Kindly justify no-knock raids

Are you looking for legal justification, moral justification, efficacy justification or what?

Honestly now, I don't always chase you around witlessly bickering on matters glee club related, do I? Kindly justify no-knock raids on other grounds, or shoo fly.

I see no need to justify asking for something less off-the-cuff as far as the inarguable reasoning behind no-knock raids that you provided. That was your stance. If that's what you've got, that's what you've got.

The words "effectively facilitate" are doing some lifting here. It isn't costing them more money to do it. They want to deny other's access to something. I don't think not being allowed to deny access to something (in this case full healthcare that is available to everyone else in similiar positions - insured) is being forced to "effectively facilitate".

I think you're swinging too far in the other direction. The Catholics don't want to deny employees access to contraception (at least through this particularly application of policy); they simply don't want to be the ones directly or indirectly providing that access.

Should it be mandatory for businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses to provide employee coverage for blood transfusions? Or for businesses run by Christian Scientists to offer non-faith-based medical coverage? Or for Scientologists to offer psychiatric care? I don't think this is as clear an issue as you're making it out to be because of how little regard you have for the belief system behind the issue.

Bear in mind that I'm saying this even though I think pretty much all religion is dangerous nonsense. I'm not defending the Catholic position on birth control; I called it "impractical and immoral." I'm just saying that if we are to be a country that considers religious freedom to be nearly inviolate, the Catholics actually have a good point here.

EDIT: I don't remember if I said it before or cut it out in an edit, but this is one of the reasons why I dislike the idea of mandatory employer-provided health insurance. You can avoid almost all of this issue by going to a single-payer system.

Not really. There are plenty of occupations available outside of providing health insurance policies.

Yeah and there were plenty of people his own race for Richard Loving to marry. And there were plenty of other things for Gregory Lee Johnson to burn to express his opinions.

You're just using authoritarianism to undermine the choices of mutually-consenting parties. Does Westboro have a Southern chapter?

The words "effectively facilitate" are doing some lifting here. It isn't costing them more money to do it. They want to deny other's access to something.

They're not denying access one bit.

As part of the compensation package offered for working at that particular Catholic company, the employer has offered x salary with y benefits. Those Y benefits include some things and not others, one of the things it has not included in the offer is coverage for birth control. Either side is free to walk away at any time.

ESPN does not provide me a with a limousine from Hartford. They are not denying my access to a limousine, they simply did not offer one when the two mutually consenting parties (me and ESPN) sat down and discussed the terms of the contract, nor did I request one in return for other consideration that I was offering.

I have only slept with a handful of the billions of eligible people living on this earth. That doesn't mean that I'm being denied access to sexual intercourse by the majority of the earth, only that my relations with the majority of the earth have not involved the offer and acceptance of sexual intercourse. I have the right to seek another party to have mutually agreed-upon sexual intercourse, but I do not have the right to have sexual intercourse offered to me as a matter of force. Just like McDonald's has the right to not sell pizza. Or Walgreen's has the right to not sell pornography. Or insurance companies have the right, under a just law, to choose to offer or not offer coverage that specifically covers birth control. Or abortions. Or strawberry jam. Or Bon Jovi tickets. Or my hat getting stolen by a bear.

Oh PLEASE. Don't tell me you really buy this. Which party took the lead in protesting construction of a ####### Mosque? Which party's state legislatures are busily passing anti-Sharia laws?

Meanwhile, Dems want insurance to cover birth control...which party is worse on religious liberty, Dave? Or does that liberty only apply to religions you like.

So your argument is that Republicans are passing symbolic laws that for the most part don't actually do anything except ban what is already unconstitutional (the use of religious law in American courts), while Democrats are infringing on actual religious belief, so the two parties are identical?


EDIT: In terms of protesting the GZM, I'm not aware that any party took the lead in protesting it. A handful of kooks did.

It's sufficient to note the GOP is interested in only a very, very narrow range of economic liberty; essentially only that of maximizing profit regardless of how many other rights must be suppressed during its accomplishment. The party certainly isn't interested in doing other than suppressing the ability to maximize wages.

Nor is it interested in economic liberty when it comes to ensuring a minimum wage for millions, let alone a living wage for millions. It isn't interested in the economic liberty involved in the right of millions to unionize. It isn't interested in the economic liberty involved in allowing towns and cities to keep large chains from locating within their boundaries. And so on, almost ad infinitum.

Right; it's not interested in the "economic liberty" which involves stealing money or property from some and giving to others.

You have to sustain the childish fiction of free markets and free contracts in order to pretend the GOP has any interest in economic liberty (which is not, of course, divorceable from economic justice) for more than a small fraction of our citizenry.

Ever notice that any adjective in front of the word "justice" automatically negates the actual word?

ESPN does not provide me a with a limousine from Hartford.

For which you should be glad. You don't know who's been in that thing.

Or my hat getting stolen by a bear.

I'd pay an extra couple of cents per month for this kind of comprehensive coverage.

I think I've figured out why some people are libertarians. It allows for smugness, ideological rigidity, and base idiocy, all wrapped in a pretty little bow.

The libertarian defense of the Catholic Church is unintelligible on its face, but it's even worse when you consider the basic economics. Employee benefits are equivalent to wages. Indeed, libertarians will argue exactly this point when people want to discuss labor's share of GDP. All benefits are wages, whether the company car or the retirement plan or the insurance.

But if health insurance is wages, then covering contraceptives is no different than an employee using her wages to pay for them. The company isn't paying for them. Management certainly isn't in any joint stock company, and it's management which is trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine.

In fact, it's not clear that anyone is paying for contraception. From the perspective of an insurance company, it's cheaper to supply contraception than to pay for the costs of childbirth. Thus, it's quite possible that policies which cover contraception cost less than those which don't. In this case, the authoritarian imposition of religious doctrine on the employees should be clear even to a libertarian.

Yeah and there were plenty of people his own race for Richard Loving to marry. And there were plenty of other things for Gregory Lee Johnson to burn to express his opinions.

These are silly examples that don't speak to the case. At all. Employing people has regulations associated with it. You can't chain them to their desk and work them 90 hours a week in dangerous conditions after taking a kidney from them and selling it on the open market even if they agree to it, even if their religion mandates that is how employment should be and anything else is immoral. It is against the law.

They are arguing the law is immoral. You are arguing all laws of that sort are immoral. Just because both sides agree this law is wrong does not mean you can reasonable conflate both sets of arguments against the law.

A) It is not immoral because is it not forcing the Catholic Church to do anythign against their morals. They are providing access only. And if that is such a problem they can stop doing this activity, which is not central to their religion. Things central to their religion already have a waiver in the law, but just because they are Catholic does not mean they get universal waiver from the law it doesn't work that way. No one gets to opt out of all laws just because "Freedom of Religion".

B) I understand you think this sort of issue is all about contracts and willing parties and so on. Not to minimize your belief, but society as a whole, every organized government on Earth larger than a few hundred people rejects your premise on this including (most importantly) the US. You get to keep arguing about it, but the fact is we had, have, and will continue to have laws regulating activities like labor, health care, insurance, building, and so on.

Right; it's not interested in the "economic liberty" which involves stealing money or property from some and giving to others.

It is not stealing. Taxation is not stealing.

stealing present participle of steal (Verb)
Verb
1.Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".
2.Dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own: "accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying".

It may be unfair. It may be immoral. But taxation is very clearly legal, and thus not stealing.

But if health insurance is wages, then covering contraceptives is no different than an employee using her wages to pay for them.

Of course it is. In one, the company freely agreed to provide that particular conversion of wages into benefit, in the other, it didn't. Choice covers more than mathematical equality.

I do not have any right to compel my employer to compensate me in $75,000 in US currency and $5,000 in cheeseburgers rather than $80,000 in US currency simply because the bottom line figures are the same.

In fact, I do not have the right to even compel *beneficial* arrangements. My neighbor would benefit immensely if I offered him $100 to pick me up a gallon of milk next time he goes to the store - clearly, $100 is *more* than equivalent to the effort he would need to go to put the milk in his cart and walk it next door. Still, it's his choice whether to decline or not.

It may be unfair. It may be immoral. But taxation is very clearly legal, and thus not stealing.

Arguing with David about the morality of taxation is like trying to debate pea placement with a three shell monte artist. Not much future in it.

Right; it's not interested in the "economic liberty" which involves stealing money or property from some and giving to others.

Unless there's someone to invade, and there's always the defense budget to consider. In that case, it's okay.

Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".


Oh, now this is just absolutely precious. Bitter Mouse's First Postulate of the English Language: Proper usage of words is determined by the first result he finds on a Google search for that word.

Merriam-Webster, of course, uses the word "wrongfully" instead of without legal right (which travels to unjust, injustice, and then violation of the right or rights of another, to being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper).

Dictionary.com leaves out legal and just goes with right. So does the Free Dictionary.

Wiktionary uses to illegally *or* without the owner's permission.

But then, none of these had that authority granted by Google.

Arguing with David about the morality of taxation is like trying to debate pea placement with a three shell monte artist. Not much future in it.

I am not debating the morality of taxation, just his incorrect usage of the word "stealing".

Dan: Feel free to find a definition of the word "stealing" that fits for what taxation is. Yes I googled it, so what. Is the definition I found wrong? Or are you just randomly attacking me because I don't agree with you? Honestly I thought better of you, but I suppose everyone has a bad day now and then.

EDIT: I see you added on, Dan. I fail to see the point, taxation is not wrong, it has happened in every organized society on Earth the last few centuries (unless every society is "wrong"). I never claimed my (or Googles) definition is definitive, however I do maintain that taxation is not stealing under any definition of stealing.

EDIT #2: Typically Dan when you edit a post with substantive new information, adding the "EDIT" is preferred, but hey it is not a law or anything.

Dan: Feel free to find a definition of the word "stealing" that fits for what taxation is. Yes I googled it, so what. Is the definition I found wrong? Or are you just randomly attacking me because I don't agree with you? Honestly I thought better of you, but I suppose everyone has a bad day now and then.

Me? You actually just wrote a post for the purposes of arguing a word choice even when you obviously knew what the poster intended and for which there are plenty of other equally valid sources for the definition of that word that fit with what the poster said.

Thought better of me? I thought way better of you before just now. The fact that you're actually throwing a fit about being called out on a very blatant bit of douche-baggery suggests that me that I wrongly believed you to be an honest broker. So I'm done with with you.

Arguing with David about the morality of taxation is like trying to debate pea placement with a three shell monte artist. Not much future in it.

I am not debating the morality of taxation, just his incorrect usage of the word "stealing".

The problem is that David's definition of "stealing" is wholly based in his Randian moral worldview, and nothing else. Of course if you can ever get him to admit that, I'm going to send you a plate full of the fanciest Roquefort cheese your bitter mouth has ever tasted.

It is not immoral because is it not forcing the Catholic Church to do anythign against their morals. They are providing access only.

The problem is that "providing access" IS against their morals. You may draw the line of culpability in a different place than they do, in which case it doesn't violate your morals but does violate their morals. Frankly, I think we're more than a little too accommodating of religion in the public sphere, but that's not really the system we've come to expect in this country.

I don't think this is merely a "regulation is immoral" issue; I may be in a different place than Dan here. I think this is a regulation vs. acknowledged fundamental right, and that conflict should entail a very high level of scrutiny. Mandating that Catholic organizations provide contraception as part of a universal health care plan sounds reasonable enough; I think contraception (and abortion, but that's more controversial) is a significant part of rational family planning and sexual freedom, both of which clearly impact physical, mental, and emotional health, so any universal health care system should provide for such services. The problem is that if religion is indeed a fundamental right on the order of racial equality and speech, then "reasonable" isn't enough of a standard... it must be "compelling."

5. Reducing the noise is a health issue, preventing deafness and related problems, thus saving us all money. For the children.

Of course, if what I have read is accurate, even with a suppressor, the noise level is so high in most cases that it would not, in fact, accomplish its supposed purpose of protecting the hearing of the shooter. If you want to protect children's hearing (a) do not take them to a place where a lot of guns are being shot or (b) have them wear hearing protection.

Six ways to argue with a Libertarian.

Of course it is. In one, the company freely agreed to provide that particular conversion of wages into benefit, in the other, it didn't.

The company DID freely agree. It agreed to provide health insurance. In fact, Hobby Lobby provided health insurance for years before the ACA, and all that time that insurance covered contraceptives. Even today, any company could stop providing health insurance as a benefit. Of course, then its employees would all leave because of the reduction in compensation relative to other employers, but management could still do that. The fact is, companies freely agree to a compensation package for their employees.

I do not have any right to compel my employer to compensate me in $75,000 in US currency and $5,000 in cheeseburgers rather than $80,000 in US currency simply because the bottom line figures are the same.

No, but you have the right to bargain for that. And if the company agrees to your demand, it can't later back out of the deal by claiming that cheeseburgers violate Kashrut. If the company did renege, you'd win a suit for the lost wages, which you'd then use to buy cheeseburgers. The company couldn't prevent you from doing so, and it would be preposterous to claim a religious right to prevent you.

The company DID freely agree. It agreed to provide health insurance.

No, they didn't. They agreed to offered health insurance with specific provisions.

McDonald's provides food. That doesn't mean they agreed to provide all items that fall under the category of food. I can't go in there, demand a Big Mac, an apple pie, and a chocolate souffle. And when they don't give me a chocolate souffle, go whine to the statists to make them. Well, I could, but I would be doing something unjust.

courtesy of the ap:

The House will miss the midnight Monday deadline lawmakers set for voting to avoid the fiscal cliff. House Republicans notified lawmakers that the chamber will vote Monday evening on other bills. They say that will be their only votes of the day.
President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday they are near a deal to avoid wide-ranging tax increases and spending cuts — the fiscal cliff — that take effect with the new year.

Both men said they were still bargaining over whether — and how — to avoid $109 billion in cuts to defense and domestic programs that take effect on Wednesday. It remained unclear whether the Senate would vote Monday. Congress could pass later legislation retroactively blocking the tax increases and spending cuts.

also from the wsj:

The emerging tax agreement between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) would raise roughly $600 billion in new revenue over 10 years when compared with current policy, people familiar with the talks said.

It’s important to remember that the deal hasn’t been officially agreed to in the Senate, let alone the House of Representatives, but the $600 billion figure is an important measuring stick.

Here’s how it would get there:

It would raise tax rates on income above $400,000 for single workers and $450,000 for households from the rates that have been in place for the past 12 years. Roughly 1% of households earn income above $450,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.
It would raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20% (from 15%) for capital gains and dividends exceeding $400,000 for single workers and $450,000 for households.
It would reduce the tax deduction benefits for singles earning more than $250,000 and households earning more than $300,000.
Raise the estate tax to 40% on assets after a $5 million exemption threshold.
The roughly $600 billion in revenue that would be achieved through these changes would represent the largest tax increase in decades, but it would also be only half of the White House’s most recent $1.2 trillion “ask” in bipartisan talks with House Republicans. And it would also amount to less than 20% of the potential tax increase that would have occurred if no agreement was reached and all current tax rates were allowed to expire.

President Barack Obama, in remarks on Monday, made clear he would seek additional revenue when Congress soon begins debate of a larger deficit-reduction package.

Moreover, service in a knock knock manner is not something you do when you anticipate that the place you will serve pursuant to the search warrant has an armed hostile army. You don't have to bend over in the communal shower just because someone asked you to. Was the government justified in taking precautions? In assuming that BD's might be violent?

No. Indeed, local law enforcement, who were familiar with the BDs, kept telling them otherwise, but they wouldn't listen because they wanted the PR stunt of a big raid. Shamefully, our statist media loves to glorify the paramilitary cop wannabes.

Defenders of Koresh say he was approachable outside of the compound during the day. Well, he knew of the warrant. Why didn't he just accept the warrant voluntarily

When an "armed hostile army" approaches one's house aggressively, one may just doubt their good faith.

The government pleaded, coaxed, cajoled, wheedle—for 50 days. They wanted Koresh to at lease release the women and children. Once it was clear beyond all doubt that Koresh & Co. were never going to submit, or accede in any way, the government had two choices: walk away or attempt to breach the defenses.

No, they had a third choice: wait. Was the federal government running low on funds? It couldn't afford to pay overtime any longer?

No, they had a third choice: wait. Was the federal government running low on funds? It couldn't afford to pay overtime any longer?

Wait for what?

Me? You actually just wrote a post for the purposes of arguing a word choice even when you obviously knew what the poster intended and for which there are plenty of other equally valid sources for the definition of that word that fit with what the poster said.

Thought better of me? I thought way better of you before just now. The fact that you're actually throwing a fit about being called out on a very blatant bit of douche-baggery suggests that me that I wrongly believed you to be an honest broker. So I'm done with with you.

I argue with using the word stealing, because it is the wrong word. Taxation is not stealing. If he, you, or any of my Liberal brethren wrote something so wrong I would likely (and actually have previously) wrote a post about that. Words matter.

I still don't have a problem with you, other than a few posts of yours today are a bit out there. That said I can't help you being done with me or not. Regardless taxation is not stealing, but feel free to call it unjust, unfair, and immoral - it could be any oth those, it just is not stealing. Why you feel the need to attack over that, I am not sure, but whatever.

EDIT: BTW - I grabbed the laziest possible definition for the word. Had some other definition come up I would have used that. It is not a plot, it is lazy. At least insult me for the right thing :)

No, they had a third choice: wait. Was the federal government running low on funds? It couldn't afford to pay overtime any longer?

Wait for what?

Wait for the BDs to believe in the rule of law.

The libertarian defense of the Catholic Church is unintelligible on its face, but it's even worse when you consider the basic economics. Employee benefits are equivalent to wages. Indeed, libertarians will argue exactly this point when people want to discuss labor's share of GDP. All benefits are wages, whether the company car or the retirement plan or the insurance.

Indeed, but the relevance of that to either the libertarian position or the Catholic one escapes me.

The libertarian position is that wages are a contractual matter between employer and employee, and that the government has no business dictating either the form or quantity of those wages. If an employer wants to pay in federal reserve notes, monopoly money, health insurance that only covers homeopathic treatments, or Magic: The Gathering playing cards, that's between the employer and employee. It doesn't matter whether one is equal to another, or can be converted into the other.

(The Catholic position is, apparently, that providing contraceptive coverage is sinful. The fact that an employee could use other employee compensation to buy birth control is irrelevant. That's a matter of Catholic doctrine, not something you can argue away simply because you personally wouldn't view it that way.)

Management certainly isn't in any joint stock company, and it's management which is trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine.

Management isn't trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine. That's not even wrong. If management were threatening to fire anyone who used contraception, that would be trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine. But management isn't forcing the employees to do anything. There's only one party using force here, and it's the government, and said force is being applied to the employer, not the employee.

In fact, it's not clear that anyone is paying for contraception. From the perspective of an insurance company, it's cheaper to supply contraception than to pay for the costs of childbirth.

No. It's only cheaper from the perspective of the insurance company if the people for whom it is buying contraception wouldn't have used contraception anyway. If they would have, then they wouldn't have gotten pregnant anyway, so the insurance company isn't saving any money on childbirth and is picking up all the extra costs of birth control that were formerly being paid by others.

Thus, it's quite possible that policies which cover contraception cost less than those which don't. In this case, the authoritarian imposition of religious doctrine on the employees should be clear even to a libertarian.

Except that your analysis is utterly and totally wrong. Nothing is being imposed on the employees (who are, of course, free to change employers if something were being imposed on them). Moreover, whether it "costs less" is irrelevant to anything. The government mandating that I do something which saves me money is just as unlibertarian as the government mandating that I do something that costs me money.

Was the government justified... in assuming that BD's might be violent?

No. Indeed, local law enforcement, who were familiar with the BDs, kept telling them otherwise, but they wouldn't listen

Wait, so... you're saying that the Branch Davidians weren't violent?

Wait for the BDs to believe in the rule of law.

The Branch Davidians believed in the rule of law. They simply disagreed on Whose authority the final law rested. The did not believe in the authority of secular law because they believed it had been overturned by the revelation of Divine Law by the returned Christ, David Koresh.

Wait, so... you're saying that the Branch Davidians weren't violent?

They were just collecting the arsenal for show. They all went off by accident and those four agents happened to be in the crossfire. (The fact that they shot their own children and burned their own members alive is not relevant, because, you know, STATISM and stuff.)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House will miss the midnight Monday deadline lawmakers set for voting to avoid the "fiscal cliff."
House Republicans notified lawmakers that the chamber will vote Monday evening on other bills. They say that will be their only votes of the day.
President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday they are near a deal to avoid wide-ranging tax increases and spending cuts — the fiscal cliff — that take effect with the new year.
Both men said they were still bargaining over whether — and how — to avoid $109 billion in cuts to defense and domestic programs that take effect on Wednesday.

We're going over the cliff!

I'm curious about the House. Can they really get a majority of Reps to support a McConnell bill? I don't really see how, which makes me think the last few days has focused on the Senate Reps and Obama working together to make each other look good. They're on it!

But if the House votes down a McConnell-Biden plan, we're back at zero. The difference would be that Obama would feel he won the week by working toward a compromise. And I assume Senate Republicans would just sit back and watch the show since they can't do anything.

I'm curious about the House. Can they really get a majority of Reps to support a McConnell bill? I don't really see how, which makes me think the last few days has focused on the Senate Reps and Obama working together to make each other look good.

The point is to make Boehner #### or get off the pot. The Biden-McConnell compromise could pass the House so long as Boehner accepts that he's going to lose the Speakership and combines the GOP votes with Pelosi's Dem votes, telling the Teaper nuts to #### off.

my understanding is that the timing is meant to have the bill cued up after the speaker locks up his speakership

and all of you latecomers with the news can send the cokes to wisconsin

no c.o.d

No, they didn't. They agreed to offered health insurance with specific provisions.

Sorry, Dan, but there's no other word for this than "lie". As in, what you said is a flat out lie. Hobby Lobby is the perfect example: its policies have covered contraception for years. Management obviously didn't "agree to specific provisions" (unless you now think they're lying). No, it did what all managers have always done, namely be willing to provide a certain amount of money in lieu of wages to provide compensation to its employees. The insurance company determines the coverage offered for that price, and management is interfering with the right of the insurance company to market its policies by controlling their terms.

Management isn't trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine. That's not even wrong. If management were threatening to fire anyone who used contraception, that would be trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine.

You left out the part where employee benefits are a form of wages. Management is telling employees how the employees can use their own compensation.

It's only cheaper from the perspective of the insurance company if the people for whom it is buying contraception wouldn't have used contraception anyway. If they would have, then they wouldn't have gotten pregnant anyway, so the insurance company isn't saving any money on childbirth and is picking up all the extra costs of birth control that were formerly being paid by others.

You can't win this argument. There are two, and only two, options:

1. The policies with contraception cost LESS than those without. In this case management has no say in the matter -- it's entirely up to the insurance company.

2. The policies with contraception cost MORE. In this case the benefits belong to the employees and management can't take them away unless it provides equal compensation in return.

Hobby Lobby is the perfect example: its policies have covered contraception for years. Management obviously didn't "agree to specific provisions" (unless you now think they're lying).

Are Hobby Lobby employees working under a collective bargaining agreement? Are they signed under particular contracts? Or are they at-will employees. If the latter, both they, and their employees, have the right to renegotiate their contract at any point and if an agreement cannot be made, to walk away. Hobby Lobby can choose to always have birth control, never have birth control, or only offer birth control Mondays and Thursdays. It's not the business of anyone but the two mutually consenting parties.

You left out the part where employee benefits are a form of wages.

And they're getting a cut in those wages.

The policies with contraception cost MORE. In this case the benefits belong to the employees and management can't take them away unless it provides equal compensation in return.

If they're at-will employees, of course they can take them away.

And looking at it now, Hobby Lobby *isn't* taking anything away. They covered preventative birth control, but not morning-after pills. They did not include that specific option as part of their offered compensation package to employees. As far as I can tell, they also didn't offer trips to Vienna or Cinnabons, either.

Happy New Year, all.

Indeed, but the relevance of that to either the libertarian position or the Catholic one escapes me.

The libertarian position is ALWAYS to defend the most thuggish and authoritarian institution they can find rather than the rights of actual people.

Are Hobby Lobby employees working under a collective bargaining agreement? Are they signed under particular contracts? Or are they at-will employees.

I don't know.

If the latter, both they, and their employees, have the right to renegotiate their contract at any point and if an agreement cannot be made, to walk away.

Maybe. Depends on the reliance interests the employees have in the policies. Even if there are no reliance interests, what happens in the future depends on lots of variables. For example, there may zero policies offered without contraception coverage. In this case, HL could try attracting employees at the lower implied wages of offering no health care coverage, or it could raise wages and the employees would use some portion of that compensation just as they do now: to buy a health care policy that includes contraception.

But this doesn't really get at the heart of the problem. HL is saying that it wants to control the lives of its employees. It doesn't want them to use their own compensation in order to buy something that the employees want to buy and that a willing seller wants to sell. That interferes both with the contractual rights of the market participants and the religious freedom of the employees. As to why libertarians would find themselves in the position of defending that result, see my response to DMN above.

No fair, Joe. You can't wish anyone HNY until the time stamp on the comment shows midnight.

(The Catholic position is, apparently, that providing contraceptive coverage is sinful. The fact that an employee could use other employee compensation to buy birth control is irrelevant. That's a matter of Catholic doctrine, not something you can argue away simply because you personally wouldn't view it that way.)

This is actually not true. An analogous example might be if Jewish foodbanks were required to serve pork to gentiles. It's not that it's sinful, it's repellant.

From Vatican II: "It is the married couple themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God." The Catholic Bishops council have repeatedly stated that it goes against the health care and school organization leaders' conscience to pay for contraceptives, not that it was sinful.

Finally, even if it were the Church's position that paying for contraceptive coverage were sinful, it wouldn't be relevant. The Church is not paying for contraceptive coverage. The insurers are. The Council of Bishops response was that it would require Catholic insurers to act against their conscience.

It would raise tax rates on income above $400,000 for single workers and $450,000 for households from the rates that have been in place for the past 12 years. Roughly 1% of households earn income above $450,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.
It would raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20% (from 15%) for capital gains and dividends exceeding $400,000 for single workers and $450,000 for households.
It would reduce the tax deduction benefits for singles earning more than $250,000 and households earning more than $300,000.
Raise the estate tax to 40% on assets after a $5 million exemption threshold.
The roughly $600 billion in revenue that would be achieved through these changes would represent the largest tax increase in decades, but it would also be only half of the White House’s most recent $1.2 trillion “ask” in bipartisan talks with House Republicans. And it would also amount to less than 20% of the potential tax increase that would have occurred if no agreement was reached and all current tax rates were allowed to expire.

I am pretty so-so on this deal. If Obama really is willing to break the Republicans over the Debt Ceiling, then okay, it's a decent deal. If he gets rolled in February and agrees to some ######## "compromise" with domestic terrorists, this will have been an awful decision when he had all the leverage.

Mefisto, I'll be long asleep by then.

5828:

That's clown talk, bro.

But this doesn't really get at the heart of the problem. HL is saying that it wants to control the lives of its employees.

Nonsense. HL is saying it wants to control the benefits it offers to its employees.

If I hire a new assistant but refuse to include an annual all-expenses-paid trip to Disney World in the compensation package, I'm not "controlling" the person's life or "denying access" to Disney World. I'm just not paying for the trip to Disney World or handling the details thereof.

Man: Now don't you fret. When I'm through, he won't set foot in this
town again. I can be very, _very_ persuasive. [reloads his gun]
[Scene change to a bar]
Man: [whining] C'mon, leave town!
Bob: No.
Man: I'll be your friend?
Bob: No.
Man: Aw, you're mean!
-- How to Win Arguments and Influence People, The Simpsons' "Cape Feare"