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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Great, now we have to revisit the whole "religious liberty" thing since Hobby Lobby is getting us one step closer to violating the establishment clause   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 98
    More: Interesting, Hobby Lobby, political animals, Christendom, Washington Monthly, moral relativism, for-profit corporations, Eucharist, liberty  
•       •       •

1849 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2014 at 1:13 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-02 09:43:15 AM  
The what?  There's no "establishment clause" thingy in the copy of the Constitution that Jesus wrote.

Or if there is, it only applies to Christians since this is a Christian nation.

You'll have to forgive me - I have a hard time keeping up with where the goalposts are.  I'm still getting used to the idea that fertilization and birth prevention are abortion now.

I'm sure I'll get there with SCOTUS's considerable help.
 
2014-07-02 10:03:41 AM  
I don't understand this headline.
 
2014-07-02 10:23:29 AM  
If America falls, it will fall because it becomes a theocracy.
 
2014-07-02 11:07:25 AM  
I still don't understand how this situation is different from any other law which is generally applicable and infringes on someone's religious liberty; seems the same to me as forbidding burkas in your drivers license photo.
 
2014-07-02 12:32:34 PM  
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
 
2014-07-02 01:16:00 PM  

Generation_D: If America falls, it will fall because it becomes a theocracy.


led by the worshipers of Mammon.
 
2014-07-02 01:18:29 PM  
All I know is if we're a Christian nation, we should be beating the crap out of bankers.
 
2014-07-02 01:19:28 PM  

Saborlas: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."


When?  It's been here for over a decade and getting worse all the time
 
2014-07-02 01:23:06 PM  

Diogenes: The what?  There's no "establishment clause" thingy in the copy of the Constitution that Jesus wrote.

Or if there is, it only applies to Christians since this is a Christian nation.

You'll have to forgive me - I have a hard time keeping up with where the goalposts are.  I'm still getting used to the idea that fertilization and birth prevention are abortion now.

I'm sure I'll get there with SCOTUS's considerable help.


o.onionstatic.com

"Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."
 
2014-07-02 01:25:04 PM  

Diogenes: The what?  There's no "establishment clause" thingy in the copy of the Constitution that Jesus wrote.

Or if there is, it only applies to Christians since this is a Christian nation.

You'll have to forgive me - I have a hard time keeping up with where the goalposts are.  I'm still getting used to the idea that fertilization and birth prevention are abortion now.

I'm sure I'll get there with SCOTUS's considerable help.


Fun fact:
When Jesus wrote the Constitution, he misspelled "Pennsylvania," along with numerous other typos and grammar mistakes.

We can only conclude that Jesus is stupid.
 
2014-07-02 01:26:36 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Diogenes: The what?  There's no "establishment clause" thingy in the copy of the Constitution that Jesus wrote.

Or if there is, it only applies to Christians since this is a Christian nation.

You'll have to forgive me - I have a hard time keeping up with where the goalposts are.  I'm still getting used to the idea that fertilization and birth prevention are abortion now.

I'm sure I'll get there with SCOTUS's considerable help.

Fun fact:
When Jesus wrote the Constitution, he misspelled "Pennsylvania," along with numerous other typos and grammar mistakes.

We can only conclude that Jesus is stupid.


And just who the hell is "Congref", anyway?
 
2014-07-02 01:26:46 PM  
What witches' brew of JS do I need to allow to read TPM? I've whitelisted everything but the known ad feeders, and all I can see is the masthead.

Same thing happened yesterday. What gives?
 
2014-07-02 01:28:13 PM  
Based on my casual reading of the First Amendment the establishment clause only restricts Congress, not the Supreme Court.

Not sure if that was intentional, and oversight or whether the Framers just didn't anticipate such blatant judicial activism.
 
2014-07-02 01:31:26 PM  
Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.
 
2014-07-02 01:33:21 PM  
They are a 'for profit' business and absolutely must be held to the same standards and adhere to the same regulations and laws that all other 'for profit' businesses are required to follow. The laws of the land are not like a salad bar.
 
2014-07-02 01:34:16 PM  

sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment. The histrionics with this case needs to stop.


Histrionics are an integral part of my religious faith - stop oppressing me, bigot!
 
2014-07-02 01:36:00 PM  

sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.


It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.
 
2014-07-02 01:39:24 PM  
I'm pretty sure they pay taxes that support the military and they didn't object to that, so STFU you cocks.
 
2014-07-02 01:40:37 PM  

DamnYankees: I still don't understand how this situation is different from any other law which is generally applicable and infringes on someone's religious liberty; seems the same to me as forbidding burkas in your drivers license photo.


It's different because this time 5 partisan, ultra-conservatives on a Court said it's different.
 
2014-07-02 01:42:07 PM  

red5ish: The laws of the land are not like a salad bar.


Correct - our laws are clearly missing the sneeze guard, and now they're all disgusting.
 
2014-07-02 01:42:58 PM  

actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.


That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.
 
2014-07-02 01:43:45 PM  

red5ish: They are a 'for profit' business and absolutely must be held to the same standards and adhere to the same regulations and laws that all other 'for profit' businesses are required to follow. The laws of the land are not like a salad bar.


Word.
 
2014-07-02 01:43:58 PM  

actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.


I don't know if I'd call it trolling but more so correcting.  I had a friend who was convinced the supreme court had just outlawed birth control and had others going on about "profits over people."  It was strange.
 
2014-07-02 01:45:53 PM  
Just wait until Hoby Loby starts quarteing thier employees in random peoples houses.... ya who is laughing now.
 
2014-07-02 01:46:12 PM  

Trivia Jockey: DamnYankees: I still don't understand how this situation is different from any other law which is generally applicable and infringes on someone's religious liberty; seems the same to me as forbidding burkas in your drivers license photo.

It's different because this time 5 partisan, ultra-conservatives on a Court said it's different.


It's different because of the RFRA which was enacted in 1993.  Congress could have exempted ACA from RFRA but didn't.  Want to blame anyone, blame the congress for being idiots, not the five justices who went with the standard the congress told them they had to use.

Interesting aside, in Smith v. Employment Division, it was the liberal justices who were demanding the use of strict scrutiny on religious questions and the conservatives who went differently.  My how 21 years and an act of Congress will change things.
 
2014-07-02 01:46:26 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand this headline.


It's a bit of a trolltastic headline.

But one of the author's key points is that Hobby Lobby's owners would, as evangelical Christian conservatives, have the government dictate that you cannot use contraception, and especially contraception that they weirdly equate with abortion.1 They are theocratic tyrants who want to forcibly impose their religious will on the nation. Yet they now claim a right to be exempted from generally applicable laws that violate their selective, dishonest, and hypocritically asserted religious views.

In a similar discussion yesterday, an ideologically conservative farker proposed a government test of religious faith for Sikhs claiming a RFRA right to exemption from felony laws against carrying long knives. He argued that if they failed to obey all doctrines of Sikh faith, they shouldn't be permitted to claim RFRA exemption because, he said, their faith was "insincere."

I agree with this approach.

Now it is time to examine the Hobby Lobby owners' lives, to find out if any of them have had premarital sex, extramarital sex, masturbated, purchased or intentionally viewed pornography, failed to tithe, obtained a divorce, remarried after their partner obtained a divorce, failed to sacrifice for Lent, eaten a hot dog on a Friday, or used or use birth control. If they have, their faith should likewise be called "insincere," and they should be denied RFRA exemption.

I have a feeling though, that this Farker will have some extended rationalization for why it's appropriate to call a Sikh's faith insincere because he cuts his hair short, but not okay to call a Catholic's faith insincere because he fails to abide Catholic doctrine.

I can't wait to hear it.

1 If you doubt this, see the 2012 Republican primary, where Mitt Romney was pulled so far to the right to appease Catholic voters that he announced his intention to roll back Supreme Court cases guaranteeing the rightS to purchase and use contraception.
 
2014-07-02 01:46:45 PM  

sprgrss: I had a friend who was convinced the supreme court had just outlawed birth control and had others going on about "profits over people."


Well, that may not be totally off base.  A big part of me thinks the Hobby Lobby challenge wasn't  entirely about religious freedom, but was also about an attack on the ACA because companies like HL don't want to pay more for their employees' health care.  If they can avoid paying for contraception, good.
 
2014-07-02 01:46:48 PM  

qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.


And that is relevant because?
 
2014-07-02 01:48:26 PM  

sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?


Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.
 
2014-07-02 01:49:15 PM  

sprgrss: It's different because of the RFRA which was enacted in 1993. Congress could have exempted ACA from RFRA but didn't. Want to blame anyone, blame the congress for being idiots, not the five justices who went with the standard the congress told them they had to use.


That's a bit of a cop-out.  (that's directed at the Court, not you)

Yes, technically this was a decision based on the RFRA, but all that means is that strict scrutiny was applied to the contraception mandate.  So even though they were correct to apply strict scrutiny to the contraception mandate, that mandate should have easily passed strict scrutiny.  The completely bonkers aspect of the opinion was in how they determined the mandate didn't pass that test.
 
2014-07-02 01:51:38 PM  

qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?

Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.


40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush
 
2014-07-02 01:53:16 PM  

Trivia Jockey: sprgrss: It's different because of the RFRA which was enacted in 1993. Congress could have exempted ACA from RFRA but didn't. Want to blame anyone, blame the congress for being idiots, not the five justices who went with the standard the congress told them they had to use.

That's a bit of a cop-out.  (that's directed at the Court, not you)

Yes, technically this was a decision based on the RFRA, but all that means is that strict scrutiny was applied to the contraception mandate.  So even though they were correct to apply strict scrutiny to the contraception mandate, that mandate should have easily passed strict scrutiny.  The completely bonkers aspect of the opinion was in how they determined the mandate didn't pass that test.


It didn't pass strict scrutiny because there were more narrowly tailored means for the government to provide the healthcare coverage that did not involve the religious beliefs of the owner of Hobby Lobby.  For instance, the very same opt-out mechanism that is available to religious charities and institutions.  The government could extend that opt-out mechanism to those closely held private companies that do not want to provide coverage for certain contraceptives.
 
2014-07-02 01:55:10 PM  

qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.


But aren't they all asking to be rid only of the meddlesome sluts and their 365-pills-per-year sex addictions?

AFAIK, no one's yet asked to be able to opt-out of paying for blood/plasma transfusions or pork-related products (the two I keep seeing) yet.

// "yet", but who wants to be the first company to be on-record opposing blood transfusions?
// it'll stay with contraception/"abortion", and maybe creep into end-of-life care (because birth and death are the only times the religious Christian lobby fights for anything)
 
2014-07-02 01:55:22 PM  

Trivia Jockey: sprgrss: It's different because of the RFRA which was enacted in 1993. Congress could have exempted ACA from RFRA but didn't. Want to blame anyone, blame the congress for being idiots, not the five justices who went with the standard the congress told them they had to use.

That's a bit of a cop-out.  (that's directed at the Court, not you)

Yes, technically this was a decision based on the RFRA, but all that means is that strict scrutiny was applied to the contraception mandate.  So even though they were correct to apply strict scrutiny to the contraception mandate, that mandate should have easily passed strict scrutiny.  The completely bonkers aspect of the opinion was in how they determined the mandate didn't pass that test.


Is it the least restrictive action that can be done to allow the govt to perform their interest of aiding in the health and wellbeing of people in relation to contraceptives.
 
2014-07-02 01:55:42 PM  

sprgrss: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?

Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.

40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush


Oh? How many were there before the decision? 1 to 40 in one day most certainly counds as a "sudden rush".
 
2014-07-02 01:58:06 PM  

qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?

Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.

40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush

Oh? How many were there before the decision? 1 to 40 in one day most certainly counds as a "sudden rush".


If these trends continue... EHHHHHH!!
 
2014-07-02 01:58:09 PM  

sprgrss: Interesting aside, in Smith v. Employment Division, it was the liberal justices who were demanding the use of strict scrutiny on religious questions and the conservatives who went differently. My how 21 years and an act of Congress will change things.


None of the three dissenters from Employment Division v. Smith are on the court today. Liberal Justice Stevens was on the court at the time: he voted with the majority.
 
2014-07-02 01:58:19 PM  

Baz744: In a similar discussion yesterday, an ideologically conservative farker proposed a government test of religious faith for Sikhs claiming a RFRA right to exemption from felony laws against carrying long knives. He argued that if they failed to obey all doctrines of Sikh faith, they shouldn't be permitted to claim RFRA exemption because, he said, their faith was "insincere."

I agree with this approach.

Now it is time to examine the Hobby Lobby owners' lives, to find out if any of them have had premarital sex, extramarital sex, masturbated, purchased or intentionally viewed pornography, failed to tithe, obtained a divorce, remarried after their partner obtained a divorce, failed to sacrifice for Lent, eaten a hot dog on a Friday, or used or use birth control. If they have, their faith should likewise be called "insincere," and they should be denied RFRA exemption.


No, the time to do that was in arguments before SCOTUS. Instead, our Solicitor accepted without argument HL's argument that their opposition to what HL calls "abortion" (and what medical science calls "contraception") is a "sincerely-held belief".

THAT, as several of Fark's legal counsel (not me) have pointed out, was where the USG lost this case; and that is the legal ground where all future challenges will be argued.
 
2014-07-02 01:59:07 PM  

Baz744: DamnYankees: I don't understand this headline.

It's a bit of a trolltastic headline.

But one of the author's key points is that Hobby Lobby's owners would, as evangelical Christian conservatives, have the government dictate that you cannot use contraception, and especially contraception that they weirdly equate with abortion.1 They are theocratic tyrants who want to forcibly impose their religious will on the nation. Yet they now claim a right to be exempted from generally applicable laws that violate their selective, dishonest, and hypocritically asserted religious views.

In a similar discussion yesterday, an ideologically conservative farker proposed a government test of religious faith for Sikhs claiming a RFRA right to exemption from felony laws against carrying long knives. He argued that if they failed to obey all doctrines of Sikh faith, they shouldn't be permitted to claim RFRA exemption because, he said, their faith was "insincere."

I agree with this approach.

Now it is time to examine the Hobby Lobby owners' lives, to find out if any of them have had premarital sex, extramarital sex, masturbated, purchased or intentionally viewed pornography, failed to tithe, obtained a divorce, remarried after their partner obtained a divorce, failed to sacrifice for Lent, eaten a hot dog on a Friday, or used or use birth control. If they have, their faith should likewise be called "insincere," and they should be denied RFRA exemption.

I have a feeling though, that this Farker will have some extended rationalization for why it's appropriate to call a Sikh's faith insincere because he cuts his hair short, but not okay to call a Catholic's faith insincere because he fails to abide Catholic doctrine.

I can't wait to hear it.

1 If you doubt this, see the 2012 Republican primary, where Mitt Romney was pulled so far to the right to appease Catholic voters that he announced his intention to roll back Supreme Court cases guaranteeing the rightS to purchase and use contraception.


Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Catholic women admit to using some sort of birth control at some point
 
2014-07-02 02:00:24 PM  

sprgrss: It didn't pass strict scrutiny because there were more narrowly tailored means for the government to provide the healthcare coverage that did not involve the religious beliefs of the owner of Hobby Lobby. For instance, the very same opt-out mechanism that is available to religious charities and institutions. The government could extend that opt-out mechanism to those closely held private companies that do not want to provide coverage for certain contraceptives.


I disagree.

Recall the elements of the test:

1)  The law has to substantially burden someone's exercise of their religion
2)  The law has to further a compelling government interest
3)  The law has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest
4)  The law has to be the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest

At a minimum, I think Hobby Lobby's argument easily fails the first element.  Because the law (a) affects only Hobby Lobby the corporation, (b) does not affect whether or not the Green family uses contraception, and (c) only comes into play when HL employees who happen to be covered under HL's health care plan choose to get contraception, it's not a substantially burdening the Green family's exercise of their religion.

A for-profit corporation's employees obtaining contraception from a third party is just way too remote for me to ever believe that the corporation's owners' exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.
 
2014-07-02 02:00:48 PM  

sprgrss: 40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush


Really?  That's what you're going with?
 
2014-07-02 02:00:51 PM  

Saiga410: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?

Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.

40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush

Oh? How many were there before the decision? 1 to 40 in one day most certainly counds as a "sudden rush".

If these trends continue... EHHHHHH!!


Right, because what I did was extrapolate a long-term trend instead of pointing out that available data does in fact indicate a sudden rush of similar court proceedings.
 
2014-07-02 02:02:42 PM  

Saiga410: Is it the least restrictive action that can be done to allow the govt to perform their interest of aiding in the health and wellbeing of people in relation to contraceptives.


In my opinion, yes.  It's not really restrictive at all.  It's not like the Green family is forced to personally hand out an IUD to every employee walking in the door.
 
2014-07-02 02:03:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: No, the time to do that was in arguments before SCOTUS. Instead, our Solicitor accepted without argument HL's argument that their opposition to what HL calls "abortion" (and what medical science calls "contraception") is a "sincerely-held belief".

THAT, as several of Fark's legal counsel (not me) have pointed out, was where the USG lost this case; and that is the legal ground where all future challenges will be argued.


Fair point. But you're overlooking my goal incite conservative poutrage at the notion of a government test of religious faith being applied to them, when they really only mean it to apply to other faiths than mainstream Christianity.
 
2014-07-02 02:08:15 PM  

zarberg: Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Catholic women admit to using some sort of birth control at some point


I can't wait to hear the right-wing poutrage when a government lawyer deposes a Catholic corporation's owners on questions relating to their sex lives, use of birth control, masturbatory habits, etc. I'll laugh out loud when they assert, without the slightest hint of irony, that these matters are "private," and "none of the government's business." Because, after all, a corporation should have the right to impose its insincerely advanced religious views on its employees without interference from the government.
 
2014-07-02 02:08:54 PM  

qorkfiend: Saiga410: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?

Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.

40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush

Oh? How many were there before the decision? 1 to 40 in one day most certainly counds as a "sudden rush".

If these trends continue... EHHHHHH!!

Right, because what I did was extrapolate a long-term trend instead of pointing out that available data does in fact indicate a sudden rush of similar court proceedings.


No, but you did intimate that these 40 cases suddenly sprung up after this ruling.  Oh? How many were there before the decision? 1 to 40 in one day

Which, you know, isn't true.
 
2014-07-02 02:10:06 PM  

Saiga410: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: sprgrss: qorkfiend: actualhuman: sprgrss: Hobby Lobby did nothing to effectuate for or against establishment.

The histrionics with this case needs to stop.

It's really annoying when you have to troll people you basically agree with, isn't it?

Spent a good chunk of last night trying to convince a friend that, no, there's not going to be a sudden rush of Come To Jesus moments on Wall St. after this.

That must be why there are already over 40 companies seeking religious exemptions to various mandates. Nope, certainly no rush to take advantage of the ruling.

And that is relevant because?

Because I was responding to a post that was dismissing a "sudden rush" based off this decision? Surely your reading comprehension skills can't be that lacking.

40 companies out of the untold masses does not create a sudden rush

Oh? How many were there before the decision? 1 to 40 in one day most certainly counds as a "sudden rush".

If these trends continue... EHHHHHH!!


I think it's silly to assume there won't be future challenges that attempt to call on this ruling as precedent.

I am quite sure that when push comes to shove, it *will* be cited as precedent.  Cause that's how this kind of shiat works.
 
2014-07-02 02:15:31 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Saiga410: Is it the least restrictive action that can be done to allow the govt to perform their interest of aiding in the health and wellbeing of people in relation to contraceptives.

In my opinion, yes.  It's not really restrictive at all.  It's not like the Green family is forced to personally hand out an IUD to every employee walking in the door.


Kennedy wrote that taxing people to pay for birth control is somehow less restrictive than the employer mandate. Yet an employer can avoid the mandate by simply not hiring employees. He can get a regular job like everyone else, or reduce his operations so he can run his business himself.

By contrast, until RFRA is extended to exempt people from paying taxes they don't like (not out of the question with these theocrats on the court), taxpayers can't avoid having their tax dollars used to pay for birth control period.

Disingenuous opinion is disingenuous.
 
2014-07-02 02:15:50 PM  

Trivia Jockey: sprgrss: It didn't pass strict scrutiny because there were more narrowly tailored means for the government to provide the healthcare coverage that did not involve the religious beliefs of the owner of Hobby Lobby. For instance, the very same opt-out mechanism that is available to religious charities and institutions. The government could extend that opt-out mechanism to those closely held private companies that do not want to provide coverage for certain contraceptives.

I disagree.

Recall the elements of the test:

1)  The law has to substantially burden someone's exercise of their religion
2)  The law has to further a compelling government interest
3)  The law has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest
4)  The law has to be the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest

At a minimum, I think Hobby Lobby's argument easily fails the first element.  Because the law (a) affects only Hobby Lobby the corporation, (b) does not affect whether or not the Green family uses contraception, and (c) only comes into play when HL employees who happen to be covered under HL's health care plan choose to get contraception, it's not a substantially burdening the Green family's exercise of their religion.

A for-profit corporation's employees obtaining contraception from a third party is just way too remote for me to ever believe that the corporation's owners' exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.


It fails the 4th prong as demonstrated by the fact that there is already an opt out mechanism that still allows for the employees to receive contraceptive coverage at no added cost to the employees.

As for the 1st prong it is met.  Hobby Lobby is a closely held private company with very few owners.  Those owners are readily identifiable and the actions of the company are very easily imputed to the owners themselves.
 
2014-07-02 02:16:58 PM  

Baz744: Trivia Jockey: Saiga410: Is it the least restrictive action that can be done to allow the govt to perform their interest of aiding in the health and wellbeing of people in relation to contraceptives.

In my opinion, yes.  It's not really restrictive at all.  It's not like the Green family is forced to personally hand out an IUD to every employee walking in the door.

Kennedy wrote that taxing people to pay for birth control is somehow less restrictive than the employer mandate. Yet an employer can avoid the mandate by simply not hiring employees. He can get a regular job like everyone else, or reduce his operations so he can run his business himself.

By contrast, until RFRA is extended to exempt people from paying taxes they don't like (not out of the question with these theocrats on the court), taxpayers can't avoid having their tax dollars used to pay for birth control period.

Disingenuous opinion is disingenuous.


You grossly misunderstand RFRA.  It's a silly law, but at least argue from reality please.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report