Don’t they disallow birth control that prevents implantation? Or is that some other group of loons? Ah, they did allow birth control, until the filed suit because they had a hardon for the ACA.
And I assure you, my outrage is pretty real. Hobby Lobby is looking to impose their backwards beliefs on people and I honestly think that’s wrong.
This is a particularly interesting quote.
It reminds me of this Dilbert strip.
Is this some kind of legal argument?
Can you explain in a bit more detail what your claim entails?
Because there is literally no burden. A burden can’t, I would think, be legally substantial, if it’s not really there.
I have no doubt that their belief is sincere. Stupid people rarely ask questions that lead do doubt.
But paying someone something, and them not using it the way you’d like isn’t acting against your beliefs. If you gave me a sausage, and I took it and ass-to-assed Justin Beiber with it, you have not had pressure put on your Catholic beliefs. You can be repulsed, sure. Upset sure. But in this world, grown ups have to deal with that. Not throw a tantrum that rises all the way to the SCOTUS.
Well, it’s nice to know it’s only a question of how much. 
But does the RFRA allow them to impose their backward beliefs?
Regardless of how wrong you think it is?
How can you be the one to define what their beliefs are?
If I give you the sausage intending that use, or knowing you intended to put it to that use, then it does violate my Catholic beliefs. And if you pass a law mandating my continuing to provide sausages you use for this purpose, that too would violate my Catholic beliefs.
Why do you think you can declare what does, or does not, violate my beliefs? Are you suggesting you know my beliefs better than I?
I do understand that you’re arguing for the legal definition of “substantial burden” and I’m saying that there is simply no burden at all.
Your beliefs end at the tip of my nose. Nothing someone else does privately can hurt your practice of your religion.
If Jains have to pay taxes that go to missile drones, the idea that paying for health insurance that may, just may, be used in a disapproving manner is utterly nonsense.
Money is fungible. Your hands don’t have blood on them because you held the dollar that paid for one of that missile’s machine screws.
Only if there is a substantial burden, right?
Nothing in what you wrote addresses the actual test used in caselaw. Why do you keep dodging that, and substituting your own version?
Yes. But “substantial burden” is calculated by the tests mandated by Thomas v. Review Board. Not by your decision that the burden simply doesn’t exist.
Your answer?
Your answer?
Your answer?
I agree they have beliefs about supporting abortion. At least since the ACA was passed. They used to allow Plan B until someone they loathe said they have to do it.
In any case, their belief, that it is wrong is real, I’ll grant. At least since 2012. But the government has said that health insurance is a part of the compensation of a big company, or you pay a penalty.
Their beliefs don’t enter into it. They pay a check, they pay insurance. Both the check and insurance can be used in ways they don’t like.
That’s not an impediment on their beliefs.
So, I don’t question their beliefs, much, I question where the harm comes. Just because they don’t like how it’s spent, I don’t see how that keeps them from believing in the divinity of Jesus, keeping a holy life, and growing up some shitty, shitty grandkids.
Justin is sad. We had a picnic planned.
As of 2012 they provided plan B. Because, probably, they didn’t even think of it. You don’t know if I’m going to eat that sausage, doubleteam JB with it, and then eat it, or give it to a homeless person.
They aren’t paying for abortions, or in this amazing analogy (heh) a sausage. They are paying for healthcare. Which includes thousands or maybe millions of different services. They aren’t writing a check to Abortificants Inc.™. They’re writing a check to Kaiser.
In no way are they specifically paying for abortions. They are paying for healthcare, that someone might use for an abortion. A huge difference.
Because your beliefs can’t be violated by something I do privately. Simply impossible. If I burn down your church, or make peyote illegal, or say Seventh Day Adventists have to work the weekend, that would hurt your practice of your religion.
That hypothetical woman is using he wage, her healthcare to do her private business. And I am taking my kelbasa that you handed me and giving a prostate orgasm to a racist Canadian man-boy.
(omitted)
That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies!
Probably. But they allowed Plan B until recently.
They aren’t killing babies. They are giving heathcare, which among millions of other things can be used for abortions. They are also paying taxes which are used to send missiles into wedding parties. They are also paying wages that are used for cheap, methed-out blowjobs. They are also buying things from China, and are supporting any number of non-Christian actions.
This answer is not correct.
Hobby Lobby has identified their religious belief in the court filing, and at trial. It was not, “That abortion is kiwwing wittle babies!”
Are you able to accurately identify the religious beliefs involved?
Well obviously, it should be Last in First Out, like Magic the Gathering cards.
I’m not saying to ignore the RFRA, I’m saying it doesn’t apply, because their beliefs aren’t being burdened.
Although, in any case, I’d say that there is a plenty compelling reason even if there were a burden.
Back to the pointy-haired boss. You have so far been unable to correctly identify the religious belief asserted by Hobby Lobby – how can you judge the RFRA’s applicability correctly when you can’t even correctly answer the first of the three steps necessary to apply the RFRA’s test?
Free contraception is a mere policy preference, not a compelling government interest. If you can override the 1st amendment for that, you can override it for virtually anything. And if you can override the 1st amendment for such things, none of our rights are safe.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that the First Amendment applies. adaher is welcome to carry that water if he wishes. My point is that the RFRA applies.
(In fact, Employment Division v Smith eviscerates adaher’s First Amendment claim, but I don’t have the energy for a two front war).
I’m sure I could, but I’ll just wait for you to correct me. You’re not gonna say that they have a religious belief that they have to provide insurance, right?
Can you explain how you were analyzing the RFRA without being able to accurately state the religious beliefs involved?
From the Tenth Circuit (PDF page 16 at link):