Skip to main content

View Diary: In Hobby Lobby, Supremes grant religious objection rights to for-profit corporations. (340 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  kovie - I am missing the logic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justanothernyer, coffeetalk, Mikey

    If someone has accrued vacation, or available PTO, why would an employee need to disclose the reason for requesting the time off? And how would it relate to this case?

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:36:17 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I meant if someone wanted an extra day off (3+ / 0-)

      for something the employer objected to.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:47:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If an employer gives so many days off (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs, VClib

        the employee does not have to explain why he is taking a day off.  

        Our employees don't tell us what they are doing on their vacation days.  

        •  Our employees do NOW! (10+ / 0-)

          You wrote: "Our employees don't tell us what they are doing on their vacation days."  But that's so old school, pre-Hobby Lobby thinking.  Employees in the future WILL have to explain to their employers what they plan to do on their vacation, and with whom, and where, so the employers can decide whether that vacation offends the employer's religious views.  No Vegas; no fornicating; etc. Offending the employer's religious views will be grounds for termination.

          Not for male employees maybe, but definitely women.

          •  They can do that now (4+ / 0-)

            You're not obligated to give your employees vacation at all.

          •  That's just silly. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Justanothernyer, Pi Li, VClib

            Under basic employment law, it's not "off time" if the employer controls the employee's activities.  Under basic employment law, if we control what the employee is doing (even if it's simply that the employee must be on call and immediately available if we need him) we have to pay for that time.  

            This decision in no way says an employer controls what an employee does away from the workplace.  It discusses what an employer can be forced to buy as part of the compensation package.  In fact, one of the bases for this decision is that the employer cannot determine whether the employee can USE those four types of contraception and that the government has other alternatives for making those available to women if their employer-provided insurance doesn't cover them.

            •  You say silly, SCOTUS says willby (6+ / 0-)

              You're not thinking sufficiently conservatively.  Distinguish:  telling an employee what they must do, from telling an employee what they CANNOT do on their off-time.  Employers can already tell employees not to smoke, even if they only smoke away from the place of employment.  Is it really that far to say an employer needn't finance (give vacation benefits) to fornicators?  First Amendment rights of the employer.  QED.

            •  Some company may offer additional vacation days (0+ / 0-)

              for getting married.
              Sort of like some company already offer parental leave for parents who're having children.

            •  Compensation. (5+ / 0-)

              That's the key word. PTO is paid for as part of their compensation.  Health care is paid for as part of their compensation.  If they don't have to pay for birth control, they don't have to pay for anything they have a religious objection to.  That's the logic they will use as more and more of these objections are litigated.

              America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

              by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:52:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No employer is required to provide paid vacation (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk

                or personal time off with pay. For anything, except for a few cities who have legislated sick pay.

                As is the norm on the Internet, and here at DKOS, when these major Supreme Court cases are decided the echo chamber of the absurd resounds.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:38:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, I know that—SF, D.C., & the state of CT. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ranton

                  But right now, a company may be vulnerable to a discrimination claim if they offer different compensation to certain different groups than others.  Religious based exemptions provide them with a way to discriminate.

                  America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                  by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:50:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I just don't believe that at all (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coffeetalk

                    I see nothing in this ruling to support that view.

                    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                    by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:23:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You don't think other companies are going to (4+ / 0-)

                      see how far they can take this, particularly the religiously extreme?  I just don't see how the SCOTUS can not rule in favor of a plaintiff who is a "closely held corporation" with "sincerely held religious beliefs" on any similar objection with regards to health care, can you?  

                      I guess I'm just like the 70% of Americans who don't have confidence in the SCOTUS.

                      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                      by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:33:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am sure the law will be tested (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coffeetalk

                        and we may see some cases in 2016, but I don't think those cases will win on the absurd topics being suggested in diaries and comments all over DKOS and the Internet.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:22:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  These are my concerns. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Old Sailor

                          They've been on my mind for some time. Since the decision, I have found others share my concerns.

                          Justice Ginsberg: "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
                          CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “While the Court purports to limit its ruling to closely-held corporations on this issue only, the majority opinion invites a number of  ‘me too’ religious objections by other companies on matters ranging from anti-discrimination law to other medical procedures such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.”
                          The Human Rights Campaign: "Religious groups have a long-established first amendment ability to operate according to their own beliefs," said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. "Instead of protecting religious liberty, this ruling gives license for businesses to use their personal beliefs as a reason to deny people access to basic, yet crucial medical services."  

                          "We will remain vigilant in the event business owners attempt to use this decision to justify other forms of discrimination, including against LGBT people," the Human Rights Campaign said in a statement.

                          Are these absurd?  Are my concerns absurd?  I don't know which concerns you are talking about but these attempts by the SCOTUS to limit the scope of the decision have been proven to have little impact.   Bush V. Gore and the DOMA decision, both high profile and both made with supposedly strict limitations, have been cited in many decisions hence.

                          Sorry, but I think limitations on this law will have as much teeth as suggestion boxes at town hall.

                          America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                          by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:52:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  We'll rest easy knowing you're not concerned. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Old Sailor

                          What is that even supposed to mean?

                          Nothing to see here! VClib isn't worried.

                          Can't you do any better than that?

      •  There is a reasonable case that that would violate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mikey, sethtriggs, Betty Pinson

        EEO protections.  

        Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

        by benamery21 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:08:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  EEO protections (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Betty Pinson, Cassandra Waites

          which have similar exceptions for religious nonprofits as those the court just decided need to be expanded to for-profits.  Slope.  Slippery.

          222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:30:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          ...federal EEO protections don't apply to gay people, so no protection from that.

          And, in any event, this case is about carving out religious exemptions to federal law, so even if gay people were covered, that doesn't ensure that we might not be the next exemption that the courts carve out.

          It's just unknown territory right now.

          That said, I've never heard of an employer who gives special time off for marriages -- that generally comes from whatever vacation or PTO an employee has accrued.

          If Democrats proclaim the the Earth is round and Republicans insist it is flat, we will shortly see a column in the Washington Post claiming the the earth is really a semi-circle.

          by TexasTom on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:31:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Religion is a protected class (0+ / 0-)

            Denial of leave for religious reasons is religious discrimination.  

            Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

            by benamery21 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:31:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I personally know multiple people (6+ / 0-)

      who have been denied paid or unpaid time off for religious reasons, even though that is illegal unless accommodation creates undue hardship for the employer.  Many folks have no PTO, and many others work in circumstances in which denial of PTO schedules for business reasons is routine, hence protected reasons for leave must be raised.  In several of these cases the individual took the time off without permission, and was subsequently not formally disciplined, probably because the HR department told the supervisor he was on shaky ground.  Anyone who thinks that there will be no retaliation and it wasn't a career-limiting move belongs on the Supreme Court's VRA majority.

      I also know several people who have lost jobs over these issues and declined to pursue legal redress over a crap job.  It happens.  This will make it more common  by emboldening bigoted supervisors.

      P.S. I am agnostic, but have a fairly unusual religious background in a minority sect to which mainstream hostility is prevalent, hence the personal familiarity with the issue.

      Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

      by benamery21 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:19:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Part time workers don't get PTO. When they're not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassandra Waites

      working, they're not getting paid.  If they work a different schedule each week, they have to request to not be scheduled for a day they need off.  Employers often do not honor these requests. If they're employed at will, which most employees must agree to when hired, you can quit if you don't like it or they can fire you if you don't show up.

      Anger and aggression mask fear and pain.

      by leftneckgirl on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:25:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Most part-time workers" (0+ / 0-)

        At least some part-time public library employees accumulate vacation time and sick time, as may some other government employees.

        Also, part-time secretaries for some non-profits, such as universities, are likely to be unionized (if they work over half-time) and most likely accumulate PTO.

        (Not at all disagreeing with the primary point, however.)

        •  Yes, public/government employees are usually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peregrine kate

          unionized and afforded some of these benefits and protections.  I was speaking of retail and food service workers who are mostly part time and in the private sector.  Also, these are the types of jobs that are increasing in numbers.  

          Anger and aggression mask fear and pain.

          by leftneckgirl on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:05:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Time off. Health care. What's the difference. (0+ / 0-)

      Except for San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and the state of Connecticut which require employers to offer some paid sick leave, no employer is required by law to provide paid time off to their employees.  PTO is a benefit.

      Given this decision, it not hard to see that employers might start offering time off in some other fashion where they can determine that if they are going to pay for it, you can't do something that they object to. The can easily offer unpaid time-off if you don't want to tell them.  Sound crazy, huh?  But if they have "sincerely held religious beliefs" and are a "closely-held corporation" than why not?  

      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

      by Back In Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:32:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site