|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Individual employers have been able to invoke RFRA for a long time and there's no epidemic of them converting to stick it to their nannies etc. Yeah if this does rule in favor of Hobby Lobby it seems likely that it'll only effect those who are self insured.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
What employer isn't incorporated? Isn't that like one of the first steps in 'Starting a Business 101'?Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Individual employers have been able to invoke RFRA for a long time and there's no epidemic of them converting to stick it to their nannies etc. People usually write their nannies and cleaning ladies a check or give them cash. They aren't filling out W2s and providing benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Somebody explain to me why this isn't going to actually happen so I can sleep tonight. I KNOW the Supreme Court is not really going to go "LOL companies don't have to give their employees poo poo if their God said they don't" but I don't understand the mechanics of this whole thing. It will absolutely happen, there is no hope but death and suffering, dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed. Gen. Ripper fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:It will absolutely happen, there is no hope but death and suffering, deface yourself and face to bloodshed. All of those christian groups like FRC Liberty Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom are going to be even more annoying tomorrow/monday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:What employer isn't incorporated? Isn't that like one of the first steps in 'Starting a Business 101'? They're (probably) following state and possibly federal labor laws though. Plus you've got RFRA claims in general not being successful very much, despite the theoretical strict scrutiny being applied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
This was going on in front of the steps
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:This was going on in front of the steps  the future of legal abortion is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Qublai Qhan posted:Yeah, I'm not ok with the state of affairs either, I'm just not ok with throwing free speech out outside of a vacuum just because we're not in a vacuum.  Except we it wouldn't exactly be throwing free speech out unless by free speech you mean the ability to get directly in someone's face, block their way, and intimidate them. Which of course is not what the poor little nun was claiming she did. She claimed she was deprived of the ability to have a calm conversation with someone and the buffer zone was so small that it didn't prevent that. Technically the buffer zone did little more than demarcate and reiterate where you would be guilty of disorderly conduct. You were still free to be express yourself in that way, it was just a literal line you couldn't cross.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Actually this might give the right positioning for self defense. Deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
It appears this is the site in question, with the now-meaningless 35-foot line. It does seem less far than I would expect the police to push back a group of protesters, so I must say I don't completely understand. Does Massachuettes just not like abusing the failure to follow a police order and disorderly conduct laws like seemingly every other state does? I know that can't be completely true because of Henry Louis Gates, so I sort of suspect that there's another part to the story here. ShadowHawk posted:They struck down a law specifically creating buffer zones in front of abortion clinics. A general case about buffer zones created arbitrarily was not before them. Buffer zones are never arbitrary. They are created deliberately to protect certain people from hearing speech they may not like, be they abortion seekers, convention delegates, or financial analysts. Regarding the police arresting people for disorderly conduct, I argued very much the same thing a few posts earlier. Alternatively the city could just deny them a permit at that location for security reasons and arrest anyone protesting for unlawful assembly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:It appears this is the site in question, with the now-meaningless 35-foot line. To be fair to Roberts he did go out of his way to write that managing a crowd might require moving people back, but the first amendment does not allow you to bar people from going into that zone at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
McCullen claimed that Massachusetts hadn't had any abortion-clinic convictions whatsoever since 1997 despite the feds having gotten lots of FACE convictions during that time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:They are created deliberately to protect certain people from hearing speech they may not like, be they abortion seekers, convention delegates, or financial analysts. We can't really allow "the right to not hear certain speech" to be a thing. Even if we did, I'm not sure how this buffer zone does that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:We can't really allow "the right to not hear certain speech" to be a thing. Even if we did, I'm not sure how this buffer zone does that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:We can't really allow "the right to not hear certain speech" to be a thing. Even if we did, I'm not sure how this buffer zone does that. No, that was my point. Our government already goes to great lengths to ensure certain people don't hear certain speech, which was my point bringing up NYSE, political conventions, NATO in Chicago, etc. My complaint is that these speakers with this message cannot be told to stay away from a particular area of the city whereas plenty of others can. See also: Reichle v. Howards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:No, that was my point. Our government already goes to great lengths to ensure certain people don't hear certain speech, which was my point bringing up NYSE, political conventions, NATO in Chicago, etc. My complaint is that these speakers with this message cannot be told to stay away from a particular area of the city whereas plenty of others can. See also: Reichle v. Howards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:No, that was my point. Our government already goes to great lengths to ensure certain people don't hear certain speech, which was my point bringing up NYSE, political conventions, NATO in Chicago, etc. My complaint is that these speakers with this message cannot be told to stay away from a particular area of the city whereas plenty of others can. See also: Reichle v. Howards. The rulings aren't contradictory; a cop who arrested McCullen breaking the law would've gotten qualified immunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
This is one of those weird things where I agree with the ruling but I really, really don't feel good about it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
As a MA resident, are MA planned parenthood clinics surrounded by raving religious lunatics like those in more right-wing states? I always assumed it wasn't really a problem here. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:As a MA resident, are MA planned parenthood clinics surrounded by raving religious lunatics like those in more right-wing states? I always assumed it wasn't really a problem here. It's a heavily Catholic state so yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:As a MA resident, are MA planned parenthood clinics surrounded by raving religious lunatics like those in more right-wing states? I always assumed it wasn't really a problem here. Shimrra if you and I are the same age but back in the early 90s there was an abortion shooting in Bookline which basically shook the community and I think made a lot of Mass Liberals more conscience of the protection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:As a MA resident, are MA planned parenthood clinics surrounded by raving religious lunatics like those in more right-wing states? I always assumed it wasn't really a problem here. As a clinic escort in a traditionally left-leaning state, we've got tons of raving religious lunatics outside our clinics. I can go more into detail when I'm leas exhausted and more coherent, but as far as leaving it up to the police to handle protesters using disorderly conduct charges, etc: not gonna happen, because when it comes to handling anything involving anti-abortion protesters outside of clinics the cops are loving useless. You *might* get them to move on something if there's a very clear punch thrown on camera with everyone's faces visible, but even then, most likely not. We've learned to pretty much not bother calling even on egregious violations because the cops are just gonna huff, act like it's a huge pain in the rear end, and not end up doing anything but chastising everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 05:45
|
|
ExplodingChef posted:We've learned to pretty much not bother calling even on egregious violations because the cops are just gonna huff, act like it's a huge pain in the rear end, and not end up doing anything but chastising everyone. Why do the police respond in this way?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why do the police respond in this way? There might not be a strong case against the person involved if all you have is one person says this and a whole group says the opposite, once these very loud people start getting moved around by cops they start calling news reporters about how the police are wasting their resources on such a small matter and then the higher ups start yelling at lower ranks when the public starts complaining about tax dollars, and usually in the end the mob reforms as no real action is taken so it was a waste in the first place as the majority of the public does not care for either side even though one acts like a bunch of assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
ExplodingChef posted:As a clinic escort in a traditionally left-leaning state, we've got tons of raving religious lunatics outside our clinics. Do you have any idea why that is? Why aren't they already there? I've seen the police disperse under threat of arrest a protest in front of H&M within seconds of the signs coming out. To you think it's a political bias of the police? That seems unlikely in Boston to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Yeah, that's roughly the sort of thing I'm getting at. It's not that I think the police (who are not a monolithic hivemind) have a political bias, but that someone has established a policy of nonintervention on this point. It could be for any number of reasons, and they might not be political, or even wrong! But if it's a state of affairs that seems nonsensical, it's worth figuring out exactly why things are the way they are.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
I would guess it's a combination of factors. Protests in front of shopping area inconvenience/intimidate the general public so that's already one major difference. Large corporations also are much more effective at lobbying and being connected to local government so police failing to look after them will get politicians screaming. Finally there's a general bias in police type groups against anti-authoritarian types so I'd imagine the police are more inclined to take action against those sort of groups even if purely dire to subconscious bias.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that the last two cases will be split between liberal and conservative outcome. Hobby Lobby will lose because the law allows them to opt out of the whole insurance deal by paying the tax therefore they are not forced to violate any religiouse believes. Harris v. Quinn on the other hand will kill public sector unions.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:McCullen claimed that Massachusetts hadn't had any abortion-clinic convictions whatsoever since 1997 despite the feds having gotten lots of FACE convictions during that time. This is the same logic Roberts used to unwind the VRA and for which Ginsburg gave her famoud umbrella quote: "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I'm pretty sure that the last two cases will be split between liberal and conservative outcome. Hobby Lobby will lose because the law allows them to opt out of the whole insurance deal by paying the tax therefore they are not forced to violate any religiouse believes. I think its likely that the conservatives write both opinions, though its possible that Roberts could go either way on Hobby Lobby. Based on how many majority opinions each justice has written this sitting, the last two opinions are likely Roberts and Alito.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
big business man fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:This is the same logic Roberts used to unwind the VRA and for which Ginsburg gave her famoud umbrella quote: "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet," The law in question wasn't enacted until 2007.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:I'm not entirely sure of their reasoning yet, but many of my coworkers (I work for a union, not a public one though) have told me that the higher-ups in AFSCME, AFGE, the AFT, etc aren't entirely convinced that Harris v. Quinn would necessarily be a bad thing for public sector unions. I don't see how that could possibly be. It looks like the SCOTUS is about to make every state a right to work state WRT public sector unions. That would be such a devastating blow to the public sector unions that people are going to be wondering why this case wasn't being covered by the media before the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
I think the logical endpoint here is pretty bad. This buffer zone only exists to protect women from harassment and intimidation, and more importantly: violence. Yes, the harassment will be more serious but it's hard to walk into any given abortion clinic in America without being harassed as it is. For me, I believe this will ultimately culminate in someone from the virulently pro-life crowd becoming violent against pregnant women in their way to Planned Parenthood or whatever, and I can only imagine the backlash. I might be getting a little ahead of myself, but a lot of folks on the other side of this issue literally see this as state-sanctioned baby murder, and violence against abortion-seekers and abortion-doers in this country is not unheard of. Sadly I think that violent attacks on pregnant women and doctors is what it's going to take for people to understand the full impact of this decision and all the ramifications, as well as the reality of who is seeking these procedures. Or I dunno, maybe some teenager seeking condoms. Either way, the harassment and intimidation was going to be there without this ruling no matter what. To me, this can only result in violence the likes of which we've seen before
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The law in question wasn't enacted until 2007. edit: oh you mean the Massachusetts law not the VRA, whoops evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:06
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I think the logical endpoint here is pretty bad. This buffer zone only exists to protect women from harassment and intimidation, and more importantly: violence. It might stop the violance against the unborn life that is commited inside those facilities, did you ever think about that?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:To me, this can only result in violence the likes of which we've seen before dorkasaurus_rex posted:I might be getting a little ahead of myself, but a lot of folks on the other side of this issue literally see this as state-sanctioned baby murder, and violence against abortion-seekers and abortion-doers in this country is not Fixed that for how the other side would finish that sentence. It's why the violence before had limited long term effects, if any, and why it would unlikely have any lasting impact now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It might stop the violance against the unborn life that is commited inside those facilities, did you ever think about that? Sorry bro that violence is legal. Escorts should just carry pepper spray and or open carry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It might stop the violance against the unborn life that is commited inside those facilities, did you ever think about that?  Are you loving serious?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I don't see how that could possibly be. It looks like the SCOTUS is about to make every state a right to work state WRT public sector unions. What's the run down on this? I'm a member of a public-sector union, and I haven't heard about this until the forums came back up and it was mentioned offhand, "Oh, the Supreme Court is gonna kill public sector unions". I'm pretty sure the union I'm in doesn't charge the fair share fee, and they're still kicking. I think. I would have hoped they would put something up on the message board if they were in jeopardy of being eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 15:33
|
|
