# Hobby Lobby Fined over $220,000



## ElRay (Jun 13, 2014)

A.G. Schneiderman Secures Over $220,000 Settlement From Hobby Lobby Stores In An Investigation Of Misleading Advertising | Eric T. Schneiderman

Well, it's not over their attempts to deny their employees comprehensive healthcare by forcing modern interpretations of a supposedly inerrant and unchanging 2,000 year old mythology on all their employees, or their attempts to deny non-employee's civil rights, or their attempts to get creationism and revisionist christian history taught in schools.

But it is good olde dishonesty. More christian hypocrisy, expectation of special privilege and view that civil laws don't apply to them.

Ray


----------



## asher (Jun 13, 2014)

It certainly scratches a small schadenfreude itch.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 13, 2014)

But everything is 50% off all the time! What a deal!


----------



## Randy (Jun 13, 2014)

As a New Yorker, I enjoy the notion of having an attorney general that does his damn job. Good on you, Schneiderman


----------



## ElRay (Jun 13, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> But everything is 50% off all the time! What a deal!


Crazy Eddies -- Successfully going out of business for 27 years!


----------



## Dog Boy (Jun 25, 2014)

I'm pissed cause they ain't open on Sunday. My only day for hobbies!!


----------



## Explorer (Jun 26, 2014)

So, does this dishonesty mean the Hobby Lobby isn't really a Christian organization... or is just a very *bad* Christian organization?


----------



## flint757 (Jun 26, 2014)

Well, if you asked your typical Christian, any 'Christian' who does ANYTHING bad, or that is counter to what they believe Christianity to be, is not 'really' a Christian in the first place.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 27, 2014)

I'm still wondering how a corporation decides that Jesus is its personal lord and savior.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I'm still wondering how a corporation decides that Jesus is its personal lord and savior.



Seriously. I'm unsure exactly where the Hobby Lobby case should be resolved on the basis of infringement of the owners' religious liberties, but I'm dead-set against the idea that the legal fiction that is a corporation has any claim to independent religious liberties. Corporations which appear to be making religious liberty claims are either making claims on behalf of their owners or their customers (the "what if kosher delis were outlawed?" hypothetical, for example).


----------



## asher (Jun 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I'm still wondering how a corporation decides that Jesus is its personal lord and savior.



Corporations are people too, dontcha know.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 27, 2014)

Corporations are legally people, but do they make their own decisions, or are the decisions made by those who are given that power of decision?

In other words, can someone with power of attorney decide that another person will convert to a religion? That the person wants to convert to, say Buddhism and give away all his or her possessions? 

I just wonder how, if pursuit of a religious goal isn't part of a corporation's charter, how a corporation "gets religion."


----------



## Watty (Jun 28, 2014)

.... Hobby Lobby. That is all.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 28, 2014)

BTW, the SCOTUS decision in the Hobby Lobby case will be released on Monday at 10 AM EDT. It's the Court's last decision-announcement event of the session.


----------



## tedtan (Jun 28, 2014)

asher said:


> Corporations are people too, dontcha know.





Explorer said:


> Corporations are legally people



Corporate personhood doesn't mean that corporations are people in the same sense that we are. It just means that the business is a separate entity from its owners, can own things and can be held liable for its debts and any damages its employees cause separate from its owners. In contrast, other types of businesses like sole proprietorships and partnerships are not separate from their owners. If the business does something (say a customer is injured in the store) the law sees this as if the owner personally caused (via negligence or otherwise as the case may be) the injury to the customer.

As to whether or not its OK for a business to have a religious intent, the answer is yes to an extent. It's OK to set up a corporation as a kosher deli or a Christian bookstore, but it's not OK to force the employees to convert to that religion, though people associating with that religion will be most inclined to seek employment in such businesses, so there may be no practical difference. It will be interesting to read the SC ruling on this as it could change how things are done (though I doubt it will).


----------



## Explorer (Jun 28, 2014)

I agree that personhood arising out of incorporation is a legality, but the owner of Hobby Lobby has asserted that the corporation has a religious point of view, even though he is availing himself of the protections of incorporation. He wants the protections, and the separation of liability, but wants other things to be extended from himself to his corporation.

That's why I'm wondering how one would decide that a corporation is actually Christian, or Muslim, or whatever. 

For what it's worth, the owner did too many interviews wherein he talked about intrusive government, and never once mentioned religion as a factor. Instead, it was about sticking it to Obama. 

In my fantasies, someone inserted transcriptions of all that into the record, or filed it in a brief, so that the current strategy can be seen as the result of flailing around in order to not cover employees.


----------



## MikeyLawless (Jun 28, 2014)

I dont always where a band shirt to hobby lobby, but whe i do, its SLAYER!!!!


----------



## Watty (Jun 29, 2014)

MikeyLawless said:


> I dont always where a band shirt to hobby lobby, but whe i do, its SLAYER!!!!



#grammarpolice


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 29, 2014)

I was going to include an opinion, but I was just informed that the morality police do not accept anything other than their trendy hive mind perspective. I'm a Christian [let's not confuse ourselves with your typical Jehovah's Witness knocking at the door or your pushy Catholic churchy types] and honestly I don't care what other people do. If you want to go .... squirrels and abort your babies, good; I probably want to deal with them anyways. I mean, think about it... if they hate their own creations that much, imagine how the kids gonna turn out after 18 years of that person as a parent.

And btw, I'm not a holier-than-thou Christian. Hell, I stubbed my toe this morning and said a few curse words that probably made baby Jesus sad.


----------



## tedtan (Jun 29, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I agree that personhood arising out of incorporation is a legality, but the owner of Hobby Lobby has asserted that the corporation has a religious point of view, even though he is availing himself of the protections of incorporation. He wants the protections, and the separation of liability, but wants other things to be extended from himself to his corporation.



My comment was more elaboration for the benefit of those not familiar with the concept of corporate personhood than an attempt to educate you. 




Explorer said:


> That's why I'm wondering how one would decide that a corporation is actually Christian, or Muslim, or whatever.



Currently one does not, that's why I was saying it will be interesting to read the SC ruling. I don't expect it to change anything, but the SC is right leaning, so they may throw something in that becomes case law and affects us all in some form.


----------



## Watty (Jun 29, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I was going to include an opinion, but I was just informed that the morality police do not accept anything other than their trendy hive mind perspective.



Just an FYI that you sound like an Alex Jones type character when you utter a phrase that stupidly cliche. I'd like to think that most folks commenting in PC&E are willing to engage in a real debate regardless of where each party comes from, but sentiments such as the one you just expressed show just how far some people are willing to go in refraining from entering the debate at all.

And as to the "hive mind" argument, I should think it would be slightly telling that enough people agree as for you to make it out in a negative light. Your tone could easily be applied to:

_"Well, I was going to discuss how the earth is flat, but these scientific types don't accept anything other than their trendy hive mind perspective."_

Note that I'm not saying moral issues are obviously not as black and white as this happens to be, but stupid logic is stupid logic.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm a Christian [let's not confuse ourselves with your typical Jehovah's Witness knocking at the door or your pushy Catholic churchy types] and honestly I don't care what other people do. If you want to go .... squirrels and abort your babies, good; I probably want to deal with them anyways. I mean, think about it... if they hate their own creations that much, imagine how the kids gonna turn out after 18 years of that person as a parent.



Let's just be clear...you're not a Christian with that mindset. More that you're religiously inclined with Christian tendencies. I hate it when people claim to be a of a given faith and then proceed to "throw out" many of the tenements of said faith because of other opinions or preconceived notions about how their personal beliefs outside their faith serve to inform it. 

And when you imply that non-religious people tacitly support beastiality and abortion, you've gone and shut the debate down before it's even begun. Leaving the former alone, I doubt anyone is actually 100% in favor of abortions....pro choice folks simply understand that any other position makes a woman a slave to her biology and place the rights of the unborn above that of the born. Pro-choice isn't focused on a moral argument, it's focused on a legal one, which happens to be what matters in practice. 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> And btw, I'm not a holier-than-thou Christian. Hell, I stubbed my toe this morning and said a few curse words that probably made baby Jesus sad.



There is so much silly contained in this sentiment given what you said above that I think it clarifies where you're really coming from. (i.e. your religious identity is a convenient label with which to associate yourself to placate the "hive mind's" conception of you as a "good" and "moral" individual).


----------



## asher (Jun 29, 2014)

On a strictly systematic & utilitarian level, I've never understood why the child gets priority over the mother. Emotional traumas aside (since they don't give a shit about those anyway, most of the time), the mother could keep having more children long before the saved baby can do anything...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 29, 2014)

Watty said:


> Just an FYI that you sound like an Alex Jones type character when you utter a phrase that stupidly cliche. I'd like to think that most folks commenting in PC&E are willing to engage in a real debate regardless of where each party comes from, but sentiments such as the one you just expressed show just how far some people are willing to go in refraining from entering the debate at all.
> 
> And as to the "hive mind" argument, I should think it would be slightly telling that enough people agree as for you to make it out in a negative light. Your tone could easily be applied to:
> 
> ...



Did you have yourself some fun with that? Didn't read past "Alex Jones type"...


----------



## Watty (Jun 29, 2014)

asher said:


> On a strictly systematic & utilitarian level, I've never understood why the child gets priority over the mother. Emotional traumas aside (since they don't give a shit about those anyway, most of the time), the mother could keep having more children long before the saved baby can do anything...



That's the thing though; from a legal perspective, they could both be exactly the same in terms of utility and or "viability" as a person. It doesn't matter. You can't be legally compelled to donate an organ to your child and thus she shouldn't be legally required to play host to said child for 9 months (or the rest of your life as childbirth introduces irreversible changes to a woman's body) against her will.

People get the moral and the legal implications mixed up and think that everyone who stands for pro-choice is some kind of baby-killing monster when odds are good that they hate the idea of abortion just as much. I think abortion is the worst outcome in terms of the possible resolutions to the situation, but I think that forcing a woman to be a slave to her biology is worse, especially when you do take into account the further arguments as you alluded to.

Edit: All that of course is aside from the fact that most pro-lifers don't seem to give two shits about said child once it passes through its mother's vagina. At that point, their argument against abortion has served its purpose and they can move on to calling it a "taker" (and worse, depending on its parentage), and proceeding to do all manner of other things the precludes a good life for most children born as the result of religiously influenced logic on this issue.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Did you have yourself some fun with that? Didn't read past "Alex Jones type"...



While I don't believe for a second you didn't read my whole post, you're bordering on implicitly proving my point, so thanks for that.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 29, 2014)

Watty said:


> While I don't believe for a second you didn't read my whole post, you're bordering on implicitly proving my point, so thanks for that.



I didn't read your post, actually. And as far as implicitly proving your point, whatever that may have been, I'm not interested in arguing with you so you may think as you so choose.


----------



## Watty (Jun 29, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I didn't read your post, actually. And as far as implicitly proving your point, whatever that may have been, I'm not interested in arguing with you so you may think as you so choose.



Again, and as per the latter half of your comment, you can say what you wish, I just don't believe it....less so now after you came back to thread to post this.

And you commenting yet again to say the same thing only process my point EVEN more, let alone with a slightly more effective connotation. Alex Jones' logic is looking more and more concurrent with your position as you 'speak.'


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 29, 2014)

Watty said:


> Again, and as per the latter half of your comment, you can say what you wish, I just don't believe it....less so now after you came back to thread to post this.
> 
> And you commenting yet again to say the same thing only process my point EVEN more, let alone with a slightly more effective connotation. Alex Jones' logic is looking more and more concurrent with your position as you 'speak.'



I take it you only wish to argue. Enjoy having an argument with yourself seeing as how I am not interested.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 29, 2014)

If you weren't interested you wouldn't keep coming back to get the last word.


----------



## Watty (Jun 29, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I take it you only wish to argue. Enjoy having an argument with yourself seeing as how I am not interested.



Now you've not only proved my point related to the thread, but also that I didn't believe you weren't reading my posts at all. And I was not arguing with you, only pointing out that the statement you made was akin to something Alex Jones would say. 



flint757 said:


> If you weren't interested you wouldn't keep coming back to get the last word.



Amen.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 29, 2014)




----------



## Watty (Jun 30, 2014)

So long as I get to be Spiderman....

_/I feel like I get a bad rap because other people needlessly complicate things._


----------



## Explorer (Jun 30, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm a Christian [let's not confuse ourselves with your typical Jehovah's Witness knocking at the door or your pushy Catholic churchy types]
> 
> And btw, I'm not a holier-than-thou Christian.



So, you're not a holier-than-thou type Christian, but still a better type of Christian than those Witnesses and Catholics.

You don't understand the meaning of "holier than thou," because that is exactly the behavior you just engaged in. 

Proclamations of how you're better than other sorts of Christians seem pretty unchristian by my reckoning, since you have to actively reject Jesus' Golden Rule in Matthew, and Scripture in general, to do so.

----

All that to the side, I'm mildly curious what kind of "banned" argument you wanted to make. 

Oh! One more thought. 

As far as I'm aware, no one has been stopped from posting responsibly as an adult in P&CE. Bearing false witness... just another part of Scripture which doesn't rate high enough for some, I suppose.

Demonstrate, don't proclaim, Friend.


----------



## celticelk (Jun 30, 2014)

And it's in: SCOTUS finds in favor of Hobby Lobby and the other plaintiffs (5-4 ruling, with a concurrence and three separate dissenting opinions). The SCOTUSBlog liveblog report seems to suggest that the decision is limited to "closely held corporations" like HL, which means no general free exercise right for corporate entities. Decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf


----------



## asher (Jun 30, 2014)

Oh motherfvckers.

I think Bush's appointments this court will turn out to have done far more damage than Iraq or the tax cuts. This is ridiculous.


----------



## Watty (Jun 30, 2014)

.....


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 30, 2014)

Closely held corporations can have religious beliefs, guys! Isn't this what we all wanted when we passed the RFRA to protect Native American cultural traditions?


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 30, 2014)

Oh great. So now corporations are people and can have religious rights?
Seriously, the decision making that the people we put in charge is questionable at best. This is right up there with proclaiming that pizza is a vegetable.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 30, 2014)

I don't know about you guys, but when I start my own business I'm going Christian Science all the way. Think of all the money I'll save by not having to pay any healthcare at all.  



And on another note, will they be denying Viagra pills too? No? I thought not. So I guess it's just women's sex life that they have any interest in. Ahhh religious people and their complete lack of consistency.

[EDIT]

Reading some links online it appears many dumb ass Christians actually believe birth control is equal to murdering babies as well (I guess women are murdering babies on a monthly basis too ). I guess that makes more sense, minus the making sense part that is.


----------



## no_dice (Jun 30, 2014)

flint757 said:


> And on another note, will they be denying Viagra pills too? No? I thought not. So I guess it's just women's sex life that they have any interest in. Ahhh religious people and their complete lack of consistency.



To the best of my knowledge, Viagra/Cialis and the like are not covered by health insurance.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 30, 2014)

no_dice said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Viagra/Cialis and the like are not covered by health insurance.



I honestly have no idea; I just thought it'd make a rather funny comparison. Hobby Lobby is just being opportunistic anyhow. They covered birth control before the ACA was written and only now are deciding to no longer cover it, as I understand it at least. 

Really, the entire right wing sect is shooting themselves in both feet here anyhow (Supreme Court hasn't been impartial for a LONG time now). All stuff like this does is make the minority extremist among them feel even more committed to the right, but it pushes everyone in the middle nicely to the left. They are going to bury themselves in the ground over time.


----------



## ferret (Jun 30, 2014)

no_dice said:


> To the best of my knowledge, Viagra/Cialis and the like are not covered by health insurance.



Depends on the insurance plan, but in many cases, yes, they are.


----------



## groverj3 (Jun 30, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Really, the entire right wing sect is shooting themselves in both feet here anyhow (Supreme Court hasn't been impartial for a LONG time now). All stuff like this does is make the minority extremist among them feel even more committed to the right, but it pushes everyone in the middle nicely to the left. They are going to bury themselves in the ground over time.



If there's a silver lining to this situation it's that every time the conservatives do something stupid it means more of those independents are going to be voting to the left.

I've been saying it for a while, but I expect the Republicans to win zero presidential elections until they significantly change their positions on most issues.


----------



## Syphon (Jun 30, 2014)

All this means is that corporations' rights have priority over individual rights. It's silly.


----------



## no_dice (Jun 30, 2014)

ferret said:


> Depends on the insurance plan, but in many cases, yes, they are.



After reading around a bit, it looks like insurance will cover it in extremely limited amounts, but most people are saying it's a fight to get them to do anything to help you because it's considered recreational. A couple years ago, I had a painful infection that interfered with my normal functioning, and my insurance wouldn't do anything for me. 

Either way, it's not terribly important to the conversation, just saying it's not like men are riding the gravy train to dick pill city while women are stuck paying for their birth control. They don't want to help any of us.


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 30, 2014)

celticelk said:


> And it's in: SCOTUS finds in favor of Hobby Lobby and the other plaintiffs (5-4 ruling, with a concurrence and three separate dissenting opinions). The SCOTUSBlog liveblog report seems to suggest that the decision is limited to "closely held corporations" like HL, which means no general free exercise right for corporate entities. Decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf


 
I must be reading something different than you are. (I read the first several and last several pages, admittedly skipping a large portion of precedents listed in the middle.) What I am getting out of the PDF is this:



> "I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed "for a religious purpose," "engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose," and not "engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts."


 
Or was that just Ginsburg's dissent?

Ok, I found the court opinion back on page 49... It sucks that they are supporting Hobby Lobby. Ginsburg's dissent was solid. It just fails logic that a for-profit company like Hobby Lobby can use religious liberty as a means to an end (profit margin).


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 30, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> Oh great. So now corporations are people and can have religious rights?
> Seriously, the decision making that the people we put in charge is questionable at best. This is right up there with proclaiming that pizza is a vegetable.


 
I am thinking the Department of Agriculture pushed for having pizza classified as a vegetable so dairy farmers could cash in on subsidized school lunches. To further that end, the sodium and fat then cause obesity, which fuels this country's healthcare system...


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 30, 2014)

Syphon said:


> All this means is that corporations' rights have priority over individual rights. It's silly.


 
Isn't that the goal? (Of those who have the finances to run corporations)


----------



## groverj3 (Jun 30, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Isn't that the goal? (Of those who have the finances to run corporations)



Pretty much. Corporations exist to exploit their workforce as much as possible in whatever ways they see fit to do so.


----------



## Chocopuppet (Jun 30, 2014)

Corporations = People
Women /=/ People

'Murica.


----------



## ferret (Jun 30, 2014)

The rights of a corporation trump your rights as a citizen. Well, as a female citizen, anyways.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 30, 2014)

Well, taking working conditions and rights that our fathers and grandfathers fought for into account, they trump your rights as a human in general. 

But they certainly seem to bag on women extra hard.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

flint757 said:


> ... I guess it's just women's sex life that they have any interest in. Ahhh religious people and their complete lack of consistency. ...



QFT


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 1, 2014)

NY Times piece regarding popular belief on how certain forms of birth control work and why (according to scientific data) those beliefs are wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/u...ling-could-limit-access-to-birth-control.html

As the article says, the Supreme Court gave credence to the belief that Plan B or Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) cause failure to thrive in fertilized eggs. According to data from HCG measurements, those forms of birth control prevent sperm from even getting to the eggs.

Thus, Hobby Lobby's argument that the government was pushing them to finance abortion was completely false. Whether this was intentional or not, the court supported this belief.


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)




----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

I honestly fail to see the wrong doing here. No one is forcing anyone to work. No one has been "drafted" to work for Hobby Lobby. I know plenty of people that would jump at the chance to work for the organization because they don't have a job at all. I am of the belief that if you don't like the views of the company, then quit and open your spot for someone else. or is it not that simple? 

If as many people don't agree with this as some believe, then Hobby Lobby will fail to exist, free market and a lack of support will take care of that. If you don't agree with the company, then its fine that you don't support it. Don't f**k it up for those who want to work for the company.


----------



## no_dice (Jul 1, 2014)

It's not that simple, in that there isn't an abundance of work that you can make those kinds of choices based on your personal values. When you have a choice to provide for your family or leave a job because you disagree with their practices, the choice is pretty obvious.

That kind of attitude is why it sucks for a lot of people right now. People are being treated poorly at their jobs and if they question it, they get responses like, 'If you don't like it, leave,' or 'I've got a stack of applications in my office, you can be easily replaced.'


----------



## flint757 (Jul 1, 2014)

It has nothing to do with yours or their belief, they are exploiting the system and opening a door for others to do the same. Kind of like all churches not having to pay a single tax, yet they somehow influence our politics quite a bit despite that fact. Their reasoning is highly irrational anyhow. Lets pretend abortion is 100% bad all the time; their intent is to remove birth control, IUD's and plan B from their insurance plan saving them money while not preventing abortion because none of those things are in fact abortions. You've got to stick to an argument and go with it, not change the story every time you can opportunistically gain something by doing so. In the pro-birth camp there is a complete lack of consistency about what constitutes a child and aside from that most from that camp are literally just guessing anyhow. They certainly would never take the studies, or information, from actual scientists [you know those crazy people who spend close to a decade learning a subject to better society; the reason we have technology, cars, medicine, etc., but never mind that they're stupid when it comes to anything 'my' religion says (except about the Earth being round and not the center of the universe, but hey we can be wrong once, right? ) ]. 

It is completely anti-science at its finest and sets a wave in motion in the political sphere, in the conservative public, in the indoctrinated and in the business world that will lead to nothing good. Birth control pills have been a staple of good health insurance for an extremely long time now, it isn't the 70's anymore. Your beliefs should not decide who gets to be healthy and who doesn't. Maybe your insurance, which for many is in fact provided through their job, shouldn't cover athletes, over-weight people, or people who drive for exceptionally long distances as well. After all it is a 'lifestyle choice'. The Supreme Court really might run into problems with groups that hold an even more extreme view of the medical world at large like jehovah's witnesses and christian science folk. It'll be interesting to see if they make any such attempts.

The 'free market' doesn't work. Businesses have gotten too big and too diversified to ever really be boycotted and in a lot of cases similar stores will share similar beliefs, ethics, economic values, etc. that you can't boycott them without living in the dark ages. We live largely in a giant monopoly/oligopoly of sorts and no one seems to care. Think about these companies for a minute: GM, Johnson and Johnson, General Mills, Unilever, P&G, QUAKER, Comcast, Nestle, Coca Cola, Luxottica, Monsanto, InBev, oil companies, Google, Microsoft, apple, etc. I could probably keep going. Anyhow, all these companies have a lot in common, they are very difficult to avoid for one (or more) of many reasons: monopolies, oligopolies, collusion, owning a diversified product line (you may not even know you're buying from some of these companies), price setting, etc. This is what our free market has brought us. Should we really be happy about it or even consider it an effective means of eliminating weaker ideologies and products. It's highly unlikely as the ones who weather the storm are the ones with the most cash and/or the ones the majority of America can't seem to live without (or avoid) even when they hate those companies (Comcast).

I have to agree with no_dice as well, it isn't as simple as changing jobs or moving as the majority of people who are genuinely affected by stuff like this do not usually have the means to do either. Most people can't just quit their job because they disagree with their boss as they wouldn't be able to eat or pay their rent if they did. Not all cities/states are created equal either. Some places just don't have a lot of jobs available to them. I've heard many bosses in just my short working career make statements like 'if you don't like it then quit' or 'you can be easily replaced'. That's basically extortion, but it seems you're okay with that. This may be America, but the majority of us are unlikely to find our dream job that agrees with our values and politics and is also a job we love, without starting our own company at least.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

flint757 said:


> It has nothing to do with yours or their belief, they are exploiting the system and opening a door for others to do the same. Kind of like all churches not having to pay a single tax, yet they somehow influence our politics quite a bit despite that fact. Their reasoning is highly irrational anyhow. Lets pretend abortion is 100% bad all the time; their intent is to remove birth control, IUD's and plan B from their insurance plan saving them money while not preventing abortion because none of those things are in fact abortions. You've got to stick to an argument and go with it, not change the story every time you can opportunistically gain something by doing so. In the pro-birth camp there is a complete lack of consistency about what constitutes a child and aside from that most from that camp are literally just guessing anyhow. They certainly would never take the studies, or information, from actual scientists [you know those crazy people who spend close to a decade learning a subject to better society; the reason we have technology, cars, medicine, etc., but never mind that they're stupid when it comes to anything 'my' religion says (except about the Earth being round and not the center of the universe, but hey we can be wrong once, right? ) ].
> 
> It is completely anti-science at its finest and sets a wave in motion in the political sphere, in the conservative public, in the indoctrinated and in the business world that will lead to nothing good. Birth control pills have been a staple of good health insurance for an extremely long time now, it isn't the 70's anymore. Your beliefs should not decide who gets to be healthy and who doesn't. Maybe your insurance, which for many is in fact provided through their job, shouldn't cover athletes, over-weight people, or people who drive for exceptionally long distances as well. After all it is a 'lifestyle choice'. The Supreme Court really might run into problems with groups that hold an even more extreme view of the medical world at large like jehovah's witnesses and christian science folk. It'll be interesting to see if they make any such attempts.
> 
> ...



I certainly agree with a majority of the first half of your statement. What i am saying is, once again, no one is being forced here to work and that on some level, Hobby Lobby (or any place of employment for that matter) is doing a huge service by simply providing employment. You say that the "if you don't like it, you can quit" mentality is extortion, i call it facts honestly. Its a FACT that there are many other people out here looking for jobs and everybody under the sun has to support their family. I hate to break it to you, or say it this way but searching for a "dream job" ain't putting food on the table for a majority of children. There is a balance of responsibility and entitlement. Some people believe that because they work for a particular company, that the ownership of the company owes them anything other than a paycheck and whatever else was agreed upon in the contract. They don't.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> I honestly fail to see the wrong doing here. No one is forcing anyone to work. No one has been "drafted" to work for Hobby Lobby. I know plenty of people that would jump at the chance to work for the organization because they don't have a job at all. I am of the belief that if you don't like the views of the company, then quit and open your spot for someone else. or is it not that simple?
> 
> If as many people don't agree with this as some believe, then Hobby Lobby will fail to exist, free market and a lack of support will take care of that. If you don't agree with the company, then its fine that you don't support it. Don't f**k it up for those who want to work for the company.



The wider context is: to what degree do religious persons or groups have the right to exemption from otherwise generally-applicable laws, particularly in cases where those exemptions negatively impact other persons? This case and _Hosanna-Tabor_, which ruled that a "ministerial exemption" freed a church from having to conform to ADA regulations, set some disturbing precedents in that regard. The reality is that many employees don't have the option to simply quit their jobs because they don't like the company's policies on X - your statement that you know plenty of people who are unemployed and would jump at the chance for a HL position implicitly acknowledges this.

Having said that, I've read the opinion, and while I deeply disagree with the ruling as a matter of policy, I'm hard-pressed to come up with an alternate outcome that does not substantially disturb existing precedent, which the Court is generally reluctant to do. It would be much more radical for SCOTUS to decide that corporations in general (including, by necessity, churches and other explicitly worship-and-teaching groups incorporated as nonprofits) have no right to make claims of free exercise. If there was existing precedent establishing that those explicitly-religious corporations served simply as a vehicle for the *individual* free exercise claims of their members, then I think we might have had a reason to expect a different outcome here. In addition, the fact that the ACA already has an exemption mechanism in place for religious nonprofits made it easy for the Court to rule that forcing for-profits to comply with the contraception mandate was not the most-narrowly-tailored way for the government to realize its aims.

Now, the good news: this was *not* a First Amendment free-exercise case. The issue was whether Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved had a right to claim a religious exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law can be amended or repealed by Congress - unlikely in the current political climate, perhaps, but not impossible. Had this been a straight 1A claim, it's by no means clear that HL would have prevailed so neatly. The majority also went out of its way to try to cabin this ruling, by stating that it would likely not have ruled in the same fashion for an exemption from, for example, vaccinations or anti-racial-discrimination laws. We'll see if that pans out if and when additional cases come up; the Court's newest orders for the next term, issued today, refused to hear a number of HL follow-ups, so it may be a while.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> I certainly agree with a majority of the first half of your statement. What i am saying is, once again, no one is being forced here to work and that on some level, Hobby Lobby (or any place of employment for that matter) is doing a huge service by simply providing employment. You say that the "if you don't like it, you can quit" mentality is extortion, i call it facts honestly. Its a FACT that there are many other people out here looking for jobs and everybody under the sun has to support their family. I hate to break it to you, or say it this way but searching for a "dream job" ain't putting food on the table for a majority of children. There is a balance of responsibility and entitlement. Some people believe that because they work for a particular company, that the ownership of the company owes them anything other than a paycheck and whatever else was agreed upon in the contract. They don't.



I think that employees have a reasonable expectation that their employers will conform to generally-applicable laws governing their conduct. The entire point of this case was the degree to which employers can exploit a religious exemption to that expectation.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

celticelk said:


> I think that employees have a reasonable expectation that their employers will conform to generally-applicable laws governing their conduct. The entire point of this case was the degree to which employers can exploit a religious exemption to that expectation.



And so, we have to explore how central religion was the creation to the American Ideal. I don't believe in forcing religion on anyone, but if the business has a religious stake, or ideal behind it and the employee in question chooses to work for the company in question fully knowing this, then how reasonable is it to expect them to comply with something they believe is out of the question. Like i said before, i believe in the use of contraceptives and hell i even believe that providing contraceptives is a wonderful idea, but who am i and how much stake to i have to tell the established company to provide these things, and as proved by the ruling...not much when in regards to religion. The problem i see with the institution of these rulings is that it creates precedents for what SHOULD be a case-by-case basis. The Whole idea of a "precedent" is that we should not go back on our word, and rule cases differently. although we created the precedent that we could go back on precedents with the revoking of the Jim Crow laws of the late-mid 1900's(Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education respectively) (and i am sure its happened before that, just the easiest for me to recall). i say all of that to say that, just because it was ruled in this one case, doesn't mean it can't and won't change again. 

I simply made a statement saying that, with the exclusion of religion, and possibly the system of laws. Breaking it down to the absolute basic question.

"Who holds the majority stake in the employer-employee relationship"?


Hobby Lobby's lowest salary it pays falls well above minimal wage (MW being 7.25, the lowest salary for HL being somewhere in 8.70's with a majority in the 10+ range). So its not like they are a bad company....


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

Which American Ideal? The one where many of the early settlers were Protestants who heavily discriminated against other Christian sects, or the one where the founding fathers were significantly Deist and went to great pains to try to separate religion from legislation?

But that aside, tradition only has value because it's tradition and is no inherent indicator of the quality of an idea, so it's an absolutely rubbish precedent.

A corporation is not a person, despite SCOTUS' best efforts. A corporation ITSELF cannot hold religious beliefs. A corporation should not be able to escape federal regulations because of what the founders or the owners personally believe.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


> Which American Ideal? The one where many of the early settlers were Protestants who heavily discriminated against other Christian sects, or the one where the founding fathers were significantly Deist and went to great pains to try to separate religion from legislation?
> 
> But that aside, tradition only has value because it's tradition and is no inherent indicator of the quality of an idea, so it's an absolutely rubbish precedent.
> 
> A corporation is not a person, despite SCOTUS' best efforts. A corporation ITSELF cannot hold religious beliefs. A corporation should not be able to escape federal regulations because of what the founders or the owners personally believe.



i would have to say that we agree to disagree , i believe founder or owner can create an organization with a certain intent or belief and have that carried out. should they be able to escape federal regulations? that another question, why are people smoking pot in Colorado and parts of Cali when its federally illegal (we are not getting into States rights today haha)


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


> On a strictly systematic & utilitarian level, I've never understood why the child gets priority over the mother. ...



But it's not even a child during the point where all legal abortions occur. Making that claim is like saying a completed set of plans is a house. It takes a lot of time and materials to turn the plans into a house. Sure, at some point it transitions into an incomplete house that is "livable", but prior to that, it's simply not a house.

Another way to look at it is like a loaf of bread. It sure isn't bread when the ingredients are first mixed. It needs to rise (sometimes twice) and then be baked. When does that lump of warm dough transition to under-cooked bread?

And for the let-me-force-my-religious-beleifs-on-everybody-so-I-can-arrogantly-feel-superior-because-i'm-claiming-to-save-babies crowd, who want to say fetuses feel pain at 20-weeks: You've been doubly lied to. (1) The portions of the brain responsible for pain perception aren't hooked-up by 20-weeks. The study that supposedly showed fetuses felt pain at 20-weeks was horribly flawed. (2) The 20-weekers further distort (i.e. LIE) by changing that 20-weeks gestational age to "20-weeks after onset of last menses" which shifts that 20-weeks to 16-18-weeks.

And finally, if you want to use your immutable mythology as justification, the bible says a fetus is not a person, and christianity didn't buy into the "life begins at conception" nonsense until semi-recently. In fact, colonial law (supposedly based 100% on Christianity) had no troubles with abortion prior to "The Quickening" (being able to feel fetal movements). Also, the RCC didn't formally condemn all forms of contraception, abortion, non-procreative sex (which includes post-marital rhythm method, post-menepausal, sterile couples, etc.), etc. until 1968.


Ray


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> But it's not even a child during the point where all legal abortions occur. Making that claim is like saying a completed set of plans is a house. It takes a lot of time and materials to turn the plans into a house. Sure, at some point it transitions into an incomplete house that is "livable", but prior to that, it's simply not a house.
> 
> Another way to look at it is like a loaf of bread. It sure isn't bread when the ingredients are first mixed. It needs to rise (sometimes twice) and then be baked. When does that lump of warm dough transition to under-cooked bread?
> 
> ...



i learned in 2nd grade that shit that ain't alive don't grow, its a child as soon as the sperm and egg meet. Granted there are some cases where the Mother has to get rid of the child or die, and this is understandable to me. It's LIFE shouldn't mean more than the Mother's LIFE, but its LIFE should mean more than the Mother's whimsical desires. It should mean more than that lady who got pregnant JUST to get an abortion and record it.....


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> (we are not getting into States rights today haha)



Good, because it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Do you support racial segregation? Your reasoning necessarily dictates that you must.


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> i learned in 2nd grade that shit that ain't alive don't grow, its a child as soon as the sperm and egg meet





Nobody's saying it's not _alive_. That's ridiculous. The question is of personhood.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

tacotiklah said:


> ... This is right up there with proclaiming that pizza is a vegetable.



Hey, hey, hey, you're slipping into anti-evolution nutcase territory here. That's a strawman. Pizza was never declared a vegetable. 

The claim was that between the tomato sauce and sufficient vegetable toppings, a slice of pizza could count as a serving of vegetables. Just as a serving of soup, stew, casserole, etc. would count as a serving of vegetables if they contained enough veggies.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I didn't read your post ... I'm not interested in arguing with you so you may think as you so choose.



Again, typical I'm-better-than-you-mythology-believer-nonsence. You drop-in to "argue" a point, and then vanish/refuse to argue when your mythology-based nonsense is refuted because it has no basis in reality.

Ray


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


> Good, because it's an apples to oranges comparison.
> 
> Do you support racial segregation? Your reasoning necessarily dictates that you must.



I'm black, it would be counter-intuitive.

I realize that i'm trying to break down down as simple as possible, as said in my original post, asking if it was that simple. i hadn't planned on getting into the deep of the ruling, which in my current state of Vicodin and Ibuprofen induced grogginess and the pain of these gaping holes that once were my wisdom teeth, is just not possible at the moment. i will be sure to do some solid research on the subject and P.M and we can continue this conversation. It's been a while since i've have to debate my views to quite this degree, i guess that is what this thread is for this


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


> Nobody's saying it's not _alive_. That's ridiculous. The question is of personhood.



if it is alive, won't it eventually become a person? so won't it actually be the same as killing a person.

"quick, kill it before it forms a coherent thought, because we know it will eventually"

if you know that it will eventually grow up, killing it after it is created (sperm+egg) but before some "scientifically correct" date doesn't diminish the act


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> I'm black, it would be counter-intuitive.
> 
> I realize that i'm trying to break down down as simple as possible, as said in my original post, asking if it was that simple. i hadn't planned on getting into the deep of the ruling, which in my current state of Vicodin and Ibuprofen induced grogginess and the pain of these gaping holes that once were my wisdom teeth, is just don't possible at the moment. i will be sure to do some solid research on the subject and P.M and we can continue this conversation. It's been a while since i've have to debate my views to quite this degree, i guess that is what this thread is for this



Come back to it when you're down then 

I know it would be counter-intuitive. But your logic _does_ demand it, because you say that 



> i believe founder or owner can create an organization with a certain intent or belief and have that carried out.



and there are far, far too many people with incredibly racist (also sexist) views of the world that would love nothing more than being able to openly act out their views instead of resorting to behind the back, long winded policies and dog whistles.

But you also specify carrying it out, which to me implies that the organization (which is somewhat separate from a corporation, mind...) is _for that purpose_, which also works against Hobby Lobby. Because Hobby Lobby sells hobby supplies and isn't for pushing factually false anti-women policies on their workers.


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> if it is alive, won't it eventually become a person? so won't it actually be the same as killing a person.
> 
> "quick, kill it before it forms a coherent thought, because we know it will eventually"
> 
> if you know that it will eventually grow up, killing it after it is created (sperm+egg) but before some "scientifically correct" date doesn't diminish the act



Yes, it will eventually become a person. But it's not a person yet and this is still an important distinction.

Otherwise, the sperm and eggs when joined eventually become people too, should those get afforded the same rights? (cue "Every Sperm is Sacred" from Monty Python...)


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> i learned in 2nd grade that shit that ain't alive don't grow,


Crystals grow. Snowflakes grow. Stars and planets grow. Comets grow. Stalactites and stalagmites grow. River deltas grow. So much for your education.


JmCastor said:


> its a child as soon as the sperm and egg meet


That's your modern mythological interpretation that is not supported by logic or reality. It's not even support by the bible which explicitly states that terminating a pregnancy is not equivalent to murder (which is punishable by death), but merely a "wrong" that is to be settled by the injurer negotiating a fine with the potential father.


JmCastor said:


> Granted there are some cases where the Mother has to get rid of the child or die, and this is understandable to me. It's LIFE shouldn't mean more than the Mother's LIFE, but its LIFE should mean more than the Mother's whimsical desires. It should mean more than that lady who got pregnant JUST to get an abortion and record it.....


As I said, and you refuse to understand, it's not a life at the point of conception, or for the first several months any more than a complete set of plans or a foundation, or a partially built frame, etc. is a house.

*Please, don't claim facts or logic, when they're not on your side.*

You can't base your claim on logic, facts or reality. You can only base your claim on the current subjective interpretation of a supposedly inerrant and immutable religious mythology that you adhere to. Therefore your BELIEFS have no bearing on laws that apply to anybody outside your particular interpretation, of your particular version, of your chosen mythology. This is not debatable.

Think of it this way, if you think the BELIEFS of your particular interpretation, of your particular version, of your chosen mythology should apply to all, how would you feel if:
Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jainists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Rastafarians, Zoroastrians, Bahá'í, Taoists, etc. banned together to ban the consumption of pork by all?
Vegetarian Hindus, vegetarian Buddhists, vegetarian Sikhs, Jainists, Seventh-Day Adventists & Rastafarians (Both Christian groups that should be vegetarians), Zoroastrians (should be vegetarian), Bahá'í (vegetarianism is preferred), Taoists (vegetarianism is preferred), etc. banned together to ban the consumption of meat by all?
Islamic Sharia was forced on all (vs. the Christian Sharia you're trying to force on all)?
A different interpretation, of a potentially different version, of your chosen mythology tried to force it's subjective interpretation of your chosen mythology

*Don't claim religious superiority/justification when your know that you will hypocritically deny folks that don't BELIEVE your particular interpretation, of your particular version, of your chosen mythology, that same mythology-based-justification in an instant.*

Ray


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


> Yes, it will eventually become a person. But it's not a person yet and this is still an important distinction.
> 
> Otherwise, the sperm and eggs when joined eventually become people too, should those get afforded the same rights? (cue "Every Sperm is Sacred" from Monty Python...)



if i cum on a toilet seat, and leave it for nine months, what happens?

if a chick leaves a egg in the toilet for nine months, what happens?

hell, if a chick leaves a egg in the toilet and i cum on the egg, what happens?

Absolutely nothing (i would not try the third one for safe measure though)


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Crystals grow. Snowflakes grow. Stars and planets grow. So much for your opening statement.That's your modern mythological interpretation that is not supported by logic or reality. It's not even support by the bible which explicitly states that terminating a pregnancy is not equivalent to murder (punishable by death), but merely a "wrong" that is to be settled by the injurer negotiating a fine with the potential father.As I said, and you refuse to understand, it's not a life at the point of conception, or for the first several months any more than a complete set of plans or a foundation is a house.
> 
> *Please, don't claim logic, when it's not on your side.*
> 
> ...



Since when have i ever claimed religious superiority? i'd like to think i am rather understanding that people can live their life as they chose, when it comes to pretty much anything.

I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality but i also understand that there are gay Marines that would gladly give their life for me, without even knowing me personally, and i would absolutely do the same for them. So this isn't about superiority, just a view that i have, we can totally agree to disagree 

and i totally did not reference the Bible at all, i don't believe in using the bible as proof or logic simply because there are too many interpretations and people can find just about anything from the text, which is partly why we have so many sections with Christianity


----------



## celticelk (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> And so, we have to explore how central religion was the creation to the American Ideal. I don't believe in forcing religion on anyone, but if the business has a religious stake, or ideal behind it and the employee in question chooses to work for the company in question fully knowing this, then how reasonable is it to expect them to comply with something they believe is out of the question.



Since you've mentioned that you're African-American, let me use the following analogy: Suppose you and your family were on vacation somewhere remote and your car broke down. Suppose further that this happened in a small town whose inhabitants were all white and militantly racist. In the absence of laws prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, they would be legally justified in categorically denying you and your family access to food, shelter, and auto repair services. In the abstract, you'd have the option to "go somewhere else," but in the immediate instance, you have no other available options. LGBT people in small towns face much the same possible circumstance in the present day, which is why state laws against orientation discrimination have been on the rise. We have an interest in having laws be generally applicable in order to avoid exactly these types of circumstances. The circumstances which trigger an exception to those laws ought to be exceedingly rare. 




JmCastor said:


> Hobby Lobby's lowest salary it pays falls well above minimal wage (MW being 7.25, the lowest salary for HL being somewhere in 8.70's with a majority in the 10+ range). So its not like they are a bad company....



Irrelevant. We're talking about legal principles here, not some sort of karmic balancing.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Since you've mentioned that you're African-American, let me use the following analogy: Suppose you and your family were on vacation somewhere remote and your car broke down. Suppose further that this happened in a small town whose inhabitants were all white and militantly racist. In the absence of laws prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, they would be legally justified in categorically denying you and your family access to food, shelter, and auto repair services. In the abstract, you'd have the option to "go somewhere else," but in the immediate instance, you have no other available options. LGBT people in small towns face much the same possible circumstance in the present day, which is why state laws against orientation discrimination have been on the rise. We have an interest in having laws be generally applicable in order to avoid exactly these types of circumstances. The circumstances which trigger an exception to those laws ought to be exceedingly rare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But the problem with this statement is that, unlike me and my family in your example, you can get another job..will it be the same? better or worst? who knows? but i totally understand the point you are trying to make. Laws such as these can come as needed, and they are needed...but in the case of hobby lobby we are talking about a company with a certain viewset that does not necessarily restrict preference. its not saying, "we won't hire "insert set of people"", its saying that "we don't believe in this certain thing, here is why" and i am saying at that point, you can decide "huh, that sucks, let me stop supporting them" of your own free will


----------



## flint757 (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> i learned in 2nd grade that shit that ain't alive don't grow, its a child as soon as the sperm and egg meet. Granted there are some cases where the Mother has to get rid of the child or die, and this is understandable to me. It's LIFE shouldn't mean more than the Mother's LIFE, but its LIFE should mean more than the Mother's whimsical desires. It should mean more than that lady who got pregnant JUST to get an abortion and record it.....



Just so you're aware, the 'abortion as a form of birth control' people are a very small minority of those who get abortions and the number of abortions in general are pretty low to begin with. The majority of people who end up having an abortion are 'one and done' types. 

I'm sorry, but plan B is not an abortion and it is just asinine to consider it so. All it really mean is you are sincerely misinformed about the process of sex/pregnancy.

Emergency contraception: Emergency contraceptives are not abortion



JmCastor said:


> I hate to break it to you, or say it this way but searching for a "dream job" ain't putting food on the table for a majority of children.



That wasn't my point and you aren't breaking anything new for me here.  You were saying 'if you don't like it then find another job' and my point was you'd be hard pressed to find a job that fits your exact political and ethical mindset. Not that this should be a goal necessarily, but that 'just quitting' or 'looking elsewhere' isn't really practical even if you completely disagree with your companies point of view, especially if you're poor.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> Since when have i ever claimed religious superiority?


Your "I was taught in 2nd grade ..." strawman/ad hominem nonsense. Folks not arguing from mythology are rarely that arrogantly ignorant.


JmCastor said:


> and i totally did not reference the Bible at all, i don't believe in using the bible as proof or logic simply because there are too many interpretations and people can find just about anything from the text, which is partly why we have so many sections with *[the correct phrase is "sects of"]* Christianity


Ok, so you have no logic, facts or data to support your life begins at conception claim. And you admit you have no religious justification that life begins at conception. All you have is "Because I said so!"  And you expect that to mean anything?

Give one shred of evidence that a person exists at conception. Any claim either falls into the "mythological mumbo-jumbo realm" (which has ZERO basis in reality and is trivially contradicted by reality) or the "enough knowledge to be dangerous pseudo scientific realm". The latter of which apply equally to the claims that cutting your toenails is murder because "it might form a person" or that a complete set of plans is a house because it might be a house.

Actually, your chicken egg comment is a great example. If a fertilized chicken egg was left on a toilet, it would hatch because everything needed to make a chick is there. Leave a fertilized human ovum on a toilet and it will die because it needs ~40 weeks worth of raw materials and protection to develop -- hence the analogy to a complete set of plans not being a house. And, until the brain develops sufficiently, the fetus is no more a person than an amputated limb, a pint of blood, cut hair or toenails, etc. A decapitated body is easier to keep alive than a fertilized ovum. Is letting a decapitated body die murder? It is a hell of a lot closer to being a person than a fertilized ovum. If you want to spew pseudo-scientific nonsense, at least be consistent.

You can BELIEVE that a fertilized ovum is a person all you want, nobody is stopping you. That doesn't make it correct. It doesn't give you the right to force your BELIEF on others. And it sure as heck doesn't entitle you to express your BELIEF without any distention and correction.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> ... It sucks that they are supporting Hobby Lobby. Ginsburg's dissent was solid. It just fails logic that a for-profit company like Hobby Lobby can use religious liberty as a means to an end (profit margin).



And what's worse, is that this will be used as precedence in future cases. Greece v. Galloway was already used as precedence in this case, and has been used to justify "Christian Mythology Uber Alles".

Ray


----------



## Promit (Jul 1, 2014)

Thank you, ElRay, for having the patience that many of us do not.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> I'm black, it would be counter-intuitive.



Therefore, you're a hypocrite. 

If you're fine with corporation violating federal law for "deeply held convictions" and denying their employees valid, medical care due to mis-information regarding the products/services shoe-horned into their mythology, then you have to be fine with corporations violating federal law for "deeply held convictions" and allowing them to discriminate based on ethnicity. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

And, while we're at it, corporations could ban their employees from eating meat (even at home), require them to wear the sacred Mormon Underwear, pray five times a day, etc., all based on the same "my deeply held beliefs trump fairness, your deeply held beliefs, facts, data, logic and reality" basis.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> ... i believe founder or owner can create an organization with a certain intent or belief and have that carried out ...



In general, I agree and I hope that one day, we will get to the point that laws like this are not needed (that's the small-L Libertarian in me). But just as we had (and still have) ignorant bigots that willfully choose to remain ignorant and choose to discriminate based on ethnicity, we have ignorant bigots that willfully choose to remain ignorant and arrogantly force their hypocritical, irrational, inconsistently applied, BELIEFS, that have no basis in reality and are contradicted by reality, on their employees.

Therefore, the lesser of the evils, is to protect employees access to medical care from the irrational BELIEFS of their employers.

Ray


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


>


 
I want to "unlike" this post...


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> I honestly fail to see the wrong doing here. No one is forcing anyone to work. No one has been "drafted" to work for Hobby Lobby. I know plenty of people that would jump at the chance to work for the organization because they don't have a job at all. I am of the belief that if you don't like the views of the company, then quit and open your spot for someone else. or is it not that simple?
> 
> If as many people don't agree with this as some believe, then Hobby Lobby will fail to exist, free market and a lack of support will take care of that. If you don't agree with the company, then its fine that you don't support it. Don't f**k it up for those who want to work for the company.


 
No one forces one to work, yet, if one does not have money for rent, they are evicted. So there is pressure to work, though it may not be direct.

I am fortunate enough to have multiple jobs (and have for years) and three college degrees. I left my employer last month. I am getting by and have multiple opportunities that I am exploring currently. However, I do not have guaranteed income after this month.

The job market is competitive enough that leaving a job is not something many can do lightly, especially if they have debt and/or children.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 1, 2014)

I think it is a shocking commentary on society that people think that unemployment being high (I have a stack of resumes) is a valid reason of employers to violate human rights.

What a depressing world we live in.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> if it is alive, won't it eventually become a person? so won't it actually be the same as killing a person.
> 
> "quick, kill it before it forms a coherent thought, because we know it will eventually"
> 
> if you know that it will eventually grow up, killing it after it is created (sperm+egg) but before some "scientifically correct" date doesn't diminish the act


 
I must reiterate the point that the NYTIMES article I previously posted cites the error in relating this case to abortion. According to the data presented in that article, Plan B and IUD devices prevent fertilization. Therefore, there is no "alive" or "personhood" or "embryo" or "fertilized egg" in the discussion of the Hobby Lobby ruling at hand.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> But the problem with this statement is that, unlike me and my family in your example, you can get another job..will it be the same? better or worst? who knows? but i totally understand the point you are trying to make. Laws such as these can come as needed, and they are needed...but in the case of hobby lobby we are talking about a company with a certain viewset that does not necessarily restrict preference. its not saying, "we won't hire "insert set of people"", its saying that "we don't believe in this certain thing, here is why" and i am saying at that point, you can decide "huh, that sucks, let me stop supporting them" of your own free will



"You can get another job" is precisely analogous to the "you can go to another place of business" argument against anti-discrimination law in public accommodations, which I used as an analogy previously. These arguments work *in the abstract*, but they fail quickly when applied to real life.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 1, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> I must reiterate the point that the NYTIMES article I previously posted cites the error in relating this case to abortion. According to the data presented in that article, Plan B and IUD devices prevent fertilization. Therefore, there is no "alive" or "personhood" or "embryo" or "fertilized egg" in the discussion of the Hobby Lobby ruling at hand.



Strictly speaking, that's irrelevant to the case. The free exercise claims of the plaintiffs encompass the belief that these methods work by inducing abortion. They're no more able to be challenged in court on the basis of science than the belief that [insert god here] created the world [insert arbitrary length of time] ago can be challenged based on our knowledge of geology and astrophysics. The Constitutional structures around free exercise of religion simply don't work that way.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> I honestly fail to see the wrong doing here. No one is forcing anyone to work. No one has been "drafted" to work for Hobby Lobby. ...



It would be nice if we could live this way. As you've been asked, would you be OK if Hobby Lobby had a "No Negros/Asians/Native Americans" policy? Would be happy if 90% of the employers in your area had a "No Negros/Asians/Native Americans" policy? Would you be happy that you'd have to move to another state to find a job? Whoops, 95% of the employers in that state have a "No Negros/Asians/Native Americans" policy too. And, unemployment is incredibly high in other states due to all the Negros/Asians/Native Americans migrating to find work.

What if an employer said that they'd provide extra vacation time and/or subsidize the costs of adoption, but only if they were NOT mixed-race and/or mixed-creed adoptions?

Would you be fine if a Christian employer decided to prevent their employees from donating blood/receiving transfusions, or having in-vitro fertilization, based on their interpretation of the christian mythology?

What you also don't get, is that it's not just limited to employment. Many states have already added nonsensical requirements to Drs wanting to perform abortions, that there are essentially ZERO places in the state where citizens that don't subscribe to the mythology can have a valid medical procedure performed. It's starting to get the same way with birth control.

Once you open the door to any government enforced, promoted, etc. religion, or allow laws to be ignored or implement double standards ("official" churches vs. generic non-profits), or choose to ignore laws (e.g. no campaigning by religious non-profits) based on mythological BELIEFS, you open the doors to any mythology using the government to enforce their "sharia" on anybody.

Our government was formed secular (despite what the theocratic christians claim) and needs to remain secular.

Ray


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 1, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Strictly speaking, that's irrelevant to the case. The free exercise claims of the plaintiffs encompass the belief that these methods work by inducing abortion. They're no more able to be challenged in court on the basis of science than the belief that [insert god here] created the world [insert arbitrary length of time] ago can be challenged based on our knowledge of geology and astrophysics. The Constitutional structures around free exercise of religion simply don't work that way.


 
I will admit that it is unfortunate when fact supported by evidential data is considered irrelevant to a debate, however, my point was to get back to topic of discussing this particular ruling and the consequences to citizens vs. corporations.

This overall debate does have certain roots in the abortion debate, but I was trying to simplify the arguments by removing that component. After all, the abortion topic is buried deep in this, but it is not the surface argument. Occam's Razor is a useful tool in debates.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Your "I was taught in 2nd grade ..." strawman/ad hominem nonsense. Folks not arguing from mythology are rarely that arrogantly ignorant.Ok, so you have no logic, facts or data to support your life begins at conception claim. And you admit you have no religious justification that life begins at conception. All you have is "Because I said so!"  And you expect that to mean anything?
> 
> Give one shred of evidence that a person exists at conception. Any claim either falls into the "mythological mumbo-jumbo realm" (which has ZERO basis in reality and is trivially contradicted by reality) or the "enough knowledge to be dangerous pseudo scientific realm". The latter of which apply equally to the claims that cutting your toenails is murder because "it might form a person" or that a complete set of plans is a house because it might be a house.
> 
> ...



By "chick" i meant a young healthy female, sorry for using slang terminology. And i'd have to say, you make a rather convincing argument. I guess scientifically, i can't really back it up. In that sense i can't really tell *when* a person becomes a person. I know i have my feelings, i know i would rather agree to adopt a child myself then to have it be aborted and thrown away (i also know i'd be broke because thats a shit-ton of kids ), but i'd have to admit that you are right that in this argument, feelings certainly don't mean jack shit if i can't back it up. 

I'd hate to feel like I'm forcing my beliefs on others, i believe you are going to leave this conversation feeling the same way on the topic and so will i. just wanted to present another side (which was shot down rather quickly i might add)


----------



## celticelk (Jul 1, 2014)

celticelk said:


> The majority also went out of its way to try to cabin this ruling, by stating that it would likely not have ruled in the same fashion for an exemption from, for example, vaccinations or anti-racial-discrimination laws. We'll see if that pans out if and when additional cases come up; the Court's newest orders for the next term, issued today, refused to hear a number of HL follow-ups, so it may be a while.



Let me clarify this last part, because I was mistaken about what was happening and so may have unintentionally misled people. SCOTUS today issued orders for six cases that involved religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. Three cases had been decided in favor of the government at the Circuit Court level; SCOTUS remanded all three back to the circuits for reconsideration in light of yesterday's ruling. Three other cases had been decided in favor of the religious objectors; SCOTUS refused the government's request to review those cases, sustaining the circuits' decisions. Note also that most or all of these cases involved objections to providing *any* of the twenty services covered under the contraceptive mandate (including pregnancy counseling), not just the four prevents-implantation methods that were at issue in the Hobby Lobby case.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Just so you're aware, the 'abortion as a form of birth control' people are a very small minority of those who get abortions and the number of abortions in general are pretty low to begin with. The majority of people who end up having an abortion are 'one and done' types.
> 
> I'm sorry, but plan B is not an abortion and it is just asinine to consider it so. All it really mean is you are sincerely misinformed about the process of sex/pregnancy.
> 
> ...



we never started talking about what i believe about emergency contraceptives. I never said i disapprove of the use of Plan B or the such....alas that does make the "if it doesn't grow, it ain't alive" argument slightly hypocritical. I am trying to say that once the combination of the sperm and the egg hit a point where they are no long just a sperm and egg, when they combine to form that object that grows on its own (and where Plan B will no longer work) then it is at a stage where it is simply life impending. In saying that, i also have to acknowledge that the female body is necessary and integral (until we can grown babies in machines built for the such) and at the end of the day, i can't tell a female what do do with her body, do i like it? no, but my opinions don't really matter

and very well, i can agree with that point. Its not feasible i suppose.


----------



## asher (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> just wanted to present another side (which was shot down rather quickly i might add)



That's because it mostly comes forward heavy on belief and empty on facts.


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

asher said:


> That's because it mostly comes forward heavy on belief and empty on facts.



alas and i'll have to come back, sources in hand


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> I must reiterate the point that the NYTIMES article I previously posted cites the error in relating this case to abortion. According to the data presented in that article, Plan B and IUD devices prevent fertilization. Therefore, there is no "alive" or "personhood" or "embryo" or "fertilized egg" in the discussion of the Hobby Lobby ruling at hand.



i believe this, and like i said before, i don't necessarily agree with the ruling, i was originally tackling the working aspect of this. The fact that there are people who need jobs, who are willing to work for HL that could care less about receiving contraceptives


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> It would be nice if we could live this way. As you've been asked, would you be OK if Hobby Lobby had a "No Negros/Asians/Native Americans" policy? Would be happy if 90% of the employers in your area had a "No Negros/Asians/Native Americans" policy? Would you be happy that you'd have to move to another state to find a job? Whoops, 95% of the employers in that state have a "No Negros/Asians/Native Americans" policy too. And, unemployment is incredibly high in other states due to all the Negros/Asians/Native Americans migrating to find work.
> 
> What if an employer said that they'd provide extra vacation time and/or subsidize the costs of adoption, but only if they were NOT mixed-race and/or mixed-creed adoptions?
> 
> ...



but we are not talking about HL not letting certain people work, we are talking about contraceptives. if you wanna skew that argument so far as to evoke that feeling, i can say that any responsible women that i've had sex with provided me with a condom, or at least made sure i had one. 

we are not talking about a company with hostile work environment, i can guarantee that working at HL is better than working at MacDonald's, so with that said, i think the consensuses here in this thread is to make HL seem like a company that is seriously flawed in every way to make a point. That is just not true. granted i agree with your statement, that there is a danger in letting federal law be bypassed or presenting exemptions, but where do we draw the line? because its been happening since way before this


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

celticelk said:


> "You can get another job" is precisely analogous to the "you can go to another place of business" argument against anti-discrimination law in public accommodations, which I used as an analogy previously. These arguments work *in the abstract*, but they fail quickly when applied to real life.



Plus he's still tap dancing around reality. If you give corporations the special privilege to violate federal law based on "deeply held beliefs" of the owners, you've just given them the special privilege to discriminate based on ethnicity, religious/mythological beliefs, etc.. You can claim that the literal text of the majority opinion doesn't allow it, but it sets a legal precedence that can trivially be expanded, and we all know how good religious folks are are cherry-picking portions that support their bigotry, ignoring the parts that contradict their bigotry and twisting the literal word to suit their need all while talking out of both sides of their face about subjectivity and literalism.

The undeniable TRUTH is that JimCastor is a flaming hypocrite, but minces words trying to fool himself and others that his hypocrisy somehow isn't hypocritical or is actually justifiable.


Ray


----------



## JmCastor (Jul 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Plus he's still tap dancing around reality. If you give corporations the special privilege to violate federal law based on "deeply held beliefs" of the owners, you've just given them the special privilege to discriminate based on ethnicity, religious/mythological beliefs, etc.. You can claim that the literal text of the majority opinion doesn't allow it, but it sets a legal precedence that can trivially be expanded, and we all know how good religious folks are are cherry-picking portions that support their bigotry, ignoring the parts that contradict their bigotry and twisting the literal word to suit their need all while talking out of both sides of their face about subjectivity and literalism.
> 
> The undeniable TRUTH is that JimCastor is a flaming hypocrite, but minces words trying to fool himself and others that his hypocrisy somehow isn't hypocritical or is actually justifiable.
> 
> ...



"flaming hypocrite", damn dude, how about you P.M your phone number and we have civilized conversation offline about the matter, because i don't agree with name calling, especially behind a computer. Note: i am being serious, we can talk, and then just as quickly forget each others numbers, i don't have anything to hide


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> but we are not talking about HL not letting certain people work, we are talking about contraceptives. ...



Are you truly that dense? The SCOTUS just gave corporations the right to ignore federal law based on their "strongly held beliefs". If you have a problem with corporations discriminating based on ethnicity due to their "strongly held beliefs", but you don't have a problem with corporations blocking valid medical care due to "strongly held beliefs", you're a despicable hypocrite. No argument about it. There's no way you can tap-dance around that. You can spew all the nonsense you want. You may fool yourself, you may obfuscate others, but the reality is you're a hypocrite.

You're also a naive child if you think this precedence will stay limited to the specific medical procedures listed. Greece v Galloway had four specific requirements, and they have been throw out the door by pretty much every "It's my elected duty to shove my christianity down everybody's throat" official throughout the US. Greece v Galloway has already been used as justification to discriminate against non-Christians, despite the literal word saying that it doesn't allow that.

I try to be patient, but you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant. Hopefully others will read the entire thread, actually understand what's been written and not descend into the world of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty you're currently refusing refuse to crawl out of. Maybe you'll grow-up and see your hypocrisy. Hopefully you will.

Ray


----------



## Explorer (Jul 1, 2014)

To me, it comes down to this:

The owner of a closely-held corporation who is a member of the Worldwide Church of the Creator, a white supremacy Christian Identity faith, can use this law to deny health care to his negro workers. 

Those who are arguing this decision is a good idea, you are justifying this usage, which fits the letter of the law. 

This is just like a white supremacist pharmacist not giving antibiotics to a black infant because it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs. 

If you have no problem with that, or allowing legal discrimination, then I hope those of you have feel so can so proudly when you have to explain to your children why Jim Crow was completely okay. Most kids see through the prejudices of previous generations, so don't be surprised if they just write you off as being an idiot.



JmCastor said:


> If as many people don't agree with this as some believe, then Hobby Lobby will fail to exist, free market and a lack of support will take care of that.



I'm completely okay with the corporation ceasing to exist. That's my right to not support a company. It's Chik-Fil-A all over again....


----------



## Syphon (Jul 1, 2014)

Does this forum consistently spend 5 pages arguing with a troll? 

You cannot debate someone who changes their premise to evade your points. Even when you are right, there is no end.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

Syphon said:


> Does this forum consistently spend 5 pages arguing with a troll?


I've gotten to the point that it seems if trolls are left unanswered, too many folks fall in line behind them. Why does 80% of the U.S. BELIEVE in creationism despite the totally lack of evidence for it, and the mountains of evidence to evolution?


Syphon said:


> You cannot debate someone who changes their premise to evade your points. Even when you are right, there is no end.


Mr. Beaver's been pretty consistent that he's an uneducated, hypocritical, christian apologist that's trying claim he's not religious while relying on arrogant ignorance to BELIEVE himself correct.

Ray


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jul 2, 2014)

Supreme Court Rules JCPenney Allowed to Sacrifice Employees to Appease Cthulhu - The Moonmont Chronicle


----------



## Watty (Jul 2, 2014)

Syphon said:


> Does this forum consistently spend 5 pages arguing with a troll?
> 
> You cannot debate someone who changes their premise to evade your points. Even when you are right, there is no end.



Let us have our fun....



JmCastor said:


> i learned in 2nd grade that shit that ain't alive don't grow, its a child as soon as the sperm and egg meet. Granted there are some cases where the Mother has to get rid of the child or die, and this is understandable to me.



If you'll read what I wrote a page or two back, you'd perhaps realize that whether or not the child is "alive" the moment sperm and egg meet is completely irrelevant. We're talking about legal rights and ramifications. And, for reference, if you make one exception for life of the mother, then you've already admitted that the "absolute" rights you're advocating have a limit past which you think they should be ignored.

If you believe that a woman should be prevented from getting an abortion at all (read: the logical conclusion to your position), then you have no problem whatsoever with the government legally requiring that parents (er, make that mothers as HL seems to not care that they pay for vasectomies/viagra/etc) donate organs to their children should they need them. After all, if an unborn child can make use of a woman's uterus for 9 months and irrevocably change her body, then what's a spare kidney between [family]? We aren't talking about what's morally right or wrong, we're talking about what can be legally required of people who live in this country. Granted that no one HAS to work for Hobby Lobby, but as has been posted previously, this argument doesn't get you any further away from the edge of the slippery slope that the SCOTUS has seen fit to edge us toward with this batshit insane ruling.

It is literally not the woman's fault that the child requires her body to survive, if she doesn't want it inside of her, that's her choice. I think it'll be a sight to see when we have the capacity to artificially incubate humans (assuming we deem it okay like we've struggled with on stem cell research) as then an abortion won't require ending the life. I assume the pro-lifers will retreat to the objection on religious grounds instead of (broadly) moral grounds and we can write that off as well.



JmCastor said:


> It's LIFE shouldn't mean more than the Mother's LIFE, but its LIFE should mean more than the Mother's whimsical desires. It should mean more than that lady who got pregnant JUST to get an abortion and record it.....



What if the mother was on birth control and she insisted that her partner wear a condom? Neither method is 100% effective so it is conceivable (haha) that she could still get pregnant despite her best efforts. The common thread among pro-lifers harkens back to "responsibility" which seems strange to me when women commonly take precautions like those mentioned above (i.e. taking responsibility for having sex in the first place). You can't have it both ways, especially when it leads to the conclusion that most anti-abortion proponents are against pre-marital sex. I'm not saying that I think it's a good thing that so many people have casual sex on a frequent basis, but I'm certainly not going to tell them who they can and can't sleep with and try to legislate the "consequence" to impose [your] morals on them in a roundabout fashion.

Ultimately, take another look at your position, brush up on your grammar and argumentative skills, and then come back (now, ya 'ere).


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> we never started talking about what i believe about emergency contraceptives. I never said i disapprove of the use of Plan B or the such....alas that does make the "if it doesn't grow, it ain't alive" argument slightly hypocritical. I am trying to say that once the combination of the sperm and the egg hit a point where they are no long just a sperm and egg, when they combine to form that object that grows on its own (and where Plan B will no longer work) then it is at a stage where it is simply life impending. In saying that, i also have to acknowledge that the female body is necessary and integral (until we can grown babies in machines built for the such) and at the end of the day, i can't tell a female what do do with her body, do i like it? no, but my opinions don't really matter
> 
> and very well, i can agree with that point. Its not feasible i suppose.



Yes, but as it pertains to the Hobby Lobby case the argument by Hobby lobby is that the government is 'forcing' them to allow abortions via plan B (from what I've gathered at least). The issue with this mentality is Plan B is NOT an abortion pill at all. It takes a week before the egg is fertilized after intercourse has taken place (not that this really matters, but it does make their point that much more ridiculous). Abortion is completely outside of the discussion yet Hobby Lobby has still managed to make it the centerpiece. It's ridiculous on many levels.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

Explorer said:


> To me, it comes down to this:
> 
> The owner of a closely-held corporation who is a member of the Worldwide Church of the Creator, a white supremacy Christian Identity faith, can use this law to deny health care to his negro workers.



Explorer, I don't think that's an accurate reading of the decision and the relevant federal laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time (maybe too much!) reading up on this, and I think I've got a reasonable layman's grasp of it. Let me walk you through my reasoning; apologies in advance for the length of this post.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed in 1993, provides that persons who wish to claim a religious exception from generally applicable laws have the right to do so, and that the laws from which they are claiming exception must be analyzed by the courts using strict scrutiny (on which more in a second). The law was passed in '93 by a nearly-unanimous Congress to restore this standard of legal scrutiny following a series of cases in the '80s in which SCOTUS began ruling that generally-applicable laws that incidentally infringed on a religious obligation were Constitutionally generally acceptable. The specific triggers were a pair of cases in which Native American claimants failed to receive exemption from federal drug laws for religious use of psychoactives. SCOTUS later ruled that the RFRA cannot bind the states, only the federal government, so it is only available to challenge federal laws (some states have subsequently passed their own versions of the law, which *could* be used to challenge state laws in those states).

The strict scrutiny test means that a law from which a person is claiming a religious exemption must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and that no less-restrictive alternative is available. (This last point was a substantial part of the government's loss in the HL case: the existence of an exemption mechanism for objecting religious nonprofits made it difficult for the government to argue that holding for-profit corporations to the mandate was the least-restrictive means of accomplishing its aim.) In your hypothetical, where a racist employer wants to withhold health care specifically from black employees, the law being violated is in fact not the ACA, but the Civil Rights Act of 1963, which (among other things) outlaws race-based discrimination in employment. Recent rulings on affirmative action and the VRA notwithstanding, SCOTUS takes racial discrimination *very* seriously: laws that are challenged under the 14A right to equal protection and due process get strict scrutiny if the inequality is race-based, but lesser forms of review for other types of discrimination (gender, for example). It is a given that the federal government has a compelling interest in preventing racial discrimination in its workforce, and extremely difficult to see what less-intrusive means might still satisfy that interest.

I'll add that this legal formula for requesting religious exemptions from laws of general applicability has been available for a little over 50 years now, and while it's novel that claims can be made by corporations, it's uncontroversial that sole proprietors could use this tactic. If this were a valid argument, some racist asshole would have made it in the last half-century.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Yes, but as it pertains to the Hobby Lobby case the argument by Hobby lobby is that the government is 'forcing' them to allow abortions via plan B (from what I've gathered at least). The issue with this mentality is Plan B is NOT an abortion pill at all. It takes a week before the egg is fertilized after intercourse has taken place (not that this really matters, but it does make their point that much more ridiculous). Abortion is completely outside of the discussion yet Hobby Lobby has still managed to make it the centerpiece. It's ridiculous on many levels.



For these purposes, whether HL's belief about the way the drugs work is correct is irrelevant - the courts are specifically forbidden from making judgements about whether a belief is reasonable.


----------



## ferret (Jul 2, 2014)

This is, of course, slathered in hyperbole, but it came across my Facebook feed and I thought of this thread.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> For these purposes, whether HL's belief about the way the drugs work is correct is irrelevant - the courts are specifically forbidden from making judgements about whether a belief is reasonable.



Splitting hairs maybe, but is it though? If their only problem is that they do not wish to be forced to allow abortions and the pill does not do this, which is simply fact that is really unquestionable, then the ACA is not forcing them to do abortions and therefore not violating their religious rights. Hobby Lobby's focus is quite narrow so why is it unacceptable for SCOTUS to view it in the same light? 

Not to get ridiculous here, but what you're saying is similar to me claiming that seat belts cause abortions and therefore I should not be required to wear one even though it is against the law (I'm aware that this is a poor comparison, but it is equally ridiculous).




And while it is unlikely that SCOTUS will allow other faiths to make ridiculous demands (I really hope they don't ), it _is_ now technically possible since none of them are making rational claims anyhow. If we aren't allowed to come up with proper defense against their BS it is entirely plausible that things get ridiculous before this all goes away (even if unlikely).


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Splitting hairs maybe, but is it though? If their only problem is that they do not wish to be forced to allow abortions and the pill does not do this, which is simply fact that is really unquestionable, then the ACA is not forcing them to do abortions and therefore not violating their religious rights. Hobby Lobby's focus is quite narrow so why is it unacceptable for SCOTUS to view it in the same light?
> 
> Not to get ridiculous here, but what you're saying is similar to me claiming that seat belts cause abortions and therefore I should not be required to wear one even though it is against the law (I'm aware that this is a poor comparison, but it is equally ridiculous).



There are a lot of facts that are "simply unquestionable" that contradict deeply-held religious beliefs: start with the scientifically-determined age of the earth and evolution by natural selection, and work your way outward from there. The problem is that the moment you start judging religious claims based on "reasonableness," whatever standard of reasonableness you want to impose, you've now involved the government in adjudicating which religious claims are acceptable based on their *content*. That's inevitably a violation of the First Amendment. There's no way around that without drastic change to the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

flint757 said:


> And while it is unlikely that SCOTUS will allow other faiths to make ridiculous demands (I really hope they don't ), it _is_ now technically possible since none of them are making rational claims anyhow. If we aren't allowed to come up with proper defense against their BS it is entirely plausible that things get ridiculous before this all goes away (even if unlikely).



I'll make the same answer here that I made to Explorer above: this test has been available to religious people for a half-century now, and none of the parade of horribles has come to pass. RFRA is not a "get out of laws free" pass - it's a legislative stipulation of the standard of review that has to be applied when claims of religious freedom are made. It's still entirely possible for requests for religious exemption to fail that test.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Explorer, I don't think that's an accurate reading of the decision and the relevant federal laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a lot of time (maybe too much!) reading up on this, and I think I've got a reasonable layman's grasp of it. Let me walk you through my reasoning; apologies in advance for the length of this post. ...



Unfortunately, logic and reading the literal majority opinion is meaningless. Greece v Galloway had four specific requirements, they've been thrown out the door by "It's my elected duty to force christianity on all" elected officials. Greece v Galloway has already been used as justification to deny non-christian invocations at government meetings. Greece v Galloway supposedly wasn't to be used as a precedence, but the SCOTUS itself used the decision as precedence in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

We know how good Force-My-Mythology-On-Everybody christians are at reading and adhering to the literal word. We've already seen examples of where a supposedly non-precedence setting, explicitly limited, decisions were used to justify expansion of forcing christian beliefs on others.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby has opened a huge can of worms and will open even more doors to legalized bigotry and enforcement of ignorance based on "strongly held beliefs". We've seen it before, and we'll see it again.

The "Force my mythology down everybody's throats" olde guard is in their last years. Unfortunately, it will get worse before it gets better, and we'll have to wait for them to die-off before we can get back to cleaning-up their mess. Right now, the most effective thing we can do it to educate younger folks so they don't succumb to this willfully ignorant, hypocritical, religiously justified bigotry.

Ray


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

Ray, can you provide some background reading for your assertions about post-_Greece v. Galloway_ practices? The decision was just issued at the beginning of May and since (according to the brief synopsis I found: Town of Greece v. Galloway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) a pattern of prayers, rather than the content of a specific prayer, has to be involved in challenging local practice under this ruling, I'm wondering who's had the time to document adequately that the ruling is not being followed. (Note: I'm not defending the ruling here; I'm asking for clarification.)


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> I'll make the same answer here that I made to Explorer above: this test has been available to religious people for a half-century now, and none of the parade of horribles has come to pass. RFRA is not a "get out of laws free" pass - it's a legislative stipulation of the standard of review that has to be applied when claims of religious freedom are made. It's still entirely possible for requests for religious exemption to fail that test.



This and a few other cases create precedence. As more and more cases get read, and a hand full of them begin to side with religion, the more likely ridiculous claims will in fact come to pass. It doesn't really matter when the RFRA was first enacted because the political climate right now, to religious people, practically begs for what is happening currently. If more and more cases side with religion the more and more likely it will get ridiculous. After all, as you keep saying, we aren't allowed to use logic apparently (in the court of law we absolutely should be able to, but I digress).

Religion is the stupidest loophole ever and the fact that this apparently stands up to scrutiny is outrageous. The first amendment was meant to protect individual liberties, not to allow companies to take their opinion and force it on all of their employees (arguably the polar opposite of its intent). Citizens United needs to be revisited apparently because this shit is getting ridiculous. Companies are not people and should not be allotted the rights that come with being an individual citizen.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

I entirely agree with you that corporations are not people and ought not have the right to RFRA claims. (I'm less sure about 1A claims in general; there could be some nasty knock-on effects regarding corporate ownership of presses resulting from such a decision.) The Supreme Court doesn't agree. That said, if they *had* agreed, they could have simply proceeded to an individual challenge by the owners, exercising their individual rights under RFRA. Or a case could have been filed by someone operating a business as a sole proprietorship. In that event, given these circumstances, the case would have still been decided in favor of the business rather than the government. (And I'm not sure what you think _Citizens United_ has to do with this - the majority's reasoning follows from a straight-up reading of the Dictionary Act, which defines "person" to include "corporation." As I've said, I would give more weight to the Act's "unless context dictates otherwise" clause, and argue that a corporation as a legal fiction cannot exercise religion in any meaningful sense, but again, the Court was presented with that argument and didn't agree.)

I get that you're angry. I'm also getting the impression that you and a number of other posters here are disinclined to give any house room to religious arguments whatsoever. While you're entitled to that view, the Constitution *does* expressly protect the rights of religious individuals. Is it clear about exactly what that means? No. That's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the law when things are unclear, which is often. The process is messy, and upsetting, and subject to human foibles. It's also, unless and until you can muster enough popular support for a Constitutional amendment, the system we've got, and frankly I'd have a hard time identifying a system that would do any better at grappling with the complex and difficult realities of the diverse nation that we live in.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 2, 2014)

I dunno, I like Canada's systems where whatever one believes isn't used as a justification to take away human rights. That seems the better than what is going on in the US right now.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> I dunno, I like Canada's systems where whatever one believes isn't used as a justification to take away human rights. That seems the better than what is going on in the US right now.



If we had a single-payer system rather than the bastardized Rube Goldberg machine that is the ACA, none of this shit would come up. I would vastly prefer that situation. That said, the ACA, flawed as it is, is still an improvement on the prior state of affairs in my book.


----------



## asher (Jul 2, 2014)

I mean, it would be fine if we didn't have a majority of justices who determine the limit of what they can get away with in pushing a highly conservative/Christian line and then come up with justifications after the fact.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> (And I'm not sure what you think _Citizens United_ has to do with this - the majority's reasoning follows from a straight-up reading of the Dictionary Act, which defines "person" to include "corporation." As I've said, I would give more weight to the Act's "unless context dictates otherwise" clause, and argue that a corporation as a legal fiction cannot exercise religion in any meaningful sense, but again, the Court was presented with that argument and didn't agree.)



While it has nothing directly to do with this case (obviously since it discusses two completely different topics), Citizen United opened a door IMO to view corporations as something they are not, which is people. The case determined that freedom of speech extends to corporations which is not a far off leap to what we are discussing now, which is a corporations right to freedom of religion. IMO, which admittedly could be way off base, that case set a wave in motion that has been slowly destroying this country year by year ever since.



celticelk said:


> I get that you're angry. I'm also getting the impression that you and a number of other posters here are disinclined to give any house room to religious arguments whatsoever. While you're entitled to that view, the Constitution *does* expressly protect the rights of religious individuals. Is it clear about exactly what that means? No. That's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the law when things are unclear, which is often. The process is messy, and upsetting, and subject to human foibles. It's also, unless and until you can muster enough popular support for a Constitutional amendment, the system we've got, and frankly I'd have a hard time identifying a system that would do any better at grappling with the complex and difficult realities of the diverse nation that we live in.



I'm not angry in the slightest. The reason many of us are so against religious doctrine being pushed through via exceptions and laws is that not everyone is religious nor do they necessarily hold the same faith as the guy next door to you. To allow anyone to push their beliefs on a large group of people and then deny them basic healthcare coverage by extension of that is wrong. Yes, I know, they can get it elsewhere as you have stated several times as well. They still should not have the luxury to deny people coverage based on their flavor of religion, especially when, if we are getting technical, it is the insurance providing the service, not the place of business that provides that insurance. If we consider healthcare coverage as a part of ones wage, which most people do, it'd be like them telling me how I can spend my personal money. As it pertains to Hobby Lobby, I personally couldn't care as I'm neither an employee there nor a woman, but I take issue with the precedence this case absolutely creates. This is compounded even further by the fact that this whole case is based on a completely misguided understanding of how the medication works. So apparently it is okay to not understand something, make a broad implication on not understanding something and then act on it......as long as you do so in the name of religion. Most people would just say that person is an idiot, but if you're religious apparently lacking understanding of something rather basic and easy to understand is a belief. Go figure.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 2, 2014)

Some interesting analysis on the "limited to closely-held corporations" part of the Hobby Lobby holding, from a Harvard constitutional law professor at Slate:



> While the court may successfully cabin Hobby Lobby&#8217;s impact with respect to other medical procedures and anti-discrimination law, it may be unable to do so with respect to the scope of corporate rights. The court purports to limit its holding to closely held corporations. But Justice Ginsburg argues that its logic extends to corporations of any size and, in a remarkable admission, the majority seems to agree: &#8220;No known understanding of the term &#8216;person&#8217; includes some but not all corporations.&#8221; This conclusion invites the next lawsuit, by a non&#8211;closely held corporation seeking the same rights that the court read RFRA as having granted to Hobby Lobby. The majority provides no limiting principle in support of cabining its decision to closely held companies.



Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision: How big is its scope?


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

flint757, I don't necessarily disagree with you on any particular point. As a matter of policy, I would love to have seen this case go the other way. But policy preferences are not legal arguments. If you can articulate a legal foundation for your position that actually stands up to Constitutional scrutiny, I'd love to hear it. I've been trying to do so for several days now, in reaction to this decision, and I'm coming to the conclusion that *given this set of circumstances* I think that the majority decision is probably correct. (Again, because I can't say this enough, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a constitutional scholar. I'm just an interested busybody with too much time on his hands.) 

The common flaw that I see in most of the points that you've raised is that they require that someone besides the person holding the religious belief decide whether that belief is "reasonable." That absolutely undermines the entire premise of the Constitutional guarantee of free exercise in the first place. Constitutional law is rock-solid on that point. No one else gets to decide what's a reasonable belief except for you. The Court's role is to decide how much the law burdens the exercise of that belief (in this case, it burdens Hobby Lobby to the tune of millions of dollars in fines for noncompliance), and if that burden is significant, to determine whether the government's interest is compelling, and whether this is the least-intrusive way that it could pursue that interest. It's possible for believers to lose that argument: a Quaker brought suit against the federal government following the passage of RFRA, arguing that paying taxes violated her pacifist beliefs (since tax monies fund war efforts). The Court found that her exercise was significantly burdened (possible incarceration for evading tax laws), but that nevertheless the federal government's interest in a uniform system of taxation for raising revenues was sufficient to justify its infringement on her rights. (Note that wording: the federal government *did* infringe on her free exercise rights, but only incidentally and because it had no reasonable alternative.) But the whole thing has to proceed from the point that the individual's right to determine their own religious beliefs is inviolable.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2014)

I wish I could give you a much more legalese type of argument, but law falls way outside the scope of my skill set. I can reasonably say that they are violating their employee's rights, but I get what you are saying overall; Since they have an alternative means of getting the medication they are given that luxury because it allows both to continue forward with the least amount of intrusion on each 'persons' rights. My perspective falls more in line with the fact that, whether or not our legal system has determined that companies have the same rights as individuals, they really shouldn't and as an extension of that mindset they made a terrible decision. My main problem with this case is that it is more opportunistic than about religious rights and this case will set precedence for future cases, cases that only the justices get to decide how far they are willing to let it go.

There are a vast amount of structural flaws in each branch of government that will likely never be fixed simply because of the way we have to go about fixing them (that and congress for the last decade has proven themselves to be completely incompetent). Some of them I do feel apply to the Supreme Court too. All I have to say is hopefully one day these cases will be overturned. I'm very much aware that discussing this here will accomplish nothing, but hey, I enjoy it so I do it anyway.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Some interesting analysis on the "limited to closely-held corporations" part of the Hobby Lobby holding, from a Harvard constitutional law professor at Slate:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision: How big is its scope?



An interesting read, and I think I ultimately agree with Tribe that we won't know the breadth of this decision unless and until a case comes up in which its reading could be expanded. Having said that, he left out a couple of points that I think bear mentioning:

-LGBT discrimination. He's right that the majority failed to address it. Strictly speaking, though, there's no reason for them to do so: there are no federal laws outlawing orientation discrimination, and the federal RFRA can't be used to challenge state laws, by SCOTUS's own ruling. (The basis for that ruling, by the way, was that to bind state laws by the federal RFRA would impermissibly interfere with the Court's exclusive power to interpret the application of the Constitution to state laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, so don't look for that to be overturned anytime soon.) Whether state RFRA laws can create exemptions from state anti-discrimination statutes is another question, and one that has yet to be addressed; the New Mexico Supreme Court threw out the state-RFRA portion of the Elane Photography case on a technicality, which may be limited to that case or that state. (Note, though, that SCOTUS refused in April to review the state's decision that neither the free-expression nor free-speech clauses of the 1A could exempt Elane Photography from photographing same-sex weddings, which gives some useful info on where the Court stands when RFRA is not in play.)

-Vaccination: While the burden-of-exercise analysis for a vaccination case would be substantially the same as for the contraception mandate, the compelling-argument and least-restrictive-means case for the government is, I think, substantially stronger: there's no existing opt-out clause for anyone on this, and creating a bunch of arbitrary opt-out mechanisms for anyone who asked would be unworkable (similar to the Court's reasoning in the Quaker tax case I cited earlier). There's also a much stronger presumption of immediate action for vaccination, as failures of herd immunity can lead to serious public health problems pretty quickly (pregnancy, by comparison, may be an acquired condition, but it's not infectious), and while one could argue (fallaciously, in my opinion) that the need for contraceptives can be bypassed by simply choosing not to have sex, that argument isn't really available for vaccination.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 2, 2014)

flint757 said:


> My main problem with this case is that it is more opportunistic than about religious rights and this case will set precedence for future cases, cases that only the justices get to decide how far they are willing to let it go...
> 
> All I have to say is hopefully one day these cases will be overturned.



Another way of framing this ruling is that it has highlighted areas in which we need new laws in order to provide less-restrictive alternatives, which is an area we can address by writing/lobbying/etc. our senators and representatives to introduce new bills or otherwise take action to address the issue.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 2, 2014)

Only one problem with that, our senator is Ted Cruz.  Cornyn is a bit more reasonable, but not by much...


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Another way of framing this ruling is that it has highlighted areas in which we need new laws in order to provide less-restrictive alternatives, which is an area we can address by writing/lobbying/etc. our senators and representatives to introduce new bills or otherwise take action to address the issue.



Or modification of existing laws: RFRA is purely a statutory construct. If this had been a straight-up First Amendment free exercise case, Hobby Lobby would have lost as per _Employment Div. v Smith_ - corporate rights, individual rights, doesn't matter. I don't think I'd want to do away with RFRA entirely - Native American religions do much better under RFRA than under the _Smith_ doctrine, which was the whole reason RFRA was passed in the first place - but it could surely bear some legislative tweaking, if we can muster the political will to get it done (to which my cynical side says: yeah, good luck with that).


----------



## ElRay (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Ray, can you provide some background reading for your assertions about post-_Greece v. Galloway_ practices?



The "rules" regarding sectarian prayers are (from "Operation Inclusion" at www.au.org):
Speakers must be given access without regard to religion:
IN THE COURT&#8217;S WORDS: Government must &#8220;maintain ... a policy of nondiscrimination.&#8221; It must &#8220;represent ... that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one.&#8221;
BOTTOM LINE: Government cannot exclude potential speakers on the basis of religion; if it relies on outsiders to deliver a solemnizing message to open meetings, it must allow monotheists, polytheists, and nonbelievers to do so as well.

Government officials may not ask citizens to join in the prayers:
IN THE COURT&#8217;S WORDS: &#8220;The principal audience for these invocations&#8221; must be &#8220;lawmakers themselves,&#8221; not members of &#8220;the public.&#8221; The Constitution would be violated if legislators &#8220;directed the public to participate in the prayers.&#8221;
BOTTOM LINE: Speakers should deliver their remarks to the members of the legislative body. Government officials cannot ask audience members to stand, to bow their heads, or otherwise to participate in the invocation, whether the invocation is delivered by an outsider or by a government official.

Invocations may not proselytize or disparage religious minorities or nonbelievers:
IN THE COURT&#8217;S WORDS: &#8220;If the course and practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort.&#8221; The Constitution would be violated if legislators &#8220;singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person&#8217;s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity.&#8221;
BOTTOM LINE: Government officials need to step in when and if outside speakers make statements that are hostile to religious minorities or nonbelievers. It likewise would be unconstitutional for government officials themselves to open every meeting by delivering the Lord&#8217;s Prayer or any other prayer specific to one faith tradition.

Prayers must be divorced from policy-making:
IN THE COURT&#8217;S WORDS: &#8220;In the town of Greece, the prayer is delivered during the ceremonial portion of the town's meeting. Board members are not engaged in policymaking at this time.... It is a moment for town leaders to recognize the achievements of their constituents and the aspects of the community life that are worth celebrating.&#8221;
BOTTOM LINE: Legislative bodies should ensure that any prayer is divorced from
policymaking activity, so that those who wish to avoid the prayer can do so without missing the legislative portion of meetings. As a result, zoning boards, and other local bodies that engage in policymaking alone, should be wary about continuing to engage in prayer at all.

School Boards still can&#8217;t open with prayer:
IN THE COURT&#8217;S WORDS: The ruling applies to the &#8220;limited context&#8221; of legislative prayers, where a history dating back to the country&#8217;s founding shows a longstanding practice of opening meetings with ceremonial prayers.
BOTTOM LINE: Public schools did not exist at the time of the founding, so there is no historical justification for prayers at school-board meetings. Indeed, every court to consider the question has held that the Constitution prohibits school boards from opening their meetings with prayers. Those decisions remain in effect.


If you look at the commentary sections on articles discussing Greece v Galloway, you will see plenty of people saying the court decision gives them license to exclude any religion they wish and gives license to preach at government meetings. We've even got local folks spewing the same nonsense in the local papers. 

Here's a quick one from Roanoke, VA I found:Roanoke County Supervisor Reiterates That Non-Christians Will Be Banned from Delivering Invocations​a bit more googling around will find others. 

Ray

EDIT: Here's another government official that doesn't get Greece v Galloway:  Once Again, Louisiana Sheriff Will Lead Christian Rally on Fourth of July

EDIT#2: This isn't Greece v Galloway, but the *demands* for federal contractors to be able to violate LGBT workers rights have started: Rick Warren and more than a dozen other Protestant and Catholic leaders are now demanding that President Obama give religious companies with federal contracts the ability to discriminate against LGBT employees.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> An interesting read, and I think I ultimately agree with Tribe that we won't know the breadth of this decision unless and until a case comes up in which its reading could be expanded. Having said that, he left out a couple of points that I think bear mentioning:
> 
> -LGBT discrimination. He's right that the majority failed to address it. Strictly speaking, though, there's no reason for them to do so: there are no federal laws outlawing orientation discrimination, and the federal RFRA can't be used to challenge state laws, by SCOTUS's own ruling. (The basis for that ruling, by the way, was that to bind state laws by the federal RFRA would impermissibly interfere with the Court's exclusive power to interpret the application of the Constitution to state laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, so don't look for that to be overturned anytime soon.) Whether state RFRA laws can create exemptions from state anti-discrimination statutes is another question, and one that has yet to be addressed; the New Mexico Supreme Court threw out the state-RFRA portion of the Elane Photography case on a technicality, which may be limited to that case or that state. (Note, though, that SCOTUS refused in April to review the state's decision that neither the free-expression nor free-speech clauses of the 1A could exempt Elane Photography from photographing same-sex weddings, which gives some useful info on where the Court stands when RFRA is not in play.)
> 
> -Vaccination: While the burden-of-exercise analysis for a vaccination case would be substantially the same as for the contraception mandate, the compelling-argument and least-restrictive-means case for the government is, I think, substantially stronger: there's no existing opt-out clause for anyone on this, and creating a bunch of arbitrary opt-out mechanisms for anyone who asked would be unworkable (similar to the Court's reasoning in the Quaker tax case I cited earlier). There's also a much stronger presumption of immediate action for vaccination, as failures of herd immunity can lead to serious public health problems pretty quickly (pregnancy, by comparison, may be an acquired condition, but it's not infectious), and while one could argue (fallaciously, in my opinion) that the need for contraceptives can be bypassed by simply choosing not to have sex, that argument isn't really available for vaccination.



Right. But his point, the *idea* that the Court has entertained (and granted) a religious exception to a law for a for-profit corporation (even if it is closely held) strikes me as incredibly dangerous and risky. Sure, Hobby Lobby is a narrow case, but it has opened up a line of argument that I am relatively certain we will see in other areas of the culture wars, and will almost certainly require courts to weigh the strict-scrutiny "compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means" against a "sincerely-held belief" in a way that risks a violation of the Establishment Clause.

And I'm not that far out of law school that I've forgotten about City of Boerne v. Flores


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Right. But his point, the *idea* that the Court has entertained (and granted) a religious exception to a law for a for-profit corporation (even if it is closely held) strikes me as incredibly dangerous and risky. Sure, Hobby Lobby is a narrow case, but it has opened up a line of argument that I am relatively certain we will see in other areas of the culture wars, and will almost certainly require courts to weigh the strict-scrutiny "compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means" against a "sincerely-held belief" in a way that risks a violation of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> And I'm not that far out of law school that I've forgotten about City of Boerne v. Flores



Ah, an actual law school grad! Great - please correct me when I'm wrong. (I'm sure it'll happen soon if it hasn't already....)

Again, I don't disagree with you on the risk, but given that claims are allowed for non-profit corporations, I'm struggling to articulate a principle that could exclude for-profit corporations that isn't utterly result-driven. I'd personally prefer that corporate claims were excluded altogether, and that there be some reasonable test to indicate when individual claims can be validly exercised through the corporate form, but (a) that would be a much more radical revision of existing precedent, and (b) once that's done, I think the _Hobby Lobby_ plaintiffs would still have won based on RFRA's endorsement of their individual claims.

Here's an interesting question: if a court can't settle an RFRA claim in either direction without violating the Establishment Clause, wouldn't that suggest that RFRA is itself unconstitutional? There's been a little noise toward that end from Ilya Somin over at Volokh Conspiracy, though I forget offhand what precise reasoning he used. EDIT: Sorry, it was Sasha Volokh: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/01/is-rfra-unconstitutional/


----------



## ElRay (Jul 2, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> I dunno, I like Canada's systems where whatever one believes isn't used as a justification to take away human rights. That seems the better than what is going on in the US right now.



Canadians will disagree. There are plenty of cases of federally subsidized religious schools being the only public schools available and "permission" to skip the religious indoctrination not being granted.

Sticking to the Medical theme, here's a Canadian doctor that refuses to prescribe birth control:
Calgary doctor refuses to prescribe birth control over moral beliefs | canada.com
Doctor on duty &#8216;will not prescribe the birth control pill,&#8217; reads sign at Calgary walk-in clinic | National Post
Canadian Doctor Refuses to Prescribe Birth Control Because Jesus

This is a bigger issues that it initially appears because "one in five Calgarians ..&#8212; 200,000 people &#8212; is without a family doctor and rely on walk-in clinics to serve their medical needs". So, depending on which day you drop-in, you may have to come back on another day to get your valid and legal medical care because some mythology believing DR won't do their job.

Ray


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Ah, an actual law school grad! Great - please correct me when I'm wrong. (I'm sure it'll happen soon if it hasn't already....)



Well, I don't practice Constitutional law (few people really do) so I don't think I qualify as an "expert!" Especially since I haven't had the time to do more than a very cursory read of the opinion (it's been a very busy couple of months).



> Again, I don't disagree with you on the risk, but given that claims are allowed for non-profit corporations, I'm struggling to articulate a principle that could exclude for-profit corporations that isn't utterly result-driven. I'd personally prefer that corporate claims were excluded altogether, and that there be some reasonable test to indicate when individual claims can be validly exercised through the corporate form, but (a) that would be a much more radical revision of existing precedent, and (b) once that's done, I think the _Hobby Lobby_ plaintiffs would still have won based on RFRA's endorsement of their individual claims.



The only reason the existing nonprofit/for-profit distinction even existed in this case was because HHS promulgated a regulation allowing a special "workaround" for religious nonprofits. I'd prefer that corporate claims (and individual claims through the corporate form) be excluded altogether, really, but that's not going to happen (and almost definitely unsupportable under current law).



> Here's an interesting question: if a court can't settle an RFRA claim in either direction without violating the Establishment Clause, wouldn't that suggest that RFRA is itself unconstitutional? There's been a little noise toward that end from Ilya Somin over at Volokh Conspiracy, though I forget offhand what precise reasoning he used. EDIT: Sorry, it was Sasha Volokh: Is RFRA unconstitutional? - The Washington Post



I'm not honestly familiar with Establishment Clause jurisprudence. That's an interesting way to look at it, and supports Ginsburg's position somewhat as well. The RFRA is definitely an odd statute with its share of problems.

Also, here's an interesting offshoot from Hobby Lobby:

Post-Hobby Lobby, Religious Orgs Want Exemption From LGBT Hiring Order


----------



## ElRay (Jul 2, 2014)

And more hypocrisy from Hobby Lobby:



> Earlier this year, Mother Jones revealed that Hobby Lobbys retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in companies that produced emergency contraception pills. It was that same type of birth control that Hobby Lobby said it had an objection to when it took its case against President Barack Obamas health care reform law to the Supreme Court and won.



Ray


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 2, 2014)

More developments:

1.) The Court has now held that Hobby Lobby extends beyond more than just the four types of contraception at issue in that case.



> On Tuesday, the Court indicated that its ruling applies to for-profit employers who object to all twenty forms of birth control included in the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s contraceptive mandate, not just the four methods at issue in the two cases decided on Monday.
> 
> In light of its ruling on Hobby Lobby and a related suit, the Supreme Court ordered three appeals courts to reconsider cases in which they had rejected challenges from corporations that object to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services at all. The plaintiffs in all three cases are Catholics who own businesses in the Midwest, including Michigan-based organic food company Eden Foods. Meanwhile, the High Court declined to review petitions from the government seeking to overturn lower court rulings that upheld religiously based challenges to all preventative services under the mandate . . .
> 
> And at least one of those cases is only tenuously about religious freedom. &#8220;I don&#8217;t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel&#8217;s or birth control,&#8221; Michael Potter, the founder of Eden Foods told Irin Carmon. &#8220;What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That&#8217;s my issue, that&#8217;s what I object to, and that&#8217;s the beginning and end of the story.&#8221; As one judge wrote, &#8220;Potter&#8217;s &#8216;deeply held religious beliefs&#8217; more resembled a laissez-faire, anti-government screed.&#8221;



Source: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Right, and We Already Have Proof | The Nation (Yes, it's the left-leaning The Nation. This coverage is (relatively) factual.)

Source: http://www.thomasmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Letter-of-Remand.pdf

2.) Federal contractors have petitioned for a religious exemption to the forthcoming executive order requiring that federal contractors not discriminate against LGBT individuals in hiring.

Source: Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama - Molly Ball - The Atlantic


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

Yeah, it was inevitable that Catholic objectors would immediately use this ruling to object to contraceptive coverage in general. One wonders whether the Eden Foods guy is equally angry about having to buy health care coverage for his employees in general. I'm embarrassed on behalf of my state. I'm finding it hard to see how the LGBT objectors are going to spin their anti-homosexuality beliefs into an argument that being forced to not discriminate against them in hiring is an actual burden on that belief, though.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

...and wow, the popular press does a lousy job of grappling with the Constitutional law elements of the case. We've already talked the "but those drugs don't cause abortion!" point to death; let's look at another misconception that I see arising repeatedly:

"Why do the Hobby Lobby CEO's religious rights matter, but not the employees'?"

The employees' religious rights absolutely matter, but it's extremely unlikely that the decision actually violates them. From a Constitutional perspective, it's not enough to say that your religion doesn't forbid you to use birth control, because no one's preventing you from using it; the argument is over who pays for it. To have a valid claim that the _Hobby Lobby_ decision infringes your religious beliefs, you'd have to argue that your religion *requires* you to use *employer-subsidized* birth control. I don't see anyone actually advancing that claim.

ETA: Infringing on your First Amendment right to free exercise requires one of two circumstances:

-Your religious beliefs require you to do something that the government forbids (example: Native American religious use of peyote and other federally-scheduled drugs in ceremonies)
-Your religious beliefs forbid you to do something that the government requires (example: paying taxes that support military activities in violation of religious pacifism)


----------



## groverj3 (Jul 2, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Supreme Court Rules JCPenney Allowed to Sacrifice Employees to Appease Cthulhu - The Moonmont Chronicle



This was most excellent


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

^^^ Iä! Iä!


----------



## Explorer (Jul 2, 2014)

celticelk said:


> I'll make the same answer here that I made to Explorer above: this test has been available to religious people for a half-century now, and none of the parade of horribles has come to pass.



Since I'm not sure that I understood one aspect of your reasoning, let me ask:

Are you saying that as no claims of religious freedom to support religiously motivated racism have come forward yet, therefore no claims will come forward in the future?

I'll have to read up on what "strict scrutiny" actually means legally, but there is no doubt that some religions just do not like the "lower races." I'll be interested to read of where the balance is between being forced to break one's religious beliefs because of federal law....


----------



## ElRay (Jul 2, 2014)

> What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? Thats my issue, thats what I object to, and thats the beginning and end of the story. As one judge wrote, Potters deeply held religious beliefs more resembled a laissez-faire, anti-government screed.



And how far is this from corporations being free to deny Mr. Beaver a job/medical care based on his ethnicity. I wonder if he sees his hypocrisy yet?

Ray


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Since I'm not sure that I understood one aspect of your reasoning, let me ask:
> 
> Are you saying that as no claims of religious freedom to support religiously motivated racism have come forward yet, therefore no claims will come forward in the future?



Certainly not. The possibility of someone doing something breathtakingly stupid is ever-present. I think, however, that the fact that no one has mounted a successful challenge against anti-discrimination laws on this basis in the last fifty years - a period of time in which there has been neither a notable lack of racists nor a reluctance to challenge federal laws on race (see cases ranging from _Heart of Atlanta Motel_ to this term's cases on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act) - lends some empirical support to the theoretical analysis that I offered on why this is a losing strategy.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 2, 2014)

Well, my "Deeply Held Beliefs", get me out of my Student Loans:

From Deuteronomy 15 King James Version (KJV)


> At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.



Ray


----------



## celticelk (Jul 2, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Well, my "Deeply Held Beliefs", get me out of my Student Loans:
> 
> From Deuteronomy 15 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> Ray



Actually, no. You can plausibly make a free exercise claim that you are being forced to do something that your religion forbids, or that you are being prevented from doing something that your religion requires. Forgiving your debt is an action undertaken by your creditors, not you, and your right to free exercise cannot be construed to bind them. You're free to believe that they're damned for violating YHVH's commandment, of course, but they may disagree.

ETA: The claim is also undermined by the fact that you are not legally required to take out student loans, and therefore would be presumed to decline a loan whose repayment schedule would compromise your religious beliefs.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 3, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Actually, no ...



Well, they are are federal programs even though they are administered by private companies, there wasn't the option for religious special treatment until this recent SCOTUS decision, and reality doesn't matter -- I currently have a "strongly held belief", at this moment, that having to pay on student loans for more than seven years is a violation of my "strongly held belief". 

If they can rule that actual facts are irrelevant (the BC in questions does not cause abortions), claim that the terms are strictly limited and then immediately tell lower courts to re-look at cases applying "strong held beliefs" even to non-religious plaintiffs, etc., this pseudo logic can be used.

Oh, wait, it can't because the special privilege only belongs to corporations and not actual people. My bad.

EDIT: Yes I'm bitter and overly sarcastic right now.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 3, 2014)

I've been doing some light reading since being inspired by the excellent educational posts regarding law on this matter. I was struck by the reasoning in this paper from a former Solicitor General of Virginia. Although focused on education, it does talk about same sex marriage. 



> While belief is absolutely protected, "the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."'106 Thus, "a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even [if] the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice."107 In determining whether a law is neutral and generally applicable, judges must ask if "the object of the law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation"108 and if the law "in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belie£."109 "Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied." 110
> 
> 106. Emp't Div. v. Smith, 191 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). See also U.S. v. Lee. 155 U.S. 252, 26 n. (1982) (Stevens, J .. concurring). The Court first enunciated this principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 115 (1878) (rejecting a Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy statute).
> 107. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531 (1998).
> ...



Since the owner, and many other conservatives, have voiced their opposition to the ACA based on their political viewpoints as opposed to religious, it seems like it doesn't just infringe on "religious belief." 

I'm kind of surprised that this kind of reasoning has now been discarded by the Supreme Court. 

I have to do more reading when I get some time....


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 3, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Well, my "Deeply Held Beliefs", get me out of my Student Loans:
> 
> From Deuteronomy 15 King James Version (KJV)
> 
> Ray


 
Amen to that.. and being born again into whichever segment of Christianity supports it!

(Yes, that was blasphemy-level sarcasm...)



> Earlier this year, Mother Jones revealed that Hobby Lobbys retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in companies that produced emergency contraception pills. It was that same type of birth control that Hobby Lobby said it had an objection to when it took its case against President Barack Obamas health care reform law to the Supreme Court and won.


 
So, from this quote, I am seeing that Hobby Lobby objects to contraception *when they have to pay for it on behalf of employees* but their investments support companies that produce contraception *when it makes them money*. Is that how everyone else is reading it? 

Being that I come from a protestant background, I find it sad that Christian corporations who garner that much press show that the end goal is money. It is not about loving thy neighbor or taking care of the poor. It is not about making the world a better place. I have seen it far too often. It is that type of hypocrisy that continues to find religion silly in general...you know, besides the belief in all powerful bearded deities etc.



ElRay said:


> Well, they are are federal programs even though they are administered by private companies, there wasn't the option for religious special treatment until this recent SCOTUS decision, and reality doesn't matter -- I currently have a "strongly held belief", at this moment, that having to pay on student loans for more than seven years is a violation of my "strongly held belief".
> 
> If they can rule that actual facts are irrelevant (the BC in questions does not cause abortions), claim that the terms are strictly limited and then immediately tell lower courts to re-look at cases applying "strong held beliefs" even to non-religious plaintiffs, etc., this pseudo logic can be used.
> 
> ...


 
The sad part is that it is pseudo-logic. Using religion to ignore facts that dictate laws that affect the public violates my secular lifestyle by not allowing me to be free of the religious controlling health care laws that can affect my health insurance premiums!

Explorer, it would seem on first reading that president would be quite the opposite to the Hobby Lobby ruling.


----------



## Forrest_H (Jul 3, 2014)

JmCastor said:


> if i cum on a toilet seat, and leave it for nine months, what happens?
> 
> if a chick leaves a egg in the toilet for nine months, what happens?
> 
> ...



wat


----------



## tedtan (Jul 5, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Only one problem with that, our senator is Ted Cruz.  Cornyn is a bit more reasonable, but not by much...



I didn't mean to imply that OUR representatives and senators would be of help in this matter, only that collectively we can make something happen through the senators and representatives in less "red" states. 




celticelk said:


> my cynical side says: yeah, good luck with that



I'm typically pretty cynical, myself. But these types of things can work (and I'm trying to be positive for a change, dammit! ).




ElRay said:


> So, depending on which day you drop-in, you may have to come back on another day to get your valid and legal medical care because some mythology believing DR won't do their job.



This is really no different than the doctor who refuses to prescribe narcotic pain killers because he believes that the negatives of these opiates outweigh the benefits. He isn't forced to prescribe them simply because they're legal and sometimes a valid option for certain patients in certain situations, he gets to choose what he prescribes based on his beliefs (which obviously should be informed by his medical training and experience). But we're all humans and there will always be more involved than simply what's legal.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 5, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I've been doing some light reading since being inspired by the excellent educational posts regarding law on this matter. I was struck by the reasoning in this paper from a former Solicitor General of Virginia. Although focused on education, it does talk about same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As far as the Constitutional interpretation goes, that reasoning hasn't been discarded at all. The complicating factor is the presence of a federal statute (the RFRA) which explicitly affords protection to religious objectors *beyond* the bare minimum afforded by the Constitution. Were the RFRA to be repealed, SCOTUS would presumably revert to _Smith_ as precedent for these situations.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 5, 2014)

So now the Court has acted to prevent from going into effect the "workaround" that Alito cited as a Less Restrictive Means than the contraceptive mandate.

Just great.


----------



## Watty (Jul 6, 2014)

#religiousobjectiontopayingtaxes


----------



## Necris (Jul 6, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Source:
> 
> 2.) Federal contractors have petitioned for a religious exemption to the forthcoming executive order requiring that federal contractors not discriminate against LGBT individuals in hiring.
> 
> Source: Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama - Molly Ball - The Atlantic





> While the nation has undergone incredible social and legal change over the last decade, we still live in a nation with different beliefs about sexuality. *We must find a way to respect diversity of opinion on this issue in a way that respects the dignity of all parties* to the best of our ability. There is no perfect solution that will make all parties completely happy.


Lets respect the dignity of all parties by giving one the right to discriminate against another. That makes sense. 




> Historically, we have been reticent as a nation to use the authority of government to bless some religious identities and ostracize others. We live in a blessed nation, constantly perfecting its fundamental ideal that *no matter what god you pray to, what you look like, **or who you are; there is a place in this nation for you if you seek to serve your fellow Americans*


But if you are attracted to members of the same sex the only place in this nation for you is beneath the rest of "us".


F_u_ck Christianity in it's entirety, now and forever.


----------



## Grindspine (Jul 6, 2014)

Necris said:


> F_u_ck Christianity in it's entirety, now and forever.


 
I agree entirely.

You just forgot to add this to the end.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Jul 6, 2014)

Necris said:


> F_u_ck Christianity in it's entirety, now and forever.



Oh, aren't you edgy and dark.

But yes, these events regarding hobby lobby are absurd. It seems pretty obvious to me they're just doing it for the money. That alone would be very anti-christian


----------



## ElRay (Jul 6, 2014)

ElRay said:


> EDIT: Here's another government official that doesn't get Greece v Galloway:  Once Again, Louisiana Sheriff Will Lead Christian Rally on Fourth of July
> 
> EDIT#2: This isn't Greece v Galloway, but the *demands* for federal contractors to be able to violate LGBT workers rights have started: Rick Warren and more than a dozen other Protestant and Catholic leaders are now demanding that President Obama give religious companies with federal contracts the ability to discriminate against LGBT employees.



EDIT #3: The SCOTUS hypocritical religious (mostly) old white guys lie again: Supreme Court Gives Christian College an Easier Way to Get Out of Providing Emergency Contraception So, even though they said that the Hobby Lobby case only applied to a narrow set of Birth Control measures, and only to "closely held" companies, it is now applicable to any religious organization.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 7, 2014)

ElRay said:


> EDIT #3: The SCOTUS hypocritical religious (mostly) old white guys lie again: Supreme Court Gives Christian College an Easier Way to Get Out of Providing Emergency Contraception So, even though they said that the Hobby Lobby case only applied to a narrow set of Birth Control measures, and only to "closely held" companies, it is now applicable to any religious organization.



There's already an exemption for religious nonprofits in the ACA law; it's the reason that SCOTUS was able to argue that holding Hobby Lobby to the mandate was not the least restrictive means of achieving its aim. Wheaton College is organized as a religious nonprofit, which may well mean that it was *already* eligible for an exemption before the HL decision; I haven't reviewed the HHS guidelines on which organizations are exempt to confirm that this is the case. There are genuine reasons to be upset about the Wheaton College injunction, but expansion of the exemption pool is probably not one of them.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 7, 2014)

What's worrying to me is that the "workaround" that Alito specifically cited as a Narrowly Tailored, Less Restrictive Means for accomplishing the Compelling Governmental Interest (loaded ConLaw words, those!) of providing contraception is now under attack (and could be found to be unconstitutional) under this very same ruling.

Never mind the fact that the Court deliberately cautioned everyone in HL that the ruling would be narrow and not generally applicable; it only took a day for that to be shown false.


----------



## celticelk (Jul 7, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> What's worrying to me is that the "workaround" that Alito specifically cited as a Narrowly Tailored, Less Restrictive Means for accomplishing the Compelling Governmental Interest (loaded ConLaw words, those!) of providing contraception is now under attack (and could be found to be unconstitutional) under this very same ruling.
> 
> Never mind the fact that the Court deliberately cautioned everyone in HL that the ruling would be narrow and not generally applicable; it only took a day for that to be shown false.



Alito's opinion stated explicitly that the Court was not actually ruling on the acceptability of the workaround because that wasn't the instant question. I agree that this is a bit Lucy-with-the-football in terms of an argument, but they did leave that door open. I also think that anyone who thought that "narrow and not generally applicable" meant that there wouldn't be any further decisions on RFRA challenges to the contraception mandate was being overly optimistic.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 7, 2014)

celticelk said:


> Alito's opinion stated explicitly that the Court was not actually ruling on the acceptability of the workaround because that wasn't the instant question. I agree that this is a bit Lucy-with-the-football in terms of an argument, but they did leave that door open. I also think that anyone who thought that "narrow and not generally applicable" meant that there wouldn't be any further decisions on RFRA challenges to the contraception mandate was being overly optimistic.



The Court really needs to take it easy on assertions of "narrowness" within their rulings, then, because that's two in this session alone that claim narrow applicability but, when the holdings are actually read/applied, are not narrowly applicable (Hobby Lobby and Aereo).

Also, if the Court holds that signing a paper saying that they won't provide contraception coverage is a violation of RFRA, is HHS supposed to be psychic? Are employees going to be required to sign the form instead, making it much more difficult for them to obtain coverage (since employees are often far less sophisticated than corporations and might not know the form exists)? 

And, more fundamentally, if this "workaround" (the Less Restrictive Option) is barred under RFRA, does that open up Hobby Lobby's holding to another challenge now that the LRO is gone, or is the Court going to require individuals to pay for that coverage themselves as an LRO?

It is really bothersome how political the Court is. It's supposed to be an apolitical entity, but nearly every truly contested case breaks down 5-4 on ideological lines one way or the other, since there's plenty of room in the law for a justice to backfill reasoning and precedent to support their conclusion.

It reminds me of what Richard Posner, the famous Circuit Court judge, wrote last year:



> Most of the cases the Supreme Court agrees to decide are tossups, in the sense that they cannot be decided by conventional legal reasoning, with its heavy reliance on constitutional and statutory language and previous decisions. If they could be decided by those essentially semantic methods, they would be resolved uncontroversially at the level of a state supreme court or federal court of appeals and never get reviewed by the Supreme Court. I think that inevitablyand this is not in the least a criticism, not only because inevitability cannot be criticized but also because, as I said, I consider myself a legal realistthe judicial votes of the justices of the Supreme Court are based on a compound of ideology, intuition, practical concerns (such as administrability, predictability, caseload effects, and strategycoalition building, for example, as I suggested earlier), temperament, emotion, personal and professional experiences, and knowledge gleaned outside the courtroom (knowledge of prison conditions, environmental hazards, specific industries, and so on). Great justices and judges, most famously Oliver Wendell Holmes, have been frank in their opinions about these sources of their judicial votes. (Think of opinions like Lochner, Abrams, Buck v. Bell, and Olmstead.) Modern justices and judges tend to be more circumspect, yet the true springs of decision peep through the underbrush of the modern opinion. They are what the opinion should be read for. The padding can be ignored.



Supreme Court: The biggest flaw in the opinions this term.

There's another post somewhere about how the reasoning for each holding basically breaks down to a single loaded sentence or paragraph, typically lacking the significant citations of the rest of the opinion, but I can't find it right now.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 9, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> It is really bothersome how political the Court is. It's supposed to be an apolitical entity, but nearly every truly contested case breaks down 5-4 on ideological lines one way or the other, since there's plenty of room in the law for a justice to backfill reasoning and precedent to support their conclusion.


 
Ideologically, yes. But that's hard to pull off in practice when the justices are nominated, vetted and appointed by politicians.


----------

