Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Regnad Kcin]

I think I've finally found in Hobby Lobby a business worth boycotting.

Well, you're only denying yourself access to aisles upon aisles of cheap Chinese crap.

 

[maxpower1227]

I like the sound of "Lobby Lobby". That should henceforth be the collective name given to all of the Religious Right organizations that lobby the government to support their theocratic views.

 

[Kestrel]

Hobby Lobby provides contraceptive coverage, and will continue to do so, as far as I know.

IIRC, they just didn't want to provide the few types that they believe cause abortions.

That is, they didn't want to participate in abortions.

The fact that science has shown that these contraception methods don't cause abortions does not matter. The voice in their head trumps science.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just to expand a little on this, Alito made sure to note that this ruling didn't extend to those other crazy religions that ban blood transfusions, just our, nice, rational religion banning the slut pills. But why? Why would it be bad to "live your values" when it comes to vaccines or blood transfusions or even doctors at all instead of faith healers?

The answer is that this group of five starts with a conclusion and works the law to justify it. Just as in Bush v. Gore where the made pains to declare the decision as not precedent, here they also carved out a narrow class of religious extremists who get extra deference. Is this why the right is so scared of Shariah law? Is it because they want the right to dictate based on their religion all to themselves?

This decision is not surprising but it is disgusting all the same.

WTF why isn't it precedent setting? What kind of lame BS is that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe not that exact.

Far be it from me to question the legal minds on your Facebook feed, but here's a passage from the ruling itself:

In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.​

[Emphasis mine.]

Thus five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. It seems clear that--contra your FB feed--they see this not as a question of whether you're a church or not, but whether you have a basic right to operate your business in a manner consistent with your beliefs.

I haven't read the dissent yet, so I don't know if the other four Justices disagree on this point, or if they agree with this point and are dissenting from the majority opinion on other grounds.













I also have to admit that I find the idea of adjudicating all our major legal disputes by sampling Facebook feeds kind of amusing, in an Idiocracy sort of way.

Yea like if you don't want to promote women for religious reasons you don't have to. The bible is clear on women in authority and Damon them for trying to force them to violate their religious beliefs with this BS anti discrimination scrap.

 

[Upchurch]

SCOTUS rules in favor of Lobby Lobby

Actually, I'm all in favor of boycotting Lobby Lobby on principle alone

 

[Upchurch]

WTF why isn't it precedent setting? What kind of lame BS is that?

I view it as slapping someone and then yelling "NO TAG BACKS!" as you run away.

 

[sunmaster14]

Here's the decision itself, including the dissenting opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Are there specific points of law that you disagree with? Are there specific points of the dissent that you find to closely match your own analysis?

It's doubtful that any of those who have weighed in so far have even tried to read the decision. I've skimmed through it. The opinion strikes me as reasonable and persuasive. The dissent looks completely unhinged at times, and for the most part it engages in hypertechnical analysis of the legislative history and context of the RFRA rather than accepting the plain language of the statute.

By the way, if the geniuses who drafted the ACA had thought to add a single clause to the effect that "the RFRA notwithstanding, HHS is authorized to impose mandates on employer-provided health insurance it deems necessary for the common good ...", all of this nonsense could have been avoided.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's doubtful that any of those who have weighed in so far have even tried to read the decision. I've skimmed through it. The opinion strikes me as reasonable and persuasive. The dissent looks completely unhinged at times, and for the most part it engages in hypertechnical analysis of the legislative history and context of the RFRA rather than accepting the plain language of the statute.

By the way, if the geniuses who drafted the ACA had thought to add a single clause to the effect that "the RFRA notwithstanding, HHS is authorized to impose mandates on employer-provided health insurance it deems necessary for the common good ...", all of this nonsense could have been avoided.

So if it so clear and reasonable why limit it instead of making it precedent setting? That way you can invalidate all kinds of times we force companies to act against their personal beliefs.

 

[sunmaster14]

WTF why isn't it precedent setting? What kind of lame BS is that?

If you and Unabogie would bother to read the opinion, you would both have your answer.

But to save you the trouble it's because the RFRA, the statute at issue here (the Court did not reach any Constitutional issues), requires a weighing of equities on a case by case basis. The government is supposed to enact its laws for the common good in such a way that it infringes on religious freedoms as little as possible. If there is a less restrictive way of accomplishing the same goals, the government must take that alternative path.

In fact, one of the reasons why the majority didn't accept HHS's arguments that the contraception mandate was so important that there was no other way to accomplish the same goal is that HHS actually did implement a less restrictive policy for other kinds of institutions, specifically non-profit religiously affiliated institutions.

 

[Beerina]

The fact that science has shown that these contraception methods don't cause abortions does not matter. The voice in their head trumps science.

They believe life begins at fertilization. These drugs prevent embedding of same in the wall of the uterus. Therefore it ends a life, which is against their religion.

Yes, they do have unscientific voices in their head. But if you don't like protection of that, feel free to repeal the law in question, or the first amendment.

Before you do though, recall they exist to stop one religion from dominating others through government. It seems like it's working.

Good.

 

[xjx388]

This decision jibes with my reading of the Constitution. It kind of scares me that 4 judges disagreed. How can they read it so differently than I do?

Mind you, I am not religious. I just support other people's ability to exercise their religion as laid out in the Constitution. I think any unbiased reading of the Constitution and judicial precedent would come to the same conclusion.

 

[Beerina]

Yea like if you don't want to promote women for religious reasons you don't have to. The bible is clear on women in authority and Damon them for trying to force them to violate their religious beliefs with this BS anti discrimination scrap.

So much hyperventillation on this. The real battle was fought 40+ years ago with rulings people have a right to contraception, and correctly so

Shifting that to the paid provisioning of same, and likening them as the same struggle is intellectually vapid, and a grotesque demonstration of the quasi-religion of no religion attempting to hold sway over religion, to the memetic dominance level of intruding back up the pipe into religion itself.

To reduce the hot air, in summary, the government via the previous law for religious restoration, and many states, specifically call out the right to pursue profit in a corporation according to your religious beliefs.

If you do not like it, support politicians this fall who loudly trumpet they wish to reverse all this legislation and specifically forbid religious owners from following their religious beliefs as they pursue a living to put food on their table.

Make sure these politicians loudly and clearly specify this as the election approaches.

 

[Unabogie]

If you and Unabogie would bother to read the opinion, you would both have your answer.

But to save you the trouble it's because the RFRA, the statute at issue here (the Court did not reach any Constitutional issues), requires a weighing of equities on a case by case basis. The government is supposed to enact its laws for the common good in such a way that it infringes on religious freedoms as little as possible. If there is a less restrictive way of accomplishing the same goals, the government must take that alternative path.

In fact, one of the reasons why the majority didn't accept HHS's arguments that the contraception mandate was so important that there was no other way to accomplish the same goal is that HHS actually did implement a less restrictive policy for other kinds of institutions, specifically non-profit religiously affiliated institutions.

Actually we're well aware of conservatives' ability to shoehorn preferred conclusions into specious arguments. But I'm glad you've analyzed the entire decision just by "skimming" it and came to a reasoned, well informed distillation of a 40 page legal argument in a matter of minutes. Funny how your skimming just happened to coincide with your politics.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This decision jibes with my reading of the Constitution. It kind of scares me that 4 judges disagreed. How can they read it so differently than I do?

Mind you, I am not religious. I just support other people's ability to exercise their religion as laid out in the Constitution. I think any unbiased reading of the Constitution and judicial precedent would come to the same conclusion.

And the general principle that rights are for employers and not employees.

This decision jibes with my reading of the Constitution. It kind of scares me that 4 judges disagreed. How can they read it so differently than I do?

Mind you, I am not religious. I just support other people's ability to exercise their religion as laid out in the Constitution. I think any unbiased reading of the Constitution and judicial precedent would come to the same conclusion.

 

[sunmaster14]

This decision jibes with my reading of the Constitution. It kind of scares me that 4 judges disagreed. How can they read it so differently than I do?

Mind you, I am not religious. I just support other people's ability to exercise their religion as laid out in the Constitution. I think any unbiased reading of the Constitution and judicial precedent would come to the same conclusion.

The 1st Amendment was not the main issue, and even though the Court didn't discuss the Constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs, I don't think it would have ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby if that's all there was. After all, the RFRA was passed in response to a Supreme Court decision (which Scalia wrote!) which basically took a narrower view of religious freedoms under the 1st Amendment. And the religious freedoms restricted in that case were a lot less tenuous than the ones at play in Hobby Lobby.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you and Unabogie would bother to read the opinion, you would both have your answer.

But to save you the trouble it's because the RFRA, the statute at issue here (the Court did not reach any Constitutional issues), requires a weighing of equities on a case by case basis. The government is supposed to enact its laws for the common good in such a way that it infringes on religious freedoms as little as possible. If there is a less restrictive way of accomplishing the same goals, the government must take that alternative path.

In fact, one of the reasons why the majority didn't accept HHS's arguments that the contraception mandate was so important that there was no other way to accomplish the same goal is that HHS actually did implement a less restrictive policy for other kinds of institutions, specifically non-profit religiously affiliated institutions.

If it was that easy why not be precedent setting? A hobby lobby test to go along with the lemon test.

By making it not precedent setting it shows they don't buy their own arguments. They just needed something to justify doing what they wanted.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Stepping back from the issue a tad I think this is why I'm not comfortable with form of compensation other then cash.

Cash is neutral. Other forms of compensations are by definition earmarked for specific purposes and carry more... moral weight to them if that makes any sense.

Just pay people in money which can be used for anything and then the employers can't act like they are directly supporting something they don't like.

Mind this isn't a legal opinion, just a... feeling I personally have.

 

[Kestrel]

They believe life begins at fertilization. These drugs prevent embedding of same in the wall of the uterus. Therefore it ends a life, which is against their religion.

Yes, they do have unscientific voices in their head. But if you don't like protection of that, feel free to repeal the law in question, or the first amendment.

Before you do though, recall they exist to stop one religion from dominating others through government. It seems like it's working.

Good.

In the Hobby Lobby case, five male Roman Catholic justices came up with a narrow ruling that let closely held family corporations impose restrictions that impacts women's access to contraception. The court aligned itself with the Catholic beliefs on contraception, but excluded the beliefs of other religions regarding medicine in this ruling.

 

[sunmaster14]

Actually we're well aware of conservatives' ability to shoehorn preferred conclusions into specious arguments. But I'm glad you've analyzed the entire decision just by "skimming" it and came to a reasoned, well informed distillation of a 40 page legal argument in a matter of minutes. Funny how your skimming just happened to coincide with your politics.

I was already generally familiar with the legal arguments. I skimmed mainly to see if there was anything new. As for my politics, I am not religious in the slightest and am even pro-choice. I suppose the fact that I actually have respect for religious people and for pro-life people and don't regularly vilify them on message boards might put me in the right-wing nut job camp.