me, exactly what liberties are being stripped away from me in the UK? Just like you, I can do pretty much whatever within the law. We're also left largely to our own devices on enjoyable stuff like booze and smokes. Oh, and my civil liberties aren't campaigned against by fringe religious lunatics, at least not terribly successfully. IF one of our leaders claimed 'GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT' they'd be out of power and in the nut house where the belong. Not re-elected.

Since I'm a nice fellow, I'm going to try to steer this back to actually dealing with feminism and not follow you down your rabbit hole of My-country-is-better-than-yours rants.

Here in the USA my wife and daughter have the right to own firearms. They also have the right to self defense and to use what means they are comfortable with for that defense. You seem to be of the opinion that our govt should forcibly prevent them from exercising those rights. I think that would a horrible immoral act of injustice.

Millions of good law abiding women here own firearms. Firearms have been demonstrably proven to be a very effective tool in deterring assaults against women (sexual or otherwise). Since those women are citizens in a free society who have done nothing wrong there is no reason for the govt to take their rights away for no better reason than fear and a vague notion of what's best for the greater good.

Why should society prevent women from exercising their rights and being self reliant? Why is that bad?

The majority of my friends, neighbors and coworkers (male and female) own firearms. They're good people, I have no problem with them owning whatever weapons they want. Their firearm ownership doesn't make me feel any less safe and if the govt confiscated all of their guns it wouldn't make me feel any more safe. I don't believe collective punishment or pre-emptive punishment is moral or legally justifiable. I believe the average person is a good person and no threat to me regardless of whether or not they own a weapon so I have no issue with them exercising their right to have one.

[Psychosplodge]

But can you cross the road at will?

[Earl Harbinger]

ffs
You don't require a prescription to buy condoms.
A more accurate comparison is viagra which they provide.
Which also is probably against religion as when you think about it its only use is recreational sex at an age you're generally past procreation.

Nobody is asking them to pay for anything as individuals.
The entire point of a corporation is that it is separate from the individual, so they shouldn't be able to apply their lifestyle views to limiting the healthcare they provide as a corporation.

Hobby Lobby has been in business since 1972. They've managed to successfully grow their company and attract good employees and give them health insurance benefits during that time. The company offered health benefits that complied with their religious beliefs and were good enough to hire and retain workers that helped make the company flourish. The Affordable Care Act became law and years later when the regulations were written and put into effect the Dept of Health and Human Services was demanding that Hobby Lobby change the health insurance plans they'd been using for years with no issues to comply with the new ACA rules or face fines that could total hundreds of millions of dollars. Hobby Lobby sued because they didn't want to change their health insurance plans in a way that conflicted with the religious beliefs of the owners. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor because we have laws that specificly prohibit the govt from forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.

The owners have been providing benefits for 42 years without getting sued or facing a revolt from their female employees. They are not evil sinister people looking to oppress women they just don't want the govt to force them to operate their business in a matter which violates their religious beliefs and the law is on their side in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

But can you cross the road at will?

Yes. We all do it quite often. You may not be aware of it because every square inch of our city streets isn't being constantly recorded on security cameras. Don't worry, I always look both ways first.

[Psychosplodge]

Then the law is wrong.
Or their interpreting it wrong.
A corporation isn't the individual.
The individuals aren't being asked to do anything they disagree with or infringes their rights.
The previous years are irrelevant as the healthcare laws were even more more primitive so any healthcare was something to grasp with both hands.

And they don't ticket you for jaywalking? I'm shocked.

[Earl Harbinger]

Rape education is important. Rape is a crime regardless of the gender or orientation of those involved so it's important to education everyone on the subject.

Thankfully, it's not a complicated subject. You have one class period at the start of every school year for grade levels8-12 and you'll have everything covered. If schools were spending more than 45-60 minutes on it I would question the quality of the filler material. 10-15 minutes of explanatory lecture, 30 minutes of Q&A and you're done.

- - - Updated - - -

Then the law is wrong.
Or their interpreting it wrong.
A corporation isn't the individual.
The individuals aren't being asked to do anything they disagree with or infringes their rights.
The previous years are irrelevant as the healthcare laws were even more more primitive so any healthcare was something to grasp with both hands.

And they don't ticket you for jaywalking? I'm shocked.

Unfortunately your personal opinion doesn't trump the supreme court's. The individuals in question were being forced to spend money on specific health insurance plans for their employees or those specific people were going to be punished by the federal govt for failure to do so. It's a privately held company, where do you think the money they would have been fined would come from? The owners. Who signs the paychecks that the employees get? The owners. A private company doesn't exist by itself in a vaccuum.