And the federal government also deals with China – to a much greater extent than Hobby Lobby does.
You seem to be suggesting that no moral stance is permitted unless the entity taking the stance is somehow completely pristine. But that’s an absurd standard that would make any moral stance impossible.
I have pointed out several areas in which Hobby Lobby willingly forgoes profits for the sake of their religious beliefs. They don’t open Sundays. They reject a deal that would have allowed their otherwise empty trucks to move beer. They don’t sell shot glasses. (This is an area in which I disagree with them; I don’t feel there is any particular religious reason to abstain from alcohol in moderation, but they do.)
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they were willing to keep a Hobby Lobby location open even if a liquor store opened next door. Because at some point, they get to decide that the taint of the objectionable conduct is attenuated by time or distance.
You insist that you be the one to decide, for them, what that point is. If you feel their dealing with China is troublesome, that proves they should also feel that way, and since they don’t, you conclude they are hypocritcal.
But what makes your view of the proper place to draw the line the correct one?
Or, in the alternative, it means that not just Hobby Lobby, who objected to just four of the twenty contraception methods, is affected. The same logic supports a Catholic company that objects to funding all contraceptives.
I posted the exact same critique before the ruling. It’s not about being a bad loser at all, it’s about you repeating the same disingenuous crap over and over.
Nowhere in the Supreme Court opinion does the majority (or anyone) conclude that RFRA is unambiguous. Quite the opposite, for Alito specifically says: “RFRA itself does not define the term “person”.” Which means it is … and stay with me here … ambiguous. My critique of your disingenuousness, both then and now, is absolutely correct.
But look: you’re hanging too much meaning on a too-quick response. I gladly concede that the RFRA, standing in isolation from all other federal laws, may indeed be ambiguous.
The RFRA, read together with the Dictionary Act, is not.
You keep defending Hobby Lobby. You then turn around and have the nerve to call employees of theirs who want to have health insurance that provides them with the means of avoiding abortions via an IUI “greedy moochers.”
It is both nasty and hypocritical.
Hobby Lobbyists present themselves as so utterly pristine that the practically the mere thought of a potential embryo possibly being prevented from implanted gives them the vapors. So they then to go their own employees and our highest court in the land with self congratulatory nonsense about how utterly moral they are and they should never be forced to spend a single penny-wenny on the possible thing that may prevent an embryo from being implanted. Meanwhile they do business with China.
No, fuckwad, I’m upset because this misogynist Court intentionally misinterpreted the law with a twisted, absurd reading that served their personal ends, not the true intent of the legislature or our founding documents … for political purposes. That’s not what a Supreme Court is supposed to do and you bloody well fucking know it, you pus stain.
I notice how you ignore the fact that Hobby Lobby are proven liars about their supposed deeply held religious convictions and the fact that they have no problem investing their money in the manufacture of actual abortion drugs (as opposed to contraceptives that are scientifically proven not to be the abortifacients they “believe” them to be). But G-d forbid women want to have control over their own reproductive rights and oh no no no, we can’t have that now, can we?
Of course he’s a lying jackass - it seems to be his entire raison d’etre. If you squint really tightly and twist your head exactly so, you can read whatever the hell you want into the clear, unambiguous language of any text and have it say whatever the hell you want if you’re Bricker.
And had you done it only once, I never would have mentioned it again. But I corrected you before on this very issue. And yet, here you are, repeating the same shit in a different thread.
Or it could be busily refuting the ridiculous claims of outraged liberals, and not having time to carefully type out, “…the RFRA, as understood by the Dictionary Act…”
That’s fine. But Bricker doesn’t make the law. The Supreme Court does. So **Bricker’s **opinion on the subject of when the Dictionary Act applies isn’t the law. Under the law–according to both Scalia in the majority and even the dissenters in Rowland (!)–application of the Dictionary Act turns on a judgment about how well the Dictionary Act definition fits in the context of the statute in question. Since that’s the whole ball game here, the question of whether it makes sense to say a corporation has religious beliefs, it is simply incorrect to say that Alito’s decision need only have involved applying the Dictionary Act because RFRA supplied no definition.
How did this for-profit corporation come to have a religious belief, so that it could suffer a religious burden?
The purpose of a corporation is to legally separate the owners from the business - they are distinct entities. Do we really legally allow the religious beliefs of the owners to be the religious beliefs of the corporation? That’s having it both ways.
You know, I wish that you were available to make the same corrections when it’s someone on the left that spews out their view instead of the actual caselaw.
You’re right that context is appropriately considered. In Rowland, the Court found that a corporation couldn’t file a lawsuit in forma pauperis – as a pauper – and thus not have to pay filing fees. Only a natural person gets that break.
But what context would have allowed the finding that some corporations are covered and others aren’t?
How does a corporation get free speech rights? The New York Times, a corporation, published the Pentagon Papers. Because the corporation had free speech rights, they avoided criminal penalties. But how? Didn’t that corporation legally separate the owners from the business?
I said above: I gladly concede that the RFRA, standing in isolation from all other federal laws, may indeed be ambiguous.
The RFRA, read together with the Dictionary Act, is not.
And the next time I’ll take you for a case of hootch and six months of a sig that proclaims how fucking stupid you are. Your loss didn’t humble you in the slightest.