Which is not, of course, to suggest that you favor the cause of bigoted Americans if they can offer some form of religious objection? You should be clear about that, lest you give the wrong impression.
Are you asking if I think the President should include the same type of religious exemption in his Executive Order as was included in the Senate-passed ENDA?
Answer: I do not. I think, on balance, that would do more harm than good.
I would advise the President to not issue such exemptions in his planned EO.
(i can’t help this feeling that no one responding in this thread has read the actual letter, knows what the Senate ENDA is, knows what Obama’s planned executive order will do, and can articulate any relevant legal background in support of, or opposed to, the presence of religious exemptions. But I am hoping that this defiant prediction will make someone burn to prove me wrong and look it up so he (or she) can confidently tell me how wrong I am).
None of which actually addresses the question. But you typed, so I guess that counts.
What is the question?
Religious nutjobs aren’t the smartest, and even then they still sometimes win. Even in the Hobby Lobby case, it was their stupidity that made them think that the 4 types of contraception they don’t have to provide causes abortion when it doesn’t. And of course the SCOTUS ran with that objectively incorrect belief and ruled in their favor.
The foundation has been set with a challenge, rational or not, to any ill-defined religious belief against providing something they don’t think they should provide, whether its contraceptives or a tolerance of gays. Despite some people thinking a Muslim business may take advantage of this ruling next, I think its more likely that we see these hateful pseudo-Christians try to apply their maliciousness to atheists and other religions next.
Whatever you think they will base the argument on, most of us know that they were emboldened by the Hobby Lobby case and think it would be a fall back position should they not be granted their request. I think Obama will ignore them, then you’ll hear rumblings about challenging the law, and sooner or later this Hobby Lobby shit will be brought up as a reason why they should be granted that exemption.
Like I said, the timing and wording of the request is not lost on me. I mentioned it in my last post.
Again I’ll ask you: do you think that the timing of this request, so soon after the Hobby Lobby verdict, was a mere coincidence? Do you think that these religious groups were ignorant of that case and did not follow it? And do you think, if it comes down to a lawsuit, that these people will invoke the Hobby Lobby case to bolster their claims?
You understand that the FDA also says that each of those four types of contraception can disrupt implantation of an embryo?
How, specifically?
What wording, specifically?
The timing of this request had nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby decision’s rationale.
It had everything to do with this.
It is widely believed that the President will implement some of the ENDA provisions by Executive Order because of the collapsing support for the bill, with the right-most sponsors insisting on stronger religious exemptions being added and the left-most sponsors withdrawing because of the religious exemptions already there.
Now, it’s true that the people involved did invoke Hobby Lobby:
But what Carey is opposing is NOT the law used in Hobby Lobby, nor the decision. Carey’s opposition is to putting similar exemptions into the ENDA.
At most, the decision is motivating religious groups to say, “Look how well RFRA worked for Hobby Lobby; we’d like to make sure the same kind of language is placed into the regulatory framework for government contracting awards.”
And the LGBT folks are saying, “Look at how terrible RFRA’s effect was in the Hobby Lobby case; we want to make sure that similar language does not get added to the ENDA.”
But that’s not any kind of a “fall back,” position for the religious groups. The RFRA cannot help them. That’s why they want to get identical religious exemptions added to the ENDA, for heaven’s sake. Why would they need to ask this, if the RFRA already did the trick?
I asked you what specific language in their letter you were relying on, and you dodged that, just saying, “The wording of the request.”
Please quote, specifically, what wording you feel they were using in their request to invoke the Hobby Lobby decision.
No. I do not. Because they cannot. Because there is nothing in the Hobby Lobby decision that bolsters their claim.
I don’t “buy” the newspaper freedom of the press comparison, because while they do print their editorial opinion, they are not causing or requiring anyone to “obey” that opinion or “comply” with that opinion. It does not impact anyone’s possible choices and/or physical wellbeing. It is not being “imposed” on them.
But I don’t believe this all is any sort of religious, ethical, or conscience “thing” anyway. I think it is political in nature (just a very strong suspicion).
As for the number of “closely held corporations” …
Limiting to only Fortune 500 companies is unnecessary and is a smoke screen.
And it’s spelled differently, too.
Hobby Lobby’s decision does impact other’s choices, but how – specifically, legally – is that fact relevant to creating vicarious liability?
Against that suspicion, there is the strong evidence that for years, well before Obama was elected and gave us Obamacare, the Greens ran their company on what they viewed as Christian principles.
Was that relevant to the Fortune 500 in some way?
Which poster argued that the lack of Fortune 500 companies was “telling?”
Are you now saying that comment was unnecessary and a smoke screen?
I understand that the FDA used to say that. Religious people have a hard time grasping the fact that when information changes, beliefs need to change with them
Again, they will cite the Hobby Lobby decision and make arguments about how it allows people of religious persuasions to be exempt from certain laws. And before you object, remember, they don’t have to be correct in order to make that argument, they just have to make it. Its about throwing shit up on the walls to see what sticks. They will use Hobby Lobby, the conservative media will cite that, and even if not one of those people are factually correct, it will be an integral part of the argument should the events play out as I’ve listed them
The combination of the following phrases add up to a sum more than their individual parts:
“religious exemptions” (same as Hobby Lobby demanded)
“extension of protection” for “faith communities” (ties directly into what Hobby Lobby claims they are)
“religious freedom” (conservatives have been branding their bigotry as this for years, its an easy dog whistle to spot)
“respect diversity” (they ask for it yet they do not give it, similar to how Hobby Lobby thinks that outside insurance groups giving their employees the option to do something attacks them, yet they don’t extend that same respect to others)
“equal footing” (a laughable shout out to how religious groups are disadvantaged, but they are the one asking for the exemptions, not acquiescing to being treated like everyone else)
Again, its the sum of all these arguments, coupled with their insidiously blatant hatred of gays, that makes their pathetic request obvious. The fact that they sent this the day after the Hobby Lobby decision is another thing that adds to the sum of this hateful letter. They might as well just say “This country was founded on Christianity and we don’t have to cater to anyone!” but they’re a little better in PR than the typical religious yokel
I think there’s a stronger case to be made that this came out one day after the Hobby Lobby verdict than simply that it came out in the same month as the failure of ENDA and Obama’s announcement that he will protect the LGBT in federal contracts. In any case, even if these religious groups had the letter ready before the SCOTUS verdict, I’m sure they were awaiting the verdict to put any final changes to the letter. Also, you didn’t answer my other question: Do you think that these religious groups were ignorant of that case and did not follow it?
So? We just lost on Hobby Lobby and she was responding to the ENDA exemption request. I’m sure if you ask her, she’d be opposed to the verdict but that wasn’t the subject
If the RFRA already did the trick, the nobody would have to ask anybody for anything, it would be spelled out. But like Hobby Lobby showed, interpretations of the law differs, you know this, so just like how one side tried to get some sympathetic judges to rule in their favor, now others will try to do the same
The question you’re avoiding answering is whether you think people will purposefully cite a ruling/law to try and bolster their claim even if factually it has little to do with it in the hopes that they will find sympathetic ears to hear their plea. Do you?
Do we really want courts to decide the correctness of a religious belief? For example, should a state court be allowed to say “After reviewing the Koran, the Court believes that praying five times per day while facing in the direction of Mecca is not supported and therefore rules that the Petitioners are not entitled to reasonable accommodation”?
It would turn the idea of religious freedom on its head if an arm of the government could rule that a certain belief was simply wrong and not protect it.
Did I say I wanted the courts to decide religious validity? I said that the science on the contraceptives have changed and beliefs must change with it and that Hobby Lobby is factually wrong when they claimed that those 4 types of contraceptives induce abortions. The hell did you get that strawman from?!?
Way, way, way back, when a friend of mine was in law school, they studied a case (summarily dismissed, of course) where a guy had sued the Catholic Church, because they weren’t teaching the Bible properly. He wanted a court order against the Catholics, compelling them to teach “true” doctrine instead!
Imagine the sheer hell if the courts started ruling on things like that.
Yog, have you a cite that the FDA has changed its position/definition?
(Sure, I could look it up, but I figure you might have it handy, and I claim a religious exemption for lazy.
Mark 6:28
There’s a comic named Mitch Hedburg, now sadly deceased. One of his stand-up lines was, “I used to take drugs. (pause) I still do, but I also used to.”
Yes, the FDA used to say that… and the FDA still says that:
Here’s the label for Ella, with the relevant line bolded for emphasis.
Here’s the label for Plan B, with the relevant line bolded for emphasis.
Here’s the label for IUDs, with the relevant line bolded for emphasis.
NOW do you understand that the FDA says that these contraception methods can inhibit implantation?
It can’t be an integral part of the argument, because there’s nothing in the Hobby Lobby decision that affects the award of government contracts. Do you seriously imagine that a legal argument consists of some guy saying, “Well, this case was sort of similar, so let’s all just forget the ‘law talking stuff’ and agree my guy should win, because of reasons?”
Now look at the ENDA. Don’t all those phrase apply even more directly to the language of the ENDA? And as an added bonus for my position: in addition to the weak inferences about how it mentions “religious freedom,” and that must mean the Hobby Lobby decision…the added benefit of my theory is they mention the ENDA specifically in the letter! They don’t hint at it, or cleverly allude to it with “dog whistles.” They freakin’ call it out, in black letters. They explicitly say that the letter is about the same religious exemptions that were present in the ENDA!
I’m certain they were aware of it. But I’m equally certain that they were aware it had no legal bearing on their case, and no persuasive bearing, either. If it did… why didn’t they add any mention of it? They had no shyness in mentioning the ENDA several times. But according to you, this shining moment of success that was motivating their sending the letter was so cirtical that they… fail to mention it even once.
Bloggers might. Authors writing for Mother Jones certainly have demonstrated their willingness to do so, sure.
And your own contributions to this thread qualify: despite the fact that you’re straining to find ways to tie the text of a letter about religious exemptions in a potential Executive Order implementing ENDA guidance to the RFRA ruling for Hobby Lobby, you have doggedly stuck to it. So it’s clear to me that you’ll do it, yes.
But in an actual courtroom, and at the federal appellate level? No, that’s not too common.
Cool. You know what else may alter the endometrium? The woman’s reproductive system which means that women are abortifacients. And you know, falling down a flight of stairs can induce miscarriages, so stairs are abortifacients. If I punched a pregnant lady, she might lose her baby. Which means hands are abortifacients.
If you think these are hilariously exaggerated, well that’s how you sound when you complain about contraception.
“Not too common”? Given your lawyerly skill at obfuscatory semantics, one is compelled to ask for clarification. Do you mean that phrasing in the ironic sense of “No, that never happens” or only that it doesn’t happen to an excessive degree?
One would have an easier time arguing with you if you had the same regard for clarity as you have for rhetorical advantage.
Further: any such case would be fatally flawed, and would fail. Does that mean that a group with sufficient financial resources could not find a lawyer willing to seek some rationalization? That they would be barred from filing such a thing? Or have their case flung away with such force that they could not appeal up the line?
I said “Not too common,” as opposed to “Doesn’t happen,” because in a country this size, it would be amazing if such a thing never happened. And in truth, one exception to the “it doesn’t happen,” line is when one side appears pro se – without a lawyer. This kind of “Ummm… its sorta connected, doncha see?” argument is common with litigants who represent themselves.
But since the groups in this case cannot represent themselves, that exception doesn’t really apply here.
It’s exceedingly rare, and exceedingly ineffective. In fact, for all of Yogsooth’s apparentl fear at this outcome, it would ideal for him if the groups *did[/] adopt this argument, because they would promptly be laughed out of court. And therefore lose.
So, Obama writes the Executive Order, and doesn’t include religious exemptions. These groups decide to sue, and lacking any theory that actually helps them, they say, “Well, the RFRA protected religious exemptions, and this situation also requires a religious exemption, so the RFRA ought to apply here!” (Or longer words to that effect?)
Their case gets dismissed before trial, because they have both failed to state a cause of action and because their pleading, even if all factual allegations in it are true, doesn’t establish any liability on the part of the government.
They could appeal that dismissal, and the appellate court would affirm the dismissal on the same grounds. There’s just nothing there.
It’s just nonsense. It’s as if you guys were asking why the Yankees couldn’t win the Super Bowl, and I kept explaining the Yankees play baseball, and you kept saying, “But if they dressed in football uniforms, it’s possible!”
Hobby Lobby isn’t being asked to buy reproductive systems, stairs, or hands.