I Pit HOBBY LOBBY

[Sicks_Ate]

My personal belief is that circumcision isn’t necessary. Can refuse to provide insurance to my employees that covers circumcision?

[BobLibDem]

I don’t buy the sort of things that Hobby Lobby sells, but if I ever do I most assuredly won’t buy from them. Time for a good old fashioned boycott. We can patronize companies that have policies from this century, or those with medieval beliefs.

This hammers home the fact that when we elect a president, we choose Supreme Court justices. I’d much rather have Hillary name a replacement for Thomas than have Cruz name a replacement for Ginsburg.

[A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion]

@LavenderBlue

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.

It’s too bad we don’t have more wise Latinas that know better than white men on that court. Hopefully Hillz will fix that.

[Inner_Stickler]

I note that they exclude blood transfusions and vaccinations from possible consideration under this new decision. You know, things that men impinge men’s healthcare.

[Bricker]

@Sicks_Ate

My personal belief is that circumcision isn’t necessary. Can refuse to provide insurance to my employees that covers circumcision?

sigh

Walk yourself through the analytical steps:

1. What is your religious belief? (Do you simply believe that circumcision is unnecessary, or are you actively opposed to anyone’s getting it, or to facilitating it? Is this a secular or a religious belief?)

2. Is your belief sincere? (Can you provide evidence that you hold this religious belief? I just gave a number of examples of courts throwing out insincere religious claims; many commentators on this decision seem to be guided by the belief that merely declaring a particular belief exists and is religious is sufficient to insulate it from any review, which is manifestly incorrect).

3. Does the government impose substantial pressure on you for violating this belief?

4. Is the government’s interest in your violating this belief a compelling one?

5. Is the government’s scheme narrowly tailored to achieve its interest?

[Bricker]

@A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion

It’s too bad we don’t have more wise Latinas that know better than white men on that court. Hopefully Hillz will fix that.

Hopefully not.

You want to change the law? Get elected to Congress. Don’t appoint judges that will change the law the way you like.

[Projammer]

@Sicks_Ate

My personal belief is that circumcision isn’t necessary. Can refuse to provide insurance to my employees that covers circumcision?

No. The decision is limited to contraception and religious beliefs. Personal beliefs carry no weight under the decision.

Link

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners, like the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores that challenged the provision.

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

Very disappointing.

[Inner_Stickler]

Isn’t that exactly what just happened? Did not the SC just change the law the way you like?

[Sicks_Ate]

@Bricker

sigh

Walk yourself through the analytical steps:

1. What is your religious belief? (Do you simply believe that circumcision is unnecessary, or are you actively opposed to anyone’s getting it, or to facilitating it? Is this a secular or a religious belief?)

2. Is your belief sincere? (Can you provide evidence that you hold this religious belief? I just gave a number of examples of courts throwing out insincere religious claims; many commentators on this decision seem to be guided by the belief that merely declaring a particular belief exists and is religious is sufficient to insulate it from any review, which is manifestly incorrect).

3. Does the government impose substantial pressure on you for violating this belief?

4. Is the government’s interest in your violating this belief a compelling one?

5. Is the government’s scheme narrowly tailored to achieve its interest?

It’s an opinion, just like a religious belief. As such, mandating that I provide insuranc with coverage for circumcisions would impose the exact same burden on me as providing coverage for contraception imposed on HobLob.

@Projammer

No. The decision is limited to contraception and religious beliefs.

My point is that using the same reasoning that allows HobLob to opt out, I should be able to refuse based upon my own personal beliefs, religious or no.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

You want to change the law? Get elected to Congress. Don’t appoint judges that will change the law the way you like.

That’s one way, but having the Supreme Court do it can be far more effective, and much faster.

Or are you stating an opinion about how things should be?

[Sicks_Ate]

You know, I should throw out there that not only is HobLob’s religion an opinion, their view that IUDs cause abortions is also nothing but opinion.

[ElvisL1ves]

The counselor has a most idiosyncratic understanding of Marbury v. Madison, doesn’t he? Even stranger, he doesn’t think there is any other that even exists.

“Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

I wonder if such patently ideologically-driven special-pleading decisions are part of the reason public confidence in the Court is at record lows?

[LavenderBlue]

@Inner_Stickler

I note that they exclude blood transfusions and vaccinations from possible consideration under this new decision. You know, things that men impinge men’s healthcare.

Cute.

Hobby Lobby’s retirement plan also invests millions in contraceptives:

Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers – Mother Jones

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company’s owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

So… does Hobby Lobby get an exemption from the EPA’s CO2 limits if they sincerely believe that God would destroy the world with fire, but never flood it again? What if they sincerely believe God created blacks to be slaves and that the Fed can’t tell them otherwise?

I think this way lies madness.

[Lightnin]

The religious righties are celebrating this as a victory, but to me it seems like a very dangerous precedent- basically, it’s allowing the government to determine what is and what isn’t a “valid religious belief”. If I was religious, I’d be awful nervous about giving the government that much power.

I guess if you assume that *your *religion, in particular, has a lock on validity, you’re okay…

[adaher]

Two reasons you don’t have to worry:

1. Strict scrutiny. Freedom of religion isn’t absolute. If a law furthers a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest, then it will be upheld.

2. In regards to slavery, there’s a big difference between being prevented from doing something your religion permits and being required to do something your religion forbids. There is slavery in Islamic lands today, as well as polygamy. The law can prevent Muslims from doing those things, but it cannot force them to say, sell pork at gay weddings.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Hopefully not.

You want to change the law? Get elected to Congress. Don’t appoint judges that will change the law the way you like.

You’ve been whooshed. a nice guy with an opinion is a dipshit who specializes in drive by strawmanning of liberal positions.

[joyfool]

@LavenderBlue

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.

Fucking hell, yes. Sometimes I hate this bullshit planet and the fundamentalist misogynists who seem to fucking run it.

@Bricker

Of course they would have. It might even have been a bigger majority than 5-4.

But would it have been a “good day?”

[Little_Pig]

IANAL but it appears that the ruling is very narrow. It pertains to privately held companies, not public ones. The owners must show a history of closely held beliefs. Maybe a legal scholar will pass by to enlighten us further.

[Bricker]

@silenus

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.

@Bricker

Of course they would have. It might even have been a bigger majority than 5-4.

@faithfool

But would it have been a “good day?”

Absolutely. The “good day” arises from the judicial victory of plain text over desired meaning, not from some uniquely Christian goal. Congress enacted the RFRA; it means what Congress wrote. The challenge to the ACA was based on the plain meaning of the RFRA and the Dictionary Act. The plain meaning won; that’s good no matter what religious belief was being considered.

Now, don’t read me wrong: there are plenty of religious beliefs that I don’t find palatable. But if those beliefs are sincere and the government cannot articulate a narrow application of a compelling interest to overcome them, then we need to either accept the exception or Congress needs to tweak the statute.