Up until the lawsuit, Hobby Lobby’s insurance covered Plan B and Ella, both of which it now believes causes abortions.
This article says that at one point in time, their insurance did cover those same therapies they now object to do sincerely. Which was pointed out a few posts before yours. That’s where "suddenly"comes from.
Ninja’d! With the same cite even!
When they learned that Ella and Plan B were included without their knowledge in the insurance plan, they removed them. Cite. (PDF, bottom of page 9).
Your comment suggests that they never had any concern for abortion-inducing therapies, period, and their concern is a sham. Which is not true – they always prohibited the IUDs that prevent a fertilized embryo from implanting, and they always excluded RU-486. Cite. (PDF, bottom of page 9).
If their concern was a sham, what is your explanation for their exclusion of IUDs and RU-486?
Sure. And they drive on the same roads that people who work at those companies use, and they use a bank at which some of those same employees have checking accounts.
But they, not you, have the authority to decide how much involvement constitutes too much. They don’t invest in the companies directly – they hire a firm to run a 401(K) retirement program for thier employees.
And that firm doesn’t invest in those companies either. it buys mutual funds, funds which are comprised of hundreds of different companies.
And of those several hundred companies in those mutual funds purchased for the employees’ 401(K) accounts, some are makers of the products.
Would you say that’s the same kind of involvement as “invest in companies” conveys?
Like with their investments in companies that create contraception, maybe they should have checked first if these “sincerely held” religious beliefs were so important to them.
Maybe they should have. But now, they know.
Does this have some legal significance to the decision from the Court?
This is what I mean. It’s like, I dare you to argue to the Supreme Court that my beliefs are insincere (like theirs and everyone else’s).
Until the court decides to recognize “awfully convenient and opportunistic” to the “sincerely held” religious belief, not really. But it sure makes me conclude that the owners of Hobby Lobby is playing a game rather than are truly sincere in their belief.
But that’s true for a majority of people out there. We all decide where we draw a line in our morality. Taxes to kill innocent people? Sure, that’s enough “steps”. Donating to Operation Rescue? Nope, that supports bad things. Investing in companies that make contraception? Sure pings my radar, but then again, I’m not the owner of Hobby Lobby. And really, why should I be bothered to check? Ignorance is “sincerely held” too.
So when some Pastafarian claims that the easement for a sidewalk violates his religious beliefs, or Sierra Club argues that not enforcing stringent EPA standards violates its religious beliefs, or a Christian owner decides it violates his religious beliefs to treat a homosexual with anything but abject contempt, I don’t want to hear you bitching about how “sincere” the religious belief is.
Which is yet another reason why extending the right to free expression of religion to for profit corporations is not just bad law, but bad policy too.
Orthodox Jews must divest themselves of chametz – leavened food – before Passover begins. The observant Jew cleans his house, collects any leavened food found, and ritually burns it. He also recites a short passage in which he declares that if any chametz remains that he did not find; it is considered ownerless.
This meets the commandment that you may not have any chametz. You are also forbidden from owning any, no matter where it is.
It is permissible to sell your chametz to a non-Jew, and then by prior arrangement buy it back from him after Passover ends. In this case, the chametz is sealed in a container in your house, but it’s no longer yours; you’re holding it for the actual owner. As long as the non-Jew is not legally obligated to sell you back the material, observant Jews believe that this meets the commandments.
Obviously, criticisms of the practice point out that this is a legal fiction: that the Jew in question retains the chametz and it never leaves his possession.
Are those Jews insincere?
Or does their sincere religious practice simply include the drawing of a line at a place where others may not agree represents a reasonable spot?
Why don’t you answer it? You seem to be advocating for a massive expansion of the right to free exercise to include for-profit corporations, why don’t you tell me? But instead of a Jewish person, let’s make it a massive corporation. They decide that, for Passover, they’ll divest themselves of massive amounts of “chametz” to another corporation, and then buy it back afterwards. But they go to court to argue that any taxes on those transactions violates the corporation’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Or, in selling their chametz, they will sell only to Non-Jewish corporations, thereby excluding all Jewish people from buying their chametz, which, I think we can agree, is not a good thing. Or they decide that throwing all their chametz out in the ocean is proper disposal of the chametz, but environmental laws won’t let them, so the laws violate the corporations’ religious liberties? Or 51% of shareholders want to sell, 49% don’t, so they enter a contract, but the next year, it’s a different split, and they don’t want to sell, so the contract enforcement violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. What then?
You’re the one advocating to have the judicial system involved in many more cases like the hypothetical one you have. You should be the one to answer them.
This is starting to look like a pattern, wherein everybody defines their own adherence to the law. First it was “stand your ground”, where anyone can claim to be in fear of their life, thus justifying killing unarmed teenagers. Now religious zealots can impose their faith on others under the guise that is is the only way they can comply with their own “sincere beliefs”. It is anarchy disguised as liberty, and we are supposed to take them seriously when they say, “You can’t challenge my beliefs!” I can, and I do. Your right to practice your religion ends when it hits my nose. Take it back into the privacy of your own room with the door shut, as Jesus commanded.
What happened to “If enough people” want the law?
The RFRA is the law. Isn’t it?
The RFRA does in fact protect the sincere practice of religious zealots. It explicitly says that Congress can’t burden the sincere exercise of religious belief unless Congress’ efforts meet certain narrow conditions. That’s what the law says.
Hamlet argues the law does not apply to for-profit corporations. The Supreme Court will settle that.
What do you argue?
Glad I don’t shop there anymore. Thank you, Michael’s! (I still think $144 is pretty steep for the frame job I got last week, but that’s another pit thread.)
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-cant-employers-cover-contraception-141923713--finance.html
Religions are just glorified opinions.
This is precedent that says that a person’s opinions can exempt them from a law.
Yes.
It’s a good day.
It’s a good day for religious extremists. It’s not a good day for most Americans. Fuck Hobby Lobby. And fuck every last male supreme court justice who voted for this shit.
Why not “Congress?”
The Supreme Court did exactly the right thing. They applied the law as Congress wrote it.
Why do you expect them to be the body to tweak the law so it works better?
Congress will never fix the law, and we continue our slide into chaos.
Would the Supreme Court have decided the same way if Hobby Lobby was owned by Muslims? Oh hell no.
Of course they would have. It might even have been a bigger majority than 5-4.