Hobby Lobby Decision

[casie]

Ethics are more broad than religion. CEO's that have disagreeable ethics will be called out as a stinky turd, and they don't have the religion to hide behind and cry and say you're discriminating.

The thing about ethics is that they work for everybody. We run into problems persecuting religious freedom but with ethics you can flat out tell somebody they suck pretty much.

I disagree totally. People have frequent and intense disagreements about ethics, and many major political crises have turned on disagreements about the ethical responsibilities of managers to workers, nobility to serfs, etc. I have no idea what the statement that "ethics are more broad than religion" means.

 

[sprinkles]

I disagree totally. People have frequent and intense disagreements about ethics, and many major political crises have turned on disagreements about the ethical responsibilities of managers to workers, nobility to serfs, etc. I have no idea what the statement that "ethics are more broad than religion" means.

With ethics everybody can disagree and fight about it if they want to. Religion often seems to expect special treatment for its particular ethics because religion is more special and from higher spiritual authority.

Ethics doesn't have that crap. We collectively are the authority.

 

[casie]

With ethics everybody can disagree and fight about it if they want to. Religion often seems to expect special treatment for its particular ethics because religion is more special and from higher spiritual authority.

Ethics doesn't have that crap. We collectively are the authority.

I see that distinction, but I don't understand why, for the purposes of corporate ethics, a CEO can take a moral position with their company but not a religious one. Is the distinction really about whether or not people can disagree with it? Is that why CEO's can't make decisions based on religious convictions but they can with ethical convictions?

 

[sprinkles]

I see that distinction, but I don't understand why, for the purposes of corporate ethics, a CEO can take a moral position with their company but not a religious one. Is the distinction really about whether or not people can disagree with it? Is that why CEO's can't make decisions based on religious convictions but they can with ethical convictions?

If they had no convictions at all that'd kind of make them a loose cannon wouldn't it? Or at least entirely ineffectual.

Society expects right action to some degree and this includes actions of CEO's. You're not going to escape ethics, and if CEO's were devoid of them, people would actually demand that they have them.

Doing it without religion in theory allows for less favoritism and appealing to only certain sets of society. In practice it doesn't always work out that way, but it's probably better to reach a compromise that everyone half dislikes instead of something that half of people fully dislike.

 

[ThomasJ79]

I see that distinction, but I don't understand why, for the purposes of corporate ethics, a CEO can take a moral position with their company but not a religious one. Is the distinction really about whether or not people can disagree with it? Is that why CEO's can't make decisions based on religious convictions but they can with ethical convictions?

Corporate ethics is just good business practice. The primary job of the CEO is to act for the good of the company and most of the time it is just to make it as much money as possible. Many of these are rooted in tradition and secular society and not so much religion. Any CEO is more than welcome to take a moral stance based upon their religious conviction, but they may end up loosing many employees and customers as a result, which would go against their first job, which is to look out for the better interest of the company. Many CEOs try to keep their personal lives as private as possible because the image of the CEO is vitally important to the success of its company. No need to complicate their image.

 

[casie]

If they had no convictions at all that'd kind of make them a loose cannon wouldn't it? Or at least entirely ineffectual.

Society expects right action to some degree and this includes actions of CEO's. You're not going to escape ethics, and if CEO's were devoid of them, people would actually demand that they have them.

Doing it without religion in theory allows for less favoritism and appealing to only certain sets of society. In practice it doesn't always work out that way, but it's probably better to reach a compromise that everyone half dislikes instead of something that half of people fully dislike.

Corporate ethics is just good business practice. The primary job of the CEO is to act for the good of the company and most of the time it is just to make it as much money as possible. Many of these are rooted in tradition and secular society and not so much religion. Any CEO is more than welcome to take a moral stance based upon their religious conviction, but they may end up loosing many employees and customers as a result, which would go against their first job, which is to look out for the better interest of the company. Many CEOs try to keep their personal lives as private as possible because the image of the CEO is vitally important to the success of its company. No need to complicate their image.

Look, the only point that I am making is that the nature of any normative consideration outside of acting in the interests of the company is a fraught issue, especially when acting in the interests of the company means taking or avoiding a public position that is rooted in religion and/or ethics. I don't think the case has been effectively made as to why a company's executive or management should ever engage in ethics or religion, let alone why it is acceptable to hold an ethical position and not a religious one.

If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means adopting a position influenced by religion, why should the executive or management not adopt that position? If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means not adopting an ethical position, then why should the executive or management adopt that position?

 

[Skarekrow]

But they aren't so different. After all, if you believed on a secular ethical basis that, as a CEO, you have no obligation to give contraception to your employees as part of their health plan, how is this different to believing it on a religious basis? On either a conceptual or a practical level? And as a CEO you constantly have to impress your opinions of what is right or wrong - that is the fundamental point of a CEO who establishes professional ethics, corporate social responsibility, or any other norm that is beyond generating the maximum profit possible. Unless you believe that, as a manager or CEO, your only responsibility is to generate that outcome.



Pretty sure that it is at least part of the point - after all, it's at least partly about whether or not contraception is a lifestyle or a health issue for women (or both) and who controls that distinction. I think it is totally fair that women make that decision.

Firstly, the women’s health issue is an issue, but is not THE issue that this decision has brought fourth.
There are quite a few problems that this ruling has the possibility of causing.
The SCOTUS has deemed that corporations are people with the Citizen’s United decision, which names corporations as “people”, giving them rights that they actually have no right to have…this combined with the McCutcheon decision has secured that the richest “people” (corporations) win the votes…this has effectively taken the democratic process and neutered it. If you now combine it with the most recent decision which the SCOTUS actually has no right to turn into law (it only should have effected those fighting the court battle. (If you saw my previous post then this is more the action of a Monarchy than a court who is NOT supposed to create or dismantle laws) Because this calls corporations “people” it effectively says that the rights of the workers must come second to the owners, where once that was protected, now it can easily be challenged - that is the issue more than women’s rights to contraception…which I must mention was won with incorrect medical science…IUDs and the morning after pill do not induce abortions - they prevent fertilization…not only are they wrong but Hobby Lobby are hypocritical by saying that their religious beliefs are “deeply held” they actually own millions of dollars in stock from pharmaceutical manufactures who produce these “abortion inducing” products and drugs (no shit, look it up). The SCOTUS cannot make a broad sweeping ruling into law…this was very clear from our Founding Fathers -

In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court took upon itself the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.Then-President Thomas Jefferson was horrified, and immediately wrote a letter to John Adams’ wife Abigail, a confidant, saying, "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Continuing his rage against the Supreme Court’s decision to give itself king-like powers, Jefferson wrote to Virginia Supreme Court Justice and Patrick Henry's father-in-law, Spencer Roane, "If the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government…then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se (suicide pact)… The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary…"
Jefferson believed, as did many of the founders, that the Supreme Court should be the final court of appeals on individual cases about individual people or organizations. He did not believe that the court should have the right to strike down or write laws.
Modern-day supporters of the doctrine of Judicial Review say, “If we don't have the Supreme Court deciding what laws are constitutional and what not, then who should?"
To that, Jefferson had a simple answer: "The people themselves."
In 1823, still bitter about the Supreme Court's decision 20 years earlier, he wrote, "This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law… The Chief Justice says,'there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but…the ultimate arbiter is the people."
In other words, if Congress or the president passed unconstitutional laws, it’s the duty of their political opponents to point that out, and it’s the duty of the people to vote them out of office.

Except we cannot vote out the SCOTUS…there are there until they resign or die.

This ruling gives corporations legal rights to discriminate on just about anything. What is someone works for a Christian group that believes women are below men and therefore shouldn’t be paid as much? Or a Jehovahs Witness company who will not cover you receiving life-saving blood products? Or the LGBT community? “So sorry, you are fired because you’re gay and are going to burn in hell.” Or how would you feel if your workplace was Muslim and imposed Sharia Law on you or your family? It’s that Pandora’s Box that is the most frightening thing….this does not give people MORE religious freedom, it takes it away from YOU and ME and gives it to our bosses!

Look, the only point that I am making is that the nature of any normative consideration outside of acting in the interests of the company is a fraught issue, especially when acting in the interests of the company means taking or avoiding a public position that is rooted in religion and/or ethics. I don't think the case has been effectively made as to why a company's executive or management should ever engage in ethics or religion, let alone why it is acceptable to hold an ethical position and not a religious one.

If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means adopting a position influenced by religion, why should the executive or management not adopt that position? If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means not adopting an ethical position, then why should the executive or management adopt that position?

Business ethics are rules and intentions that are generally agreed upon by the whole business community…whereas religious beliefs follow rules that are not always agreed upon by everyone…take Christian away, and insert Muslim - first of all this case would have failed - HORRIBLY…but if they won, we would have so many Christians up in arms, we would have riots until it was revoked.
Religion should not be a deciding factor in politics or business….it is a dangerous precedent because it violates the rights of everyone else who believes differently by superseding their beliefs.

 

[sprinkles]

Look, the only point that I am making is that the nature of any normative consideration outside of acting in the interests of the company is a fraught issue, especially when acting in the interests of the company means taking or avoiding a public position that is rooted in religion and/or ethics. I don't think the case has been effectively made as to why a company's executive or management should ever engage in ethics or religion, let alone why it is acceptable to hold an ethical position and not a religious one.

If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means adopting a position influenced by religion, why should the executive or management not adopt that position? If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means not adopting an ethical position, then why should the executive or management adopt that position?

If they don't, their career may be ruined. Best interests are often more fraught than normative ethics. When they go too far, the pitchforks come out.

 

[Skarekrow]

@casie
Not only are ethics different in the way I described…but you have to put religious beliefs in the category of “rules defined by said believers deity” which would be discriminatory for someone of another faith.

 

[ThomasJ79]

Look, the only point that I am making is that the nature of any normative consideration outside of acting in the interests of the company is a fraught issue, especially when acting in the interests of the company means taking or avoiding a public position that is rooted in religion and/or ethics. I don't think the case has been effectively made as to why a company's executive or management should ever engage in ethics or religion, let alone why it is acceptable to hold an ethical position and not a religious one.

If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means adopting a position influenced by religion, why should the executive or management not adopt that position? If the best interests of the company, or even just the best interests of the shareholders means not adopting an ethical position, then why should the executive or management adopt that position?

Casie,

They certainly can adopt any views they want and many of them do, whether it be based upon strong ethical positions or religious conviction. Sometimes the companies benefit from such a stance, sometimes they're hurt by them, but unless they emphasize their views publicly, I'm not really sure if they would see much of a difference in their bottom line. Even when they do make it public, there still may not be an overall change in their profits. Hobby Lobby is probably going to see an increase in sales from conservative customers and may lose more of their progressive customers. It is because of this that I suspect that they won't see any real net difference in the long run.

They could have went with what was more common place ethically, and offered a health insurance plan that included birth control, but decided to take a moral stance. It is generally more ethical in the business world to offer their employees a health plan that meet their healthcare needs. A can't say for sure how an employee making $10/hour would feel about not having birth control coverage, but I bet they can't afford to have all too many children on that wage. It would have been more ethical to consider the need of its employees. The employees don't have any recourse except to quit if they don't like it and it isn't always in their best interest to do so.

I think that here in the U.S., we need to reframe the issue. I think it is time that we move away from employer-based healthcare coverage and into a nationalized one, where citizens have more protection by the government to prevent an employer from making ethical judgements about what sort of healthcare they should receive. Would it now be possible for a CEO that is a Scientologist to exclude anti-depressants in the healthcare plans of its employees? (If I were a scientologist, why would I have to pay for someone's else's imagined depression?) It sounds ridiculous today, but that is the danger of the waters we've entered here.

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

[video=youtube;zSQCH1qyIDo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zSQCH1qyIDo[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

It has now begun…I hope you are fucking proud of yourselves you pieces of shit.
How very Christ-like.

In the wake of the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision, U.S. religious leaders have sent a missive to President Obama demanding exemptions from a pending executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons.
The Atlantic is reporting that the letter was sent by officials of 14 organizations. It attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, which was handed down yesterday. The letter argues that the government must show more deference to the rights of religions.
"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," says the letter.
"Without a robust religious exemption, this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom," it continues.
While controversial, the Hobby Lobby decision is considered a huge victory for those on the religious right, who have been accusing the Obama Administration on waging a "War on Religion."
There are many fears — punctuated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's dissenting opinion of the decision — that Hobby Lobby can be read broadly and allow for widespread discrimination. Many legal commentors believe the Court's ruling grants business owners the right to discriminate against LGBT customers and employees on religious grounds. The decision is already being celebrated by opponents of LGBT rights who see it as a license to ignore non-discrimination laws.
But as The Atlantic notes, this letter doesn't come from Obama's opponents, but from religious leaders who are mostly friendly to the White House. Some have even been close advisers on issues such as immigration reform. One of the authors of the letter is Michael Wear, who worked in the White House and was a faith-outreach consultant for President Obama's 2012 campaign. Other signatories include three former members of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Two prominent Catholic supporters of Obama also signed the letter.
Only last week, the Obama administration said it would ban federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — a measure for which LGBT rights groups have long clamored.

While the letter didn't directly mention the Hobby Lobby ruling, Wear told The Atlantic that the letter was written, in part, as a response to the decision.

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[muir]

You know magicians use pentagons to manifest demons into....

 

[muir]

This is really interesting....the concept of 'corporate personhood'...the idea that the law recognises corporations to be people...they are given person status by the law!

The whole legal system is kinda crazy. It doesn't actually apply to us because we are free beings born upon this planet so the law creates an artifical version of us called a 'strawman' and when a person is summoned to court it is actually their strawman that is summoned....we just go along because we don't know any better

Then there is the land ownership issue. people think they own the land but really the government (or in the UK the 'crown') can take your land off you at anytime under 'compulsory purchase orders'

But even crazier than that is the idea that anyone can own the land.....how can a person own the land? The land is the birth right of every human being on the planet and should be available to all

What a crazy world where people claim land as theirs and corporations are treated as people...and don't even get me started on money!

 

[Skarekrow]

This is really interesting....the concept of 'corporate personhood'...the idea that the law recognises corporations to be people...they are given person status by the law!

The whole legal system is kinda crazy. It doesn't actually apply to us because we are free beings born upon this planet so the law creates an artifical version of us called a 'strawman' and when a person is summoned to court it is actually their strawman that is summoned....we just go along because we don't know any better

Then there is the land ownership issue. people think they own the land but really the government (or in the UK the 'crown') can take your land off you at anytime under 'compulsory purchase orders'

But even crazier than that is the idea that anyone can own the land.....how can a person own the land? The land is the birth right of every human being on the planet and should be available to all

What a crazy world where people claim land as theirs and corporations are treated as people...and don't even get me started on money!

Well, if corporations are now legally recognized as people…let’s prosecute them as such. Let’s prosecute Wall Street for the destruction of the economy…let’s prosecute GM for Manslaughter…why not? This is what they wanted….let’s show them what they paid for!

 

[muir]

Well, if corporations are now legally recognized as people…let’s prosecute them as such. Let’s prosecute Wall Street for the destruction of the economy…let’s prosecute GM for Manslaughter…why not? This is what they wanted….let’s show them what they paid for!

Yeah man i'm all for that but the corporations themselves are just vehicles for the people who own them

They have been created to act as a legal sheild between the law/public and the people behind them

So if we attack a corporation the people behind it are unaffected. the corporation takes the hit and the criminals carry on their nefarious schemes

Also the same criminals have shares across many corporations now....its a network of interlocking corporations that are able to work together to exert political, economic and other forms of pressure to ensure that they always get their way

shit that's depressing lol...but there it is

I have lots of solutions as do many others but they need the support of lots of people for them to work....and most people have been conditioned to be dependent on the corporations and even to see corporations as good or friendly

My advice to people here is to yes fight the good fight but at the same time begin preparing yourselves for a rapidly changing world. Prepare for economic upheval, prepare for food and fuel shortages, prepare for lawlessness etc

Invest in skills and hard assets NOT paper money

Build networks and communities of like minded people. Be off grid ready. be able to produce your own food or at the very least have a supply of food that will keep stashed away somewhere as an insurance policy

These are the things i'm doing

When the system crumples it will collapse fast

 

[Skarekrow]

Doctors and Nurses condemn this decision...

Most medical providers have basically been on the sidelines in the big reproductive healthcare fight of the modern era—abortion. Maybe because it's too politically charged for them to really engage in, since fewer and fewer providers are actually involved in providing that critical service, or it just hasn't seemed relevant to their professional lives. But now the Supreme Court has started to creep onto their territory, and they are not happy.

The 5-4 decision was immediately criticized by the American Medical Association, theAmerican Nurses Association (PDF), the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for allowing employers to meddle in the exam room.The decision “intrudes on the patient-physician relationship and will make it more difficult for many women to make their own personal medical decisions,” said Dr. Robert Wah, president of the AMA. “We encourage the administration to provide alternative pathways to secure coverage for patients unable to obtain these services as a result of the court's ruling.”
Each of the groups urged officials in Washington to work quickly to restore coverage options for all insured women, saying that limiting insurance coverage would force women to take additional steps or pay out of pocket for birth control—which affects low-income women in particular.
​

As Justice Ginsburg noted in her scathing dissent, the ruling opens up the possibility for endless challenges from employers who have "religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?] … Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision." That's just one of the things healthcare providers are worried about now, says Paul Keckley, managing director in the healthcare practice at Navigant. "I think it's a bigger deal than just Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, and I think this is going to follow a theme that will be carried through the next couple of years, or certainly the next two election cycles."Maybe this ruling will be the impetus for these provider groups to recognize the threat to their free practice of medicine inherent in the Republican Party. Maybe they'll now see just how critical it is to fight for their own right to provide every kind of medical care to the women they treat.

 

[Skarekrow]