I Pit HOBBY LOBBY

[Bryan_Ekers]

@VinylTurnip

If I were going to build a cross, I’d start at Home Depot.

Not me. Lowes, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[Bricker]

@SteveG1

And so, when a company incurs obligations or debts or liabilities of any kind, then they too should be treated the SAME way. If the “rights” are “extended” then so too, should the duties, obligations, risks, laibilities and debts be “extended”.

You’re welcome to believe that, but it’s not an inescapable consequence. We are perfectly able to craft the law to preserve the shield for liabilities, and allow the exercise of religion.

But a company is still a THING. IT does not believe ANYthing.

From now on, whenever you see the phrase, “[corporation_name] believes [belief],” you should feel free to substitute, “The owners of [corporation_name] believe [belief], and are using the corporate structure to advance their belief.”

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

You’re welcome to believe that, but it’s not an inescapable consequence. We are perfectly able to craft the law to preserve the shield for liabilities, and allow the exercise of religion.

All you’re really doing is stating the obvious fact that law is an arbitrary construct, fully capable of containing contradictions with itself and the moral codes of thinking human beings.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Bricker

During the SDMB debates about the Hobby Lobby case pre-decision, there were a couple schools of “thought.” I put the word in quotation marks because for some reason, this case causes people to stubbornly cling to non-factual information even after repeated exposure to factual rebuttals.

Hamlet’s argument was cogent, although ultimately wrong. But he could have been right – that is, the Court could have seen it his way. His point was that, notwithstanding the language of the RFRA, the ‘context’ of the RFRA was to provide religious freedom to people and to non-profit religious corporations. His reasoning was, basically, that the Court had never before applied the RFRA’s guarantees to a for-profit company, and that the “line” society draws between for-profit and non-profit is one that seems to make sense for this determination, since we’re used to churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. being non-profit and tax-exempt.

My counter to that was that we can easily imagine for-profit corporations that most people would agree should have at least some measure of RFRA protection: the kosher meat market, the halal meat market, the Christian book store, and the Mahayana Buddhist retreat center could all be organized as for-profit corporations.

I think the main thing that has people losing their minds here (besides the usual problems involved in sloppy liberal thinking, of course…)[sup]*[/sup] is because they sense that, as the old Sesame Street song used to point out, “One of these things is not like the other.” Put Hobby Lobby in a line-up that includes the kosher meat market, the halal meat market, the Christian book store, and the Mahayana Buddhist retreat center and it stands out as the one that’s least able to claim a religious purpose.

Right?

But here’s the problem: the RFRA as it’s written right now really doesn’t contain any way to distinguish between the kosher meat market, the halal meat market, the Christian book store, the Mahayana Buddhist retreat center, and Hobby Lobby. So we have this sort of stubborn, “I know it when I see it,” frustration about this decision.

Many people feel that when the courts encounter this kind of situation, they should step in to fix it. Congress didn’t, and they have the power, so they should craft some kind of framework that captures the heart of “I know it when I see it,” and go from there.

Many OTHER people don’t believe that’s the proper role for the courts – that it makes the courts into a Super-Congress, fixing what Congress either got wrong or is too broken to fix.

How do you feel about this view?

[sup]*[/sup]I kid… I kid because I love.

Bricker, I get it. Let’s see- courts as a Super-Congress? Violates the concept of checks and balances on the face of it, but OTOH it is the role of the Court to interpret the law, and this was a 5-4 decision that could easily have gone the other way if not for certain shenanigans in Dade county way back when. Since again, on the face of it, we know it when we see it.

But more to the big picture, grok this: I don’t really mind Hobby Lobby getting their exemption from the ACA due to their sincere religious objection (as long as the entire culture doesn’t go bananas with this precedent). I can see the religious freedom/infringement argument. Earlier you said this:

No. Because when a corporation exercises religion, it is exercising the beliefs of its owners, who are natural persons. That is, in fact, the definition: the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of the natural people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.

I get it, Bricker. Say a devout Christian owns a hammer, mostly because shingles keep getting broken off his roof. If somehow the government has a law that says hammer owners have to use their hammers to pound nails through the limbs of convicted criminals to execute them, I think it would be un-American to force the devout, objecting Christian to use his hammer in this stark contradiction of his religious convictions.

Now, the hammer is a multi-billion dollar, colossal corporation with thousands of employees. Same thing. Only the owners have any legal presence (plus, of course, the legal ‘person’ of Hobby Lobby), the employees are all tools.

Anyway, I really don’t mind Hobby Lobby getting their religious exemption. My real problem turns out to be the conferring of personhood onto corporations. What is my precise issue with that? I dunno, maybe you can help me see how, pedantically speaking, the whole notion is utter nonsense. But I suspect we’re experiencing a decline into plutocratic aristocracy, which is also distinctly un-American.

And speaking of sloppy liberal thinking, have you seen the latest Tom Tomorrow? Don’t get me wrong, I love this stuff, but am I the only one who senses some demagoguery in this one?

[John_Mace]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

My real problem turns out to be the conferring of personhood onto corporations.

What alternative do you offer, and how will NOT conferring elements of personhood (not personhood) be better for our society?

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@John_Mace

What alternative do you offer

What’s my time limit?

[adaher]

I don’t see what’s so hard. If you believe that groups of people should not count as persons legally, then it’s a pretty simple concept to defend.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@adaher

I don’t see what’s so hard. If you believe that groups of people should not count as persons legally, then it’s a pretty simple concept to defend.

I’m okay with treating groups of persons as persons. If, for example, a group of persons poor their resources to rob a bank, I see no problem with giving them all trials and sentences. The thing about a corporation (well, one of the things) is that even if the individuals pool their resources to accomplish something, they have some degree of insulation regarding the consequences.

I have no problem with a corporation having a wide variety of civil rights and in fact see it as necessary. If Hobby Lobby had been incorporated specifically as a religious organization, I think I’d be prepared to give them more latitude on this. They didn’t, so I’m not. Fuck 'em.

[adaher]

Thing is, Hobby Lobby is a business owned by a family. If the government can make Hobby Lobby do anything it wants, then they can make you do anything they want with your possessions and property, without regard for your religion, on the logic that your property has no rights.

[elucidator]

“Anything it wants” is a pretty open ended thing. I don’t think the government can make the owners of Hobby Lobby sacrifice their first-born to ensure a good harvest, no. But the government might be empowered to insist that they provide their employees with health insurance roughly equal to other citizens. That might well be possible.

And if we are to insist that human rights are a gift of God, don’t we have to explain how, why, and when He delegated that power to a bunch of lawyers?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@adaher

Thing is, Hobby Lobby is a business owned by a family.

So? The family members could sell their shares to ten random strangers tomorrow and it’s not like the corporation itself would notice or care. It has (for the sake of argument) $10 million on its books as owner equity today and will have $10 million on its books as owner equity tomorrow. Hobby Lobby would not change at all until the new owners started directing it to change, and I wouldn’t be inclined to cut them slack for, say, deciding that employees weren’t allowed to buy non-halal foods or something along those lines.

Now, if the new owners want to dissolve Hobby Lobby and create a new corporation with the former Hobby Lobby’s assets and with a specifically religious bent with the goal of promoting a particular religious view while selling pipe cleaners and googly-eyes, fine. I’m open to the idea that they could have a larger say in the lives of their employees than a nonreligious corporation.

If the government can make Hobby Lobby do anything it wants, then they can make you do anything they want with your possessions and property, without regard for your religion, on the logic that your property has no rights.

Hobby Lobby is not being specifically targeted. The rules were supposed to apply to corporations in general as the norm for conducting business and employing people in America. Hobby Lobby just wants to whine and unfortunately, people are buying into it.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

“Anything it wants” is a pretty open ended thing. I don’t think the government can make the owners of Hobby Lobby sacrifice their first-born to ensure a good harvest, no. But the government might be empowered to insist that they provide their employees with health insurance roughly equal to other citizens. That might well be possible.

It uncontroversially is possible.

If the RFRA did not exist, Hobby Lobby’s claim would be judged as a First Amendment claim – and it would fail, under Employment Division v Smith.

So the government absolutely has that power.

It just has hobbled the exercise of that power under the RFRA.

And if we are to insist that human rights are a gift of God, don’t we have to explain how, why, and when He delegated that power to a bunch of lawyers?

Because a right with no corresponding legal remedy is simply talk.

[adaher]

@elucidator

“Anything it wants” is a pretty open ended thing. I don’t think the government can make the owners of Hobby Lobby sacrifice their first-born to ensure a good harvest, no. But the government might be empowered to insist that they provide their employees with health insurance roughly equal to other citizens. That might well be possible.

And if we are to insist that human rights are a gift of God, don’t we have to explain how, why, and when He delegated that power to a bunch of lawyers?

Again, you’re confusing rational basis(which child sacrifice would not pass) with strict scrutiny. A better example would be requiring Hobby Lobby, as an arts and crafts store, to sell paranormal paraphernalia(in other words, witchcraft), something they also cannot do as Christians. But the government could say, “All religions should be able to buy their stuff and it’s not fair that the biggest arts and crafts chain only sells Jesus statues.” There may be a rational basis for such a law, but it’s certainly not serving a compelling interest.

[adaher]

@Bryan_Ekers

Hobby Lobby is not being specifically targeted. The rules were supposed to apply to corporations in general as the norm for conducting business and employing people in America. Hobby Lobby just wants to whine and unfortunately, people are buying into it.

You’re forgetting that many corporations were granted exemption from the law. In the end, that’s part of what killed the government’s case. If the government can grant exceptions, then they can grant a few more exceptions. There’s no rationale to treat non-profits differently from for-profits under our law when it comes to basic rights.

Once the administration acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church, Inc had the right to not buy their employees contraception, they acknowledged the same for all corporations.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Hobby Lobby is not being specifically targeted. The rules were supposed to apply to corporations in general as the norm for conducting business and employing people in America. Hobby Lobby just wants to whine and unfortunately, people are buying into it.

When you say “the rules,” you appear to mean the Affordable Care Act, but not the RFRA.

Can you explain why only one federal law is “the rules?” in your mind?

[elucidator]

Well, he’s Canadian, you know. Not the brightest of bulbs, as a general rule.

[adaher]

We’re not even talking about the law here. THe law didn’t require the President to command the purchase of Ella. He interpreted the law as broadly as possible. What we’re talking about here are mere regulations, not a statute. And Statutes>administrative regulations.

[Bricker]

@adaher

We’re not even talking about the law here. THe law didn’t require the President to command the purchase of Ella. He interpreted the law as broadly as possible. What we’re talking about here are mere regulations, not a statute. And Statutes>administrative regulations.

There’s nothing in the President’s interpretation that is contrary to the law, though, so it’s entitled to deference.

[adaher]

It received it. Except the exemptions the administration granted were part of the reason it received a little less deference than it otherwise would have. Hard to prove a compelling interest when you’re handing out exemptions based on an admission that the regulation is indeed problematic.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

When you say “the rules,” you appear to mean the Affordable Care Act, but not the RFRA.

Can you explain why only one federal law is “the rules?” in your mind?

Well, one of them sort-of makes sense (though it’s really just a poor way-station on the road to where you should be - single payer) and the other one doesn’t since religious beliefs are arbitrary and thus granting exemptions based on them is arbitrary.

Of course, that’s merely my opinion. I don’t really care for the purposes of this thread what the legislature passed, what the executive signed, and what the judiciary upheld, so any attempt to lecture me thus is fruitless.