Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Magyar]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...e-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-arguments/359539/

Supreme court heard oral arguments on hobby lobby and corporations religious rights.

Hobby lobby is a public company - though closely held by a family- with 13000 employees.
They are objection to acas provision to provide contraceptives on religious grounds.

My first issue - this certainly seems that any ruling in favor of the corporation would by its very nature mean that at least some workers religious freedoms will be trampled on.

Further it dramatically changes the employer/employee relationship. If a for profit non religious corporation can make decisions based on religious beliefs of the owners/corp officers or as yet some undefined set of principals o birth control, why not on prayer, at work. Or mandatory church attendance of current employees. Will employees be required to listen to and adhere to the religious proselytizing of their bosses!?

What about new employees? If they can decide based on their religious beliefs what employees have access to or not, why can the employer decide not to hire blacks because they carry the mark of cain. Single mothers forget the harlet.


If this ruling goes in favor of the corporation, my feeling is that it is the most dangerous step backwards for civil rights and the strongest step towards a theocracy in the history of the us.

Legal scholars please chime in.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Can you imagine a scenario where legislation would make not incorporating so onerous on a business, but included requirements that were so onerous to the shareholders, that it could violate the first amendment.

I think this case is an interesting edge case. People disagree, that is fine, but I would also like them to define the bounds of the issues between incorporation and religious liberty.

 

[phildonnia]

Not a legal scholar, I.

Hobby Lobby pays taxes that support all sorts of religiously objectionable stuff. It is no different to require them to have a health plan that meets the conditions required by law. And Christians are commanded to "Render unto Caesar".

The problem seems to stem from the accidental relationship between one's employer and one's health care provider, which has become established in law. Why is the employer a necessary part of health care solutions at all?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

24 years ago Scalia would have voted against Hobby-Lobby.

but today, because this is an issue of the ACA, he will vote for them.

He is the consummate rectum of the Supreme Court

 

[Olowkow]

24 years ago Scalia would have voted against Hobby-Lobby.

but today, because this is an issue of the ACA, he will vote for them.

He is the consummate rectum of the Supreme Court

I'd say "pompous hemorrhoid", since a rectum at least serves some purpose. He, and Thomas, are just a pain in the ass.

What conceivable legalese can he possibly come up with to justify kowtowing to some religious proscriptions that don't even make any sense? These old twits aren't getting enough nookie, and they just want to impose their plight on everyone else.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Cuius regio, eius religio. America is forging bravely ahead into the sixteenth century!!

 

[Magyar]

Can you imagine a scenario where legislation would make not incorporating so onerous on a business, but included requirements that were so onerous to the shareholders, that it could violate the first amendment.

I think this case is an interesting edge case. People disagree, that is fine, but I would also like them to define the bounds of the issues between incorporation and religious liberty.

Not sure i followed all that. But my take is that if corporations want to be people with the same rights then they should be made to pay the same taxes at the same rates as the peopel theyre trying to be.

And to return to the case in hand. If i cant make my neighbor conform to my religious views then why should the owner of the company i happen to work for. And just how far will this go? Hobby lobby is a small tighly held company by one family. But didnt the moon family own newspapers or something in the us. What if he required all his employees to become mooneys? And where will the line be drawn? What if its just a majority share holder?
Who in the corp will make these religious decisions?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And to return to the case in hand. If i cant make my neighbor conform to my religious views then why should the owner of the company i happen to work for. And just how far will this go? Hobby lobby is a small tighly held company by one family. But didnt the moon family own newspapers or something in the us. What if he required all his employees to become mooneys? And where will the line be drawn? What if its just a majority share holder?
Who in the corp will make these religious decisions?

short answer...strict scrutiny. I think there are pretty good tests for figuring out if the group is burdened, and if the government has a compelling interest.

What I really like about this case is that if our society was so extreme that incorporation did not exist, or we had universal health care, this would not be an issue.

 

[RussDill]

The motivation fascinates me much more than the legal aspects. The fact that the Greens feel some moral imperative to control how their employees use their compensation, and on such a small issue as conception when they could be using their whole paycheck to finance a demonic homosexual swingers club. Course, they could also have a strong desire to control how their employees spend their paycheck, they would just be laughed out of court.

 

[steve s]

Something's wrong here. The guy who owns Hobby Lobby said that he'd shut down his business if Obamacare went into effect. Obamacare is in effect so obviously this must be some other business we're talking about.

Steve S

 

[ponderingturtle]

Look as with free speech, the constitution protects the right of corporations to practice what ever religion they want. They get full first amendment rights. Mere workers don't of course. That isn't what the serfs need.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They get none of my money.

 

[pgwenthold]

If a JsW owned the company, could they refuse to cover blood transfusions?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If a JsW owned the company, could they refuse to cover blood transfusions?

Maybe. Can a Christian business refuse promotions to women because they are not to have authority over men?

 

[Upchurch]

Not sure i followed all that. But my take is that if corporations want to be people with the same rights then they should be made to pay the same taxes at the same rates as the peopel theyre trying to be.

My take is that corporations can have the same rights as people when they have the same responsibilities and obligations as people.

Once corporations have to sign up for the draft, can be arrested and/or go to prison, and serve jury duty, then come tell me that they have freedom of religion.

 

[BStrong]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...e-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-arguments/359539/

Supreme court heard oral arguments on hobby lobby and corporations religious rights.

Hobby lobby is a public company - though closely held by a family- with 13000 employees.
They are objection to acas provision to provide contraceptives on religious grounds.

My first issue - this certainly seems that any ruling in favor of the corporation would by its very nature mean that at least some workers religious freedoms will be trampled on.

Further it dramatically changes the employer/employee relationship. If a for profit non religious corporation can make decisions based on religious beliefs of the owners/corp officers or as yet some undefined set of principals o birth control, why not on prayer, at work. Or mandatory church attendance of current employees. Will employees be required to listen to and adhere to the religious proselytizing of their bosses!?

What about new employees? If they can decide based on their religious beliefs what employees have access to or not, why can the employer decide not to hire blacks because they carry the mark of cain. Single mothers forget the harlet.


If this ruling goes in favor of the corporation, my feeling is that it is the most dangerous step backwards for civil rights and the strongest step towards a theocracy in the history of the us.

Legal scholars please chime in.

I don't believe that their case will stand up.

It's pretty well established that there are certain off work hours restrictions that are legal - the restriction on pilots drinking before flying seems pretty solid, and some businesses (professional sports, military service) forbid their employees or have serious restrictions on dangerous behavior (motorcycling first and foremost) off-season or off duty.

As far as restricting insurance coverage, no matter what the subject I find it hard to believe that a company can dictate types of coverage for prescriptions - limits on coverage dollar amount certainly, but restricting coverage on a prescription for birth control pills doesn't sound like it will fly.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...e-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-arguments/359539/

Supreme court heard oral arguments on hobby lobby and corporations religious rights.

Hobby lobby is a public company - though closely held by a family- with 13000 employees.
They are objection to acas provision to provide contraceptives on religious grounds.

My first issue - this certainly seems that any ruling in favor of the corporation would by its very nature mean that at least some workers religious freedoms will be trampled on.

Further it dramatically changes the employer/employee relationship. If a for profit non religious corporation can make decisions based on religious beliefs of the owners/corp officers or as yet some undefined set of principals o birth control, why not on prayer, at work. Or mandatory church attendance of current employees. Will employees be required to listen to and adhere to the religious proselytizing of their bosses!?

What about new employees? If they can decide based on their religious beliefs what employees have access to or not, why can the employer decide not to hire blacks because they carry the mark of cain. Single mothers forget the harlet.


If this ruling goes in favor of the corporation, my feeling is that it is the most dangerous step backwards for civil rights and the strongest step towards a theocracy in the history of the us.

Legal scholars please chime in.

This entire line of argument is a strawman. Hobby Lobby is in essence claiming to be conscientious objectors in regards to a small part of the ACA. They are not saying that they can require all of their employees not use any sort of contraceptives nor are they arguing that all of their employees must use contraceptives. In other words they are not asking that their employees do anything to conform to the companies board members religious beliefs, only that the company not be required to do some specific things that the current law demands that they do under penalty of law because those things go against their religious beliefs.

What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate the use of certain contraceptives that they, for religious reasons, think would be considered to be tantamount to being an accomplice in what their religion considers to be murder. There is plenty of precedent for people to opt out of actively fighting in a war for religious reasons due to their religion considering all war to be murder.

 

[SomedayGirl]

I don't object to the specifics of HL's case but I do object to the can of worms that will slither out if the SCOTUS finds in their favor.

One of HL's attorneys was on the Diane Rehm Show Monday. HL isn't objecting to birth control in its insurance plan generally, it objects to two things specifically - IUDs and emergency contraception (ex. Plan B). They're fine with covering the pill, the patch, Nuva Ring, implants, diaphragms, surgical sterilization, etc. They believe the two objectionable forms may allow fertilization of an egg but prevent implantation and from their POV that is tantamount to abortion.

From a practical perspective I don't actually have a problem with that. Plan B is OTC anyway and if your insurance doesn't have to cover Tylenol, Zyrtec, or Trojans, I can't really see why it should have to cover Plan B. That leaves the IUD and considering all the other covered options I have trouble getting exercised that one is left out.

However, when you move away from the specifics of HL and consider the implications of a a ruling in their favor it becomes more problematic. HL will cover other forms of BC but another company may decline to do so at all. JW owners could refuse to cover blood transfusions, Scientologist owners could refuse to cover psychological treatment and psychiatric medications. Furthermore considering that insurance coverage thru an employer is basically a benefit in lieu of wages, I don't see how it can be argued that your employer gets to decide how you get to spend your money based on its moral beliefs (especially since that's essentially the objection HL has, that the government is imposing morality on how HL spends its money...hypocrisy, much?).

All that said, I'm handicapping that HL prevails 5-4.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I don't object to the specifics of HL's case but I do object to the can of worms that will slither out if the SCOTUS finds in their favor.

One of HL's attorneys was on the Diane Rehm Show Monday. HL isn't objecting to birth control in its insurance plan generally, it objects to two things specifically - IUDs and emergency contraception (ex. Plan B). They're fine with covering the pill, the patch, Nuva Ring, implants, diaphragms, surgical sterilization, etc. They believe the two objectionable forms may allow fertilization of an egg but prevent implantation and from their POV that is tantamount to abortion.

From a practical perspective I don't actually have a problem with that. Plan B is OTC anyway and if your insurance doesn't have to cover Tylenol, Zyrtec, or Trojans, I can't really see why it should have to cover Plan B. That leaves the IUD and considering all the other covered options I have trouble getting exercised that one is left out.

However, when you move away from the specifics of HL and consider the implications of a a ruling in their favor it becomes more problematic. HL will cover other forms of BC but another company may decline to so so at all. JW owners could refuse to cover blood transfusions, Scientologist owners could refuse to cover psychological treatment and psychiatric medications. Furthermore considering that insurance coverage thru an employer is essentially a benefit in lieu of wages, I don't see how it can be argued that your employer gets to decide how you get to spend your money based on its moral beliefs.

All that said, I'm handicapping that HL prevails 5-4.

Good points on the can of worms that could be opened, however, pre ACA all of those things were legal to do with no penalties to the company for doing them. The thing here is that now the US government is mandating what religious practices (that were otherwise legal of course) must be ignored under penalty of law. That is definitely a separation of church and state issue.

As to benefits being a part of wage compensation. If the ACA allowed for companies (who otherwise would have to meet the employer mandate) to instead give their employees a pay boost to cover them buying their own health insurance on the exchanges as individuals then there would be a viable out if they found that the ACA would force them to violate their religious beliefs. But that's not the case and in essence the government is mandating what that wage compensation must be and how much it will cost.

 

[Magyar]

This entire line of argument is a strawman. Hobby Lobby is in essence claiming to be conscientious objectors in regards to a small part of the ACA. They are not saying that they can require all of their employees not use any sort of contraceptives nor are they arguing that all of their employees must use contraceptives. In other words they are not asking that their employees do anything to conform to the companies board members religious beliefs, only that the company not be required to do some specific things that the current law demands that they do under penalty of law because those things go against their religious beliefs.

What they are saying is that they don't want to facilitate the use of certain contraceptives that they, for religious reasons, think would be considered to be tantamount to being an accomplice in what their religion considers to be murder. There is plenty of precedent for people to opt out of actively fighting in a war for religious reasons due to their religion considering all war to be murder.

I dont buy this argument at all. The only way that it works is if you give full human status to corporations. Remember that while this particular company is held by a family it is still a separate entity from the family. As others pointed out. Shoe me where and how a corporation will or will not volunteer for the draft.

Also, you did not address the other point someone raised - what if the owners of the corp are jahovas witnesses and they object to blood transfusion. What if they're fundi xians who believe that all meds are evil and their employees should just pray the disease away?

What if they are mormons and still believe that black people are only 3/5ths human.

Your argument reminds me of the id crowd arguing about micro vs macro evolution.
Where is that magic +1 line in your argument? Why is the limit of religious "freedom". Of corporations end at contraception but not at blood transfusion or requiring their employees to pray towards mecca 5 times a day for the profitability of the corp?


Edit. Oh and i forgot. If they want to be a faith based organization there is nothing stopping them from becoming a non profit faith based mission that uses toys to spread their beliefs.