Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, No Exit

    I mean there are exceptions for religious organizations, but there don't have to be.  They tend to be legislative choices not constitutional commands.

    But if Congress can give exceptions for religious organizations, what stops it from giving exceptions to religious people or companies run by religious people?  The current law is potentially ambiguous, but it could be written to clearly include for-profit corporations.  Arizona just tried.

    And I think the government can and does review claims of religious belief, like it reviews any other legal matter which looks inside someone's head.  Was this an accidental or an intentional attack?  Was this motivated by racial bigotry or something else?  Etc.  RFRA's been in place for 20 years (joined by its kin, RLIUPA), and prisoners sue under it looking for all kinds of religious accommodations.  The litigation is frustrating to all parties, but courts have found themselves competent to determine who is sincerely expressing a religious belief and who is just lying their way to a perceived benefit.

    The halal example isn't that farfetched.  That specific law may never come to the U.S., but it's an example of a neutral, generally applicable law.  The Constitution, we know, will not protect the butchers.  But RFRA might - so does it matter if the butchers are incorporated?  Should it?

    If you want something more concrete, New York City has tried to regulate Orthodox mohels, who ritually suck the blood after circumcisions and occasionally infect their patients with herpes.  RFRA doesn't apply to state laws and New York doesn't have its own version, so there's no equivalent case here.  But what if the law passed in Connecticut, which does?

    The individual mohel would be able to be heard on the issue.  What about his employer, an incorporated synagogue?  Is it natural to see one as having a challenge but the other not?

    That's why I think the Court needs to jump past the specifics of any given case, or the quirks of individual/corporate exercise of religion, and state simply that the government cannot excuse religious people from general laws, at least, not without extending the same rights to nonreligious people with sincere moral beliefs.

    •  Then why invoke a law in Denmark, which is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA

      nothing like the US, it even has a National Church.

      And the Mohel with Herpes--the Rabbi's duty is to make the child fit for membership in the Jewish faith/Community, however if he gives the child herpes on his genitals, he endangers the child's sexual health and ability to produce healthy children from that community, knowing that eventually that will be spread the spouse who then gives birth to the children.

      So that was and is a public health matter in which religion is an incidental, because it was not intended to give herpes to a child as part of the ritual circumcision.

      The Hobby Lobby Case is about a Business that hertofore had covered birth control options in their insurance, but decided not to, based on the religious grounds of the citizens who run the business. Blatantly ignoring the civil rights of the citizens who work there, and discriminating against said citizens due to their gender (female) and perceived sexual activity.

      When has Hobby Lobby mentioned Cialis, Viagra or Penis Pumps? Or any other medical intervention that may help a man achieve an erection which exists for the sole purpose of sexual intercourse.

      Not once.

      And does the Owner of that business or should the owner of that business have more rights than the employed? And if they do, does that violate our civil rights statutes and our labor laws regarding the wall of separation of church and state.

      Cows and Goats don't go to church. They are animals that are kept for meat and milk. You don't hire them, you buy them. They don't care what church you go to or don't go to. They don't vote, or write letters to a congressperson, nor do they finance PACs. So the argument of inhumanity towards animals is an entirely different discussion, whereas the inhumanity to other humans--that is the hobby lobby case.

      This looks to me to be another jab at women and feminists by using a farm animal case as a metaphor for our rights AGAIN.

      I wish the female justices had put him in his place for trying to invoke such a metaphor which is beyond insulting and ridiculous.

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 04:13:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  THIS! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA
      That's why I think the Court needs to jump past the specifics of any given case, or the quirks of individual/corporate exercise of religion, and state simply that the government cannot excuse religious people from general laws, at least, not without extending the same rights to nonreligious people with sincere moral beliefs.
      I agree entirely

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 04:17:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you in principal... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, GreenMother

      but this court will never do it.

      In fact, it's hard for me to imagine that we'll even get a dissent that goes there, though I hope we do.  Stevens could have.

      Didn't the ninth circuit once hold that the phrase under god in the pledge of allegiance couldn't be compelled in public schools...  I actually agreed with that too... Lol

      Balkinization has a great series of posts on this case if you're interested in a law profs informed analysis.  

      If you didn't care what happened to me, and I didn't care for you, we would zig zag our way through the boredom and pain, occasionally glancing up through the rain, wondering which of the buggers to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing. R. Waters

      by No Exit on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 05:32:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This court won't do it because the bench is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No Exit

        mostly neocons and male religionists.

        :(

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  FYI here is the link to the blog mentioned (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No Exit

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 02:38:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site