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  
•       •       •

2462 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:07 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-24 03:47:53 PM
When have the conservative powers that be ever supported the religious right over corporations?
 
2014-03-24 03:49:14 PM
There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!
 
2014-03-24 03:55:34 PM
Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
 
2014-03-24 04:21:54 PM

Nadie_AZ: Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.


LOL.
 
2014-03-24 04:22:24 PM
Elections only have consequences when Democrats lose
 
2014-03-24 04:24:54 PM
Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?
 
2014-03-24 04:24:55 PM
It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.
 
2014-03-24 04:28:15 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Elections only have consequences when Democrats lose




They have consequences when the democrats win, either. Sadly it's the same consequence.
 
2014-03-24 04:36:16 PM
If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?
 
2014-03-24 04:36:58 PM
Scalia doesn't have that dilemna, subby.  He'll just flip a coin and then select whatever citations he wants that support the result.
 
2014-03-24 04:39:03 PM
I'm sure they have already made a decision.
 
2014-03-24 04:42:23 PM
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.
 
2014-03-24 04:44:31 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.


I forgot about that case, but having grown up in SEPA I was definitely familiar with it.
 
2014-03-24 04:45:48 PM

Darth_Lukecash: It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.


But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.
 
2014-03-24 04:50:57 PM

hubiestubert: Darth_Lukecash: It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.

But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.




I think we should follow the laws golf the old testament and ban shrimp and bacon. Then bring in the new testament ban on usiary.

Then we shall see how religious these motherfarkers are.
 
2014-03-24 04:51:41 PM
 
2014-03-24 05:33:26 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?
 
2014-03-24 05:57:57 PM
No matter how they rule, something relevant to this case is going to spark droves of religious people into a massive spontaneous support event for Hobby Lobby.  I'm off to buy stock in craft glue and glitter.
 
2014-03-24 06:09:20 PM

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money



For the night is dark and full of debtors?
 
2014-03-24 06:10:37 PM
Business trumps religion in the GOP.  Just don';t say it out loud.
 
2014-03-24 06:13:36 PM
img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-03-24 06:14:02 PM
mindcemetery.net

"But the religious right was the corporation the whole time!!"
 
2014-03-24 06:14:23 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.


Hobby Lobby gets Lebanon Levi as an enforcer.

/explodingbuggy.gif
 
2014-03-24 06:18:09 PM

Nadie_AZ: Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when you hit that pedestrian with your car at the crosswalk and then just drove away? Pepperidge Farm remembers.


Pepperidge Farm remembers, but Pepperidge Farm ain't just gonna keep it to Pepperidge Farm's self free-of-charge.

Maybe you go out and buy yourself some of these distinctive Milano cookies, maybe this whole thing disappears.
 
2014-03-24 06:18:54 PM
I'll just leave this here, from billmoyers.com:

It is four years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision struck down the limits on how much money corporations and unions can spend in federal elections. A number of legal watchdogs have been keeping close tabs on the repercussions. In an essay in Politico Magazine, Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, describes how super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

The SCOTUS will side with global corporations. If we could get corporations drunk and knock them up, we could get health care options for abortion.
 
2014-03-24 06:19:17 PM

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!


When Jesus drove the moneychangers from the Temple, the Chief Priests and Scribes should have retaliated with an armed cohort backed by government forces and...

...oh wait...
 
2014-03-24 06:19:51 PM
I'll buy the bullets if the SC will ice themselves.

/NSA approved!
 
2014-03-24 06:20:46 PM

DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?


I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.
 
2014-03-24 06:22:49 PM
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

**Those in the above image represent corporate legal-persons.
 
2014-03-24 06:23:28 PM

maudibjr: There is only one true religion: Money


God Money I'll do anything for you
God Money just tell me what you want me to
God Money nail me up against the wall
God Money don't want everything he wants it all
 
2014-03-24 06:30:59 PM
It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:05 PM

PanicMan: DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?

I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.


Yep.  It's a multi-pincher attack.  The efforts to exempt businesses from anti-discrimination statutes due to belief is important here, too.  They're trying to get to the point where corporations and their leaders can legally refuse to pay taxes, serve certain kinds of people, or obey laws they deem 'unconscionable'.  Don't think the end of the recent Arizona law is the end of efforts at that end.

Thanks to ALEC, this shiat is never going to end.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:13 PM

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!


^^^

Since they have no fear of losing reelection, its all about the cash. And fried chicken.
 
2014-03-24 06:31:29 PM
It's like Sophie's choice for assholes.
 
2014-03-24 06:50:31 PM

Target Builder: It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.


I'd so like to see a smackdown to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

I think I could vote blindly for any candidate that promises to deal with that decision.
 
2014-03-24 06:51:24 PM

PanicMan: 'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.


Actually no - as the case does not involve the first amendment.

The case actually arises from a statute written in an attempt to overturn a prior Scalia opinion limiting religious expression.  Under federal law, the language of the statute at least applies to both natural persons and corporations.  

Citizens United has nothing to do with it per se.
 
2014-03-24 06:58:10 PM
Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.
 
2014-03-24 06:58:27 PM
FWIW, my understanding of a veil is a piece of cloth that obscures the face but not the voice.

If so, it is "reasonable" for shareholders to speak from behind a veil, but not be seen. So speaking only of the writing, I think Salon's Beutler's metaphor isn't quite what it would be nice if it were.

And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.

Based on my totally not being a lawyer of any sort or having any idea of what is going on here, it seems reasonable that Scalia et. al., could determine for Hobby Lobby's "religious principles" without contradicting their belief toward limited liability and shareholder responsibility.

The real problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
 
2014-03-24 06:59:22 PM

RoyBatty: And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.


Not if the direction is illegal.
 
2014-03-24 06:59:36 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.


Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.
 
2014-03-24 07:00:48 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-24 07:01:05 PM

RoyBatty: The real problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.


So you don't believe that corporations can own property or can be sued?
 
2014-03-24 07:04:47 PM

Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

 
2014-03-24 07:04:51 PM
Cash will win.
 
2014-03-24 07:08:25 PM

gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.


Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.
 
2014-03-24 07:09:07 PM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: And that said, if the majority shareholders direct a company to comply with policy X, the company's directors are required to comply with policy X.

Not if the direction is illegal.


Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?

Teiritzamna: RoyBatty: The real problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

So you don't believe that corporations can own property or can be sued?


I don't think that corporations are "persons", or needed to be persons in order to own property or be sued. And I don't think they needed to be persons to own property or be sued prior to 1886. And I certainly don't think the court should have waited 128 years to clear up a decision like that attributed not to a judge but to a court reporter.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141663195/what-is-the-basis-for-corpor at e-personhood
 
2014-03-24 07:09:12 PM

twat_waffle: gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.

Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.


Actually, the business community hasn't been very vocal on this issue. As TFA notes, some have even come out against Hobby Lobby. They see the issue here.
 
2014-03-24 07:10:04 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.


Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.
 
2014-03-24 07:10:23 PM

RoyBatty: Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?


Well, sort of. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1) Is a corporation entitled to claim religious rights protections.

2) If so, is this particular case a violation of those rights.

The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.
 
2014-03-24 07:12:20 PM

Teiritzamna: That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.


There's a fundamental difference between groups organized for the purpose of advocating a position and those that are not. The issue isn't "should groups be able to get together to speak" - of course they can, that was never an issue. The issue is that almost all corporations are not organized for that purpose.
 
2014-03-24 07:13:45 PM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?

Well, sort of. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1) Is a corporation entitled to claim religious rights protections.

2) If so, is this particular case a violation of those rights.

The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.


That's interesting. I'd be okay with that.

I was only pointing out that I don't believe the Salon argument is as convincing as it makes itself out to be. That is, there seems to be plenty of room (based on my almost total lack of knowledge of this case) for the justices to split the baby and decide for the speech of shareholders while protecting them from liability.
 
2014-03-24 07:15:17 PM

RoyBatty: That is, there seems to be plenty of room (based on my almost total lack of knowledge of this case) for the justices to split the baby and decide for the speech of shareholders while protecting them from liability.


I don't see how you could possibly do that without violating the veil. How could you possible tell whether or not a corporation held a religious belief without investigating the beliefs of its shareholders?
 
2014-03-24 07:16:17 PM
Corporations are the only people who can still practice abortions without the religious right going ape.
 
2014-03-24 07:17:38 PM

RoyBatty: I don't think that corporations are "persons", or needed to be persons in order to own property or be sued. And I don't think they needed to be persons to own property or be sued prior to 1886. And I certainly don't think the court should have waited 128 years to clear up a decision like that attributed not to a judge but to a court reporter.


Modern corporations came about in the late 1800s (railroads mostly), so its not unreasonable that there would be a delay in the Court ruling on it.  And the fact that it was basically asserted by a reporter is pretty horrible, actually, but the fact that the court didn't much care is in line with the general philosophy that this was in fact the law, the court just hadn't said it yet.

Without the protections of the 14th amendment, companies are substantially worse than partnerships, as they lack protections against federal grabs of company property.  Why would you invest in an entity that had no rights against the federal government when you could instead at least get actual constitutional protections from a partnership?   As the whole idea of a corporation is to create an entity capable of acting as an individual, making that entity either powerless against the feds or merely a partnership in thier eyes would be somewhat problematic.

Of course i don't really much care, myself, but the world would be a pretty different place without corporations having such rights.
 
2014-03-24 07:19:48 PM

Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.


Apparently, you didn't read my post. Let me quote it again.

super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

$300 million dollars from hidden sources. That's not people. That's LLCs shielding bribery and graft.
 
2014-03-24 07:21:06 PM

BlastYoBoots: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 359x474]

**Those in the above image represent corporate legal-persons.


I have a feeling that will be the next legal argument they will take, "We're asserting control over our employees and customers with our corporate policies, but we have no liability to the results of such actions and can't be held responsible as a corporation for corporate decisions."
 
2014-03-24 07:22:19 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.

Apparently, you didn't read my post. Let me quote it again.

super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

$300 million dollars from hidden sources. That's not people. That's LLCs shielding bribery and graft.


What I don't get, at what point can an election be completely bought(/paid for) by a foreign entity? and what are the safeguards?
 
2014-03-24 07:23:11 PM

vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?


This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.
 
2014-03-24 07:23:27 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Scalia doesn't have that dilemna, subby.  He'll just flip a coin and then select whatever citations he wants that support the result.


The law is always like that, Beast. The only difference is that in an ideal world, its the lawyers who flip the coin and pick the cites and the judges should choose between them. In the case of the Supremes, they pick the outcome they think should control, and then select the argument that seems to come closest to their chosen outcome.
 
2014-03-24 07:25:16 PM

Burning_Monk: TheShavingofOccam123: Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.

Apparently, you didn't read my post. Let me quote it again.

super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

$300 million dollars from hidden sources. That's not people. That's LLCs shielding bribery and graft.

What I don't get, at what point can an election be completely bought(/paid for) by a foreign entity? and what are the safeguards?


Apparently, there are none that work. That's the problem with dark money in elections. And it's not federal elections only. Any election is fair game now.
 
2014-03-24 07:27:21 PM

DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?


Depends on which side will save the corporation $$
 
2014-03-24 07:28:49 PM

serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?


Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....
 
2014-03-24 07:29:12 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.


So... Your for a tramp stamp mandate...
 
2014-03-24 07:29:58 PM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: That is, there seems to be plenty of room (based on my almost total lack of knowledge of this case) for the justices to split the baby and decide for the speech of shareholders while protecting them from liability.

I don't see how you could possibly do that without violating the veil. How could you possible tell whether or not a corporation held a religious belief without investigating the beliefs of its shareholders?


My understanding is that Hobby Lobby is privately held. As far as I am concerned then, and I ain't a lawyer or CEO, Hobby Lobby IS its majority shareholders as far as its speech is concerned and since the majority shareholders can presumably easily act to oust managers who disobey them then Hobby Lobby is its majority shareholders as far as its behavior goes.

As far as liability goes, well, those shareholders are protected. I didn't protect them, and I don't necessarily agree with that protection, but the law protects them. That's not the shareholder's fault, that's "on us".

So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.

That doesn't mean I think Hobby Lobby is some sort of hero. I think they are garbage. But I don't see how shareholder speech outgoing through a veil has much to do with using the veil as it was originally defined to shield the shareholders from liability. Companies always speak for the majority shareholders -- I almost think that's like a tautology.
 
2014-03-24 07:32:24 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: $300 million dollars from hidden sources. That's not people. That's LLCs shielding bribery and graft.


Hey man, i am with you.  The problem it has long been the law of the land that campaign donations are not bribery unless there is an explicit quid pro quo.  And that this requirement does not encompass donating for favorable legislation in the future.  There needs to be evidence of actual specific exchange of money for specific legislation.  And the majority of the money you are discussing isn't even donations, its "uncoordinated" ads.

The alternative is to have the government get into the business of weighing which advertisements are too much like bribery and which aren't, which, given the large protections granted by the first, courts are loathe to do.

Basically it is a flaw in the 1st amendment itself, which is unpleasant.
 
2014-03-24 07:35:37 PM

RoyBatty: So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.


Yeah, alas that's about right.  The analysis turns less on the profession of belief but upon the sincerity of that belief.  So courts will take at face value that a company is seeking to act in a certain fashion, but may argue that that action is in furtherance of secular rather than religious goals.
 
2014-03-24 07:35:49 PM

Teiritzamna: RoyBatty: I don't think that corporations are "persons", or needed to be persons in order to own property or be sued. And I don't think they needed to be persons to own property or be sued prior to 1886. And I certainly don't think the court should have waited 128 years to clear up a decision like that attributed not to a judge but to a court reporter.

Modern corporations came about in the late 1800s (railroads mostly), so its not unreasonable that there would be a delay in the Court ruling on it.  And the fact that it was basically asserted by a reporter is pretty horrible, actually, but the fact that the court didn't much care is in line with the general philosophy that this was in fact the law, the court just hadn't said it yet.

Without the protections of the 14th amendment, companies are substantially worse than partnerships, as they lack protections against federal grabs of company property.  Why would you invest in an entity that had no rights against the federal government when you could instead at least get actual constitutional protections from a partnership?   As the whole idea of a corporation is to create an entity capable of acting as an individual, making that entity either powerless against the feds or merely a partnership in thier eyes would be somewhat problematic.

Of course i don't really much care, myself, but the world would be a pretty different place without corporations having such rights.


I'll assume you know more about this than I do, but regardless, it pisses me the fark off.

Having said that, I've been intrigued the couple of times I've heard Thom Hartmann speak to this, and in part what he does is discuss exactly that, what the world might look like if we had different understandings of corporate rights, and corporate responsibilities. And then he talks about nations that do in fact have different  understandings of corporate rights and responsibilities to show how life might be different.

That was enlightening for me.

For instance, in the US, Milton Friedman says corporations should not care about social responsibility just for the sake of being good corporate persons. They should just maximize profits and then shareholders can pick or choose among corporations as they please. And under US concepts of corporations, I find his argument difficult to refute.

But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

Anyway, I find that interesting.
 
2014-03-24 07:43:10 PM

RoyBatty: Anyway, I find that interesting.


Oh definitely. I personally think the corporate responsibility model of Europe is not a bad way to go, but to me what i think is so interesting is the "PROFITS ONLY!!" model is actually an attempt to help the little guy:

The idea is that there is a direct agency problem with corporations.  Once they have a shareholder's money, they aren't really beholden to that guy. So we made the law such that the company cannot use the money they have been granted unless that decision is a sound business one.

Of course in time this evolved such that anything that could be expressed as "helping business" would get rubber stamped, so not only does it skew how companies work here, it kinda farks the little guy anyway.
 
2014-03-24 07:45:50 PM
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.
 
2014-03-24 07:46:40 PM

Teiritzamna: RoyBatty: So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.

Yeah, alas that's about right.  The analysis turns less on the profession of belief but upon the sincerity of that belief.  So courts will take at face value that a company is seeking to act in a certain fashion, but may argue that that action is in furtherance of secular rather than religious goals.


Coming late to your conversation, but they can believe anything they want. The issue SHOULD be, can they subsequently force their EMPLOYEES to behave, and conform their legal behavior to, those beliefs, where such beliefs conflict with a) the employees beliefs and b) the law of the land.

In the instant case, the law says employers must provide health insurance to employees; Hobby Lobby is saying "we do not wish to provide insurance that includes birth control because of our religious beliefs." There is no need to pierce the veil in this case and see if the Board of Hobby Lobby really holds such beliefs--the only issue is, can the Board circumvent the law on the one hand and dictate its employees' behavior on the other, simply based on those beliefs.

Now I would argue that this would be a violation of the 1st Amd. by omission--that by doing so, the Court would be violating both the Establishment Clause and the Free Expression Clause by letting Hobby Lobby's religion trump everyone else's beliefs (their religious beliefs allow them to circumvent the law) and by making employees' conform to whatever religion Hobby Lobby practices (because they have to abide by whatever decision is handed down).

So if the Court agrees with Hobby Lobby, I wonder if we can sue the Court?
 
2014-03-24 07:48:30 PM

officeday: serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?

Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....


The underemployed are getting subsidies from Obamacare as it is now.  Would that necessarily be any different?  Some changes to the tax code would probably have to be implemented, but cutting insurance companies out as middle men would only help things right, not make them worse?
 
2014-03-24 07:49:13 PM
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?
 
2014-03-24 07:49:18 PM
Honestly, I think the biggest problem for the Obama administration will be the number of waivers and 'outs' for certain groups, but not for these types of Christian people who run companies and/or nuns and other religious people who run non-profit organizations and have employees. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why give an out for the Amish, let's say, but not for nuns? What is the difference between these two groups? Why does one merit the waiver and not the other?

If the administration cannot support valid reasons why SOME groups were given waivers while others were not (for random reasons that don't have any connection that I can see) then I don't think they can refuse waivers for others.

Also, if you look at Hobby Lobby's "statement of purpose," which existed well before Obamacare ever came into being, faith is all over that thing:

"In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.

Offering our customers an exceptional selection and value.

Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals, and nurture families.

Providing a return on the owners' investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future."

I think they have a pretty good case here, based on this statement. They have built their business around Christian values and are very clear what they are on their website and other corporate materials.
 
2014-03-24 07:49:42 PM

officeday: Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this?


We already do this for Medicare (paid through payroll taxes), which covers the section of the populace with the highest medical costs. Extending it downwards while removing the contribution cap would increase the governments purchasing power even further, plus people wouldn't have to have private carriers, which would remove the premiums families and their employers pay.

The above is the reason why most countries went this route, and their costs are dramatically lower than ours.
 
2014-03-24 07:52:19 PM

k1j2b3: "In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.


And can you tell me where "the lord" said he was against allowing others to choose for themselves contraception exactly?
 
2014-03-24 07:53:17 PM

Cubicle Jockey: We already do this for Medicare (paid through payroll taxes), which covers the section of the populace with the highest medical costs. Extending it downwards while removing the contribution cap would increase the governments purchasing power even further, plus people wouldn't have to have private carriers, which would remove the premiums families and their employers pay.


Which is what the ACA did it added millions onto Medicare.
 
2014-03-24 07:53:32 PM

DamnYankees: twat_waffle: gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.

Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.

Actually, the business community hasn't been very vocal on this issue. As TFA notes, some have even come out against Hobby Lobby. They see the issue here.


That's not what I was referring to. I was saying that modern captains of industry are blind to the long-term consequences of their own actions. Bank of America was blind to how robosigning foreclosure notices and processing debits before credits was going to bite them in the ass eventually. Hobby Lobby's owners are blind to how winning this case could expose them to even greater liability in the future. It would be obvious to any lawyer worth his retainer, but Hobby Lobby has its own agenda.
 
2014-03-24 07:53:51 PM
There is another option you know. Since this is the supreme court, they can kind of rule however the hell they want to.  The could rule the whole thing unconstitutional.  Now before the libtrolls get all mad, they probably won't.  However, nobody ever thought that Kelo v. City of New London would actually happen the way it did, either.  In this case, there is no really safe prediction.  We'll just have to wait until they come out with the ruling.  Knowing how they are, it will be the last ruling released just like the last ACA case.  If we've learned anything, the Supreme Court loves the drama.

As for the case itself, I believe that we'll have to wait and see how the oral arguments are presented and compare them to the written arguments.  It all depends on how the gubment wants to argue the case. However, I don't think the central argument here is the question of Hobby Lobby breaking the law.  The question is can the owners of Hobby Lobby be compelled to go against their religious beliefs even if their employees don't share those beliefs.

For example, my health insurance was limited when I worked for catholic schools.  Not that I was terribly concerned about getting an abortion, mind you, since I'm biologically incapable of ever needing one.  Nor was artificial insemination covered.  Again, not a big deal for me because I wasn't married at the time nor was I considering starting a family (plus when my wife needed some medical help for ovulating, her insurance didn't cover the full cost and also didn't cover artificial insemination due to the high risk of failure at the time).  At the same time, however, I was never forced to participate in taking communion because I'm also a protestant...and my family has been excommunicated from the catholic church for some things they did in England a long time ago.  I'm not certain if the order of excommunication is still enforced, but I wasn't going to go about asking since I needed a job at the time.  Catholic schools are pretty flexible about that because there aren't enough catholic teachers out there to teach in catholic schools.  I also told the kids that weren't catholic that what they did was their choice and I didn't take communion out of respect for the beliefs and practices of the catholic church and that according to those practices it was not appropriate for protestants to take communion from a catholic priest.  I left out the family history part.  My point is that it cuts both ways.  If a woman who works at hobby lobby knows that her bosses and the store's owners are devout catholic, then asking for them to pay for your birth control or abortion would probably be in bad taste and it wouldn't be included in their health insurance options. At the same time, the owners are probably going to need a little flexibility in expecting others to follow their strict adherence to their religious beliefs if they expect to get enough employees to make their business successful, especially since it isn't an obvious religious institution.  They might select a plan that covers birth control if they want to attract good employees.

As for future ramifications, I'm fairly sure that major corporations do see the possible outcomes of this ruling.  Is expanding the liability of corporations a bad thing?  Maybe, maybe not.  Again, it depends on how the ruling is worded.  Is treating a corporation more like an individual a bad thing?  Again, it depends on how the ruling is worded.

In the end, we all need to just be patient, not jump the gun, and let the system do its work.  Personally, and however unlikely, I'm hoping they just toss the thing out completely so we can start over and this time do it right.  Maybe this time we can actually pass an constitutional amendment that addresses health care like the leftistas want and build in the safeguards that the conservatives want and everyone will either be happy with the compromise or they'll reject it and we'll try to compromise again.  I will tell you this: how we address healthcare will be one of the cornerstone issues that will either unite this country or further a divide that will eventually create a second civil war.
 
2014-03-24 07:55:47 PM

RoyBatty: So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.


This is wrong, I think. As a lawyer (albeit not a first amendment expert), I can confidently say that one of the criteria for claiming a religious objection to compliance with a law is that you need to show that the religious belief is sincerely held. In other words, you actually need to believe what you claim to believe. That's why it matter. If a corporation says "I don't want to pay for contraception because God says its bad", you need to have some way to test that believe and determine if the corporation really believes that. How could you do that without analyzing the beliefs of the shareholders?
 
2014-03-24 07:56:23 PM

bobothemagnificent: The could rule the whole thing unconstitutional.


What whole thing?
 
2014-03-24 07:56:28 PM

k1j2b3: I think they have a pretty good case here, based on this statement. They have built their business around Christian values and are very clear what they are on their website and other corporate materials.


So if I am a Jehova witness company I don't have to pay for insurance that covers surgeries?

If I am a Company that believes in pacifism (which Christ actually said he was for, unlike banning contraception) I don't have to pay taxes that go to making war weapons?

Or do you think only certain religons get this benefit?
 
2014-03-24 07:56:49 PM

Corvus: 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.


Hoping for Scalia to be consistent is like hoping you can let out a squeaker on a first date after eating nothing but Mexican food for three days without your date hearing it.

Personally, I see the court completely ignoring the religious freedom issue.  They can toss it out by saying "Whether corporations can hold religious freedom rights is a moot point, because even if they did, the PPACA is a law of general applicability and they'd still have to obey it."  There's no need to open up the 'can a corporation have a religion' can of worms, so why bother with it?

Scalia and Thomas will probably write a dissent saying that Hobby Lobby is a fine upstanding Christian corporation they fully expect to see standing in line at the pearly gates and futhermore ...
 
2014-03-24 07:56:50 PM
My bet is that the conservatives may try to punt this one by upholding the law without ruling against the plaintiffs.  How they will do this will be interesting.  Personally i don't see how corporations can have a religion unless it is wholly owned by a religious order but even then i think the act of incorporation should take away any religious exemption.
 
2014-03-24 07:56:56 PM

officeday: serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?

Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....


We already pay more public money into our private healthcare system, per capita, than any other country on earth, including countries with single payer. At this point, single payer will save us money without having much of an effect on anyone's tax burden.
 
2014-03-24 07:57:10 PM

Gyrfalcon: Coming late to your conversation, but they can believe anything they want. The issue SHOULD be, can they subsequently force their EMPLOYEES to behave, and conform their legal behavior to, those beliefs, where such beliefs conflict with a) the employees beliefs and b) the law of the land.


I admit I haven't been following this case too closely, but are they proposing firing people who would choose to purchase insurance that did cover birth control?  I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that they're "forcing" their employees' behavior without something along those lines.
Far as I can tell they're just not wanting to be forced to pay for it, which is substantially different than what you're suggesting.
 
2014-03-24 07:58:48 PM

Karac: Personally, I see the court completely ignoring the religious freedom issue. They can toss it out by saying "Whether corporations can hold religious freedom rights is a moot point, because even if they did, the PPACA is a law of general applicability and they'd still have to obey it." There's no need to open up the 'can a corporation have a religion' can of worms, so why bother with it?


No I agree. That argument makes the most sense.

The law in no way is trying to single out a specific religion.
 
2014-03-24 07:59:20 PM

Corvus: k1j2b3: "In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.

And can you tell me where "the lord" said he was against allowing others to choose for themselves contraception exactly?


I never said this. This is the statement from the company itself. Just because I am quoting a company's statements does not make them mine. I am guessing that the owners / board members of Hobby Lobby believe that providing birth control of the type that is required under Obamacare is not in line with 'Biblical principles.' You can try to argue that their beliefs are stupid, invalid or out-dated, but they are still their beliefs. I am sure you are well aware of the Catholic Church's stance on contraception, so I am guessing the Hobby Lobby may be in line with this type of thinking. Is it really so horrific for people who work for a Christian company with clearly stated Christian beliefs behind their company operation to NOT have certain contraceptive coverage in their health insurance? I mean, really, it is not that much of a hardship.

Many years ago, I had insurance provided through an employer (non-Christian) and it only covered certain birth control items despite what my doctor thought about it...I would've had to pay for it myself. I wasn't railing about the coverage. I just chose differently based on what my insurance covered. It was not a big deal.

I find it incredibly silly that Obama will allow certain companies and groups of people to be excluded from the mandate, but then gets all up in arms about THIS. It is weird and contradictory.
 
2014-03-24 07:59:50 PM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.

This is wrong, I think. As a lawyer (albeit not a first amendment expert), I can confidently say that one of the criteria for claiming a religious objection to compliance with a law is that you need to show that the religious belief is sincerely held. In other words, you actually need to believe what you claim to believe. That's why it matter. If a corporation says "I don't want to pay for contraception because God says its bad", you need to have some way to test that believe and determine if the corporation really believes that. How could you do that without analyzing the beliefs of the shareholders?


Well, for starters, you could look at the fact that Hobby Lobby quite happily provided contraception in their employees health insurance for years.  And that it only became a problem when the law required them to do what they had previously done willingly, and which they now say they cannot do.

At the very least, the justices would have to ask them when and why their sincerely held beliefs changed.
 
2014-03-24 08:00:09 PM
To summarize:

Bakery owner: No cakes for gheys because Jesus.
Court: *biatchslaps bigot*

Corporation: No birth control for employees because Jesus.
Court: .....?
Corporation: Did we mention Jesus and loads of money?
 
2014-03-24 08:01:35 PM
I can assure that the conservative justices will do what it exactly says in the Constitution like they always do.  As we speak, Scalia is seeing into the minds of the Founding Fathers and applying exactly what it is that they all wanted.
 
2014-03-24 08:04:39 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?


Or pay less than minimum wage because of their religious beliefs?  Or refuse to have female managers because of religious beliefs?  Or refuse to pay taxes because of religious beliefs?  Or commit "honor killings" against employees who don't live up to Hobby Lobbys moral code in order to restore their family honor?
 
2014-03-24 08:06:02 PM

Karac: Well, for starters, you could look at the fact that Hobby Lobby quite happily provided contraception in their employees health insurance for years.  And that it only became a problem when the law required them to do what they had previously done willingly, and which they now say they cannot do.


Unfortunately the government waived any argument about the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's belief, so this fact is basically moot.
 
2014-03-24 08:08:33 PM

DamnYankees: When have the conservative powers that be ever supported the religious right over corporations?


Exactly.  They'll take corporations over religion every single time.  Corporations are the real masters of the right; religion is just a means of getting morons to vote for things that will benefit corporations.
 
2014-03-24 08:08:50 PM

Xetal: Or pay less than minimum wage because of their religious beliefs?


Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

Xetal: Or refuse to have female managers because of religious beliefs?


There are already employment exceptions based on religion, although most of those statutes require the company to be a non-profit.

Xetal: Or refuse to pay taxes because of religious beliefs?


Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

 Xetal: Or commit "honor killings" against employees who don't live up to Hobby Lobbys moral code in order to restore their family honor?

Oh hell no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA
 
2014-03-24 08:09:54 PM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.

This is wrong, I think. As a lawyer (albeit not a first amendment expert), I can confidently say that one of the criteria for claiming a religious objection to compliance with a law is that you need to show that the religious belief is sincerely held. In other words, you actually need to believe what you claim to believe. That's why it matter. If a corporation says "I don't want to pay for contraception because God says its bad", you need to have some way to test that believe and determine if the corporation really believes that. How could you do that without analyzing the beliefs of the shareholders?


Ask me again in, um, June? July?
 
2014-03-24 08:10:11 PM
bobothemagnificent:

Now before the libtrolls get all mad

www.vh1.com
 
2014-03-24 08:10:21 PM

DamnYankees: bobothemagnificent: The could rule the whole thing unconstitutional.

What whole thing?

The WHOLE damn law, in its entirety.  Don't forget that Stevens, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito wanted to do just that originally because they thought that this law created powers that the constitution never intended the government to have to begin with.  Don't be surprised if that comes up again in private discussions.
 
2014-03-24 08:11:16 PM

Teiritzamna: Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA


Well there is a compelling government interest here and a pretty broadly tailored law.  That was the entire point of my post, that your religion typically does not excuse you from following the law and the ACA is the law.
 
2014-03-24 08:12:32 PM

DamnYankees: bobothemagnificent: The could rule the whole thing unconstitutional.

What whole thing?


The thing that folks have been trying to repeal, what going on fifty times, and having already sent it to the Supreme Court once already? Yeah, our Beamish Boy can KEEP living that dream...
 
2014-03-24 08:14:02 PM

OtherLittleGuy: To summarize:

Bakery owner: No cakes for gheys because Jesus.
Court: *biatchslaps bigot*

Corporation: No birth control for employees because Jesus.
Court: .....?
Corporation: Did we mention Jesus and loads of money?


So the ellipsis was there to encapsulate all the times the court has biatch slapped them over this on the way up?
 
2014-03-24 08:14:37 PM

RoyBatty: Target Builder: It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.

I'd so like to see a smackdown to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

I think I could vote blindly for any candidate that promises to deal with that decision.


If spending money is political speech protected for corps., shouldn't it be required that all political spending be approved by the share holders?
 
2014-03-24 08:14:44 PM

serial_crusher: officeday: serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?

Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....

The underemployed are getting subsidies from Obamacare as it is now.  Would that necessarily be any different?  Some changes to the tax code would probably have to be implemented, but cutting insurance companies out as middle men would only help things right, not make them worse?


I don't know. I don't like insurance companies, but I also have an inherent distrust of the gov't.... Heck, I don't even want a smart electric meter in my house....
 
2014-03-24 08:15:38 PM

bobothemagnificent: DamnYankees: bobothemagnificent: The could rule the whole thing unconstitutional.

What whole thing?
The WHOLE damn law, in its entirety.  Don't forget that Stevens, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito wanted to do just that originally because they thought that this law created powers that the constitution never intended the government to have to begin with.  Don't be surprised if that comes up again in private discussions.


lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-03-24 08:15:39 PM
'cuz FREEDOM

blog.heritage.org


ie freedom to become a wage slave with sore feet to appease your corporate masters
 
2014-03-24 08:16:27 PM
This dilemma is predicated on the assumption that the Supreme Court operates on rules and logic rather than gut feelings. "Because we say so," has always been the motto of the institution.

If five of them think a faceless organization has identity enough to 'Free Speech' unlimited money at candidates then they can also say it is capable of having undefined religious beliefs. And only after the vote do they have to come up with an explanation for why nonsense is now law.

The ridiculous is always possible at the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
2014-03-24 08:18:05 PM

Corvus: k1j2b3: I think they have a pretty good case here, based on this statement. They have built their business around Christian values and are very clear what they are on their website and other corporate materials.

So if I am a Jehova witness company I don't have to pay for insurance that covers surgeries?

If I am a Company that believes in pacifism (which Christ actually said he was for, unlike banning contraception) I don't have to pay taxes that go to making war weapons?

Or do you think only certain religons get this benefit?


I had a hippie religion teacher in high school who gave himself a made up conscientious objector tax credit every year to cover whatever portion of his taxes would have gone to the military.  He was quite proud of it.

I heard they audited him a couple years after I graduated.

/ Difficulty: catholic school.  Anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-war kind of hippie.
 
2014-03-24 08:18:47 PM

Xetal: Teiritzamna: Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

Well there is a compelling government interest here and a pretty broadly tailored law.  That was the entire point of my post, that your religion typically does not excuse you from following the law and the ACA is the law.


Actually, although I think it is, there is a question over whether mandating health care is a compelling government interest.  Here the government shot itself in the foot because they already exempt non-profit religious corporations from complying with the law.  By doing so, the government is basically saying, ":well the goal of mandated insurance isn't so important that we would want to inconvenience religious folks, or small businesses, or a whole bunch of other exempt entities."  That is not helpful.

But that's not where the trouble is.  The trouble is that the law is definitely not narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means the government could use to get to its goal.  If the government wanted everyone to have health insurance, it could either command people to do so over their religious objections, or it could just buy the insurance itself.  Under Single Payer the government would be the provider and the religious views of your employer wouldn't matter.  But it didn't do that.   Thus there is a known more narrow law that could have been written that wouldn't impact rights.  

compare to honor killings.  Stopping murder is kinda one of the fundamental roles of government, so easy win on compelling interest.  And narrowly tailored/least restrictive?  The law criminalizes murders. I don't know of any way to criminalize murder except to criminalize murder.  Done.
 
2014-03-24 08:20:11 PM

Omahawg: 'cuz FREEDOM

[blog.heritage.org image 402x400]


ie freedom to become a wage slave with sore feet to appease your corporate masters


Scumbag Hobby Lobby: fights to not provide you with birth control, makes you sit in a hut outside while you're menstruating.
 
2014-03-24 08:20:31 PM

Satanic_Hamster: If spending money is political speech protected for corps., shouldn't it be required that all political spending be approved by the share holders?


Technically it is.  Generally they rarely pitch a fit because the company can show that by helping get Senator X or Congresswoman Y elected, "better" laws were written and the business did well.  Or at least, that was the goal of management.  Which is all that is required of corporate governance.
 
2014-03-24 08:21:57 PM

Omahawg: 'cuz FREEDOM

[blog.heritage.org image 402x400]


ie freedom to become a wage slave with sore feet to appease your corporate masters


Actually, they can completely comply with the law, not offer their employees birth control in their insurance, and not get fined millions of dollars a day.

All they have to do is to stop offering health insurance to employees at all.  Sure, they'd get hit with about $2000 in fines each year per employee who ends up getting a subsidy, but since they're spending about $4000 per employee per year on their part of the health insurance it would actually end up saving them money.
 
2014-03-24 08:22:18 PM

Burning_Monk: What I don't get, at what point can an election be completely bought(/paid for) by a foreign entity? and what are the safeguards?


Voter ID laws.
 
2014-03-24 08:22:37 PM

hubiestubert: The thing that folks have been trying to repeal, what going on fifty times, and having already sent it to the Supreme Court once already? Yeah, our Beamish Boy can KEEP living that dream...


Especially as this isn't a case involving a constitutional provision . . .
 
2014-03-24 08:33:14 PM

Darth Macho: If five of them think a faceless organization has identity enough to 'Free Speech' unlimited money at candidates then they can also say it is capable of having undefined religious beliefs. And only after the vote do they have to come up with an explanation for why nonsense is now law.


Actually it was Congress (in a law signed by President Clinton) that passed a law that gave religious protections to corporations.  At least the one that is most relevant to this case.

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . .the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.1 U.S. Code § 1

How dare the Supreme Court interpret laws that way that Congress told them to! Unthinkable. :)


 
2014-03-24 08:33:37 PM

factoryconnection: 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.

I forgot about that case, but having grown up in SEPA I was definitely familiar with it.


Who cares about reflectors, they need to clean up after their horses!!!

//Live in Lancaster County. I can't go to a library near where I work because of the smell!
 
2014-03-24 08:35:22 PM
Even Fox News Employees Think Ann Coulter Works For Fox News (Featured Partner)
 
2014-03-24 08:35:35 PM

serial_crusher: Gyrfalcon: Coming late to your conversation, but they can believe anything they want. The issue SHOULD be, can they subsequently force their EMPLOYEES to behave, and conform their legal behavior to, those beliefs, where such beliefs conflict with a) the employees beliefs and b) the law of the land.

I admit I haven't been following this case too closely, but are they proposing firing people who would choose to purchase insurance that did cover birth control?  I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that they're "forcing" their employees' behavior without something along those lines.
Far as I can tell they're just not wanting to be forced to pay for it, which is substantially different than what you're suggesting.


I don't believe insurance that covers birth control is any more than insurance without it, so it's not a monetary issue. They're not forced to pay for it, they just object to it on moral grounds.
 
2014-03-24 08:35:45 PM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?

Well, sort of. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1) Is a corporation entitled to claim religious rights protections.

2) If so, is this particular case a violation of those rights.

The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.


That is the feeling that I got - if I remember correctly, at least one of the lower court decisions held (apart from finding that the specific claims made by Hobby Lobby had no merit) that businesses generally were not eligible to make religious freedom claims under the laws in question. Especially after Citizens United, I suspect that the Supreme Court wants to clarify what their stance is here (and I suspect that they'll come down on the side of the business).

On the other hand, I doubt whether even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court will be too moved by Hobby Lobby's claims that the specific law they're being made to comply with constitutes an infringement upon their or anybody else's religious freedoms.
 
2014-03-24 08:36:29 PM

DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?


I don't think it matters, because both can be refuted by the Domino's v. McDonald precedent (a unanimous 8-0 decision; Samuel Alito had not been confirmed yet), the one that basically says that corporations do not have a race, even if they are completely controlled by members of a single race. I'm sure the argument can then extend towards religion.  The problem for the corporatists is that if that happens, this might then be used to reverse the Citizens United ruling, since, if a corporation can't have a race or a religion, how can it have a political preference?
 
2014-03-24 08:40:32 PM

Teiritzamna: Xetal: Or pay less than minimum wage because of their religious beliefs?

Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

Xetal: Or refuse to have female managers because of religious beliefs?

There are already employment exceptions based on religion, although most of those statutes require the company to be a non-profit.

Xetal: Or refuse to pay taxes because of religious beliefs?

Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

 Xetal: Or commit "honor killings" against employees who don't live up to Hobby Lobbys moral code in order to restore their family honor?

Oh hell no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA


While I think you're reaching the correct result, you're getting there for the wrong reasons.  In some of these cases (including Hobby Lobby, imho) RFRA does not apply because it does not impose a substantial burden.  Not because it satisfied strict scrutiny.  Murder laws would survive strict scrutiny, but minimum wage laws might not, and certainly the ACA would not.  However, in those cases a plaintiff would have a difficult time showing that the laws substantially burden a sincerely held religious belief.
 
2014-03-24 08:40:58 PM
This is a very very dangerous decision.  Simply because you can declare any belief you want.  If you can ignore any law you don't like simply by claiming it goes against your religious beliefs, then laws have no purpose and no way to enforce them.  Today its birth control.  Next thing you will see a corporation claim that minimum wage and all other labor laws are a violation of their "religious beliefs".
 
2014-03-24 08:43:50 PM

IlGreven: I don't think it matters, because both can be refuted by the Domino's v. McDonald precedent (a unanimous 8-0 decision; Samuel Alito had not been confirmed yet), the one that basically says that corporations do not have a race, even if they are completely controlled by members of a single race. I'm sure the argument can then extend towards religion.  The problem for the corporatists is that if that happens, this might then be used to reverse the Citizens United ruling, since, if a corporation can't have a race or a religion, how can it have a political preference?


Domino's doesn't hold that.  Not even a little bit.

Domino's holds that a shareholder who executed contracts on behalf of his company cannot raise claims based on the claimed discriminatory breach of those contracts because he wasn't a party to the contracts - his company was.   In the Majority opinion, Scalia in fact implied that the company could raise claims for discriminatory breach under section 1981 itself, even though the act specifically was drafted to defeast racially based contract dickery.

Domino's is thus about a shareholder's inability to stand in the shoes of his company for the purposes of a breach of contract suit.  It had nothing to do with a company';s ability to raise race based discrimination claims and definitely nothing to do with religious claims under RFRA.


/Also the only justice who didn't sign onto the opinion was Alito - this was a Scalia jam.
 
2014-03-24 08:43:53 PM

DamnYankees: The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.


Karac: "Whether corporations can hold religious freedom rights is a moot point, because even if they did, the PPACA is a law of general applicability and they'd still have to obey it."


Are you missing something here? Or am I?

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)
 
2014-03-24 08:44:20 PM

Talondel: Teiritzamna: Xetal: Or pay less than minimum wage because of their religious beliefs?

Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

Xetal: Or refuse to have female managers because of religious beliefs?

There are already employment exceptions based on religion, although most of those statutes require the company to be a non-profit.

Xetal: Or refuse to pay taxes because of religious beliefs?

Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

 Xetal: Or commit "honor killings" against employees who don't live up to Hobby Lobbys moral code in order to restore their family honor?

Oh hell no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

While I think you're reaching the correct result, you're getting there for the wrong reasons.  In some of these cases (including Hobby Lobby, imho) RFRA does not apply because it does not impose a substantial burden.  Not because it satisfied strict scrutiny.  Murder laws would survive strict scrutiny, but minimum wage laws might not, and certainly the ACA would not.  However, in those cases a plaintiff would have a difficult time showing that the laws substantially burden a sincerely held religious belief.


The court does not get to determine what is or isn't a sincerely held religious belief.  The first amendment requires that all branches of the government treat every religion as equally valid.  Since religion is just a made up set of beliefs according to old fairy tales, you can create any religion you want.
 
2014-03-24 08:45:07 PM

Talondel: Darth Macho: If five of them think a faceless organization has identity enough to 'Free Speech' unlimited money at candidates then they can also say it is capable of having undefined religious beliefs. And only after the vote do they have to come up with an explanation for why nonsense is now law.

Actually it was Congress (in a law signed by President Clinton) that passed a law that gave religious protections to corporations.  At least the one that is most relevant to this case.

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . .the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.1 U.S. Code § 1

How dare the Supreme Court interpret laws that way that Congress told them to! Unthinkable. :)


And subsection B says that the burden is legal if it's in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Now, with medical bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy, and the general health of the populace at issue, then the 'compelling interest' is certainly within the ballpark.  And the waivers granted to explicitly religious institutions could actually help - the government can point to them as an example of how they're trying to make the burden as light as possible.
 
2014-03-24 08:45:28 PM

Talondel: While I think you're reaching the correct result, you're getting there for the wrong reasons.  In some of these cases (including Hobby Lobby, imho) RFRA does not apply because it does not impose a substantial burden.  Not because it satisfied strict scrutiny.  Murder laws would survive strict scrutiny, but minimum wage laws might not, and certainly the ACA would not.  However, in those cases a plaintiff would have a difficult time showing that the laws substantially burden a sincerely held religious belief.


Oh sure - I was just having fun with anaphora.  Also i have seen this line of argument and had to deal with it about 1000 times on facebook, so i decided to amuse myself this time.  But yeah, you are right w/r/t failing at the substantial burden prong.
 
2014-03-24 08:45:35 PM
Warlordtrooper:  Next thing you will see a corporation claim that minimum wage and all other labor laws are a violation of their "religious beliefs".

Arbeit macht frei.
 
2014-03-24 08:46:16 PM

Warlordtrooper: This is a very very dangerous decision.  Simply because you can declare any belief you want.  If you can ignore any law you don't like simply by claiming it goes against your religious beliefs, then laws have no purpose and no way to enforce them.  Today its birth control.  Next thing you will see a corporation claim that minimum wage and all other labor laws are a violation of their "religious beliefs".


No.  The law requires that a plaintiff challenging a generally applicable law must show that the challenged law places a substantial burden on a sincerely held religious belief.  I seriously doubt any court would have a problem seeing through such claims and not being "sincerely held."
 
2014-03-24 08:46:22 PM
I fully expect Scalia hand down a ruling that allows corporations to peirce the veil when convenient without sustaining any liability to shareholders and let anyone that does so claim their company as a tax-exempt church.
 
2014-03-24 08:47:03 PM

Talondel: DamnYankees: The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.

Karac: "Whether corporations can hold religious freedom rights is a moot point, because even if they did, the PPACA is a law of general applicability and they'd still have to obey it."

Are you missing something here? Or am I?

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)


Yes, you are missing subsection b.
 
2014-03-24 08:47:16 PM

Karac: Now, with medical bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy, and the general health of the populace at issue, then the 'compelling interest' is certainly within the ballpark.  And the waivers granted to explicitly religious institutions could actually help - the government can point to them as an example of how they're trying to make the burden as light as possible.


No those actually hurt - as they undercut a finding of compelling interest.  Oh its so compelling> well then why did you exempt every small business and any religious non-profits?

And the narrow tailored/least restrictive bit is even worse for the government, as i explained above.
 
2014-03-24 08:47:21 PM

Talondel: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)


I'm not familiar enough with RFFA jurisprudence to answer this. I've been arguing on a constitutional basis. I'd be interested to read any discussions about this.
 
2014-03-24 08:48:15 PM

Talondel: Warlordtrooper: This is a very very dangerous decision.  Simply because you can declare any belief you want.  If you can ignore any law you don't like simply by claiming it goes against your religious beliefs, then laws have no purpose and no way to enforce them.  Today its birth control.  Next thing you will see a corporation claim that minimum wage and all other labor laws are a violation of their "religious beliefs".

No.  The law requires that a plaintiff challenging a generally applicable law must show that the challenged law places a substantial burden on a sincerely held religious belief.  I seriously doubt any court would have a problem seeing through such claims and not being "sincerely held."


Since all religion is, is a made up set of beliefs, any court ruling that a belief is not "sincerely held" is violating the first amendment rights of a person who wants to hold those beliefs.
 
2014-03-24 08:49:17 PM

DamnYankees: I'm not familiar enough with RFFA jurisprudence to answer this. I've been arguing on a constitutional basis. I'd be interested to read any discussions about this.


Generally RFRA tracks with the old pre-employment division first amendment jurisprudence, except for the fact that the dictionary act explicitly makes RFRA applicable to corporations, a question that would be more open in a first amendment context.
 
2014-03-24 08:49:43 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: It's like Sophie's choice for assholes.


I actually LOLd and seeing that I've spent the last hour arranging my grandmother's hospice care I needed that. Thank you!
 
2014-03-24 08:50:29 PM

Warlordtrooper: Since all religion is, is a made up set of beliefs, any court ruling that a belief is not "sincerely held" is violating the first amendment rights of a person who wants to hold those beliefs.


Not even close.

You are conflating the reasonableness of the beliefs, which a court cannot question, and the sincerity of those beliefs, which a court has to under first amendment and RFRA analysis.
 
2014-03-24 08:50:30 PM

Warlordtrooper: Since all religion is, is a made up set of beliefs, any court ruling that a belief is not "sincerely held" is violating the first amendment rights of a person who wants to hold those beliefs.


That's completely false. A court is surely capable of determining whether or not you're lying about what you believe.
 
2014-03-24 08:51:40 PM

Teiritzamna: Karac: Now, with medical bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy, and the general health of the populace at issue, then the 'compelling interest' is certainly within the ballpark.  And the waivers granted to explicitly religious institutions could actually help - the government can point to them as an example of how they're trying to make the burden as light as possible.

No those actually hurt - as they undercut a finding of compelling interest.  Oh its so compelling> well then why did you exempt every small business and any religious non-profits?

And the narrow tailored/least restrictive bit is even worse for the government, as i explained above.


It 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.
 
2014-03-24 08:51:55 PM

DamnYankees: Warlordtrooper: Since all religion is, is a made up set of beliefs, any court ruling that a belief is not "sincerely held" is violating the first amendment rights of a person who wants to hold those beliefs.

That's completely false. A court is surely capable of determining whether or not you're lying about what you believe.


People change religions all the time.  Its not impossible to switch your beliefs.  The government (which the court system is a part of) telling you that you are or are not part of a religion is a violation of the first amendment.
 
2014-03-24 08:53:12 PM

Warlordtrooper: The court does not get to determine what is or isn't a sincerely held religious belief.  The first amendment requires that all branches of the government treat every religion as equally valid.  Since religion is just a made up set of beliefs according to old fairy tales, you can create any religion you want.


Incorrect.  They don't get to determine if your religious beliefs are valid.  They do get to determine if they are sincere.

But we hasten to emphasize that, while the "truth" of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question whether it is "truly held." This is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case. United States v. Seeger - 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
 
2014-03-24 08:53:26 PM

Warlordtrooper: People change religions all the time.  Its not impossible to switch your beliefs.  The government (which the court system is a part of) telling you that you are or are not part of a religion is a violation of the first amendment.


Are you just making this up? This just isn't true.
 
2014-03-24 08:56:58 PM
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."
 
2014-03-24 08:57:50 PM

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 . . . .
 
2014-03-24 08:58:11 PM

Karac: And subsection B says that the burden is legal if it's in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Now, with medical bills being the leading cause of bankruptcy, and the general health of the populace at issue, then the 'compelling interest' is certainly within the ballpark.  And the waivers granted to explicitly religious institutions could actually help - the government can point to them as an example of how they're trying to make the burden as light as possible.


Karac: Talondel: DamnYankees: The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.

Karac: "Whether corporations can hold religious freedom rights is a moot point, because even if they did, the PPACA is a law of general applicability and they'd still have to obey it."

Are you missing something here? Or am I?

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)

Yes, you are missing subsection b.


I'm not missing subsection b.  You're not understanding it.  Subsection b restores the "strict scrutiny" test to generally applicable laws that substantially burden sincerely held religious beliefs.  That standard is was requires a narrowly tailored law, and a compelling government interest.  If you read the prior case law on those two issues, you will see very clearly that you are taking far to broad a view.  Strict scrutiny is very difficult test to pass.  There is no way the ACA would.  The government isn't even trying to argue that it would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
 
2014-03-24 08:59:34 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."


Then shouldn't they also be forced to cover late term abortion?
 
2014-03-24 09:00:40 PM

Teiritzamna: DamnYankees: I'm not familiar enough with RFFA jurisprudence to answer this. I've been arguing on a constitutional basis. I'd be interested to read any discussions about this.

Generally RFRA tracks with the old pre-employment division first amendment jurisprudence, except for the fact that the dictionary act explicitly makes RFRA applicable to corporations, a question that would be more open in a first amendment context.


I like the cut of your jib.  And just about everything you've posted in this thread.  Nice to see someone posting actual, useful, legal analysis. :)
 
2014-03-24 09:01:13 PM
I asked this the other day and didn't get an answer, gonna try again.

Does anyone have the link to the story(or stories) about how Hobby Lobby's company insurance plan actually provided contraception and such, before it became politically expedient for them to be "offended"?

I know the stories are out there, I just can't find them, and this is a case of where Google doesn't help because there's too many current stories that have the same search terms.
 
2014-03-24 09:02:56 PM

Talondel: I like the cut of your jib.  And just about everything you've posted in this thread.  Nice to see someone posting actual, useful, legal analysis. :)


As well to you sir.

Unfortunately most supreme court threads rapidly degenerate into
Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
 
2014-03-24 09:04:16 PM

Mikey1969: Does anyone have the link to the story(or stories) about how Hobby Lobby's company insurance plan actually provided contraception and such, before it became politically expedient for them to be "offended"?

I know the stories are out there, I just can't find them, and this is a case of where Google doesn't help because there's too many current stories that have the same search terms.


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


Unfortunately the government waived any arguments regarding the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's claimed belief, so it alas doesnt much matter to this case.
 
2014-03-24 09:06:37 PM
After reading these comments [and I sincerely commend those who are trying to 'splain it in simple terms], my question is:

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

Or are they so narrowly constrained by the case that it's limited to this corporations-are-persons question?

/Thanks in advance for replies.
 
2014-03-24 09:09:31 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?


Perhaps you're confused. Hobby Lobby is a retail establishment that sells hobby supplies. They're not an insurance company. They don't "cover" anything.
 
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.
 
2014-03-25 12:17:20 AM

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.


That's cause an amish person dying in a buggy isn't a fetus
 
2014-03-25 12:35:44 AM

Bith Set Me Up: They could take a third option and overturn Citizens United, but nobody's optimistic about that happening.


Especially since the holding in CU is completely irrelevant to this case.
 
2014-03-25 01:01:06 AM

hubiestubert: 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...


I am not sure that's true.

First, Hobby Lobby has 21,000 employees. So, I think there's a good chance they are self-insured.

When I have worked for large companies in the past (50,000 - 100,000) they would self-insure. Sure, our plans were managed by AETNA (or other large insurance companies) but our plans were self-insured. So if our costs exceeded what was in our pool, it wasn't AETNA on the hook, it was BigCo who I worked for.

AETNA took management fees because they have the infrastructure to deal with billing, negotiation, etc.

Second, Hobby Lobby probably does chip into the pool as well. That is, a Hobby Lobby's employee total wages are his or her $15 per hour PLUS $100 - $6,000 per year per employee from Hobby Lobby for health care for that employee.

The Health care pool for Hobby Lobby is probably $X per employee deducted from that employee's wages PLUS the $6,000 from Hobby Lobby contribution.

At least that's how it works at many large companies that respect their employees and don't force all the health care costs onto their employees, but provide them with health care as a benefit.

For either of these two reasons, Hobby Lobby can reasonably claim they are paying for procedures they feel are against their religious beliefs, if corporations are treated as dna people who can have religious beliefs.

I think.
 
2014-03-25 01:34:04 AM
Insurance (required or otherwise) is simply part of the remuneration package of employees. For anyone other than actual churches to start getting exemptions to laws protecting employees from interference in what they do with their remuneration is incredibly insidious and dangerous.
 
2014-03-25 02:05:24 AM

serial_crusher: officeday: serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?

Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....

The underemployed are getting subsidies from Obamacare as it is now.  Would that necessarily be any different?  Some changes to the tax code would probably have to be implemented, but cutting insurance companies out as middle men would only help things right, not make them worse?


Nonprofit single payer for direct patient care would, at the very least, slow the growth of the long term debt (over 100 trillion).  Dallas Fed. estimated that Medicare D (prescription drug program - with none of the discounts that the military/VA receive from pharma) makes up 17 trillion of that amount.  Over the same time period (75yr) the unfunded portion of Social Security will be 3 trillion less (14 trillion).  The rest of the long term debt is owing to the remainder of the Medicare program.  It is important to note that, with medicare D, alone, the fact that Pharma doesn't discount  prices to Uncle Sam's `pool' of `clients', means that the discounts that other Nation's leverage with their `pools' of the `socialized' doesn't impact pharma's bottom line (more corporate welfare).  Pretty much taxpayer's subsidizing Canadian discounts and then crossing the border into Canada to pick up those meds.
 
2014-03-25 02:16:52 AM

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?

Well, sort of. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1) Is a corporation entitled to claim religious rights protections.

2) If so, is this particular case a violation of those rights.

The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.


You get a choice.  You can be a religious organization and get your religious rights, or you can be a for-profit organization but don't get to use religion to force employees to conform to your beliefs.  One or the other.
 
2014-03-25 02:23:27 AM

RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.


The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.
 
2014-03-25 02:25:14 AM

k1j2b3: I find it incredibly silly that Obama will allow certain companies and groups of people to be excluded from the mandate


And that isn't even legal under his own damn law.  When you grant exclusions to the law for a select few, you create a privileged class.  This is not a direction we, as a nation, want to go.
 
2014-03-25 02:28:17 AM
stare decisis not john yoo
 
2014-03-25 02:35:51 AM

RoyBatty: For either of these two reasons, Hobby Lobby can reasonably claim they are paying for procedures they feel are against their religious beliefs, if corporations are treated as dna people who can have religious beliefs.


Then they will pollute, extort, lobby (heh), & legislate on behalf of the lower-case t to WIN. GO legislation from the bench GO!
 
2014-03-25 04:07:19 AM
This isn't about whether corporations are people. It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts, in particular those that are morally objectionable, under the guise of things like health care. People can choose not to work for a company based on it's benefits.

/there's no distinction ultimately between this and requiring everyone to pay for abortions.
 
2014-03-25 04:11:34 AM
Even the best ghouls on the supreme court are pretty vile

I'm overwhelmed by my conscience and the most I influence society is by jaywalking. Scalia is hopefully going to burn forever and ever and ever in hell, but the rest aren't much better.

The fact that this is even an issue is hilarious because it's so far removed from what 'America' is theorized romantically to be about and what it's supposed to be about.

Hypocritical farkers
 
2014-03-25 04:19:15 AM
Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
 
2014-03-25 04:19:29 AM

Animatronik: It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts


Yet the government provides free services and handouts to companies to prevent economic failure without much resistance on their part. Funny that.
 
2014-03-25 04:20:48 AM

Teiritzamna: Xetal: Teiritzamna: Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

Well there is a compelling government interest here and a pretty broadly tailored law.  That was the entire point of my post, that your religion typically does not excuse you from following the law and the ACA is the law.

Actually, although I think it is, there is a question over whether mandating health care is a compelling government interest.  Here the government shot itself in the foot because they already exempt non-profit religious corporations from complying with the law.  By doing so, the government is basically saying, ":well the goal of mandated insurance isn't so important that we would want to inconvenience religious folks, or small businesses, or a whole bunch of other exempt entities."  That is not helpful.

But that's not where the trouble is.  The trouble is that the law is definitely not narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means the government could use to get to its goal.  If the government wanted everyone to have health insurance, it could either command people to do so over their religious objections, or it could just buy the insurance itself.  Under Single Payer the government would be the provider and the religious views of your employer wouldn't matter.  But it didn't do that.   Thus there is a known more narrow law that could have been written that wouldn't impact rights.  

compare to honor killings.  Stopping murder is kinda one of the fundamental roles of government, so easy win on compelling interest.  And narrowly tailored/least restrictive?  The law criminalizes murders. I don't know of any way to criminalize murder except to criminalize murder.  Done.


What this is about is "What constitutes health care?". not "who should pay for health care".

You like single payer because it is one more step towards socialism and greater ability of the government to deal with individual objections by simply defining whar health care is. Right now, single payer is not the answer to this or any other objections to the law.
 
2014-03-25 04:22:09 AM

Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM


Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!
 
2014-03-25 04:25:59 AM

Fista-Phobia: Animatronik: It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts

Yet the government provides free services and handouts to companies to prevent economic failure without much resistance on their part. Funny that.


This is a silly comparison much like some of Putins justification for annexing Crimea.

Because the government chooses to spend money on things that have benefited you, you are now it's lapdog.
 
2014-03-25 04:30:40 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!


Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.
 
2014-03-25 04:38:12 AM

Animatronik: Fista-Phobia: Animatronik: It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts

Yet the government provides free services and handouts to companies to prevent economic failure without much resistance on their part. Funny that.

This is a silly comparison much like some of Putins justification for annexing Crimea.

Because the government chooses to spend money on things that have benefited you, you are now it's lapdog.


No. It's a valid comparison. You decry government intrusion yet reap it's benefits in order to be mad about something on the internet without even realizing it. That is, unless, you're off the grid in the woods poaching someone's w-fi for manifesto distribution purposes.
 
2014-03-25 04:52:06 AM

Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.


you are horribly deluded and I hope you aren't influential on others' worldviews.
J
A) the fact that your country not only doesn't have but fears socialized medicine is fodder for the Twilight Zone. The fact that people like you are proud of that is sickening.
 
2014-03-25 05:49:05 AM

inclemency: Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.

you are horribly deluded and I hope you aren't influential on others' worldviews.
J
A) the fact that your country not only doesn't have but fears socialized medicine is fodder for the Twilight Zone. The fact that people like you are proud of that is sickening.


Anything that comes after the Rx in a doc's prescription should be treated as healthcare. How hard is this?

// Do doc's in the US still give written prescriptions?
// Been sometime since my last visit.
 
2014-03-25 06:10:17 AM
When Johnny come marching
Home again
Hurrah.. Trala
He's coming by bus or hoverround
Hurrah.. Trala

It's just
Round
The corner in
The GOP Civil War.
 
2014-03-25 06:10:19 AM

justaguy516: inclemency: Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.

you are horribly deluded and I hope you aren't influential on others' worldviews.
J
A) the fact that your country not only doesn't have but fears socialized medicine is fodder for the Twilight Zone. The fact that people like you are proud of that is sickening.

Anything that comes after the Rx in a doc's prescription should be treated as healthcare. How hard is this?

// Do doc's in the US still give written prescriptions?
// Been sometime since my last visit.


Yes, in fact, I just took Mrs. Samurai's prescription for birth control over to Target yesterday.

And for dipshiats like Animatrollik, it's medically necessary because of a severe case of endometriosis. So go fark yourself with a rusty grapefruit spoon. You only encourage the people that actually think like that.
 
2014-03-25 06:22:51 AM

Animatronik: . It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts,


It's not free or a handout. The employees have to work for them.

Animatronik: in particular those that are morally objectionable, under the guise of things like health care.


How can something be morally objectionable to a nonperson?

Animatronik: People can choose not to work for a company based on it's benefits.


people can choose to not go into business if it will force them to provide benefits they find morally objectionable.

Animatronik: /there's no distinction ultimately between this and requiring everyone to pay for abortions.


there is no distinction between a company providing a benefit that could be used for something they find morally objectionable, and a company providing pay that could be used for something they find morally objectionable. company provided insurance providing birth control pills, is no different than company provided pay being used to get birth control pills.
 
2014-03-25 06:26:15 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.


That is not completely true. the legal concept of freedom of contract is based a reading of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. interestingly enough the concept of right to privacy is also based on the Due Process Clause. Unless of course you believe that the freedom of contract, or right to privacy doesn't apply to corporations or individuals, then i guess you have a point there
 
2014-03-25 06:28:20 AM

Satanic_Hamster: If spending money is political speech protected for corps., shouldn't it be required that all political spending be approved by the share holders?


The same reason we don't hold a national referendum to approve of every bill Congress passes?
 
2014-03-25 06:32:10 AM

OgreMagi: RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.


I think that a majority of me would run things just fine, thank you. Single payer healthcare, GMI, heavily subsidized vocational training and/or postsecondary education, a minimum wage that is actually a living wage, paid maternity/paternity leave, jobs programs for the unemployed, prisons that focus on rehabilitation, corporations being held to account in most unpleasant ways for breaking the law, stuff like that...
 
2014-03-25 06:50:04 AM

Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.


Wow... Did you read that before you typed it?

You're either incredibly ignorant and lead a sheltered life or you're a disingenuous, partisan twat.
 
2014-03-25 06:59:30 AM

Teiritzamna: Mikey1969: Does anyone have the link to the story(or stories) about how Hobby Lobby's company insurance plan actually provided contraception and such, before it became politically expedient for them to be "offended"?

I know the stories are out there, I just can't find them, and this is a case of where Google doesn't help because there's too many current stories that have the same search terms.

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


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


I wonder if that is just to avoid knocking out the Hobby Lobby case on those grounds, only to have to fight an almost identical case soon after from another similar corporation that doesn't have such a history to undermine it?
 
2014-03-25 07:06:22 AM

keylock71: Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.

Wow... Did you read that before you typed it?

You're either incredibly ignorant and lead a sheltered life or you're a disingenuous, partisan twat.


I don't think that he's ever had a conversation with a woman in real life. He also probably thinks that the female orgasm is a myth, too.
 
2014-03-25 07:32:43 AM

Teiritzamna: 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]


Yeah, your fancy law-talkin' is no match for the all-purpose legal trump card -- Amish buggie reflectors.

In fact, when the SCOTUS opinion in this case comes out, it will probably be even shorter than vernonFL's scintillating analysis, and just consist of three words. "Amish buggy reflectors."

No further explanation or legal citation needed.
 
2014-03-25 07:34:50 AM

twat_waffle: OgreMagi: RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.

I think that a majority of me would run things just fine, thank you. Single payer healthcare, GMI, heavily subsidized vocational training and/or postsecondary education, a minimum wage that is actually a living wage, paid maternity/paternity leave, jobs programs for the unemployed, prisons that focus on rehabilitation, corporations being held to account in most unpleasant ways for breaking the law, stuff like that...


Masturbate in private next time, please.
 
2014-03-25 07:37:19 AM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?

This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.


That's exactly why a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is, long term, the best outcome for the healthcare system in this country. It creates the need for the government to get involved to make up the shortfall in coverage with a 'religion-free' public option. That's how Obamacare moves us to single layer - it has to fall to pieces in such a way as to bring down the concept of employer-provided health insurance in the collapse.
 
2014-03-25 07:40:30 AM

Phinn: twat_waffle: OgreMagi: RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.

I think that a majority of me would run things just fine, thank you. Single payer healthcare, GMI, heavily subsidized vocational training and/or postsecondary education, a minimum wage that is actually a living wage, paid maternity/paternity leave, jobs programs for the unemployed, prisons that focus on rehabilitation, corporations being held to account in most unpleasant ways for breaking the law, stuff like that...

Masturbate in private next time, please.


It was a joke based on my name. Why so serious?
 
2014-03-25 07:47:08 AM
Toady it is Religious Freedom by corporations to not follow a law.

and if Hobby Lobby wins the case,

Tomorrow it will be Religious Freedom by corporations to not pay taxes.

A tax is just another law, we all must pay unless the tax code has rules that allow you to pay less or none at all.  What is to stop a corporation to claim that it is against their religion to kill.  And by paying taxes to fund the military (whose primary function is to kill)  violates their beliefs and they demand that they do not pay the taxes to support the military.
 
2014-03-25 07:59:36 AM

twat_waffle: I don't think that he's ever had a conversation with a woman in real life.


Heh.... Perhaps.

It's just a ridiculously ignorant statement.
 
2014-03-25 08:21:27 AM
If they side with the Company, then I can choose which laws I obey and which ones I don't, based on my Religious Principals.

Ex. My Religious Principals says I can grope anyone anytime anywhere. Your laws don't apply, see the SC ruling in the HL case.

If they side with the Gov't, then Law applies to everyone regardless of Religious Principals.

Ex. I can't just grope folks when I want, all laws apply to everyone.

It appears to be pretty straightforward.
/It won't be.
 
2014-03-25 08:22:49 AM
Here's a thought about religion v.s. the People's court.

STFU, assholes.

We already have laws. We don't need Sharia laws.
Lick your dead-guy-on-a-stick in private, you creepy bastards.
Bow down and pray to your kiddy-diddling profits (sic) and worship your bloody hearts with thorns and swords stuck in them on your own Aztec time. Stop attempting to enforce the laws of centuries old defeated cultures upon people who figured out how to control electricity, move to where the water is, and practice hygiene and preventative medicine. Tell you kids about virgin birth and let them figure out you lied to them on their own. Just don't be an asshole to the general public or your employees. try to be a better person.
 
2014-03-25 08:49:19 AM
Since Alito was nominated to SCOTUS, 5-4 has spent years shaping the rules that big business can skirt to fark over consumers, small businesses and employees. This case threatens those skirting abilities not because it farks over employees but because it threatens commerce between huge corporations. They won't rule in favor of Hobby Lobby.
 
2014-03-25 08:56:52 AM

vudukungfu: Here's a thought about religion v.s. the People's court.

STFU, assholes.

We already have laws. We don't need Sharia laws.
Lick your dead-guy-on-a-stick in private, you creepy bastards.
Bow down and pray to your kiddy-diddling profits (sic) and worship your bloody hearts with thorns and swords stuck in them on your own Aztec time. Stop attempting to enforce the laws of centuries old defeated cultures upon people who figured out how to control electricity, move to where the water is, and practice hygiene and preventative medicine. Tell you kids about virgin birth and let them figure out you lied to them on their own. Just don't be an asshole to the general public or your employees. try to be a better person.


I like the cut of your jib.

And as to about 99% of what you say, I agree. I like the part about microorganisms especially (which, along with biogenesis and evolution, rank as three of, say, the top five ideas in the history of human thought).

I've still always been intrigued by the idea of religious freedom, particularly since there's no such thing as divinity or deities or supernatural nonsense. The enshrinement of religious freedom has always seemed strange. Watching people defend it is like watching them take to the streets to defend their adoration of unicorns and leprechauns.

Even the non-religious seem to defend that type of freedom, even though there's nothing real there to defend. So, since religion is nonsense, what does religious freedom really mean? Why do we respect the Freedom of Nonsense?

I think it points to a broader idea of the importance of leaving people alone. Religious freedom is only one application of the more general principle that the government can't legitimately control people who aren't harming others. If religious freedom means anything at all, it must be an expression of the idea that State power is inherently limited, regardless of the size of the majority who might think that another legislated act of governmental control constitutes progress.
 
2014-03-25 09:01:36 AM

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.


IANAL but I would guess that the public good of preventing buggy-car crashes overrode the Amish religious need of eschewing shiny objects.   Some people don't consider birth control to be an overwhelming public good because (in their narrow minds) it seems to benefit only the wimmenfolk.
 
2014-03-25 09:06:50 AM

Graffito: IANAL but I would guess that the public good of preventing buggy-car crashes overrode the Amish religious need of eschewing shiny objects.   Some people don't consider birth control to be an overwhelming public good because (in their narrow minds) it seems to benefit only the wimmenfolk


Additionally, and more complexly, the statute at issue in this case is the RFRA.  Although it was meant to overturn Employment Division and its dictate that a law of general applicability trumps religious exercise claims, a subsequent decision,  City of Boerne v. Flores, held that RFRA only applies to the Federal Government.  Thus, if the buggy reflector law is a DoT reg, RFRA applies and the old school strict scrutiny test is used (i think the government would pass that test as because buggy reflectors are likely a minimal, not substantial, burden, and as you noted the government probably has a compelling interest in uniform road rules).  However, if the buggy reflector law is a state one, then all the state would need to prove to satisfy the first amendment is that the reflector law was one of general applicability.

See, isnt law simple?!
 
2014-03-25 09:08:12 AM

Phinn: And as to about 99% of what you say, [tldr] State power is inherently limited, regardless of the size of the majority who might think that another legislated act of governmental control constitutes progress.


That being said, this is the politics tab, not the give Jesus a Beege tab.
Priests graduated Clown college.
It's like Magic school for the "gifted"

Learn sleight of hand, and poor logic in order to shake down the gullible rubes out there.
It's con-college. It's a racket.

And when racketeers start pushing around judges, it's time to stop being nice.
 
2014-03-25 09:30:11 AM

vudukungfu: Phinn: And as to about 99% of what you say, [tldr] State power is inherently limited, regardless of the size of the majority who might think that another legislated act of governmental control constitutes progress.

That being said, this is the politics tab, not the give Jesus a Beege tab.
Priests graduated Clown college.
It's like Magic school for the "gifted"

Learn sleight of hand, and poor logic in order to shake down the gullible rubes out there.
It's con-college. It's a racket.

And when racketeers start pushing around judges, it's time to stop being nice.


But that's the whole point of religious freedom -- to resist political, government action. Religious practice certainly isn't doing anything real.

It's like defining a bedrock principle of government as the Right to Pretend You're a Wizard. Why would such a right exist at all? Magic is complete bollocks. The purpose of such a right can't be to advance wizardry, because there's no such thing. Magic is "That Which Is Not Real."

The point of protecting Professional Nonsense is to establish that there are some places that government cannot go, some things it cannot do. The fact that we have to respect Nonsense makes that limitation on government power even more rigorous, since Nonsense isn't debatable.
 
2014-03-25 09:34:45 AM

Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.


This is why you're stupid and no one take you seriously, you sad little troll.

Oral contraception isn't only used for contraception purposes.  Fark off.
 
2014-03-25 09:38:47 AM

Phinn: Nonsense isn't debatable.


precisely why the SCOTUS needs to laughingly toss every single suit brought to them out on their self-righteous asses.
 
2014-03-25 09:59:32 AM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?

This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.


"All female employee report for genital mutilation."
 
2014-03-25 11:25:03 AM

Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.



i232.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-25 12:05:38 PM
TheShavingofOccam123:
...
As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.
...


Chung Mee: Speed is important in business. Time is money.
Lawrence Bourne III: You said opium was money.
Chung Mee: Money is Money.
Lawrence Bourne III: Well then, what is time again?
 
2014-03-25 12:49:31 PM

Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.


i75.photobucket.com

But hey, understanding medicine is for suckers, only letters I need to know are U, S, and A.  Right?
 
2014-03-25 01:02:06 PM

TheBigJerk: Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.

[i75.photobucket.com image 357x640]

But hey, understanding medicine is for suckers, only letters I need to know are U, S, and A.  Right?


oh... snap
 
2014-03-25 02:07:15 PM

TheBigJerk: Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.

[i75.photobucket.com image 357x640]

But hey, understanding medicine is for suckers, only letters I need to know are U, S, and A.  Right?


Somebody should just start marketing a "period control pill" that has contraception as a side effect instead of a "birth control pill" that has period regulation as a side effect.  Problem solved, money made, right?
 
2014-03-25 07:04:48 PM

The Numbers: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?

This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.

That's exactly why a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is, long term, the best outcome for the healthcare system in this country. It creates the need for the government to get involved to make up the shortfall in coverage with a 'religion-free' public option. That's how Obamacare moves us to single layer - it has to fall to pieces in such a way as to bring down the concept of employer-provided health insurance in the collapse.


Huh.  I had not considered that angle.  That's actually...interesting.  I don't think it could play out, though. The repubs will rail against any public option and block it at any cost.  I think it would end up derailing the reforms overall.
 
2014-03-26 02:02:41 AM
You guys know Hobby Lobby isn't refusing to pay for the pill, right?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp

Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund, who is defending Hobby Lobby in the HHS lawsuit, [said] that although he does not know exactly what transpired at the company's headquarters, he has read the petition.
"The petition is misleading. It makes it seem as if Hobby Lobby is seeking to exclude birth control from its health plan all together. That's just not true. The Green family and Hobby Lobby do not have any religious objection to birth control per se. Their plans have covered preventive contraceptives and will continue to do so," Duncan said.
"What Hobby Lobby objects to and the reason they sued is because the HHS mandate forces Hobby Lobby to include a specific kind of drug," he explained.
The drugs are called Plan B and Levonelle, otherwise known as "the morning-after pill" and "the week-after pill."
"For many people, [the pills] are not even considered birth control because the way they operate is to prevent the implantation of an egg in the womb. For millions of Americans that take the traditional Christian view that life begins at conception, that amounts to an early abortion," Duncan said. "The petition totally misses that and instead says that 'Hobby Lobby is denying women birth control and therefore denying health care.' So, the premise of the petition is wrong."


They are refusing to pay for IUDs and abortion pills.  That's it.

And they aren't firing women for using them.  They're just saying, not on our dime.

It's dishonest to claim Hobby Lobby is trying to keep women from regulating their periods.  If you're gonna argue the issue, argue the facts.
 
2014-03-26 02:56:49 AM

Occam's Nailfile: They are refusing to pay for IUDs and abortion pills.  That's it.


That 's enough, really.

If you're gonna argue the issue, argue the facts.

You mean we should stress what stupid ignorant bigoted religious embarrassments they are to progressive society and what an insult they are to enlightened people who champion women's rights?

Sounds great.
 
2014-03-26 03:50:32 AM

Occam's Nailfile: They are refusing to pay for IUDs and abortion pills. That's it.

And they aren't firing women for using them. They're just saying, not on our dime.


First of all, if you consider this to be on "their" dime, EVERYTHING their employees do is on "their" dime.  A benefits package is part of their employees compensation, it belongs to the employee and not to them.  They should no more have the right to dictate what their employees can or can't do with their health care than they should have the right to dictate what they can and can't do with the money they pay them.

Secondly, IT DOESN'T MATTER exactly what it is they're trying to prevent their employees from using.  If they're able to successfully claim that their company should possess the same religious rights that its owner does, every single CEO in the world will suddenly find religion.  They're going to use the exact same reasoning to say that they shouldn't have to cover health care at all because they're Christian Scientists who don't believe in blood transfusions or all sorts of other expensive medical treatment, and thus their company shouldn't be required to provide it.

One might (stupidly) argue that this is ridiculous because IUD's are not the same as blood transfusions.  The problem is that the reasoning used to deny coverage for EITHER of them is exactly the same.  It could thus be argued that providing exceptions for some religious beliefs and not others is a law respecting an establishment of religion, and would be unconstitutional.

They don't -- and shouldn't -- have the right to inflict their religious beliefs on their employees.  They're a for-profit company; they have to abide by all the rules that every other for-profit company does and shouldn't get to deprive their employees of the rights and protections that employees of any other company enjoy.  Freedom of religion is a shield to protect the deprivation of your own personal religious rights, not a weapon that can be used to interfere with others who are doing things you disagree with.  If you operate a for-profit company you do so with that understanding.  If you can't deal with that, GTFO.
 
Displayed 256 of 256 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report