I Pit HOBBY LOBBY

[VinylTurnip]

This is excellent news. Time to clean out the blood gutters on my pyramid.

[Bricker]

@LavenderBlue

Cute.

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

That’s a mutual fund, one of many that’s purchased by the retirement fund. They don’t direct the retirement fund, and they don’t direct the mutual fund, which in turn invests in thousands of different stocks.

Nor is it legally relevant. Now, you may believe that a retirement fund that buys dozens of mutual funds, one of which buys thousands of stocks that include those companies, should be analyzed the same for purposes of determining religious discomfort.

But Hobby Lobby does not.

And guess whose opinion matters?

Hint: think HL, not LB:

Similarly, in these cases, the Hahns and Greens and their companies sincerely believe that providing the insurance coverage demanded by the HHS regulations lies on the forbidden side of the line, and it is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial.

[Bricker]

@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.

Not exactly. The majority opinion just says that it’s virtually impossible for a publicly-held company to assert such a unanimity of belief when they have such a disparity of ownership, and that it very likely simply won’t happen.

And if it does… from the syllabus:

Finally, HHS contends that Congress could not have wanted RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because of the difficulty of ascertaining the “beliefs” of large, publicly traded corporations, but HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection. That disputes among the owners of corporations might arise is not a problem unique to this context. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes.

[Bricker]

@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.

I think that question suggests you haven’t much clue how the courts evaluate RFRA claims.

Can you explain what your understanding of the process is?

[Inner_Stickler]

@Bricker

And guess whose opinion matters?

Hint: think HL, not LB:

To you and to Hobby Lobby. But I’m not sure why you think LavenderBlue is somehow constrained to not think Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical or jerkish when they decide that contraceptives are good enough to make bank on but evil devil-spunk when it comes to supporting the health of their employees.

[Bricker]

@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…

How much of the opinion, if any, did you read?

Did you even once encounter the phrase “valid religious belief?”

Did you read any part of the opinion that supports your idea that any part of this process involves the government determining what is, or is not, a valid religious belief?

[Bricker]

@Inner_Stickler

To you and to Hobby Lobby. But I’m not sure why you think LavenderBlue is somehow constrained to not think Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical or jerkish when they decide that contraceptives are good enough to make bank on but evil devil-spunk when it comes to supporting the health of their employees.

She can think what she likes.

Her opinion on the matter is not part of the legal analysis.

[LavenderBlue]

They look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites which is what they are. Ultimately they’re trying to lecture the rest of us on morality. They’re not very convincing.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Bricker

She can think what she likes.

Her opinion on the matter is not part of the legal analysis.

Thanks for clarifying?

[snowthx]

Can someone help me understand what, exactly, this means to Hobby Lobby employees? I get that the ruling sides with the company in that they wish to not “offer” contraceptives as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance package.

Does that mean:
a) The health insurer can still offer contraceptives to Hobby Lobby employees participating in the plan, at additional cost to the employee? (The company does not have to pay for contraceptive coverage).
b) The company prohibits the insurer from offering contraceptives to their employees. (Employees wishing to access contraceptives are totally on their own).

I know it’s a fine point, but just looking for some factual data here.

[SteveG1]

People have religious beliefs. COMPANIES do not. A company is not a living breathng person, so it can not have a religious view or a religious right. It is a bullshit argument.

I think this is where the “argument” will fail in the courts. The owner/CEO/boardmenber can believe in any gods or demons they please. However, they are not supposed to use any sort of “leverage” that would force others - employee or not - to live by those same religious “rules”. By trying to say the company has religious values - and that is what they are really trying to pull - they are trying to force their religous rules on someone else.

SOME people kike to say that a company’s only purpose is to make money. They use that to excuse all sorts of things that would be unethical and reprehensible on the personal level. So then, they do not get to swtich up and say now the same company has religious values of ANY kind.

It’s bullshit.

Added on edit: lets try making a company that “believes in” and enforces Sharia law, and see what a shit storm gets started.

[Little_Pig]

@Bricker

Not exactly. The majority opinion just says that it’s virtually impossible for a publicly-held company to assert such a unanimity of belief when they have such a disparity of ownership, and that it very likely simply won’t happen.

And if it does… from the syllabus:

Thank you Bricker.

[elucidator]

Does anyone know if the Church of Scientology had an opinion on this? Just curious…

[Gatopescado]

@adaher

The law can prevent Muslims from doing those things, but it cannot force them to say, sell pork at gay weddings.

Thanks a lot! Now I’m hungry. And feel like dancing.

[SteveG1]

@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.

This.

[VinylTurnip]

@elucidator

Does anyone know if the Church of Scientology had an opinion on this?

Yes, but it will require thousands of dollars and many hours of intense auditing before you’re ready to hear it.

[Grrr]

1. Start a business
2. Claim that it’s against my religion to pay people more than $4 an hour.
3. Profit!

[G-SE]

@SteveG1

This.

Yeah! In fact, let’s smash their shop windows overnight, those dirty Christians!

Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses

[Bricker]

@SteveG1

People have religious beliefs. COMPANIES do not. A company is not a living breathng person, so it can not have a religious view or a religious right. It is a bullshit argument.

I think this is where the “argument” will fail in the courts. The owner/CEO/boardmenber can believe in any gods or demons they please. However, they are not supposed to use any sort of “leverage” that would force others - employee or not - to live by those same religious “rules”. By trying to say the company has religious values - and that is what they are really trying to pull - they are trying to force their religous rules on someone else.

SOME people kike to say that a company’s only purpose is to make money. They use that to excuse all sorts of things that would be unethical and reprehensible on the personal level. So then, they do not get to swtich up and say now the same company has religious values of ANY kind.

It’s bullshit.

Added on edit: lets try making a company that “believes in” and enforces Sharia law, and see what a shit storm gets started.

Companies don’t have ideas, but they have freedom of expression under the First Amendment. (I assume you agree that the New York Times, a for-profit corporation, is covered under the First Amendment.)

So when we speak of a company’s expression of ideas, we of course mean to refer to the expression of ideas of its owner.

So, too, with religious exercise: the “religious exercise” of a corporation is simply the exercise of its owners.

You say a company cannot have a religious right? How about the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington? That’s a corporation. Are you seriously trying to defend the idea that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington has no religious rights?

No? OK, then what separates the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington from Hobby Lobby?

[Bricker]

@LavenderBlue

They look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites which is what they are. Ultimately they’re trying to lecture the rest of us on morality. They’re not very convincing.

They don’t really care if they convince you.

They wish to avoid being forced into doing something they regard as sinful.

And luckily for them, the law permits them to avoid that trap.