Okay, so what about the idea of how a company as a group of people can be said to be practicing a certain religion when not all the people are of that religion and can’t be compelled to violate their religion? It still seems to me like the owners are the ones practicing their religion, not the company as a whole.
I’m just still trying to understand the logic. Non-profit religious organizations can discriminate and thus can hire people of the religion in question, or at least compel them to act in accordance to religious ideas. So I understand how they can be practicing a religion. But I have trouble conceptually with a for-profit company doing so.
This example is unclear to me, because I don’t see the distinction from the owner’s practicing their religion and Hobby Lobby practicing religion. Are there any more clear examples you can think of?
I also have not seen Bricker’s opinion on whether the owner’s opinion of what is an abortifacient overrides the medical community’s and FDA’s opinion. Do you actually believe that they can decide what is and is not an abortifacient? If so, tying it back to the thread title, what are the implications of this? Or does your lack of bringing this up mean you don’t think it will even be mentioned in the Supreme Court decision?
Because, to a lot of us, that seems somewhat important. Their stated belief is against abortifacients, not against emergency contraception itself. And the medical consensus says that at least some forms emergency contraception are not abortifacients. Yet the owners of Hobby Lobby are against providing insurance for all of the emergency contraception methods that have been FDA approved.
It does nothing of the sort. It points out that such funds exist. It says nothing about whether HL management knew they existed or chose not to invest in them.
Snowboarder, that’s a weird place to be going. Lots of people are against a lot of things, but unknowingly invest in those things because they don’t know about socially responsible mutual funds. Am I to assume that all environmentalists who have money in Exxon are hypocrites who really don’t have a problem with oil drilling?
Even if it’s because they own mutual funds through a 401(k) plan they pay little or no attention to? Do you have a retirement plan? Do you know what’s in it? I sure as hell don’t know what’s in mine. I barely remember the names of the funds I’m in, much less what their holdings are.
Sure, if they are buying Exxon stock directly. I buy stocks directly and you won’t find any cigarette or alcohol stocks among them. But I also have a 401(k) plan with mutual funds and there are some cigarette and alcohol stocks there. Problem is, I can’t get a fund that doesn’t have them through my 401(k) plan.
By their nature, mutual funds have pretty broad investments. As much as I hate Halliburton and Xe, I wouldn’t be surprised if my 401k has a little money in them. Don’t like it much, but you have to pick your battles. But- if the centerpiece of my whole philosophy was not participating in contraception in any way, shape, or form, and I had spent millions of dollars in legal fees and threatened to shutter an entire corporation over the issue, I have to believe that I would be quite diligent in monitoring my investments so as not to benefit what I profess to be so much against.
It’s a different thing. Right now you have money invested in Haliburton. Let’s say Haliburton got into the health care business and you were required to contract with them for their services.
Here’s the thing. If spending your money only properly is a “sincerely held religious belief”, then you take the time to find out. When you’re grasping for the moral high road with the money you give the insurance company, you don’t get to turn around and do the opposite with the money you give your retirement company. Hobby Lobby decided to put themselves out there as a religiously based company that can’t have anything to do with helping workers get contraception, yet at the very same time, they’re giving money to help companies make contraception.
Whether certain drugs approved for emergency contraception have an abortifacient method of action is probably not something that supporters of the Obama administration’s position really want to hang their arguments on. *
The manufacturer of the drug ella presented data from animal studies using primates showing high rates of fetal loss when the drug was tested on pregnant animals, rates similar to RU-486 – the medical abortion drug. They did not do similar tests on humans. Ethical guidelines probably would not approve such a study.
The European Medicines Agency (European version of the FDA) noted the manufacturer of the drug ella in its applications for approvalproposed:
**
Hobby Lobby objects to methods of contraception that act by preventing implantation, equating those methods with abortion.
Also, IANAL, but it seems such an argument would need to be made at the level of the trial court and not at the SCOTUS.
You just made his point for him. It is by no means a given that things are abortifacients because they prevent implantation. That’s just Hobby Lobby’s opinion, man.
In any event, that argument almost certainly was raised at the trial level.
Not participating in contraception in any way is not “the centerpiece” of the Greens’ philosophy. It’s just a Big Deal to them. Their views may be internally inconsistent, and maybe they should pay more attention to their money, but you don’t waive a constitutional right (or in this case a statutory privilege) by failing to exercise it at every possible opportunity.
But Hobby Lobby could have. If it was as important to them as they want you to believe contraception coverage is, they could have gotten mutual funds that don’t invest in companies that make contraception.
Of course not. But when your views are “internally inconsistent”, your argument that those very views are “sincerely held religious beliefs” is unconvincing.
Maybe, but it’s too late for that. The trial court already found that their beliefs were sincerely held as a matter of fact. Anyway, given the similar suits working their way through the system it seems sort of pointless to rule on that basis.
They could have if they knew about it. Most people are not savvy about investing and I’d be surprised if 1 in 10 know about socially responsible funds.
Of course. I’m not pretending that this is “the break in the case we needed! Get Lennie Briscoe and Curtis out there to get statements!”
But it is hypocritical of Hobby Lobby to take the position that their money can’t go to contraception coverage in insurance, but it is OK if they’re money goes to companies that make that contraception.
Again, Hobby Lobby is the one who created this idea that they’re a Christian Company that must spend their money without violating their morals. But apparently that only goes to Obamacare, because it’s not important enough to do that when its retirement money. Or with Plan B and Elan the years before you file suit.
I completely realize that it is almost impossible for anyone to be morally responsible for all the money they spend/donate/invest. Which is why I have repeatedly articulated my problems with Hobby Lobby’s position that buying insurance coverage is somehow different from paying taxes, or investing money, or any of the dozens of other “moral duties” that they must uphold that don’t result in lawsuits.
That’s part of the deal with being a for-profit corporation. But it’s Hobby Lobby who wants to pretend it’s not. At least it’s not when it’s insurance. Retirement money and taxes? Yeah, that’s fine though.
No they could not, because of strict scrutiny. You cannot use religion to get out of laws that are there by a compelling government interest. if the law is merely desirable, then yes people can get out of it if they have a religious objection.
The Obama administration has proven that the law is not vital by exempting churches.