If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Obamacare/birth control case tomorrow, its conservative justices are faced with a dilemma: support the religious right, or support laws which shield corporations from liability?   (salon.com) divider line 256
    More: Fail, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, moral dilemma, religious values, racial identity, hypocrisy, conservatisms  
•       •       •

2464 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:07 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 09:11:53 PM  

RI_Red: Is there any chance these Justices will hold individual privacy in reproductive health decisions over a company's attempts to dictate those decisions?


That question isn't before the court, mainly because it isn't an issue for the government.
 
2014-03-24 09:12:28 PM  

Teiritzamna: Karac: t has to be a compelling interest, not an overriding one.  The interest is getting as many people health insurance as possible.  They can simply say that they exempted businesses with under 50 employees because those businesses would not have likely been able to afford either the premiums or the fines.

I have a compelling interest in paying for broadband internet.  But if it doesn't override paying the mortgage.

Hey man, I would love it if the government prevailed here, but the term "compelling interest" is a term of art, much like how theory in science means something very very different than "theory" in general language.  A compelling government interest means an interest viewed to be necessary or crucial to the nation, as opposed to something merely preferred. Compelling interest usually includes things such as national security and the like.

So in your analogy the mortgage would be a compelling interest, the internet would likely be an important interest (intermediate scrutiny).

If, however, the government undercuts its interests through exemptions, including and most especially exemptions to religious groups, it makes it a harder road to argue  that the interest was so compelling.  Its like you argue that the mortgage is your most important payment, but then we offer evidence that you avoided paying it 5 times last year and spent the money on hookers and blow.*

/*not that there is anything wrong with that . . . .


Fine, here's a better example then.  The government has a compelling interest in outlawing the killing of human being, right?  No one's going to argue that the government doesn't have the right to make murder illegal.

But, there's exemptions even for that.  Self-defense, stand your ground, castle doctrine, spousal abuse, insanity they're comin' right for me and so forth.
It's like arguing that preventing the death of its citizens is governments most important interest, but then it offers a half dozen different ways to do so legally.
 
2014-03-24 09:12:59 PM  

cchris_39: The Larch: Hobby Lobby owners want to deny their employees the ability to purchase birth control at group rates negotiated by an insurance company.

In a just world, every judge this went in front of would cite the case "go eat a sack of yeasty bungholes" and the legal precedent of "no, I'm serious. I sent the bailiff to the slaughterhouse and he brought back a sack full of yeasty bungholes. The owners of hobby lobby will eat them now, for our amusement."

Then shouldn't they also be forced to cover late term abortion?


Actually, they wouldn't. They cover the policy, not the medical costs themselves. And they KNOW this. The policy holder pays for the policy, secured by employer, and perhaps somewhat subsidized by the employer, but Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for any procedure at all. Their funds are pooled with others, and the insurance company then pays a portion of that.

Hobby Lobby pays for no contraception. They pay for no broken arms. They pay for the coverage, and that's where it ends. Their money goes into a pool to be used, and distributed at the insurance company's discretion, for their client, who happens to be a Hobby Lobby employee. Hobby Lobby isn't involved in ANY medical decision whatsoever. In fact, how in the Hells would Hobby Lobby even know what medical care they are having, unless it is involved in a Workman's Compensation claim? Their "compelling interest" is likewise an intrusion into the privacy of their employees.

Your employer doesn't pay for squat, save the policy. What medical care you receive is between you and your insurance company. And that's the funny thing that NO ONE who argues for this invasion of privacy wants to discuss.

Your employer doesn't pay for birth control. Your employer doesn't pay for your asthma pills, your employer doesn't pay for the cream you use on the weird sore that cropped up on the back of your neck. They pay for the policy, and what you USE that policy for is between you and the insurance company. This is a matter of folks wanting to poke their noses into other folks' business.
 
2014-03-24 09:15:29 PM  
The Christian Right is neither Christian nor right.
 
2014-03-24 09:16:41 PM  
Teiritzamna:

I dont know, i have only seen people assert that here on Fark.  Seems like it could be true.

That's where I've seen the link(s). I have read a story or two, but someone here posted it originally. I just can't remember who...


Unfortunately the government waived any arguments regarding the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's claimed belief, so it alas doesnt much matter to this case.


Yeah, it's more so I can point out the hypocrisy to the HL supporters. Doesn't do a lot of good, but it can be fun... It's bullshiat though, the SC should consider their sincerity, if they are going to complain, but have done the same farking thing. It should devalue their current complaint. If someone else were to bring it later, that would be different, but the same rule should apply to them. I'm guessing that eventually it would get hard to find a company that hadn't already willingly contributed to this thing they suddenly have a "moral" objection to. But then again, the SC doesn't really represent the people any more, it represents whatever political imbalance has been purposely stacked there.
 
2014-03-24 09:17:22 PM  

vernonFL: The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.


Not where I live, they don't.
 
2014-03-24 09:18:35 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: The Christian Right is neither Christian nor right.


I usually go with Social Conservatives are usually neither, as they are more than fair radical in their beliefs of what government ought to be, and don't seem to really like most of their neighbors in their own communities...
 
2014-03-24 09:20:34 PM  

Karac: But, there's exemptions even for that.  Self-defense, stand your ground, castle doctrine, spousal abuse, insanity they're comin' right for me and so forth.
It's like arguing that preventing the death of its citizens is governments most important interest, but then it offers a half dozen different ways to do so legally.


Actually, that doesn't count either as all those exceptions are homicides, but not unlawful homicides.  The reason for those exceptions is that while the government has an interest in preventing unlawful homicides it doesn't traditionally have one in those cases because in, say, self defense there was no wrongful killing.  Its also why causing accidental deaths isn't necessarily a crime.
 
2014-03-24 09:26:07 PM  

Teiritzamna: RI_Red: Is there any chance these Justices will hold individual privacy in reproductive health decisions over a company's attempts to dictate those decisions?

That question isn't before the court, mainly because it isn't an issue for the government.


So, HL isn't contesting reproductive privacy as much as asserting corporate privilege to set healthcare policy based on religious beliefs?

(I know I'm simplifying; just trying to understand more clearly.)
 
2014-03-24 09:29:32 PM  
I say carry to the logical conclusion - Corporations are non-autonomous extensions of the stockholders, and said stockholders are liable to the degree of ownership for all actions of the corporation. So mandatory requirements for all stockholders to submit, in writing, their religious beliefs and why they hold that such beliefs are so powerful and so encompassing that they require special exemption under an otherwise secular marketplace regulation. Citations will be required and theological doctrine must be supported by a consensus of your practicing faith's central body, b**ches.
 
2014-03-24 09:31:01 PM  
Short term gain.

Ever since the late 80s the conventional wisdom has been that a Bonus today is worth the whole company tomorrow.  They'll grab the "religious exemption" and watch a whole bucketload of companies start trying to use religion to get around any and all employment laws they don't like.

Fun fact: churches and similar religious organizations are basically the worst employers in the nation because they long ago finagled exemptions from most employee protections.  They steal pensions, fire people for fun, pay you whatever they feel like, and use "religion" as a shield for almost any abuse.

And when shiat hits the fan major corporations expect (with good reason) to get bailed out.
 
2014-03-24 09:32:06 PM  

RI_Red: So, HL isn't contesting reproductive privacy as much as asserting corporate privilege to set healthcare policy based on religious beliefs?

(I know I'm simplifying; just trying to understand more clearly.


Yeah, that's closer.  Basically the dynamic is like this:

1) Federal Government ----mandates coverage---> Corporations

2) Corporations -----refuse to purchase BC---> Employees

These are separate interactions.  So what HL is protesting is the government mandate that it purchase certain insurance policies.

The second interaction, #2 is not really something you can sue over.  The employee has no actionable right that has been harmed.  As far as I know, the ACA doesnt grant the ability to sue an employer for failure to comply with its requirements, and no other law would offer such a right of action to my knowledge.
 
2014-03-24 09:34:52 PM  
CONservatives are always going to follow the money every time.  its a given. its in their genes. God can forget ever having a chance competing with the Owners.
 
2014-03-24 09:36:12 PM  

hubiestubert: cchris_39: The Larch: Hobby Lobby owners want to deny their employees the ability to purchase birth control at group rates negotiated by an insurance company.

In a just world, every judge this went in front of would cite the case "go eat a sack of yeasty bungholes" and the legal precedent of "no, I'm serious. I sent the bailiff to the slaughterhouse and he brought back a sack full of yeasty bungholes. The owners of hobby lobby will eat them now, for our amusement."

Then shouldn't they also be forced to cover late term abortion?

Actually, they wouldn't. They cover the policy, not the medical costs themselves. And they KNOW this. The policy holder pays for the policy, secured by employer, and perhaps somewhat subsidized by the employer, but Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for any procedure at all. Their funds are pooled with others, and the insurance company then pays a portion of that.

Hobby Lobby pays for no contraception. They pay for no broken arms. They pay for the coverage, and that's where it ends. Their money goes into a pool to be used, and distributed at the insurance company's discretion, for their client, who happens to be a Hobby Lobby employee. Hobby Lobby isn't involved in ANY medical decision whatsoever. In fact, how in the Hells would Hobby Lobby even know what medical care they are having, unless it is involved in a Workman's Compensation claim? Their "compelling interest" is likewise an intrusion into the privacy of their employees.

Your employer doesn't pay for squat, save the policy. What medical care you receive is between you and your insurance company. And that's the funny thing that NO ONE who argues for this invasion of privacy wants to discuss.

Your employer doesn't pay for birth control. Your employer doesn't pay for your asthma pills, your employer doesn't pay for the cream you use on the weird sore that cropped up on the back of your neck. They pay for the policy, and what you USE that policy for is between you and the insurance company. This is a matter of folks wanting to poke their noses into other folks' business.


As a CFO for the past 18 years.....that is just wrong.

Employers have huge control over plan design. For example, we offered amazing maternity benefits in order to attract a young family oriented workforce.

What you decide to cover and to what extent has a significant impact on cost.
 
2014-03-24 09:37:30 PM  

Teiritzamna: RI_Red: So, HL isn't contesting reproductive privacy as much as asserting corporate privilege to set healthcare policy based on religious beliefs?

(I know I'm simplifying; just trying to understand more clearly.

Yeah, that's closer.  Basically the dynamic is like this:

1) Federal Government ----mandates coverage---> Corporations

2) Corporations -----refuse to purchase BC---> Employees

These are separate interactions.  So what HL is protesting is the government mandate that it purchase certain insurance policies.

The second interaction, #2 is not really something you can sue over.  The employee has no actionable right that has been harmed.  As far as I know, the ACA doesnt grant the ability to sue an employer for failure to comply with its requirements, and no other law would offer such a right of action to my knowledge.


Ok, got it. At least I feel like, whatever the decision, I can read and understand it within some kind of basic context.

Thanks, seriously.
 
2014-03-24 09:43:54 PM  

vernonFL: The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.


Your legal knowledge, erudition and acumen is truly staggering.

And by staggering, I mean potato.
 
2014-03-24 09:46:55 PM  

cchris_39: As a CFO for the past 18 years.....that is just wrong.
Employers have huge control over plan design. For example, we offered amazing maternity benefits in order to attract a young family oriented workforce.
What you decide to cover and to what extent has a significant impact on cost.



Read what he said again. You are paying for coverage, not the procedure itself. To use your personal example, how much did your company spend on out-patient maternity care in that period?
 
2014-03-24 09:48:43 PM  

The Larch: Hobby Lobby owners want to deny their employees the ability to purchase birth control at group rates negotiated by an insurance company.

In a just world, every judge this went in front of would cite the case "go eat a sack of yeasty bungholes" and the legal precedent of "no, I'm serious. I sent the bailiff to the slaughterhouse and he brought back a sack full of yeasty bungholes. The owners of hobby lobby will eat them now, for our amusement."


I'm back! That took me forever. For future reference, they prefer the term 'imitation calamari'.

img.photobucket.com

Also, I think the argument HL is ultimately trying to make is that employers should not be involved in providing healthcare at all. And I agree. A person's access to healthcare should not be limited by their employer.
 
2014-03-24 09:53:27 PM  

cchris_39: As a CFO for the past 18 years.....that is just wrong.

Employers have huge control over plan design. For example, we offered amazing maternity benefits in order to attract a young family oriented workforce.

What you decide to cover and to what extent has a significant impact on cost.


You failed to address the actual point: the employer pays for NOTHING directly. They be involved in the choice of plan, but they DO NOT PAY FOR ANY SPECIFIC PROCEDURES. The Hobby Lobby, nor ANY employers for that matter who offer insurance, do NOT "pay for birth control." They don't "pay for abortions." They don't "pay for asthma pills" nor do they "pay for cancer treatments" directly. Even those "amazing maternity benefits" your company DIDN'T pay for. They arranged to have someone else pay for them, in return for monthly payments, and the continuing co-pays from employees who held the policies. YOUR company didn't eat the cost in any way, shape, or form. You paid for a policy. Not the procedures. Your company paid into a pool, at a rate that you agreed to, and your employees agreed to, and the bet was that more folks would stay healthy and NOT need procedures that month than what was taken in by the insurance company.

So the ruckus is that their employees may choose to use their own insurance--which they are paying for, perhaps with some subsidy--to get procedures that someone may not like on that board. They still aren't paying for abortions. They still aren't paying for birth control. They are paying for a policy, and how that policy is used, that is a different thing. Moreover, in the case of gynecological health, what some term as "birth control" have more uses in their prescription than just birth control. But Viagra? That's OK. Because boners are far more important than reducing the chances of ovarian cysts or controlling a woman's cycle who has issues with pain associated.

The central argument, again and again, is that these employers don't want to pay for these procedures. Which they don't. They might as well argue that they don't want any of the money that they pay their employees with EVER goes to porn, birth control, or alcohol, and to insure that is the case, that they want to monitor their employees' behavior to prevent such things, as it is in their "interests" so that their religious beliefs aren't violated...
 
2014-03-24 09:53:36 PM  

Phinn: Your legal knowledge, erudition and acumen is truly staggering.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
 
2014-03-24 09:57:56 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Phinn: Your legal knowledge, erudition and acumen is truly staggering.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
 
2014-03-24 10:16:37 PM  

Corvus: The smartest thing i have heard Scalia ever say:

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

It will be sad to see him pretend that he never said it or somehow this is magically different. I have hope he will be consistent but doubt he actually will.


I guess we will find out if Scalia is actually a judge who takes his job seriously, or if he is just a partisan hack out to promote his own personal wishes at the cost of the integrity of the judicial branch of our government.
 
2014-03-24 10:27:31 PM  
well said hubiestubert
 
2014-03-24 10:28:18 PM  

Gawdzila: I guess we will find out if Scalia is actually a judge who takes his job seriously, or if he is just a partisan hack out to promote his own personal wishes at the cost of the integrity of the judicial branch of our government.


What i find so hilarious about the pre-emptive fark Scalia hate is that Scalia is the author of the opinion (Employment Division v. Smith) that would have precluded this suit in a heartbeat, but for the knee-jerk response by the congress to overturn his holding that a law of general applicability trumps most religious expression claims.


HE WAS ON YOUR SIDE!!

Now that the law, RFRA exists however, he would likely be a "partisan hack" if he didn't hold that Hobby Lobby can excersise religion, because to find otherwise would require him to ignore and refuse to apply  a law specifically written about his own opinion.

[biatcheatingcrackers.jpg]
 
2014-03-24 10:40:24 PM  
Africans: in the 19th century south.

Jews: in Hitler's Germany.

Christians: in Obama's America.


That's right. All of these groups were targeted for heinous persecution at the hands of governments and societies who hated them for no reason other than their assigned or quasi-assigned characteristics. Even though really claims of black persecution in the 19th century south are gravely exaggerated--most slaves were contented, and most slave owners kind. Those ingrates suffered barely at all in comparison with Christians in Obama's America.

Their travails frozen out of public discourse by the overwhelmingly popular MSM statist left-wing liberal mainstream media (which only represents the views of a tiny minority of extreme fanatic leftists), few Americans have even heard of the multiple tyrannies plaguing Christians in this hateful era. How many of you even know, for example:

1) That some Christians have been wished "happy holidays" by people so rude they don't even ask their victims' religion before they harass them with obnoxious pagan "holiday" greetings.

2) That some Christian service sector employees have been asked to wish customers "happy holidays," with no consideration whatsoever for whether or not the employee is a Christian who even celebrates "holidays" instead of CHRISTmas.

3) That some Christians who have built four story tall light up Jesus statues in their own residential neighborhood backyards have been asked to take them down to comply with so-called "zoning ordinances."

4) That Christian children in public schools have been forced (at gunpoint!) to study science lessons their parents disagree with. With no effort even made to balance those lessons with readings from dissenting alternative science textbooks like the Book of Genesis.

5) That several states and the federal government have now passed laws enhancing sentencing for the commission of violent crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias.

6) That Christians have been prosecuted and even imprisoned merely for exercising their religions! That's right. Some Christians have been jailed merely for denying their children (their own children! the ones they own!) medical treatment which would have saved them outright from sometimes painful and wholly needless deaths.

7) That some wicked liberals have the sheer, thrilling gall to mock America's Christians' unceasing whiny claims that they're persecuted!

Clearly the persecution of America's Christians has spiraled out of control. This attempt to require Hobby Lobby, a publicly traded for-profit commercial corporation, to comply with a constitutionally permissible law of general applicability, is just the latest outrage.

What can be done? What can be done to reverse the trend? Is it too late to revitalize religious freedom in America? The state of American religion is like a leaf withered on a vine. It's sad, so sad, to see Christianity in America so blighted. Can you even find occupied pews in churches anymore? I must confess, it takes a brave soul to publicly admit he's a Christian in Obamatyrant Hussein's America.
 
2014-03-24 10:44:39 PM  
Rabbe, Clearly, According to Exodus 4:25, none in the covenant can be spared, even Moses. Is when you go to a corporate briss ... well, where's the foreskin? Who gets to hold the corporation? and how does the Moeil properly judge just how much booze to put into the cotton ball ?

Father, How does a corporate person fulfil his obligation to addend mass, (Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Pp 2180) As a Corporate person, does that mean all catholics must attend Mass, or only those in the leadership?

Pastor, can a corporation be among the elect? Does this mean that some corporations should be beyond legal prosecution due to the abundance of their natural grace? Do the counts of those "saved" include or not include corporate persons? Can a very worthy person crowd out less worthy persons by making corporations? Are they just as worthy as himself? Does the legal shield extend to sin, or is ones worthiness of heaven diminished through corporate wickedness?

Lama, It is clear that the path of righteousness follows a diminution of desire and a ridding of onesself of attachment to material things. Can you describe how this could be reconciled with the doctrine of shareholder primacy, where every action that earns less than maximal profit is an act of fiscal piracy to the shareholder?

Imam, does it count as Zakat when a corporation sends monies to offshore accounts with charitable sounding names? Even if you use it to house the  old and infirm and children (meaning: The founder in retirement and the infant he's had by his third wife?)

sifu, While I understand that it is an honorable role for a child to respectfully question his elder, can I not dock his pay or otherwise take vengence upon him until he quits for what I solely deem to be an act of filial impiety?
 
2014-03-24 10:56:33 PM  
soon

beemirror.com
 
2014-03-24 10:56:38 PM  

Corvus: Can Hobby Lobby also say it will not provide vacation time to employees if they will do something sinful of it?

Can a Jehova Witness say that it won't give employees healthcare that include surgery or blood transfusion?


That's the slippery slope crucial to this case.  Not only Jehovah's Witnesses who might ban employees from having coverage for surgery, but I might suddenly decide as a business owner that I worship the constellation Orion, and that my religious beliefs are that nobody ever gets sick, so I don't have to give my employees sick time.  It would put the onus on judges to decide if my wacky set of beliefs are a 'religion' as potentially protected by a pro-HobbyLobby ruling, or if I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass to be a cheapskate.
 
2014-03-24 10:59:56 PM  

hubiestubert: The central argument, again and again, is that these employers don't want to pay for these procedures. Which they don't. They might as well argue that they don't want any of the money that they pay their employees with EVER goes to porn, birth control, or alcohol, and to insure that is the case, that they want to monitor their employees' behavior to prevent such things, as it is in their "interests" so that their religious beliefs aren't violated...


Frankly i think this is the best argument the government has, that the law will not substantially burden the companies because they are not directly buying birth control (or what have you).  The problem is this abuts directly with the principle that a court cannot address the substance of an argued belief - that if a person can profess that the buying of insurance that buys birth control that someone else uses offends his religion, it's not for a court to say that this belief is unreasonable.  A court can only ascertain if the belief is sincerely held.
 
2014-03-24 11:01:29 PM  

Baz744: Clearly the persecution of America's Christians has spiraled out of control. This attempt to require Hobby Lobby, a publicly traded for-profit commercial corporation, to comply with a constitutionally permissible law of general applicability, is just the latest outrage


Fun fact - RFRA means that "a constitutionally permissible law of general applicability" doesn't mean squat to the federal government.

Way to go overturning Scalia, Congress, i guess.
 
2014-03-24 11:03:08 PM  

Baz744: Africans: in the 19th century south.

Jews: in Hitler's Germany.

Christians: in Obama's America.

That's right. All of these groups were targeted for heinous persecution at the hands of governments and societies who hated them for no reason other than their assigned or quasi-assigned characteristics. ...


[snip]

Meh. Too obvious. Not enough misspelled words, no crying eagle gifs, lack of "libtards" and "Demoncrats."  Not fooling anyone. 1 point cuz it was pretty funny.

1/10
 
2014-03-24 11:04:35 PM  

syrynxx: It would put the onus on judges to decide if my wacky set of beliefs are a 'religion' as potentially protected by a pro-HobbyLobby ruling, or if I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass to be a cheapskate


Well (1) the court cannot determine if what you described is "a religion."  All it can do is take what you have said and determine if it is sincerely held.  And (2) federal courts do this all the time.  Turns out this exemption isn't new, and is in fact written in explicitly into many many employment statutes.  Thus there are a slew of cases involving employers claiming crazy religious requirements, inmates in prison claiming crazy religious requirements, etc.  The federal courts are well acquainted with bouncing the vast majority of these as not "sincerely held" and the sky has yet to fall.
 
2014-03-24 11:04:47 PM  

Teiritzamna: hubiestubert: The central argument, again and again, is that these employers don't want to pay for these procedures. Which they don't. They might as well argue that they don't want any of the money that they pay their employees with EVER goes to porn, birth control, or alcohol, and to insure that is the case, that they want to monitor their employees' behavior to prevent such things, as it is in their "interests" so that their religious beliefs aren't violated...

Frankly i think this is the best argument the government has, that the law will not substantially burden the companies because they are not directly buying birth control (or what have you).  The problem is this abuts directly with the principle that a court cannot address the substance of an argued belief - that if a person can profess that the buying of insurance that buys birth control that someone else uses offends his religion, it's not for a court to say that this belief is unreasonable.  A court can only ascertain if the belief is sincerely held.


It is the only, to me, logical way to look at the issue.

Then again, I have these kooky ideas that we need to bring marriage equality to the Supreme Court, arguing religious freedom, equality under the law, and the right to privacy being primary over "local custom" and states passing bans to not offend a sect of not entirely unified People of the Book...
 
2014-03-24 11:12:01 PM  

Teiritzamna: hubiestubert: The central argument, again and again, is that these employers don't want to pay for these procedures. Which they don't. They might as well argue that they don't want any of the money that they pay their employees with EVER goes to porn, birth control, or alcohol, and to insure that is the case, that they want to monitor their employees' behavior to prevent such things, as it is in their "interests" so that their religious beliefs aren't violated...

Frankly i think this is the best argument the government has, that the law will not substantially burden the companies because they are not directly buying birth control (or what have you).  The problem is this abuts directly with the principle that a court cannot address the substance of an argued belief - that if a person can profess that the buying of insurance that buys birth control that someone else uses offends his religion, it's not for a court to say that this belief is unreasonable.  A court can only ascertain if the belief is sincerely held.


I still have not seen a good explanation of how Hobby Lobby, the entity, can have religious beliefs. It's a corporation, a necessary legal fiction, adopted for convenience of the law. If the owners of HL were held to take on the liabilities etc. of HL the entity then I would be more sympathetic to their position. But this looks like trying to have it both ways, they want the protection of incorporation as a separate entity while simultaneously saying that HL is inseparable from themselves and their beliefs. If a member sold their shares to R. Ramesh would HL become partly Christian and partly Hindu, if R. Ramesh owned a majority stake would HL convert, I just don't see how this scenario allows HL to have sincere religious beliefs if it can literally be bought and sold.
 
2014-03-24 11:20:50 PM  

Hoarseman: still have not seen a good explanation of how Hobby Lobby, the entity, can have religious beliefs. It's a corporation, a necessary legal fiction, adopted for convenience of the law. If the owners of HL were held to take on the liabilities etc. of HL the entity then I would be more sympathetic to their position. But this looks like trying to have it both ways, they want the protection of incorporation as a separate entity while simultaneously saying that HL is inseparable from themselves and their beliefs. If a member sold their shares to R. Ramesh would HL become partly Christian and partly Hindu, if R. Ramesh owned a majority stake would HL convert, I just don't see how this scenario allows HL to have sincere religious beliefs if it can literally be bought and sold.


Two things.

(1)  A company can theoretically have religious practices that are separate from those of their owners. Imagine a kosher foods company.  The entire company is set up to follow jewish dietary law and practice. Hires a couple rabbis.  Doesnt operate on the Sabbath. The whole nine yards.  The company is bought by a large multinational food conglomerate.  The large company espouses no faith at all, it just seemed like a good investment.  The government passes a new law that will do no direct economic harm to the company, but will require it to violate jewish law.  The company sues in its own capacity, arguing that its sincere religious practice is being infringed by the law.  I would personally say that company could have a shot at prevailing, even if the owners were non-religious.  Hell even if the owners were baptists, as long as the kosher foods company kept practicing in a jewish fashion.

I know this isnt the Hobby Lobby instance, but i do think it shows the tension in considering the "religious practice" of a for profit company.  We arent asking that the company as an abstract entity thinks about god.  The test is whether the company acts in a fashion that is in line with sincerely held religious beliefs. The same could be said for the largest christian bookstore chain, which was a for profit enterprise until last year.

(2) as to Hobby Lobby, i would have loved to see the government put them through their paces and show exactly what religiously expressive practices Hobby Lobby engaged in.  Unfortunately, the government waived this argument and just conceded that their beliefs were  sincerely held (mainly because i think the AUSA on this one thought the argument against a for profit enterprise getting RFRA protection was going to be a slam dunk, which was stupid).  So yeah - poo.
 
2014-03-24 11:24:47 PM  

Hoarseman: I just don't see how this scenario allows HL to have sincere religious beliefs if it can literally be bought and sold.


Corporations are people.  Corporations (or at least shares) are bought and sold.  The Thirteen Amendment the buying and selling of persons.

Therefore, if corporations are people, then why have we not closed the New York Stock Exchange and arrested of all stockbrokers therein under charges of abetting slavery?
 
2014-03-24 11:27:40 PM  

Teiritzamna: t.  The government passes a new law that will do no direct economic harm to the company, but will require it to violate jewish law.  The company sues in its own capacity, arguing that its sincere religious practice is being infringed by the law.


I'm confused. How is this possible?
 
2014-03-24 11:29:37 PM  

Teiritzamna: Hoarseman: still have not seen a good explanation of how Hobby Lobby, the entity, can have religious beliefs. It's a corporation, a necessary legal fiction, adopted for convenience of the law. If the owners of HL were held to take on the liabilities etc. of HL the entity then I would be more sympathetic to their position. But this looks like trying to have it both ways, they want the protection of incorporation as a separate entity while simultaneously saying that HL is inseparable from themselves and their beliefs. If a member sold their shares to R. Ramesh would HL become partly Christian and partly Hindu, if R. Ramesh owned a majority stake would HL convert, I just don't see how this scenario allows HL to have sincere religious beliefs if it can literally be bought and sold.

Two things.

(1)  A company can theoretically have religious practices that are separate from those of their owners. Imagine a kosher foods company.  The entire company is set up to follow jewish dietary law and practice. Hires a couple rabbis.  Doesnt operate on the Sabbath. The whole nine yards.  The company is bought by a large multinational food conglomerate.  The large company espouses no faith at all, it just seemed like a good investment.  The government passes a new law that will do no direct economic harm to the company, but will require it to violate jewish law.  The company sues in its own capacity, arguing that its sincere religious practice is being infringed by the law.  I would personally say that company could have a shot at prevailing, even if the owners were non-religious.  Hell even if the owners were baptists, as long as the kosher foods company kept practicing in a jewish fashion.

I know this isnt the Hobby Lobby instance, but i do think it shows the tension in considering the "religious practice" of a for profit company.  We arent asking that the company as an abstract entity thinks about god.  The test is whether the company acts in a fashion that is in line with sincerely held religious beliefs. The same could be said for the largest christian bookstore chain, which was a for profit enterprise until last year.

(2) as to Hobby Lobby, i would have loved to see the government put them through their paces and show exactly what religiously expressive practices Hobby Lobby engaged in.  Unfortunately, the government waived this argument and just conceded that their beliefs were  sincerely held (mainly because i think the AUSA on this one thought the argument against a for profit enterprise getting RFRA protection was going to be a slam dunk, which was stupid).  So yeah - poo.


Yeah, it sucks when the attorney waives interesting arguments prior to trial. Makes life difficuly for the academics and armchair attorneyz. Not sure who the gvmt attorney is on this case but pretty sure I would be doing a better job.
 
2014-03-24 11:32:30 PM  

Karac: Hoarseman: I just don't see how this scenario allows HL to have sincere religious beliefs if it can literally be bought and sold.

Corporations are people.  Corporations (or at least shares) are bought and sold.  The Thirteen Amendment the buying and selling of persons.

Therefore, if corporations are people, then why have we not closed the New York Stock Exchange and arrested of all stockbrokers therein under charges of abetting slavery?


Corporations are not people. But the definition of 'person' that applies to the law at issue specifically includes corporations.
 
2014-03-24 11:41:19 PM  
If the Hobby Lobby corporation has sincere religious beliefs, to which church does the corporation tithe?  Which religious service does the corporation attend?  Does the corporation receive anointing with oil?

This whole affair is non-productive and rather idiotic.
 
2014-03-24 11:49:00 PM  

DamnYankees: 'm confused. How is this possible?


Well if your issue is what kind of law could be passed that could affect the company?  Let us assume it is a fda reg requiring food prep that contradicts how kosher meats are to be prepared, or a requirement that certain preserved products use a preservative that is treyfe.

If it is how can a company sue in its own capacity? It hires a lawyer?  companies do it all the time.  The analysis focuses on what a company does not the beliefs of its owners.
 
2014-03-24 11:49:56 PM  

Baz744: Africans: in the 19th century south.

Jews: in Hitler's Germany.

Christians: in Obama's America.

That's right. All of these groups were targeted for heinous persecution at the hands of governments and societies who hated them for no reason other than their assigned or quasi-assigned characteristics. Even though really claims of black persecution in the 19th century south are gravely exaggerated--most slaves were contented, and most slave owners kind. Those ingrates suffered barely at all in comparison with Christians in Obama's America.

Their travails frozen out of public discourse by the overwhelmingly popular MSM statist left-wing liberal mainstream media (which only represents the views of a tiny minority of extreme fanatic leftists), few Americans have even heard of the multiple tyrannies plaguing Christians in this hateful era. How many of you even know, for example:

1) That some Christians have been wished "happy holidays" by people so rude they don't even ask their victims' religion before they harass them with obnoxious pagan "holiday" greetings.

2) That some Christian service sector employees have been asked to wish customers "happy holidays," with no consideration whatsoever for whether or not the employee is a Christian who even celebrates "holidays" instead of CHRISTmas.

3) That some Christians who have built four story tall light up Jesus statues in their own residential neighborhood backyards have been asked to take them down to comply with so-called "zoning ordinances."

4) That Christian children in public schools have been forced (at gunpoint!) to study science lessons their parents disagree with. With no effort even made to balance those lessons with readings from dissenting alternative science textbooks like the Book of Genesis.

5) That several states and the federal government have now passed laws enhancing sentencing for the commission of violent crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias.

6) That Christians have been prosecuted and eve ...


10/10, will come back to this post for a hearty chuckle as needed in the future
 
2014-03-24 11:50:22 PM  
a case that will determine whether employers who oppose the use of birth control on religious grounds can deny female workers contraceptive coverage guaranteed to them by the Affordable Care Act.

This is a no-brainer.]

If shiatholes like Hobby Lobby discriminate, they are violating the 14th Amendment.

Depends on whether Thomas and Scalia's shamefully huge egos try to circumvent the Constitution.
 
2014-03-24 11:52:00 PM  
follow the money...
 
2014-03-24 11:52:11 PM  

Teiritzamna: DamnYankees: 'm confused. How is this possible?

Well if your issue is what kind of law could be passed that could affect the company?  Let us assume it is a fda reg requiring food prep that contradicts how kosher meats are to be prepared, or a requirement that certain preserved products use a preservative that is treyfe.

If it is how can a company sue in its own capacity? It hires a lawyer?  companies do it all the time.  The analysis focuses on what a company does not the beliefs of its owners.


I fail to see how a Company could make a claim under these circumstances, other than a generic rational basis claim, which it would lose.
 
2014-03-25 12:00:03 AM  

whidbey: If shiatholes like Hobby Lobby discriminate, they are violating the 14th Amendment


I personally would not like private companies being considered a government, and since the 14th amendment only applies to governments, I must disagree.
 
2014-03-25 12:07:42 AM  

whidbey: If shiatholes like Hobby Lobby discriminate, they are violating the 14th Amendment.


The 14th Amendment applies to the states.  Not to private actors.  Therefore it would be impossible for Hobby Lobby to violate the 14th Amendment.  Perhaps you meant to say that they would be violating state or federal anti-discrimination laws?

whidbey: Depends on whether Thomas and Scalia's shamefully huge egos try to circumvent the Constitution.

You do realize that the law at issue in this case (RFRA) was only passed by Congress (and signed into law by Clinton) in order to overturn an opinion that Scalia wrote.  That opinion held that neutral laws of general applicability don't infringe religious freedoms.  If that opinion were still the law today, this case would not be an issue.  I'm guessing not.

DamnYankees: I fail to see how a Company could make a claim under these circumstances, other than a generic rational basis claim, which it would lose.


RFRA.

tryptik: Hobby Lobby corporation has sincere religious beliefs, to which church does the corporation tithe?  Which religious service does the corporation attend?  Does the corporation receive anointing with oil?


It doesn't matter if the affected person (which under RFRA, includes corporations, see the numerous points on this issue above) attends church, or tithes, or participates in any form of religious ceremony.  What matters is if the belief or practice is moral/ethical in nature and sincerely held. See
United States v. Seeger - 380 U.S. 163 (1965)

As to whether or not corporations can have moral/ethical beliefs, that issue has been (is being) addressed in this thread.  But you may also want to consider that many religious groups are organized as corporations.  There are documented cases where the government has targeted corporations based solely on their religious practices.  See, e.g   Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States. So let's not pretend that corporations can't have religious beliefs.  If they can be persecuted for their beliefs, I'm pretty sure that's evidence that the beliefs are real.
 
2014-03-25 12:10:14 AM  

Teiritzamna: whidbey: If shiatholes like Hobby Lobby discriminate, they are violating the 14th Amendment

I personally would not like private companies being considered a government, and since the 14th amendment only applies to governments, I must disagree.


Well, I have you favorited as "sounds law-y" so I'm sure you know more about this, but what about the first line?

[tt]All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside[/tt].

They are citizens who are being discriminated against as Hobby Lobby is not obeying the law.

What about the Commerce Clause? It was invoked to enforce the Civil Rights Act?

Do you see where my point lies, that there are people here not being afforded the same treatment under the law as what the law allows?
 
2014-03-25 12:11:31 AM  

DamnYankees: I fail to see how a Company could make a claim under these circumstances, other than a generic rational basis claim, which it would lose


Well as that is the question to be answered I guess we shall all see. But I would figure that our hypothetical kosher deli would argue that it was founded under Jewish religious practices, acts in a fashion that loses money (doesn't operate on the Sabbath, produces food in ways that are more expensive or time consuming, has on staff Rabbis etc) in furtherance of its religious incorporation. Thus it has sincere religious belief.

It would also argue that the government's reg infringes those beliefs, and thus it is the government's burden to show the reg is in furtherance of a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored.
 
2014-03-25 12:14:04 AM  
They could take a third option and overturn Citizens United, but nobody's optimistic about that happening.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report