Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site