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.

(Politico)   Everybody get your popcorn, we could have a Hobby Lobby knobby-slobby ruling today   (politico.com) divider line 168
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3621 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2014 at 2:59 PM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-16 01:35:30 PM
..or not.

SCOTUS loves the drama.  Will probably release the decision on Hobby Lobby on the last day of the session.

37.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-16 02:17:08 PM

haemaker: SCOTUS loves the drama. Will probably release the decision on Hobby Lobby on the last day of the session.


They tend to leave the closest decisions for later in the session; it seems likely in part to allow the wavering justices as much time as possible to change their mind, and in part so they can be on a plane out of the country before the press make their way through to the end of the syllabus.
 
2014-06-16 03:03:09 PM
Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.
 
2014-06-16 03:03:25 PM
If you ask the government to create an entirely new fictional person to take the blame for you if something goes wrong, you don't get to also give that fictional person all of your rights. It's pretty simple.
 
2014-06-16 03:05:17 PM

Lord Dimwit: If you ask the government to create an entirely new fictional person to take the blame for you if something goes wrong, you don't get to also give that fictional person all of your rights. It's pretty simple.


Well if that fictional person is being given all the responsibility, I think it's only fair if it gets the same rights as everyone else.
 
2014-06-16 03:05:40 PM
No you can't.  Decisions have been annouced, starting at 10 am.  Do this early Thursday, though.
 
2014-06-16 03:05:49 PM
Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.
 
2014-06-16 03:06:29 PM

The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.


I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.
 
2014-06-16 03:06:43 PM
Don't touch that knobby!
 
2014-06-16 03:08:11 PM

timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.


You joke, but this sort of thing could come up for real if, say, a "Jehovah's Witness Company" denied covering blood transfusions to its employees.
 
2014-06-16 03:08:30 PM

timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.


My religion says taxes are a tool of the devil.  Paying them is the greatest evil known to it.
 
2014-06-16 03:09:44 PM
SCOTUSblog says they're all done for the day. http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__Ju n e_16_2014?Page=1, 9:13AM post
 
2014-06-16 03:10:00 PM
They're building a huge museum dedicated to the Bible a few blocks from the Mall in Washington, D.C., with as much public space as the National Museum of American History

Oh, I can't wait for the David Slingshot exhibit and the VR dome that gives believers a chance to turn some sodomites into salt!

/this is why we can't have nice things
 
2014-06-16 03:10:40 PM
I think their customer base has made their decision about them already, at least around here they have. Every one of those stores that popped up around here were always packed until they started talking all of that crazy stuff. Now they have been shutting down left and right.
 
2014-06-16 03:11:02 PM

meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.


Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.
/If it were simple, it wouldn't have gotten this far.
 
2014-06-16 03:11:47 PM

ongbok: I think their customer base has made their decision about them already, at least around here they have. Every one of those stores that popped up around here were always packed until they started talking all of that crazy stuff. Now they have been shutting down left and right.


Personally I like Michael's better, but it's not quite the same market.
 
2014-06-16 03:12:03 PM

timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.


JW boss? Blood transfusions not covered.
Mormon/muslim boss? Alcoholism treatments not covered.
Scientology boss? Antidepressants and psychiatry visits not covered.
Pentecostal boss? Snakebite treatment not covered.
Christian scientist boss? Nothing covered.
 
2014-06-16 03:12:53 PM

Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.

Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.
/If it were simple, it wouldn't have gotten this far.


Especially when you consider those beliefs are entirely personal and have no foundation in the Bible.
 
2014-06-16 03:14:08 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.


If it was the owners' money that was being used, you might have a point. However, it's not. It's the company's money, because the owners have deliberately incorporated for the express purpose of legally separating themselves from the company.

Why does everyone seem to think that the company is equivalent to the owners, when that's not even remotely true?
 
2014-06-16 03:14:48 PM

timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.


So...a Christian Scientist based company?
 
2014-06-16 03:15:06 PM

meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.


it's a weirder question than that, since it's fundamentally a question of 'is obamacare an unreasonable compulsion on person (in this case a for-profit corporation) to engage in activity that is against their religious beliefs' with obvious supporting questions like 'are for-profit corporations 'persons' in this context', 'can for-profit corporations hold religious beliefs', and 'is this compulsion unreasonable'

has very little to do with the corporation-employee relationship
 
2014-06-16 03:15:55 PM

miss diminutive: They're building a huge museum dedicated to the Bible a few blocks from the Mall in Washington, D.C., with as much public space as the National Museum of American History

Oh, I can't wait for the David Slingshot exhibit and the VR dome that gives believers a chance to turn some sodomites into salt!

/this is why we can't have nice things


Annndd... why should we care?  It's not on the Mall.  If they're spending their money to build it on private land, who gives a shiat?  This is analogous to the "Ground Zero Mosque."  It's not next to the place, it's being paid for with mostly private funds, and more than likely there's something much like it closer to the "hallowed ground."  As long as they follow the same process and file the same permits as everyone else, why should we give a shiat?
 
2014-06-16 03:15:55 PM

qorkfiend: Galloping Galoshes: Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.

If it was the owners' money that was being used, you might have a point. However, it's not. It's the company's money, because the owners have deliberately incorporated for the express purpose of legally separating themselves from the company.

Why does everyone seem to think that the company is equivalent to the owners, when that's not even remotely true?


Because they're religious and conservative, and by that very fact are gullible and stupid and fall prey to all sorts of magical thinking and logical fallacies.
 
2014-06-16 03:16:01 PM

Lord Dimwit: timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.

You joke, but this sort of thing could come up for real if, say, a "Jehovah's Witness Company" denied covering blood transfusions to its employees.


I'm a Christian Scientist. My company's health insurance is keeping the staff of a retreat on permanent retainer to begin praying for you if you take ill.  I don't understand why the government feels we have to follow everyone else's beliefs.
 
2014-06-16 03:16:06 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.

Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.
/If it were simple, it wouldn't have gotten this far.

Especially when you consider those beliefs are entirely personal and have no foundation in the Bible.


Sure they're personal, but if every person believed them, like they should since this is a Christian Nation obviously, then it's no problem! Q.E.D., Ipso Facto, Checkmate Libs.
 
2014-06-16 03:16:07 PM

Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.

Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.
/If it were simple, it wouldn't have gotten this far.


They are free to practice their religion however they wish. They do not get to take advantage and protections of laws of incorporation but fail to follow the rules because Jesus.
 
2014-06-16 03:16:39 PM

Delta1212: Lord Dimwit: If you ask the government to create an entirely new fictional person to take the blame for you if something goes wrong, you don't get to also give that fictional person all of your rights. It's pretty simple.

Well if that fictional person is being given all the responsibility, I think it's only fair if it gets the same rights as everyone else.


was does "all the responsibility" mean here?
 
2014-06-16 03:19:01 PM

palelizard: Lord Dimwit: timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.

You joke, but this sort of thing could come up for real if, say, a "Jehovah's Witness Company" denied covering blood transfusions to its employees.

I'm a Christian Scientist. My company's health insurance is keeping the staff of a retreat on permanent retainer to begin praying for you if you take ill.  I don't understand why the government feels we have to follow everyone else's beliefs.


Is there something in law that precludes Christian Scientists from keeping the staff of a retreat on permanent retainer to pray for you?
 
2014-06-16 03:20:35 PM

qorkfiend: Galloping Galoshes: Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.

If it was the owners' money that was being used, you might have a point. However, it's not. It's the company's money, because the owners have deliberately incorporated for the express purpose of legally separating themselves from the company.

Why does everyone seem to think that the company is equivalent to the owners, when that's not even remotely true?


One can only hope this is the ruling. It won't be, of course.  But it's logical and coherent and exactly the kind of unintended consequences I delight in seeing.
 
2014-06-16 03:20:50 PM

Lord Dimwit: timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.

You joke, but this sort of thing could come up for real if, say, a "Jehovah's Witness Company" denied covering blood transfusions to its employees.


Not so much a joke as a it was an attempt at a dramatic counterpoint to The_Forensicator's apparent lack of understanding of the implications of the case.  Wondering now if it was just a troll, though... I frequently error on the wrong side of Poe's Law.
 
2014-06-16 03:21:11 PM

max_pooper: They are free to practice their religion however they wish. They do not get to take advantage and protections of laws of incorporation but fail to follow the rules because Jesus.


Unfortunately, the statue at issue, as written doesn't agree with that sentiment.

1) Long precedent shows that incorporated entities can seek (and have sought) protection under the old pre-Employment Division reading of the Free Exercise clause

2) the text of RFRA and the Dictionary act pretty much explicitly state that corporations are protected under the RFRA
 
2014-06-16 03:21:23 PM

Lord Dimwit: timujin: The_Forensicator: Seems fairly clear Hobby Lobby should prevail here, but with SCOTUS who the heck can tell.

I'm going to start a company and, based on my religious views, determine that I don't want to have to pay for cancer medicine.  I believe cancer is god's way of telling you you've been bad, so treating it is tantamount to blasphemy.

You joke, but this sort of thing could come up for real if, say, a "Jehovah's Witness Company" denied covering blood transfusions to its employees.


Something like that hypothetical came up during the case, Hobby Lobby's lawyer suggested it would best be sorted out on a case-by-case basis rather than grouping all exemptions for medical coverage in together under a single ruling.
 
2014-06-16 03:21:53 PM
I love this headline long time.
 
2014-06-16 03:21:54 PM

max_pooper: Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.

Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.
/If it were simple, it wouldn't have gotten this far.

They are free to practice their religion however they wish. They do not get to take advantage and protections of laws of incorporation but fail to follow the rules because Jesus.


I'd be more open to it if incorporation as a construct did not exist.  If you were personally liable for your company, then maybe I'd be okay with you forcing your employees to pray a certain way, or whatever.  But if you're going to isolate yourself from your company, then you don't get to half-ass it.
 
2014-06-16 03:22:03 PM
I'm not outraged!

/give me time

 
2014-06-16 03:22:05 PM
I also find it funny that Hobby Lobby's employee health insurance plan - the one that they set up themselves and paid for - has always covered birth control.
 
2014-06-16 03:23:06 PM
"This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught."


 Most of that ignorance seems to come from people who already claim to be devout Christians and/or the Republican Party.
 
2014-06-16 03:23:14 PM

Teiritzamna: max_pooper: They are free to practice their religion however they wish. They do not get to take advantage and protections of laws of incorporation but fail to follow the rules because Jesus.

Unfortunately, the statue at issue, as written doesn't agree with that sentiment.

1) Long precedent shows that incorporated entities can seek (and have sought) protection under the old pre-Employment Division reading of the Free Exercise clause

2) the text of RFRA and the Dictionary act pretty much explicitly state that corporations are protected under the RFRA


I suspect that much of the delay - though I suppose it's not really a delay - is to get the Court some time to strike a balance that doesn't open this absurd can of worms, but also doesn't invalidate the RFRA. It's going to be a tough line to walk.
 
2014-06-16 03:23:44 PM
I'm starting a religion that doesn't agree with any form of medical treatment.

Your company can join my religion for the low, low price of $79.95 per employee that you want to dick over.
 
2014-06-16 03:24:08 PM

Lord Dimwit: I also find it funny that Hobby Lobby's employee health insurance plan - the one that they set up themselves and paid for - has always covered birth control.


Well, the president hasn't always been a black Democrat.
 
2014-06-16 03:24:10 PM

qorkfiend: Is there something in law that precludes Christian Scientists from keeping the staff of a retreat on permanent retainer to pray for you?


It was a joke on CS's not believing in any kind of actual medicine, though several others beat me to it.
 
2014-06-16 03:24:33 PM
They don't even have to pay anything extra, from what I remember.

Contraception coverage should actually lower costs and insurance premiums.

If they were in a bubble and demanding a plan that didn't cover contraception then their prices would actually go up.

They are arguing for the right to force their religious beliefs on employees. That's all that's left when money is out of the picture.
 
2014-06-16 03:26:13 PM

palelizard: One can only hope this is the ruling. It won't be, of course. But it's logical and coherent and exactly the kind of unintended consequences I delight in seeing.


It actually isnt about imputing a religious belief from the owners per se - it is about the religious beliefs of the corporation itself.  Which i know is a crazy idea, but as noted above, incorporated entities have long been able to bring suits for protection of their own free exercise in the past.  That is in fact why the government has such a hard row to hoe here, there is lots of evidence that corporations can have religious beliefs, but the issue is whether for-profit corporations re inherently barred from such protections, which as noted, is a distinction that doesn't exist in the statue at issue.

Additionally, the fact that the government waived arguments about HL's sincerity of belief means their arguments are even harder to make.
 
2014-06-16 03:26:23 PM

palelizard: qorkfiend: Is there something in law that precludes Christian Scientists from keeping the staff of a retreat on permanent retainer to pray for you?

It was a joke on CS's not believing in any kind of actual medicine, though several others beat me to it.


Oh, my bad. It's so hard to tell these days.
 
2014-06-16 03:26:57 PM

Dog Welder: "This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught."


 Most of that ignorance seems to come from people who already claim to be devout Christians and/or the Republican Party.


I've recently been trying to decide which disturbs me more, people who claim to be Christian but don't really know what the Bible says or people who know what the Bible says and still want to be Christian.
 
2014-06-16 03:27:35 PM

Galloping Galoshes: meat0918: Seems fairly certain a corporation doesn't have the right to enforce it's religious beliefs on its employees, but I'm not a reactionary Catholic SCOTUS judge.

Or, the government doesn't have the right to tell a corporation's owners that they have to compromise their religious beliefs.
/If it were simple, it wouldn't have gotten this far.


Actually, it just means one of the parties involved has money to throw at this to get it to the Supreme Court, AND that they did not accept the answers of the lower courts.
 
2014-06-16 03:27:50 PM

Summoner101: miss diminutive: They're building a huge museum dedicated to the Bible a few blocks from the Mall in Washington, D.C., with as much public space as the National Museum of American History

Oh, I can't wait for the David Slingshot exhibit and the VR dome that gives believers a chance to turn some sodomites into salt!

/this is why we can't have nice things

Annndd... why should we care?  It's not on the Mall.  If they're spending their money to build it on private land, who gives a shiat?  This is analogous to the "Ground Zero Mosque."  It's not next to the place, it's being paid for with mostly private funds, and more than likely there's something much like it closer to the "hallowed ground."  As long as they follow the same process and file the same permits as everyone else, why should we give a shiat?


I'm not implying that they shouldn't be allowed to build it (which was the case in some of the "Ground Zero Mosque" arguments). I'm wondering how would someone build a museum, which is meant for the collection and preservation of cultural, scientific, historical or artistic artifacts, around a book for which there is none of the above.

Should we give a shiat? No. Does this make much sense? No.
 
2014-06-16 03:28:00 PM

timujin: Dog Welder: "This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught."


 Most of that ignorance seems to come from people who already claim to be devout Christians and/or the Republican Party.

I've recently been trying to decide which disturbs me more, people who claim to be Christian but don't really know what the Bible says or people who know what the Bible says and still want to be Christian.


I think the worst are the people who selectively quote and twist the meaning of the supposedly inviolate Word of God, like the Dominionists or the adherents of the Prosperity Gospel.
 
2014-06-16 03:28:11 PM

GhostFish: They are arguing for the right to force their religious beliefs on employees. That's all that's left when money is out of the picture.


well remember, the employees have no rights at play here - the question is whether a corporation can be forced to do something by the feds that that corporation doesn't want to do.  We solved this problem in Employment Division v, Smith - ane then the Congress passed RFRA to overturn that decision, leading to this present shiatshow.
 
2014-06-16 03:30:26 PM
qorkfiend:Why does everyone seem to think that the company is equivalent to the owners, when that's not even remotely true?

Common sense?  A basic understanding of words?

Why hang on your hat on this absurd position, when you could just as easily point out that sole proprietors are not exempt from the law?
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report