Hobby Lobby win teh day

[Monte Carlo]

 

You Americans and your Kulture Wars. So cute.

 

Hey, don't make me come over there and give you some freedom.

 

 

I'm not the one having religious lunatics dictate the political agenda.

[Enoch]

 

 

regardless, the standard o' review for free exercise since at least 1972 is strict scrutiny. the Court in oregon v. smith were claiming that it weren't actual a true free exercise issue. Scalia rare engages in such fuzzy legal reasoning. were almost a unique decision for him. 

 

Peyote does strange things to jurists. 

 

yeah, am wondering if Scalia wrote the decision for oregon v. smith while in a peyote filled sweat tent/lodge.  

 

that being said, we will be reading hobby very close 'cause after our first few readings, it looks... childish.  you got ginsburg claiming that the decision will open the gates o' hell and set lose the dogs o' war on the rights o' women and minorities. alito responds by saying that she is wrong. is very little we can find that gives scope to the decision.

 

http://www.thereason4hope.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/nuh-uh-vs-yes-huh.jpg

 

is actual good for business, but...

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Ah, now we've hit at the core of the matter-- the Court is trying to expand employment opportunities for those misguided souls who stumbled out of law school under the illusion that they could find paying work practicing First Amendment law!  A noble endeavor indeed! Soon there will be a booming specialty in advising corporate clients on precisely which religious affiliation allows them to evade the regulations and mandates that most restrain their business operations!

 

(Alternately, it could be argued that, for certain folks on the Court, consistent legal reasoning takes a backseat to the "will this make dirty hippies happy or sad?" test.)

Edited July 1, 2014 by Enoch

[Gromnir]

 

 

You Americans and your Kulture Wars. So cute.

 

Hey, don't make me come over there and give you some freedom.

 

 

I'm not the one having religious lunatics dictate the political agenda.

 

truth-to-tell, having the religious lunatics dictate the political agenda has worked out very well for us in the past.

 

wisconsin v. yoder were a case in which the amish didn't want their kids to be forced into public education for X years. how can you find against the amish? they is so darn cute.

 

christian scientists, jehovah's witness and faith healing groups has given us a better idea o' the limits o' parental decision making regarding life-saving health measures wherein such measures conflict with s'posed religious obligations. 

 

the iskcon (international society o' krishna consciousness) has been at the forefront o' any number o' free speech and free exercise o' religion cases. can hari krishnas loiter in airports to be handing out their pamphlets and collecting money? can they be confined to certain limited locations at a state fair (back by the port-o' johns) if they wish to proselytize and beg? etc.

 

pentecostals, santerians, scientoligists and moonies... theses is the folks that has been the at the front-line o' religious rights battles while the rest o' us sit back and watch with a kinda bemused curiosity. are we really having a 'case 'bout ritualistic slaughter o' chickens in urban neighborhoods? yes, yes we are. 

 

yeah, it sounds crazy, but is the folks on the fringe who is always testing the limits o' free speech and religion. nazis in skokie and crips in oakland and koran burning kooks in gainsville. let the nutters test the limits o' freedom is not such a bad way to go. mormons, jews and catholics has suffered persecution and bigotry here in the US from time-to-time and to various degrees o' infamy. word,"muslim" is emotionally charged. have muslims relegated to "religious lunatic" category has not been beyond the realm o' possibility in recent years. regardless, even if hasidic jews and greek orthodox were to suddenly be dismissed as nutters, they would still be getting full First Amendment protection, and that is in part 'cause the serious freaks has been fighting for our freedoms for a very long time.

 

"(Alternately, it could be argued that, for certain folks on the Court, consistent legal reasoning takes a backseat to the "will this make dirty hippies happy or sad?" test.)"

 

rehnquist drove us a little nuts. is many members o' the Court that like to pretend that nobody in the brotherhood is a political animal, but we got a hard time believing such notions. 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 1, 2014 by Gromnir

[Monte Carlo]

An excellent post Gromnir, which I enjoyed. Point well made.

 

Of course, if you enjoyed a Common Law system like ours, tempered by case law, I suspect you'd enjoy your profession ever more. But I digress.

[Gromnir]

"Ah, now we've hit at the core of the matter-- the Court is trying to expand employment opportunities for those misguided souls who stumbled out of law school under the illusion that they could find paying work practicing First Amendment law! "

 

how could anybody with the minimal brainpower it takes to pass the bar exam think that they could earn a living doing First Amendment law?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hurlshot, on 01 Jul 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

So the Supreme Court just sided with Hobby Lobby on this contraceptive issue.  Maybe I'm having trouble understanding the case fully, but it basically looks like a corporation is getting to choose what kind of health care options are available for their employees, and they are claiming it is 'religious freedom'.  

 

What about the personal freedom to not have a corporation tell me what my health care options are?

 

They don't, you're welcome to pay for it yourself. It's also dubious whether contraceptives are actually healthcare, since sex isn't a disease. Why is it that people feel entitled to have someone else pay for them anyway? Your employer has to pay you for time worked, how you spend that money is your business.

[Hurlshort]

 

They don't, you're welcome to pay for it yourself. It's also dubious whether contraceptives are actually healthcare, since sex isn't a disease. Why is it that people feel entitled to have someone else pay for them anyway? Your employer has to pay you for time worked, how you spend that money is your business.

 

 

I'm sure that type of health care might work well at the convent, but for the majority of the human race, sex and health go hand in hand.  The healthcare industry is involved in our sex lives for a lot of reasons, and there is no reason that should change.  It's how we keep child birth safe and prevent the spreading of STD's.  Do you even know how birth control pills work?  That's not something you should be buying off some street corner, you need a real doctor in charge of that type of hormonal chemistry.

 

Also you seem to be arguing that companies shouldn't provide health insurance at all.  That would be fantastic, I would love to have affordable health care available that wasn't tied to my job.  Unfortunately that is not the world we live in.  So if companies are going to be the ones providing the bulk of health care to people, I don't think they should have carte blanche on what my health care options are.  I want trained medical professionals deciding what should be available to me, not some CEO.

[ShadySands]

Not to mention that birth control is used to treat a lot of different illnesses and conditions and not just stave off the 9 month one (though thank god for that)

[licketysplit]

Why would contraception be covered by insurance anyway. Much easier to make sure they are available cheaply for anyone who wants them. 

 

Not with the procedure in question. But hey, Christians can invent their own science and win the day. Only in Murica. Ladies shmadies! Get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich!

[Humanoid]

It might make economic sense for companies to provide free vasectomies thus minimising incidences of parental leave. Win-win.

[Raithe]

For the pop culture take..

 

George Takei - What if Hobby lobby was run by muslims imposing sharia law on workers?

 

 

“The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

 

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

 

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

 

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” he continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

 

Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

 

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

Edited July 3, 2014 by Raithe

[Amentep]

 

They don't, you're welcome to pay for it yourself. It's also dubious whether contraceptives are actually healthcare, since sex isn't a disease.

 

I'm sure that type of health care might work well at the convent, but for the majority of the human race, sex and health go hand in hand.

 

I think what WoD is referring to is that you don't have to have sex, whereas you can't, for example, stop your heart and wait for that clogged artery to unclog itself.

 

Although then the argument shifts back to, in the case of heart disease (excluding genetic factors), whether poor diet is a choice (as many think it is) or an effect of socioeconomic factors (access to/cost of better, healthy food) combined with mental health issues (which - lets face it - aren't well treated in the US).

 

For the pop culture take..

 

George Takei - What if Hobby lobby was run by muslims imposing sharia law on workers?

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

 

Frankly I've always preferred the idea of hitting the pocketbooks of companies that do things we don't like by not supporting them to legislating them to do what we want them to do, although I acknowledge that sometimes legislation might be the only way to make it happen.

[Volourn]

Comparing this issue to extreme muslims trying to force sharia law (or any extremist group) fails big times and does a diservice to the argument in favor of forcing companies to pay for this stuff. Afterall, i don't think Hobby Lobby is going around murdering those employees (or non employees) who use this stuff. But, extremists who enforce sharia law have no problem doing with that.

 

Plus, it's not even aboutt he money since even if Hobby lobby is forced to do this the money will be coming from the customers not them. It alwasy go back to to customers.

 

btw, I don't  think contraceptives - be they condoms, 'after morning pill' or whatever should be mandatory of any health plan.if the gov't wants health beenfis for everyone eprhaps the gov't should pay for it. Stupid thieves.

 

And, it's not 'anti woman' to have that view. I have no issue with the woman (or man) using contraceptives. In fact,  if you don't want a baby it's better than the alternative of killing the baby  after getting pregnant, imo.  If I want to  use condoms, Ill pay for it out of my own damn money. That is what is called being INDEPENDENT.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Volourn

[licketysplit]

It's gimped coverage for women, plain and simple. It opens the door for more religious freedom crap imposed on others. Why in the hell should a biological fact about women be excluded in health care? Might as well skip prostate exams for men. Because god.

[Gromnir]

"Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control."

 

this is bs btw. the 401(k) that employees o' hobby is able to take advantage of allows those employees to choose mutual funds that include Evil Corporate Entities.  

 

bah. is not worth going further into this point as is so darn ridiculous. nevertheless, some idiot who clearly don't know anything 'bout 401(k)s did some ninja research and somehow twisted that into hobby hypocrisy.

 

personally, we think hobby does themselves a disservice with their stance on birth control and health insurance pays, but for now, it is their right to do so. but the 401(k) crap is... nonsense. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For the pop culture take..

 

George Takei - What if Hobby lobby was run by muslims imposing sharia law on workers?

 

 

“The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

 

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

 

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

 

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” he continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue.Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

 

Takei pointed out what many have noted, that Hobby Lobby has invested in multiple companies that manufacture abortion drugs and birth control. The company receives most of its merchandise from China, a country where overpopulation has led to mandatory abortions and sterilizations for women who try to have more than one child.

 

“While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscience should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees,” said Takei. “The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts — in their pocketbooks.”

 

Found this to be a be more interesting myself.

Edited July 4, 2014 by KaineParker

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hurlshot, on 02 Jul 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

 

Wrath of Dagon, on 02 Jul 2014 - 9:27 PM, said:

 

They don't, you're welcome to pay for it yourself. It's also dubious whether contraceptives are actually healthcare, since sex isn't a disease. Why is it that people feel entitled to have someone else pay for them anyway? Your employer has to pay you for time worked, how you spend that money is your business.

 

 

I'm sure that type of health care might work well at the convent, but for the majority of the human race, sex and health go hand in hand.  The healthcare industry is involved in our sex lives for a lot of reasons, and there is no reason that should change.  It's how we keep child birth safe and prevent the spreading of STD's.  Do you even know how birth control pills work?  That's not something you should be buying off some street corner, you need a real doctor in charge of that type of hormonal chemistry.

 

Also you seem to be arguing that companies shouldn't provide health insurance at all.  That would be fantastic, I would love to have affordable health care available that wasn't tied to my job.  Unfortunately that is not the world we live in.  So if companies are going to be the ones providing the bulk of health care to people, I don't think they should have carte blanche on what my health care options are.  I want trained medical professionals deciding what should be available to me, not some CEO.

 

It's the political hacks at HHS decided that contraceptives had to be covered, not trained medical professionals. Not every procedure/drug has to be covered by an insurance policy to provide reasonable health insurance. Congress itself recognized that there could be moral objections to providing certain coverage, ACA specifically states that abortions don't need to be covered. So yeah, it's reasonable to expect your health insurance to cover you if you get sick, and it's also reasonable to expect you to pay for your own contraceptives.

[Gorgon]

I'snt there still the problem of insurance driving up the price, it happens almost generically when hospitals bill the ensurers. All of a sudden this scan or that tests costs markedly more than in countries with universal coverage. If said ensurance includes a visit to the doctor, ie it's not just over the counter, having it covered by insurance could be a bad thing long term. You get price fixing in stead of competition.

[Hurlshort]

Yep.  My vasectomy was $5,000.  After insurance I still had to pay $500 out of pocket, which ain't cheap.  All that for a 30 minute procedure.

[ShadySands]

Hmm, my insurance pays for hair loss, ED, and massage therapy and acupuncture by default but I had to pay extra for vision coverage

 

Not trying to make a point of anything just seems odd to me

[Volourn]

Yeah but that isn't forced though. That's negotiated between company/insurance/you or whatever.

[Nepenthe]

I bet if maternity leave, parents rights and employer contribution to them were on a (Northern) European level, this case would never have happened.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Gorgon, on 06 Jul 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

I'snt there still the problem of insurance driving up the price, it happens almost generically when hospitals bill the ensurers. All of a sudden this scan or that tests costs markedly more than in countries with universal coverage. If said ensurance includes a visit to the doctor, ie it's not just over the counter, having it covered by insurance could be a bad thing long term. You get price fixing in stead of competition.

You seem to be saying universal coverage promotes competition. I don't follow the logic there.

[Gorgon]

 Ensurers are middle men, they bring nothing of value to the system if they don't create an outcome where their cut is justified by increased efficiency and competition. If prices are higher than universal systems that would seem to be the case. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think saying they bring nothing of value to the system is unfair. For example fraud is rampant in Medicare, our version of single payer. But that's beside the point, you seemed to be saying single payer fosters more competition, and I was hoping for an explanation of how it does that. Btw, single payer is also a middleman, in either case you need someone to collect (forcibly in case of single payer) the premiums and distribute the benefits.