Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[magellan]

I haven't read the entire decision in detail; can you cite the passage in the decision where they specifically excluded blood transfusions. It's my hope that the passage will give us at least a starting point for understanding and explaining why the court made the exclusion.

If there is no such passage in the decision, then I think we can safely say your question doesn't need to be answered (or even asked, now that I think about it).

Sure

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates,
e.g.,
for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily
fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it
provide a shield for employers who
might cloak illegal discrimination
as a religious practice.

pg 5 and 6.

 

[theprestige]

You can find the text of the decision here:
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public...y_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20

The relevant passage is this:



Magyar is wrong: blood transfusions are not specifically excluded. All non-contraceptive mandates are excluded from this decision, that is listed as only one example, and it would need to be evaluated separately if challenged. Maybe they would be invalidated too, maybe not, the point is only that this ruling doesn't apply to them.

Sure

pg 5 and 6.

Thanks, Ziggurat and magellan.

Magyar, was this the passage you had in mind? It doesn't seem to specifically exclude blood transfusions, so unless you can point to another passage which does, I think your question doesn't need to be answered (or even asked).

 

[theprestige]

I get that for some reason you think quoting the decision, and even specific parts, that I disagree with somehow counter my disagreement with them. The court found that it's just human beings with human rights, but I disagree. It's a corporate being, not a human one. It's a legal entity, not a human entity. The legal entities which can have religious objections should be religious ones, not corporations.

I quoted that part of the decision because I think it makes clear that the legal entity you imagine simply doesn't exist; and that the legal entity that does exist clearly does not have the legal properties that you imagine it does.

I think that the legal opinion of the Supreme Court, expressed as a binding decision on a question about the law, is the definitive counter to your disagreement.

The Supreme Court has made it clear: Corporations don't work the way you thought they did. If you persist in disagreeing on that basis, then you are wrong.

Of course you are not wrong in the absolute sense. For example, this was a 5-4 decision. Four of the justices disagree with the conclusion of the majority. If you were to cite a passage in the dissent that indicated the minority's support for your idea of corporations, I would have to seriously reconsider my position. Likewise if you were able to cite some other statue or precedent that supported or confirmed your understanding of corporations.

But as it stands right now, your understanding looks more like a misunderstanding, and if I had to choose between what you think is the law and what the Supreme Court thinks is the law, I think the Supreme Court is probably the legitimate authority on the topic.

 

[Freddy]

Yes sir, as long as somebody sincerely believes nick-knacks are sinful.

As the Court observed: “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

It would violate the Establishment Clause if the court were to rule on whether particular religious beliefs are true or false, or whether the believer in question is a true Scotsman. That is why courts consider only whether the religious objection is sincere, and then move on to balance any burden against other relevant factors. Logical inconsistency is insufficient to establish insincerity, because we're dealing with human beings here.

In cases brought under the RFRA, the relevant factors are (1) the strength of the government interest at stake, and (2) the feasibility of alternative means to achieve the government's interest. (2) is where the government lost in Hobby Lobby, because all the government has to do to make sure HL employees have access to contraception at no out of pocket expense is to give HL the same exemption it already gave to many other entities. HL employees will still get contraceptives without having to pay for them out of pocket. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The government lost because the majority of SCOTUS justice are Catholic and believe what Hobby Lobby does about contraception.

 

[Ziggurat]

The government lost because the majority of SCOTUS justice are Catholic and believe what Hobby Lobby does about contraception.

That makes no sense. Hobby Lobby's owners are not Catholic, their position on birth control doesn't match Catholic doctrine, and most American Catholics don't follow doctrine anyways. Unless you've got direct evidence of the individual beliefs of those justices, then you've got nothing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Five Catholics justices rule against contraception. 'Nuff said.

 

[Ziggurat]

Five Catholics justices rule against contraception. 'Nuff said.

And that, apparently, is as much as you are capable of saying.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That makes no sense. Hobby Lobby's owners are not Catholic, their position on birth control doesn't match Catholic doctrine, and most American Catholics don't follow doctrine anyways. Unless you've got direct evidence of the individual beliefs of those justices, then you've got nothing.

Which explains why they didn't limit themselves to what was at issue in this case but made a much broader ruling that is inline with Catholic dogma. That way Catholics don't need to fight over enforcing their dogma on their employees.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which explains why they didn't limit themselves to what was at issue in this case but made a much broader ruling that is inline with Catholic dogma. That way Catholics don't need to fight over enforcing their dogma on their employees.

It's also in line with the RFRA and its respect for religion in general. And it doesn't enforce dogma on employees, who are still free to use whatever birth control they want to, in every single case.

Oh, but I get it. The RFRA itself was passed by Congress, with the support of that notorious Catholic harpy, Nancy Pelosi. It really is all about the Catholics.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Which explains why they didn't limit themselves to what was at issue in this case but made a much broader ruling that is inline with Catholic dogma. That way Catholics don't need to fight over enforcing their dogma on their employees.

It's also in line with the RFRA and its respect for religion in general. And it doesn't enforce dogma on employees, who are still free to use whatever birth control they want to, in every single case.

Oh, but I get it. The RFRA itself was passed by Congress, with the support of that notorious Catholic harpy, Nancy Pelosi. It really is all about the Catholics.

You help to illustrate the funny part about this ruling: Catholic scholars must despise it.

Rather than an opposition to (perceived) abortion being a matter of morality based on principled reasoning, this ruling reduced it to only a matter of belief. Opinion, in other words. Not to be scrutinized by the Court.

It isn't hard to imagine a serious Catholic, grounding his opposition to (perceived) abortion in morality based on principled reasoning, such as used by Catholic writers, not to mention the Church itself. Such a person would probably be embarrassed to argue this on the basis of insubstantial belief, as if they might be discussing a favorite color.

As the Court observed, “it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.”

Freedom of religion is now reserved for those indistinguishable from idiots? Why bother?

I'm not arguing this as a religious person in the least. Just wanted to comment on the irony of how those whom I think pretend to argue for religious freedom... must insult the very people they seem to defend.