|
Stultus Maximus posted:The act of Congress, RFRA, did not explicitly apply to corporate persons. This court decision applied RFRA to corporate persons, granting corporate persons religious rights for the first time. This part of the decision was 7 to 2 with all the racial minorities on the court in the majority. It's solid law.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:12
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Schlitzkrieg Bop posted:Well presumably Hobby Lobby isn't buying OTC Advil for its pregnant employees. And also the fact that at a certain point lawyers and judges want to reach the actual legal arguments involved instead of bickering back and forth over whether someone's religious beliefs make them a hypocrite. Prescription strength Ibuprofen is a thing that may be covered under their health care plan (I admit I don't know but it wouldn't be unreasonable) so they very well might be "paying" for their employees to take medication which is causing what they consider miscarriages. The point I'm making is that when you have a science vs religion court case, science is going to lose since as you put it they aren't going to endlessly bicker about whether someone's personal take on a book written thousands of years ago is logically consistent while science has to lay out the plain facts which can result in something being technically correct while being grossly misleading (such as how people now often think that Plan B is designed to cause abortions). It's an incredibly unfair playing field we should be trying to avoid although it's obvious people with certain ideological leanings are intentionally abusing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
God drat, I guess I have to read Scalia's poo poo:quote:The Chief Justice and Selective Good Faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Could it be as simple as what was written and available to read when he was writing his opinion? I don't know how the internal process of them passing these around works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
So apparently HL had 73 million invested in companies that make iuds and emergency contraception when they filed their case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:So apparently HL had 73 million invested in companies that make iuds and emergency contraception when they filed their case. I find the idea that HL might be responsible for exponentially more "miscarriages" than their employees both funny and rage-inducing due to the argument regarding their sincerely held beliefs. William S. Burroughs' quote is constantly being verified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:While hormonal birth control isn't a "need" per se, there are quite a few women I know that started taking it long before having sex because it helps with PMS and periods in general. Actually, there are a few cases where it is a need! My wife, for instance, has to take birth control regularly or risk ovarian cysts, which, from what I understand, involves curling up into a ball and praying for whatever God you believe in to send the sweet, comforting embrace of death to release you from your pain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:So apparently HL had 73 million invested in companies that make iuds and emergency contraception when they filed their case. Well that's the corporate entity's money, not the owners' money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:God drat, I guess I have to read Scalia's poo poo:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:HHS stipulated that IUDs sometimes work by preventing implantation, so for the purpose of this litigation they do work by causing abortions. I know this. Prolonged standing or car accidents sometimes cause miscarriages as well, but Hobby Lobby doesn't give their employees 9 months of paid pregnancy leave because they don't actually care about abortions. If they did care, they would be endorsing the IUD over almost all other contraceptive methods because the most reliable method prevents the most abortions. HHS was probably wise to condede this point though, since there's a good chance the conservatives might have ruled that facts are completely irrelevant to a religious belief that something causes abortions. It's all about using abortion as a wedge issue to impose whatever reactionary policies the GOP wants today. Have you noticed how "this is just like the government forcing you to fund abortions" has become the conservative justices' mantra to strike down any regulation they don't like no matter how irrelevant abortion is to the topic? The oral arguments in Harris jumped out at me: Harris v Floride posted:MR. MESSENGER: It's -- Your Honor, it's the compelled speech, and the fact that the individuals haveother First Amendment rights is not exculpatory. So it's the -- it's the compulsion to support the SEIU's positions in petitioning the State. That is the First Amendment violation. And the fact that -- What do union dues have to do with abortion? Nothing, except that those pushing conservative ideology have found it useful to exploit the abortion controversy by comparing anything and everything to "  forcing Christians to murder God's sweet angels"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:This part of the decision was 7 to 2 with all the racial minorities on the court in the majority. It's solid law. As I understand it, Ginsberg and Breyer explicitly rejected the argument, while Kagan and Sotomayor declined to judge on it. It's not a sweeping majority in favor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What do union dues have to do with abortion? Nothing, except that those pushing conservative ideology have found it useful to exploit the abortion controversy by comparing anything and everything to " Seriously I have to hope that the "why do you care about any issue at all when A MILLION BABIES ARE BEING MURDERED?!" debate strategy is starting to create fatigue in people that aren't already fanatical about the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
SinetheGuy posted:As I understand it, Ginsberg and Breyer explicitly rejected the argument, while Kagan and Sotomayor declined to judge on it. It's not a sweeping majority in favor. It was 5-2, Breyer and Kagan declined to join that piece of the dissent. They said it wasn't necessary to rule on whether the RFRA applies to for profit corporations. Keeping it narrow is pretty common in opinions and concurrances, but seems a little odd to do so in a dissent if they did in fact disagree with the majority. It could be meaningful. vvv I decline to disagree with you. esquilax fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It was 5-2, Breyer and Kagan declined to join that piece of the dissent. They said it wasn't necessary to rule on whether the RFRA applies to for profit corporations. Keeping it narrow is pretty common in opinions and concurrances, but seems a little odd to do so in a dissent if they did in fact disagree with the majority. It could be meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
If RFRA had not intended "persons" to include corporate persons they should have explicitly specified this. The dictionary act, which defines persons as including corporate entities dates back to the nineteenth century and isn't exactly a recent innovation. Also, it's pretty clear that the ACA was intended to protect nonprofit corporations rights to free exercise or the Obama administration wouldn't have granted them exemptions in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
This is from SCOTUSblog's plain english summary and not from the actual decision so it may not really count against the Court's reasoning:quote:The families that own Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are deeply religious and do not want to make four of those twenty kinds of birth control – IUDs and the “morning after” pill — available to their female employees because they believe that it would make them complicit in abortion. Would paying employee wages that are used for IUDs and morning after pills make them just as complicit in abortion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:Would paying employee wages that are used for IUDs and morning after pills make them just as complicit in abortion? Yes. But the religious exemption to minimum wage laws and the Emancipation Proclamation need to wait for a year or two to give the birth control exemption precedent time to take root before it can be logically extended to repealing the Thirteenth Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:It could, but inferring that because they didn't explicitly disagree with the majority on that point that they agree with the majority on that point is a bad inference, especially when they didn't think it necessary to decide. It's best to assume that they just don't take a stand on it. Either way it's not close when lower courts look at it. And it'll be applied to a JW owner's case etc etc. Barlow posted:If RFRA had not intended "persons" to include corporate persons they should have explicitly specified this. The dictionary act, which defines persons as including corporate entities dates back to the nineteenth century and isn't exactly a recent innovation. Also, it's pretty clear that the ACA was intended to protect nonprofit corporations rights to free exercise or the Obama administration wouldn't have granted them exemptions in the first place. Really blame the dumbass meme that claims Citizens United gave corps personhood. It's a very opportunistic partisan argument and Ginsburg ought to know better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Not to change the subject from the RFRA fun, but does anyone know if that group looking to sue Harvard for allegedly capping their Asian admittance ever found a plaintiff? That case might be a fun one to follow from the complaint stage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Actually, there are a few cases where it is a need! My wife, for instance, has to take birth control regularly or risk ovarian cysts, which, from what I understand, involves curling up into a ball and praying for whatever God you believe in to send the sweet, comforting embrace of death to release you from your pain. On a side note, she used to work for Hobby Lobby and despite fond memories she plans on boycotting them for life over their position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:This is from SCOTUSblog's plain english summary and not from the actual decision so it may not really count against the Court's reasoning: One is "Maybe they think so, but they can suck it, because once you pay me my salary, you don't get to decide how I spend my money". Incidently this is one of the ways in which HL falls apart, depending on whether you consider employee perks like health insurance part of the employees compensation. If you really hate abortion, then the answer might be yes, and the laws should therefore change to ban abortion, so as to not impinge on free exercise of religion by those who pay salary. If you look at HL, then answer is no, because the plaintiffs never raised this point, so clearly those with a grievance didn't think so. If you look at what the government can mandate regarding salary, the answer is "it's irrelevant" or "Maybe it does, but the law passes the test". Government has a significant interest in limiting how many poor people there are, and address this, in part, through the federal minimum wage laws. These say nothing that could be religiously objected to, or it can somewhat readily be shown that forcing a lower limit on wages is the least restrictive means to achieve this. I'm sure there are other hypotheticals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I understand the fiction just fine. There's no coherent reason to distinguish between the two: I have explained multiple times the coherent reason to distinguish between the two. You have acted befuddled and just repeated that there's not, without being able to address anything I've actually said. You don't appear to understand any aspect of the issue besides your position or you'd be able to argue it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Schlitzkrieg Bop posted:Well presumably Hobby Lobby isn't buying OTC Advil for its pregnant employees. And also the fact that at a certain point lawyers and judges want to reach the actual legal arguments involved instead of bickering back and forth over whether someone's religious beliefs make them a hypocrite. Prescription-strength Ibuprofen is almost certainly on their formulary. It's a standard thing that's covered in case you end up in the hospital, where they'll be giving you the big expensive pills they can charge you for instead of the $3 Wal-Mart bottle. The bigger problem is that it doesn't even matter, there's no need for any sort of consistency or truthfulness of the beliefs, they just have to have some non-falsifiable claims about how they believe a product causes abortions and that's sufficient to start manipulating how their employees' compensation is disbursed. The Greens didn't give a poo poo about the fact that their health plan covered contraception until 2012 when it became a stick they could poke in that uppity President's eye, they continue to invest in companies that profit from producing and selling these (falsely) claimed abortion products, and they continue to cover other products which may induce abortions. Their beliefs are 100% consistent with punishing sluts and 100% inconsistent with preventing abortion. But again that doesn't matter because it's an honest belief and my gut has convinced me of the truthiness. Real hurthling! posted:So apparently HL had 73 million invested in companies that make iuds and emergency contraception when they filed their case. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:If you look at what the government can mandate regarding salary, the answer is "it's irrelevant" or "Maybe it does, but the law passes the test". Government has a significant interest in limiting how many poor people there are, and address this, in part, through the federal minimum wage laws. These say nothing that could be religiously objected to, or it can somewhat readily be shown that forcing a lower limit on wages is the least restrictive means to achieve this. You should never make absolute statements about "what can be religiously objected to". There are religious arguments against income tax, unions, and medical treatment as an abstract concept. I'm absolutely sure you can come up with some bullshit about the moral virtues and inherent dignity of deep poverty or some just-worldism from the Prosperity Doctrine crowd. There's probably some ALEC staffer furiously brainstorming on a spiral pad right now. "Least restrictive means" is totally in the eye of the beholder (in this case, a 5-judge Republican majority), and in practical terms can be rephrased as "a restriction which the Court finds acceptable". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Can someone explain to me why this decision causes so much anger? I am in 100% agreement with this post. I think Hobby Lobby's reasoning is obviously intellectually barren, restrictive to women and devoid of all common sense, so the solution I have is to never shop there again. However, I recognize it is their right to not pay for such a contraceptive if they don't wish. Women seeking an employer who will cover contraceptive use are free to seek out employment elsewhere. I don't understand all the slippery slope arguments too. There isn't a slippery slope. This was a narrow ruling that was actually (rightfully) harsh on the religious right, from what I've read (check out the quote below). It has nothing to do with the LGBT community, nothing to do with blood transfusions or Christian Science or anything of the sort. It literally just has to do with a specific company being mandated to provide contraceptive coverage under Obamacare. Take this quote, for example, from the ruling: quote:This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice. Seems like a good thing in disguise because they just basically confirmed that employers do not have a right to use religion as a means to discriminate against particular groups of people. The ruling further affirms the inability for this ruling to be used as an excuse for companies to not cover employees who seek blood transfusions or vaccinations. Maybe it's not as bad as the original reaction suggests. Sometimes liberal hysteria can be just as reactionary and off-putting as conservative hysteria. Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:I am in 100% agreement with this post. I think Hobby Lobby's reasoning is obviously intellectually barren, restrictive to women and devoid of all common sense, so the solution I have is to never shop there again. However, I recognize it is their right to not pay for such a contraceptive if they don't wish. Women seeking an employer who will cover contraceptive use are free to seek out employment elsewhere. . Why have any labor laws at all then, since workers seeking employers who don't abuse them are free to seek out employment elsewhere? In a free market, anyone who abuses his employees won't find workers right? So obviously people want to be worked to an early grave in unsafe conditions, because they're taking those jobs right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:
The ruling narrowed itself but it didn't outright exclude those things from future cases. Thus, it sort of keeps the door open. It may have excluded transfusions but didn't explain why, just that it didn't. It also chose to specify closely held corporations, but doing that opens the door to larger corporations finding an ability to challenge. It also decided to run on and talk about corporations as persons having beliefs when it didn't need to. That opens another door that as Ginsburg points out, has never really been opened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:It literally just has to do with a specific company being mandated to provide contraceptive coverage under Obamacare. Because of Hobby Lobby's owners' specific religious beliefs, the corporation's cost of employment is now cheaper, by law, than the rest of their for-profit competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why have any labor laws at all then, since workers seeking employers who don't abuse them are free to seek out employment elsewhere? I was absolutely not making a lolbertarian free market argument. In not providing the Plan B contraceptive to its employees, Hobby Lobby is not abusing its employees. It is not forcing them into unsafe labor conditions. It is not withholding employee wages. It is not forcing them to work absurdly long hours. It is simply failing to provide a particular medication under the silly religious logic of its owners. I think this is dumb. Therefore, I won't shop or work there just as I refuse to shop or work at Chick-fil-A due to their owners' opinion of the LGBT community. Doctor Butts posted:The ruling narrowed itself but it didn't outright exclude those things from future cases. Thus, it sort of keeps the door open. It may have excluded transfusions but didn't explain why, just that it didn't. A company is welcome to challenge blood transfusion laws if they wish, but I doubt they'll get too far, and they certainly will not be able to use this particular case as a legal precedent. The inability for someone to receive a blood transfusion is a potentially life-threatening issue. A blood transfusion is far more expensive than a birth control pill. quote:It also chose to specify closely held corporations, but doing that opens the door to larger corporations finding an ability to challenge. You'll find no argument from me here. I hadn't considered that angle. I'll have to read Ginsburg's dissent. She is definitely the most intelligent person on the court. fosborb posted:Because of Hobby Lobby's owners' specific religious beliefs, the corporation's cost of employment is now cheaper, by law, than the rest of their for-profit competition. I'm sure the money they'll save from this decision is probably marginal. And again, this ruling was narrow enough to prevent other companies from using this as a precedent for anything other than this particular type of contraceptive. Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Because of Hobby Lobby's owners' specific religious beliefs, the corporation's cost of employment is now cheaper, by law, than the rest of their for-profit competition. It's amazing how many companies are going to find god when that will let Uncle Sam pick up part of their health care costs!
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:I was absolutely not making a lolbertarian free market argument. In not providing the Plan B contraceptive to its employees, Hobby Lobby is not abusing its employees. It is not forcing them into unsafe labor conditions. It is not withholding employee wages. It is not forcing them to work absurdly long hours. It is simply failing to provide a particular medication under the silly religious logic of its owners. I think this is dumb. Therefore, I won't shop or work there just as I refuse to shop or work at Chick-fil-A due to their owners' opinion of the LGBT community. If you're not making a lolbertarian argument, then don't say "if you don't like it, find another job", because unemployment is a thing that exists and often people can't just go get another job. Why is it always the poor who has to suck it up anyway, why not the rich who has the means? If the Greens hate women's rights, they should move to Iran where their anti-sex opinions are the law of the land. But anyway, Hobby Lobby is taking advantage of tax breaks that incentivize paying employees in medical insurance rather than in pure salary. In order to offer the same level of compensation in money so employees can buy their own insurance, it would cost Hobby Lobby more. Hobby Lobby wants to get the tax breaks for paying women in insurance, but deny coverage for essential health care, forcing women to pay out-of-pocket from their depressed salary (unless HHS steps in with an accomodation). Why should we subsidize Hobby Lobby in doing this? Why should their beliefs get to decide how women spend their compensation? If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for birth control, they should forgo the tax breaks and pay their employees in money so their employees can buy their own health insurance rather than be required to adhere to the Hobby Lobby owners' bullshit religious views. Health insurance compensation belongs to the worker, who earned it in exchange for their work. If their boss gets to decide how it is used, then should we let Hobby Lobby pay women in scrip that can only be redeemed for Bibles, baby formula, and bottles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Because of Hobby Lobby's owners' specific religious beliefs, the corporation's cost of employment is now cheaper, by law, than the rest of their for-profit competition. How so? It seems that unintended pregnancies will be more costly to the insurance plan, and the pick-and-choose negotiations with their insurance provider is de facto more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you're not making a lolbertarian argument, then don't say "if you don't like it, find another job", because unemployment is a thing that exists and often people can't just go get another job. Why is it always the poor who has to suck it up anyway, why not the rich who has the means? If the Greens hate women's rights, they should move to Iran where their anti-sex opinions are the law of the land. I think this is the true issue here: The ruling is letting Hobby Lobby get out of providing compensation (and forcing USG to provide it instead) on the theory that their Health care benefit is legal company scrip. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think this is the true issue here: The ruling is letting Hobby Lobby get out of providing compensation (and forcing USG to provide it instead) on the theory that their Health care benefit is legal company scrip. THAT'S why this ruling bothered me so much. I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:It is not withholding employee wages. By withholding compensation (health care) it most certainly is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think this is the true issue here: The ruling is legalizing another version of scrip. The only people I've heard ever characterize the concept of health insurance in this way were goons who were attempting to invent arguments against Hobby Lobby. If you think the court case has legalized "scrip", then "scrip" has been legal forever, and would have remained legal if the decision went the other way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Most punchable face in the world right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It was limited in that way because those were the facts of the case. Expanding it to more companies involves other issues that weren't argued. Other medical procedures didn't have the non-profit accommodation already in place. I don't know why you keep bringing up the accommodation because, again, the Court opinion is that the government could just provide the benefit themselves (and thus this method is not the least-restrictive-means) and in fact they argue that even if no such accommodation existed they could've found that HHS should make a new program to handle it so as to not burden the owners. If no accommodation existed for non-profits it would not have changed the Court's opinion on the case in question so whether or not other medical practices also have accommodations is not a distinguishing factor or limited criteria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The only people I've heard ever characterize the concept of health insurance in this way were goons who were attempting to invent arguments against Hobby Lobby. If you think the court case has legalized "scrip", then "scrip" has been legal forever, and would have remained legal if the decision went the other way. I think I mis-spoke, but the point is that Hobby Lobby wants to get a de facto government subsidy for not complying with the law, and the reason they want this is because they do not get to control how their employees use part of their compensation package. And they claim that is justified because the Health Insurance they provide is not "compensation" but a free benefit that Hobby Lobby owns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think I mis-spoke, but the point is that Hobby Lobby wants to get a de facto government subsidy for not complying with the law, and the reason they want this is because they do not get to control how their employees use part of their compensation package. And they claim that is justified because the Health Insurance they provide is not "compensation" but a free benefit that Hobby Lobby owns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 20:11
|
|
