Protesting a store may effect business which, if wide spread and significant, could make them change their position even if they were protected by SCOTUS. It is better than doing nothing.
This one is great.
Me too:
Since the OP is asking what his sign should say for a protest outside Hobby Lobby, it seemed perfectly fair to point out that Hobby Lobby supports sixteen of the twenty required contraceptives. A protest in front of Congress, or the Supreme Court, would more fairly focus on the more far-reaching aspects of the decision – beyond the 4/20ths, if you will. Hobby Lobby can hardly be blamed for being against all contraception when they’re not against all contraception – even if the court case bearing their name ultimately is used to do that by another party.
We wouldn’t blame Ernesto Miranda because some guy evaded robbery charges after the police failed to read him his rights.
Plus he’s dead.
And:
The FDA still says they may prevent implantation. If the scientific evidence is compelling, it seems fair to ask the FDA to change their labels first.
Also: the intention of the drug would be a factor in some kinds of reasoning, to be sure, but not in Hobby Lobby’s view.
Consider the Jewish kosher rules. Diary and meat cannot be mixed together, because of the Biblical prohibition to avoid seething the flesh of the kid and the milk of its mother. In today’s world, the chance of any commercial diary product coming into contact with any commercial beef product with which the source animals were mother and offspring is essentially zero – certainly far less likely than the chance an IUD will interfere with implantation.
Is that scientific fact a license to disregard that kosher rule because it runs counter to scientific understanding?
On #1: You make a good point. I hope the distinction is clear to the OP and others.
On #2: I don’t agree that the analogy is correct. But perhaps we can explore it further in one of the other threads.
Because they said the exemption works for closely held corporations, but not other corporations. Because the SCOTUS decision fell (coincidentally) exactly along party lines (going by who appointed them). Because they’re the ones who decided “corporations are people” applies to the first amendment in 2010 aligned the same fucking way (subbing Stevens for Kagan).
Congress didn’t do that.
I Wanted an Abortion
But All I Got Was This Crocheted Top
Regards,
Shodan
They didn’t say it doesn’t, though. That’s an open issue - for now. The reasoning is in place, though.
Also along gender lines (almost), but, ISTM more to the point, *denominational *lines. The Catholics seem to have chosen the desired result that their faith commands, and “found” the exceptions and rationalizations needed to make it legal.
Well, just like gender lines, one Catholic crossed the divide and decided with the minority. It is troubling how much belief seems to be leading law, though, rather than the other way. (and pre-emptively, Bricker, I’d feel the same if ‘my side’ won with a 5-4 decision that fell so nearly perfectly along gender/denomination/presidential-appointment lines.).
Again, though, the law Congress passed explicitly says: “This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.”
And it says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability (unless the burden meets all sorts of of special conditions I won’t list).”
Right?
So I’d say the law came first – the law says, in effect, “Rah rah rah belief!” That’s not belief leading the law.
Only if you already believe a corporation is a person for first amendment protection. And, it was a 5-4 decision. I know you believe the majority decided law correctly, and would have decided the same way if each were Satanists that believed it was a woman’s duty to birth-control at least one baby away post-fertilization in her lifetime (excepting maybe Thomas, who’d just copy off Scalia’s paper).
Do you think the minority decided entirely upon law, and not upon belief?
How about:
Against abortion? Don’t outsource to China!
Nice!
By that logic, you could say belief came first, because the law was only passed to negate a court decision where belief was not supreme.
But I think “put first” is being used more in the sense of “which is more important.” For example, say there’s a case where helping my friends and my family are in unresolvable conflict. If I “put family first,” I will choose to help my family.
And, yes, I actually do say beliefs are more important and should be in everything. Even though I don’t support the decision, I think Hobby Lobby’s attempts to get out of the law were moral. I think they did exactly what they should have done when the law and their morals came into conflict: try to change the law. My only problem with them is that I believe they had less burdensome alternatives that did not require the law and their morals to actually be in conflict. Just make the employee portion of the bill cover the healthcare you don’t want to pay for. Or, better yet, educate yourself on the current science and allow your views to change.
You actually seem to be more the type who wants to put the law first and make belief subordinate.
You’ll note the conservative posters are unusually active in this thread. They hate it when lefties take action rather than just sit around and debate, so they are putting every monkey wrench they can into the works here. Protesting Hobby Lobby might actually have an effect … can’t have that.
Now as to ideas for your sign.
Hobby Lobby: Controlling Women’s Wombs Since 2014
Hobby Lobby:
YESTERDAY: A Corporation
TODAY: A Religious Corporate Person
TOMORROW: A God!
Hobby Lobby Asks:
Who Is YOUR God Now, Employees?
Kneel Before Hobby Lobby’s God!
Hobby Lobby Says “Our Employees, Our Slaves”
Hobby Lobby Says “Shut Up and Buy the Button, Bitch!”
Hobby Lobby Wants You Pregnant, Barefoot And Making Doilies
Hobby Lobby: Worship Our God, Yours Doesn’t Count
You’re Not Just Buying Craft Supplies Here, You Are Tithing A Corporate God
Hobby Lobby Says Worship Our Bottom Line
Remind me again how badly Chick-Fil-A is hurting these days?
And I was enjoying this thread and laughing at the replies until it got all durped up. Sigh.
I’ve got a job
My life is tough
16 out of 20
Is just not enough!
Can’t win em all, Sauron. Doesn’t mean you stop fighting.
No, bup. This decision is not grounded in the First Amendment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any previous decision about corporations being people for First Amendment protection.
It’s based entirely on the RFRA and the Dictionary Act, two laws passed by Congress.
If they had based it on their prior First Amendment decisions, Hobby Lobby would have lost.
Finally, it might interest you to learn that in the past four terms, the single pair of justices who voted in lockstep most often was Kagan and Sotomayor, who voted with each other in 94% of the cases.
I’m curious to know if you will abandon your apparent distaste for voting in lockstep, or just comfort yourself that Scalia and Thomas were a close second.
Except they weren’t. Roberts and Alito (93%) came in second.
So… third?
Nope: Kagan and Ginsburg (92%).
Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed 90% of the time, tied with both Alito/Thomas and Sotomayor/Ginsburg.
I have a funny feeling that I’m not going to see any critical comments from you about Sotomayor or Kagan on this matter.
Right?
I agree. I’m not saying that I’m not grateful that the thread got “all durped up”, I want to be clear about what I’m doing, and why.
But I do miss the premise of the thread, especially the satirical suggestions.
I think it’s probably too late to start a new thread, as to whether or not it makes sense for me to go. I also think that most people’s creative juices have stopped flowing… so I think the best one can do is look for the posts that are in quotes and ignore the arguments presented in here… if what you’re looking for is a chuckle.