SCOTUS Makes A Decision Of “Startling Breadth”
Posted by Michelle Moquin on July 1st, 2014
Good morning!
A little over 10 days ago we talked about the big SCOTUS decisions that were going to be made in June. Yesterday the decision over Hobby Lobby was made…and yep, SCOTUS…really STARK...decided to side with the big corps. Are we surprised? Nope.
Remember…corporations are people, and people can go to court. So, if you work for Hobby Lobby, guess what? Because the “company’s” religious beliefs don’t condone birth control, your policy will no longer cover your birth control. Yep, even though it was covered by Obamacare, they don’t care. Their religious beliefs are now imposed upon yours, whether you have the same belief or not. The corporations have more rights than you.
Oh…but wait, what about men and their needs? Are Viagra and vasectomies still covered? But of course, men must be able to get their erections…it’s all about procreating which is something the Catholic church encourages, don’t ya know.
From the Huff Po:
“But pills and pumps that help a man stiffen his penis in preparation for sex are perfectly acceptable.”
Are you gagging on the stiff one yet? No pun intended. Those that oppose say that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms. What about the freedoms of the women who want birth control?! Their freedoms aren’t being encroached upon? Once again, men get what they need, women don’t. Men’s health needs are taken seriously, women’s aren’t.
This is a very sad day for women. A very scary precedent has been set. This could not only open the doors for other employers to withhold birth control coverage but it also opens the doors to companies to withhold other procedures that don’t fall in line with their beliefs.
Here’s the write from Politico:
SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday that for-profit employers with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare.
The ruling deals directly with only a small provision of Obamacare and will not take down the entire law but it amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.
“We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] — or, for that matter, ACA – would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
(Also on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby ruling full text)
The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The court’s majority also rejected the Obama administration’s argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under RFRA. However, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the portion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent that argues companies do not have such rights.
Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan did not join that section of Gingsburg’s opinion and said in a one-paragraph dissent of their own that they would have left for another day the issue of the rights of for-profit companies and their owners.
(Also on POLITICO: Left on Twitter: ‘War on women’ continues)
The majority decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief — a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.
In the short term, the ruling appears to allow the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties to opt out of the health care law’s requirement that they provide all Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of birth control in their health plans.
The court’s latest decision promises to reignite a national debate over women’s health and access to contraception ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. It is likely to force House and Senate candidates to answer for whether they supported the contraception coverage, a provision that’s more politically popular than the law itself. Advocates have promised to make it an election issue.
(Also on POLITICO: Right celebrates ruling on Twitter)
The Obama administration and women’s health groups have warned that if they lost in the Supreme Court, the ruling could have much broader health coverage implications. If a company can skirt the contraception requirement, what’s to prevent another employer from objecting to providing access to vaccines or blood transfusions on religious grounds, they asked.
Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, warned that the ruling that would have wide repercussions and “untoward effects.”
“Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private,” she wrote.
The Obama administration argued that the requirement wasn’t a mandate at all because the companies could have dropped coverage.
(Earlier on POLITICO: Takeaways from the Hobby Lobby arguments)
The court’s conservative justices accuse the Obama administration and the dissent of questioning the religious beliefs of the families that own the two closely-held companies, in particular the owners’ position that providing the contraceptive coverage would put a substantial burden on their religious views.
“[Health and Human Services] and the principal dissent in effect tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step,” Alito wrote.
Ginsburg and the dissenters sharply disagreed with the pointed critique.
“The Court levels a criticism that is as wrongheaded as can be. In no way does the dissent ‘tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed,” she wrote. “Right or wrong in this domain is a judgment no Member of this Court, or any civil court, is authorized or equipped to make. What the Court must decide is not ‘the plausibility of a religious claim…’ but whether accommodating that claim risks depriving others of rights accorded them by the laws of the United States.”
(Earlier on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby aims for Obamacare win, Christian nation)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to try to restore the contraception coverage.
“If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will,” Reid said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room.”
Hobby Lobby and its supporters, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the decision.
He said the court made clear that “the Obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that Americans hold dear” by requiring businesses to cover birth control in employee-health plans under the ACA.
McConnell called Obamacare “the single worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 50 years” and praised the court for agreeing that the contraception requirement violates the RFRA.
(Earlier on POLITICO: Poll says most side against Hobby Lobby)
The challenges were brought by the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a national craft store chain owned by evangelical Christians with more than 13,000 employees, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a small Pennsylvania cabinet company owned by Mennonites.
The owners of both said they have religious objections to providing access to certain forms of contraception — Plan B, Ella and certain intrauterine devices, which they call abortifacients — in their employee health plans. They had the backing of the Catholic bishops, several Republican lawmakers and at least 50 other for-profit companies that have filed similar legal challenges.
There is a separate string of lawsuits filed against the same policy by religious-affiliated groups, such as Catholic schools.
During a rare 90-minute session of oral arguments before the justices, the companies argued that the Obama administration is forcing them and their owners to set aside deeply held religious beliefs by requiring them to provide contraception in their employee health plans. The owners said they cannot have any role in providing access to certain forms of contraception without having to violate those beliefs. Their attorney, former Republican Solicitor General Paul Clement, said that because the Obama administration has provided some exemptions to the rule — for churches and certain nonprofits — it should be willing to exempt companies, too.
Scalia was not at the court on Monday and a court spokeswoman said he was traveling.
S*C*R*E*W*S*T*A*R*K*
Readers, especially the ladies: THIS IS OUR ONLY CHANCE – We need to exert our power at the polls in the upcoming midterm elections. Because our rights are being taken away from us and the Republican controlled House is not going to stop, nor is STARK with their lifetime appointments. If you care anything about your rights, and the rights of your mothers, daughters, sisters and granddaughters around the country, you had better pay close attention to the political climate, get involved, and vote smart.
BLOG me. Peace OUT.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2014
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
July 1st, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg’s dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
. “The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
. “Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”
. “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
. “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”
. “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
. “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
. “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
You can read the full dissent here (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-ruling-document) (It starts on page 60.)
/SB
July 1st, 2014 at 3:34 pm
This is genius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY1TJ8JazkQ#t=36
/SB
July 1st, 2014 at 4:11 pm
S.T.A.R.K. are political cronies of the right. They will do anything they are told to do. Women if this doesn’t light a fire under you dumb asses, I don’t know what will. Get off your complaining asses and go vote the bastards out.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Five bought and paid for men who are thumbing their noses at the american people.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Here’s the thing, there are a lot of religions out there and a lot of practices and varying degrees of observances. If employees were left to the whim of individual CEO’s personal belief systems, what protections would employees have?
If I work for a religious employer and get pregnant outside marriage, can he fire me for that reason? Can my employer force me to say prayers every day? Can he make me take a meeting in a different room than men so we don’t fraternize? It’s a slippery slope to treat allow large corporate employers to inflict their beliefs on their employees.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:22 pm
I wonder how many of these closely held firms that don’t have to provide birth control are going to start seeing an increase in employee turnover and find it harder to attract and keep talented female employees?
July 1st, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Conservatives are good people. Will that get deleted? Nope, it’s a lie. Lies are okay.
Conservatives can destroy the lives of others, or deny them their rights, but be careful, if you are victim and speak out about wrong doing, you might get your post deleted. There is no free speech in America.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:23 pm
No problem. The Supreme Court created the likelihood of employees geting pregnant so the American Tax payers will now have to pay for abortions or welfare for children born by those who cannot afford the birth control due to the low wages paid by places like Hobby Lobby—which, by the way, will never see another member of our family ever enter one of their stores.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:24 pm
James#5, It’s not a slippery slope because you have the right to not work for them in the first place. Know the employer / company before you apply. Not that half of the stuff you mentioned would even happen.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Maybe if we erase words like evil and stupid, both political parties can have equal merit. Right? And if we erase words like guilt, no one is guilty. And if words have no meaning, Corporations can be people, and trees can be cars. And madness can be normalized.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Van#9, true, but what about other labor laws, such as minimum wage, overtime compensation, discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.? Should there be any protection for workers? After all, they could just work somewhere else?
Should I have to question an employer’s religious beliefs/restrictions/requirements, before even applying, especially when said employer is not outwardly or inherently faith based? Or should I know, that based on federal and state laws, I have specific protections and expectations, with any employer?
If a company such as Hobby Lobby wants to benefit from the protections afforded under incorporation, they should also suffer the consequences, such as following all related laws.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:27 pm
Van#9, …or they could effort to have the law changed, which they are doing.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:27 pm
I meant that to Gray#11.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Gray#11, So now we need the government to protect us from prayer in the workplace? You need a quaalude…
July 1st, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Van#9, You have that wrong. You HAVE the right to work there and be allowed to have the same guidelines that are dictated by the federal gov’t.
You can’t pick and choose corporate law as you see fit. Do you even know what a corporation is. Or are you just basing this off of well god says abortions are bad.
P.S. Plan B is not an abortion it prevents conception from happening. You can’t tell me that you believe it is a baby when the semen and the egg are still separate.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Madness has already been normalized. That happened years ago when George Bush stole the election and everyone looked the other way
July 1st, 2014 at 4:29 pm
…over 5,000 comments
was there even 1 (one) about Conestoga Wood Specialties?
did ‘anyone’ read the opinion???
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_…
July 1st, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Still don’t know why government is involved in this
July 1st, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Fargo#15, Don’t assume you know my beliefs. Don’t assume what I do or do not know.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Joe#18,Agreed. If the ACA hadn’t been passed into law by the “government,” this SCOTUS case would have never come into being.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:32 pm
Van#19, Where in the Constitution does it say that? Last time I checked running a business is not part of a religion? They are making a personal choice, outside of their religion to run this company.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Thelonius#20, If soon-to-become war criminal George W. Bush had not been anointed president in a partisan political coup by the Supreme Court in the first place — rather than elected fairly and squarely by the people — and as a result managed to get Roberts and Alito confirmed as Justices,then this and many other mockeries of jurisprudence would never have been handed down by this renegade Court that stands as a travesty to the American democratic process, felonious Thelonius.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:35 pm
Any private business owners who cannot stomach covering legitimate aspects of health care — such as reproductive services — for their employees, for whatever reason, are free to sell their business to others who understand the right to health care.
Alternatively, they can opt out of providing any health care coverage at all. leaving their employees to seek coverage through government exchanges. It’s really that simple.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:35 pm
my earlier comment did not post so I will just say this decision is less about religious freedom to make decisions for your employees,than it is about implied “ownership” of them..sad …
July 1st, 2014 at 4:36 pm
my earlier comment did not post so I will just say this
decision is less about religious freedom to make decisions for your employees,than it is about implied “ownership” of them..sad …
July 1st, 2014 at 4:37 pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/h
July 1st, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Where in the Constitution does it say that? Last time I checked running a business is not part of a religion? They are making a personal choice, outside of their religion to run this company.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Pollard#26, This is something the religious right will not read. Hobby Lobby is only morally outrage against these drugs when it comes to penalizing their female employees, BUT NOT MORALLY OUTRAGED enough not to invest in those same contraception drugs for PROFIT.
The Hobby Lobby family is a disgusting group of fake outraged Christians. Bad for employees GOOD FOR COMPANY PROFITS.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/h…
July 1st, 2014 at 4:39 pm
So a Muslim store owners now has a right to make all his female employees wear a head dress as they’re not doing so is against his firmly held religious believes. No. So what is the logical difference? The court has open up a can of worms.
July 1st, 2014 at 4:40 pm
The court IS a can of WORMS. They simply have neither the honesty nor the integrity to admit it.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:14 am
there was a case recently in a large city where a muslim woman was told not to wear the scarf headdress as it was not the attire they wanted in this upscale clothing store..rather than quit she filed a lawsuit and won upon the principle that they were discriminating against her religious beliefs..she was allowed to wear it..you are right..it is a can of worms…
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:14 am
Why do the “religious” insist on imposing their views on others?
It is a sickness. Soon they’ll asking for ACA assistance in addition to their “non-profit” status.
Such hypocrites!
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:15 am
Howie, thank you for providing the assistance I needed to prevail.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:17 am
Mercy#27, You cannot separate religion from ones decisions. It is the basis for which all decisions are made. Worldview.
The constitution promises pursuit to happiness and religious freedom.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:20 am
Glenn#32, The supreme court ruled that the federal government cannot force an employer to violate it’s deeply held religious beliefs as a condition of employment.
They didn’t take away anybody’s right to act according to their own belief, they simply said that an employee can’t demand that their employer pay for something the employee finds to conform to his/her religious beliefs, if that something violates the employer’s deeply held belief.
And yet, to listen to the reaction of the left, one would think the SCOTUS just condemned that employee and all who hold that employee’s belief to a life of slavery.
Can you hyperbolic?
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:22 am
Van#34, Yeah you can, you think they opened hobby lobby because their religion told them so? No, I don’t think so. That was a decision they made.
They are in no shape being prohibited from practicing their religion. They choose to run a company that has nothing to do with their religion.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:24 am
A public corporation has the right to impose their owners’ beliefs?
Get real! This S.T.A.R.K. so-called “supreme court” will go down in history as the worst, most political court in history. Such a shame.
S.T.A.R.K. are a disgrace to the court itself!
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:26 am
Larry#35, So you are in favor of laws being adjusted to suit the owners religious beliefs? According to the Bible and the Koran?
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:27 am
Mercy#36, You make religious decisions everyday. They do also. you decide how to pay your workers, what kind of clothes you will wear ect.
There is not one decision that you make that is not moral or religious. You have a world and life view, and that is how you make right or wrong decisions.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:28 am
Larry#35, So xmas is not a paid holiday, right?
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:29 am
Mercy#36, I can’t speak for non-christians but not providing for your family is considered worse than being an infidel.
How you do it as far as being an employer or employee is not dictated, freedom of choice. Yet as an employee we are told to work for the employer like it is unto God.
As an employer we are told to take special care of those we have under us since we too have an “eternal employer”. Every decision is made from a religious worldview.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:34 am
All you so called “religious” motherfuckers are happy now because those making the rules based on their “religious” decisions are in the white majority.
Just wait until rich arabs decide to tell you inane white women to cover your fucking heads as a requirement for employment, then you will be cursing S.T.A.R.K. for making a corporation a person.
But for now you hypocritical bastards get to force your religious bullshit upon the rest of us. So you are okay with it.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:36 am
Van#41, that statement is so full of shit it is pathetic. You “christians” are the same ones that murdered 12 million Native Americans so you could take their land.
Why wasn’t you listening to your god then?
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:38 am
Glenn#40, 5 U.S. Code § 6103 – Holidays section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees.
Christmas
Thanksgiving
New Year’s Day (by many churches, it’s a ‘celebration of the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ)
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:40 am
[ Hobby shop line entering store] Next! race…mmm…are ya a feriner? is ya a Jew Boy?…Catholic? nope can’t come in….Next! race….mmmm …are ya a feriner, is you an Indian? nope you can’t come in. Etc ad nauseum.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:40 am
The Constitution not only promises freedom of religion. It also promises freedom FROM religion.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:41 am
Van#41, Religious freedom for everyone. You understand its not right for one person (in this case a CEO) to impose thier religious beliefs on others.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:43 am
Van#41, ” You cannot separate religion from ones decisions”!!!!!!!!!!!!?
You operate totally on your religious thoughts? Just what YOU THINK HUH. Well, there are more than 170 religions in the world, take your pick. Nonsense.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:45 am
Van#41, So it was religious thoughts that told white men to enslave, rape, be incestuous toward, beat, murder and torture millions of blacks for more that two centuries.
You fucking hypocrites make me sick.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:46 am
Van#41, No we are talking about old laws. Old laws that require a corporation to enforce. Again as I have said multiple times. You can not pick and choose what corporate guidelines you like. You get them all or none. If you don’t like that become a LLC.
I can’t wait until the SCOTUS rules this stuff as unconstitutional and they must provide birth control. All of you people are going to be complaining that that is wrong to.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:51 am
Van#41, I’m one of the few white women who believe that you white men are using your so called religion to remain America’s Affirmative Action beneficiaries.
Only demographics will change this current situation. I used to think my sisters would one day wake up. But every time I read here some idiot white woman trying desperately to justify a white man’s claim of being dissed, or misunderstood, I realize why some of my OTW sister believe that we follow our racist, self worshipping men in “lock-step.”
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:52 am
Franklin#50, Keep in mind that Scotus is fallible too. I refer you to Dread Scott, Plessey vs Ferguson, Citizens United ect. In fact the first ACA ruling was pretty terrible legally speaking.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:53 am
a ‘special’ opinion passed Just for corporations and companies like Hobby Lobby! quelle horreur!!
cause we all know there has never Ever been a ‘special’ law passed that applies to only one type of corporation before.
GE and GM have to go by the ‘exact same rules as everyone else’, yes?
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:55 am
Van#41, And you wonder why more and more people consider religion as a close minded, bigoted, system of indoctrination that does nothing but spew hate and divides us.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:57 am
Kirby#53, You know….
This court has shown judicial restraint and gone to great pains to write opinions that are narrowly tailored very limited in scope.
I would think you leftists would find that to be a good thing. Well except in the case of Citizens United, where the court wrote a very broad opinion, when arrogant government attorneys told the court that the law allowed them to ban books if they wanted.
To which the court responded “Not in this country you won’t. We don’t do that sort of thing in this country.”
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:58 am
Perkins#54, You use hate very liberally.
July 2nd, 2014 at 4:59 am
Larry#55, The term “judicial restraint” is not in the S.T.A.R.K. court’s vocabulary.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:00 am
My new hobby is to undermine Hobby Lobby and this religiously fanatical Catholic Court majority at every turn.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:01 am
Van#56, It is a slippery slope because no one should have to research religious and political views of every CEO when applying for a job.
All corporations should have to abide by all laws rather than try to impose their belief system on others.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:06 am
Van#9, It wouldn’t happen because most people understand that it would be ILLEGAL to do so. And yes it is a slippery slope.
I’m sick of this nonsense about how one should find another job if they don’t like it. How about the employer acts within the boundaries of the law? If they don’t like it they can always sell their business to who can.
Furthermore it’s ridiculous that companies such as hobby lobby believe that they can bounce back and forth between corporate and personal rights/liberties whenever it proves convenient to do so, that is NOT how the laws work, or so I thought.
But in the case of S.T.A.R.K., it apparently is as long as they get paid.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:07 am
Go git ‘em, Pressly#58….. and report back.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:08 am
Van#9, You are wrong, wrong, wrong. I have and everybody have the right to work for anybody…any corporation…any employer, and in working for anybody (even religious zealots) I should have the rights and protection duly mandated in the Constitution of the United States of America!
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:09 am
Thelonius#61, Look for your report in the rout of Republicans in the next election.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:12 am
See ya at the polls Pressly#63.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:13 am
a woman taking a medication such as RU-486 (Mifeprex) and other antiprogestational steroids ‘voluntarily’ is, in many ways, comparable to someone making the choice for ‘elective cosmetic surgery’.
the exception would be if there were a medical related emergency reason for a dr to perform a medical abortion when there is a life-threatening condition, this Would be covered by Hobby Lobby’s insurance.
Hobby Lobby opposes being ‘forced’ to provide ‘elective abortion coverage’
how many corporations provide insurance that covers voluntary/elective procedures such as botox injections?
do they ‘refuse’ this coverage because the corporations are ‘religiously opposed’ to cosmetic surgery?
are major US corporations violating ‘womens rights’ by not offering botox coverage?
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:15 am
Having sex is a CHOICE! It is not a disease or a disorder! Next thing you know they will be demanding housing because if you don’t have a house you can die of exposure.
And Food, because you can die if you starve to death. It iis just Ridiculous!!!
No employer should EVER have to pay for an employees contraception PERIOD! What these liberals really want is Communism! And that is NOT something THIS American will stand by and let happen!
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:17 am
Van#56, Suppose the owner does not believe in blood transfusions (Christian Scientist), can he refuse to pay for that? Where does it stop?
What about religions where drinking is forbidden? Can they let you go for testing positive for alcohol? We can go on and on. Corporations are not a person, they are an entity without rights.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:18 am
Van#9, I get so sick of this “you have the right not to work for them” argument. It’s as if you folks have never been unemployed before.
You don’t really have much option this day in age. You have to apply everywhere and take what is offered by whoever offers it.
The days of being able to pick and choose who you work for are over for most people
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:18 am
Van#56, The whims of business owners are not above Constitutional freedoms. We don’t live in Europe pre Magna Carta.
If your religion forbids you to do something then don’t do it. If you don’t see me in your church on Sunday then it doesn’t apply to me.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:23 am
Van#9, that is a normal response from some one with a secure job and resources for most people its not that easy.
You quit your job you don’t get unemployment for 6 weeks. Even if you had a job lined up before you quit who is to say you won’t get fired after or before your probationary period is up?
To simply say you can just find some were else to work is a half-a$$ answer to a problem. To fix it would be to eliminate all the loop holes corp. have to avoid the law.
The problem started when that bought and paid for bunch, S.T.A.R.K. ruled that corporations are people.
It doesn’t take a law degree to know that corporations arent people. Business shouldn’t get the same rights as people.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:25 am
Barry#66, So is smoking, getting vaccinations, taking Rx meds your doc prescribes, driving to work, lifting weights, etc.
Yet, oddly, my employer forces me into a group plan as a condition of employment, takes money from my paycheck, an economic damage, then gives the sick money to pay their health bills via insurance.
Insurance should be illegal since it is a form of privatized and coerced socialism.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:25 am
Barry#66, Clue, hint, WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. Republicans and radical rightwing nuts do not own patriotism or love of country. Turn off Fox and you might realize that someday.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:29 am
Kirby#65, I’m finding it difficult to take the opinions of one who obviously doesn’t know how or can’t take the time to be grammatically correct when posting to this blog.
Capitalize your idiotic sentences so the rest of of can just be offended by imbecilic ramblings.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:30 am
Perry#72, Turn off MSNBC and find out the complete story. They only want to block 4 of the 20 contraceptives. Employees still have full choice of those.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:32 am
Barry#66, You don’t even know what Communism means! You want to own people, you want to own every womb in America, that is tyranny.
You evil people needed to believe in schizophrenic ideas like ‘Corporation are people’ and a few cells is a human being, in order to have some minor, petty control over other people’s lives!
You want to limit people because they are not behaving to your will! So don’t talk to us about about your paranoid fears of tyranny, and the horrors of people caring about one another!
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:39 am
Ira#74, turn off fox, the “complete story” is why does an employer have the right to decide which of ANY of the 20 contraceptives his employees can choose.
If an employer decided he didn’t like viagra and told the male employees they had to choose another brand, you think S.T.A.R.K. would have ruled that was okay because the male employees could choose from the other 19 choices out there?
Of course they wouldn’t. You know that and so do the rest of us. This was 4 white males and the house nigger telling women they were still chattel and men were still in charge of them.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:45 am
John Roberts has led a fractious court into nearly complete incoherence. The Hobby Lobby decision will probably not affect many people, and probably not in a big way, but it doesn’t deserve to be called a decision at all.
As a member of the appellate bar, I’m especially disturbed by the “narrowly tailored” nature of Alito’s opinion; by saying that the decision doesn’t apply to other kinds of religious objections that might be asserted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Alito and the conservative majority are saying that they are making an ad hoc decision on the basis of their own religious preferences.
That echoes S.T.A.R.K.’s Bush v. Gore decision: don’t use this as precedent, because we’re just ruling on today’s case according to our own politics.
For many decades, conservatives like Lewis Powell and David Souter subordinated their own political preferences to established constitutional doctrines. Those days are over.
We are in a kind of wilderness, where, S.T.A.R.K., five reactionary men dictate what the constitution says, whether it does or not. – NYT Reader Board, recommended by 667 readers
If you get out of the wing nut conservative echo chamber at the WaPo, Fox, and right shock jocks, you’ll find that many people – left, center, right- consider this opinion another S.T.A.R.K. exceptionally politically driven decision.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:49 am
Bill Clinton did not sign the RFRA granting for profit companies personhood. The use of the word persons throughout US legal history has always meant natural persons and where needed corporations, fellowships, etc are ID’d as such.
Congress had no intent with RFRA of labeling for profits persons. Ginsberg’s dissent covers this point very clearly how S.T.A.R.K. first had to invent personhood for for profits before granting HL a favorable decision.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:52 am
Van#9, Not a gurantee; what happens when your company is absorbed by another with a new owner who is as very right wing Christian?
It happened to the company where I had worked for 11 years; now, we pray before lunch and before all company meetings; divorced people are by-passed for promotions, “suggestions” are made for our vacation time.
In the USA right now, the man with the money has all rights and those who are less fortunate financially end up dancing to the their tune.
Don’t say find another job, have you tried to do that lately? Especially if you are in the 50+ age range? Those jobs are not out there.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:53 am
Van#9, The issue is not about whether something will likely happen or not, but the existence of the possibility of that something happening. The company should not be allowed this much access to their employee’s medical record. The fact that this coverage is inherent in all plans does not translate into the company in some way paying for the procedure.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:53 am
So now that the benighted conservatives on the Court have — for all practical purposes –arbitrarily accorded both fetuses and corporations the status of ‘persons,’ does it mean that anyone who prevents the inchoate seed of a business idea from germinating to fruition has committed ‘corporate abortion’?
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:55 am
I agree with you 100% Michelle, This draconian and constitutionally ignorant S.T.A.R.K. decision supports not so much the views of Middle America as those of the Middle Ages.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:55 am
Deep, man……..
Just last summer liberals where lionizing Chief Justice Roberts as an arbiter of fairness re: his vote in the ACA mandate matter. This is quite a reversal of fortunes…….
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:57 am
Van#9, So in a supposedly free country with individual rights, you believe the worker only has the right to leave? Why should a property owner have any more rights that a person that works for them? Do they completely own the worker for the time they pay them, or should there be limits to what they demand?
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:57 am
Under equal opportunity laws, employer can not reject a person because of religion etc. Employer must declare employment terms and condition before employing a person. Employment conditions should be such as not to contradict laws.
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:58 am
Van#9, How could you prevent it?
What if after 15 years somewhere and they get a new CEO who imprints his religious beliefs like this?
Why only religious beliefs? Suppose he decides all employees should be vegetarians or get no medical coverage.
Or must all have no more than 8% body fat? Or he won’t cover diabetes because his religion insists on a strict diet and you are obviously sinning?
July 2nd, 2014 at 5:59 am
Van#56, How could you prevent it?
What if after 15 years somewhere and they get a new CEO who imprints his religious beliefs like this?
Why only religious beliefs? Suppose he decides all employees should be vegetarians or get no medical coverage. Or must all have no more than 8% body fat?
Or he won’t cover diabetes because his religion insists on a strict diet and you are obviously sinning?
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:00 am
Van#9, What happens if they change AFTER you have been working there a long time? They offered it before–now they don’t. Why? Because the owner “got religion” all of a sudden. Shouldn’t the owner leave and not the employees?
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:01 am
Van#9, Yes it is a slippery slope. You confirm this in your erroneous new notion that it falls to the employee to beware, rather than for all employers to meet the same law. Your argument is incorrect, the same one that is used incorrectly against civil rights laws about who is served in your diner.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:02 am
Van, “It’s not a slippery slope because you have the right to not work for them in the first place. Know the employer / company before you apply.”
Why is it that the very same reasoning: “you have the right to not work for them in the first place” is always rejected when it comes to Right To Work laws, anti smoking laws, etc.?
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:03 am
Van, if you really think employees engaging in activity that contravenes an employers religious beliefs violates the employers rights then you must believe that every employer throught the world and all time and forever more has their “religious liberty” violated. Please grow up and stop hating democratict freedom.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:03 am
Van#9, By the same token, the employer has a right to not go into business or hire employees. No employer should ever have the ability, much less the right to have any control of an employees personal and family life. If you don’t want the government in your personal and family life, no business or employer should have that right either.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:04 am
Van#9, What if all companies adopted these religious practices? Where would I work then?
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:05 am
Yeah, Thelonius#83, Roberts got the ACA right in a one-off ruling that stands out in contrast to his usual record of poorly reasoned decisions, Hobby Lobby simply being the most recent example of his unworldly and fallacious argumentation.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:06 am
Your employer should not be buying your condoms for you! Grow up, get a job and buy them yourself!
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:08 am
Van#9, That’s why he said it’s a “slippery slope.” Which means they just may start happening. And how can you possibly say with any degree of accuracy those things don’t happen?
And that’s such an archaic way of looking in my opinion. Or will be. No one has any compassion anymore. “Heck, your employees personal opinions are more important than your’s, so you can just not work here.” Too hardcore for me.
It’s not about the companies morals. It’s about the money more than anything. They may feel it infringes on their morals but I hardly see a business caring much about that.
They care about money. And lastly, it’s a hobby store. So what I should start asking the gas station’s owner’s beliefs before applying when religion doesn’t pertain to the profession? Keep religion in home and church.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:09 am
Van, It’s definitely a slippery slope. If a company wishes to make it’s case the law doesn’t conform with their religion then I can understand and honor that request.
HOWEVER, that same company should be open to scrutiny about their commitment to ALL the tenets of that religion and not just the ones that are popular or, more importantly, cost them money.
No contraceptives is fine if that if that is your religion. Let’s make sure there are no other issues you are overlooking because they are inconvenient or not a hot political topic.
Open that door at your own peril but we should not allow these companies to pick and choose what parts of their religion are more sacred than others.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:11 am
VAn, Actually… I did contract work for a company (small company) once whose employers met every morning for prayer with their daily status meetings. I didn’t have to attend because I wasn’t a full-timer.
Also, at the time, I kept it secret that I was living with my girlfriend because it was against their beliefs and I knew it would be held against me.
Why did I work there? I needed a job. I eventually found somewhere else to work and left there as soon as I was able.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:12 am
And we have a right, collectively, through government to put restrictions on corporations. You can make a private business argument but for corporations we can just tie to the articles of incorporation.
You can’t incorporate without agreeing to these restrictions. Then we can use the same argument you are. If you want a liability shield and the other benefits of being a corporation you have to follow the rules.
If not, you don’t have to incorporate. Incorporation is not a fundamental right.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:12 am
Like I’m suppose to know the religious stance of Chick-a-fll before they decided to announce it. And if we are going to use that position then why don’t we do it with employees who claim they have the right to a smoke-free work environment in a place like a bar. It is like a double standard. Shouldn’t those bar employees know they are going to be working in a smoke filled bar BEFORE they apply?
Another point is that employees loose their ‘freedom of religion’ once they take a job so they can get off welfare and feed their family, right? Conservatives are always talking about talking about individual rights except when corporations are involved, then corporations are not only people too but supersede the individual taxpayer’s right. Or least that is what some people seem to be saying.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:13 am
Barry#95, Are corporations people yet? See, you need to believe in a lie first to talk like you do.
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:14 am
Barry#95, Well, maybe not condoms but surely Nuvarings!
July 2nd, 2014 at 6:15 am
Right, Barry#95, one’s employer should be midwifing those unwanted births their policies have engendered.
October 1st, 2014 at 1:41 pm
I am regular reader, how are you everybody? This paragraph
posted at this website is actually nice.
Visit my web page … Swamp Attack Cheat