Skip to main content

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York September 17, 2012. Scalia on Monday escalated a war of words with a prominent appeals court judge, saying the judge lied in a recent criticism of Scalia's judicial
Now he'll decide if your employer can deny your birth control.
The Supreme Court has decided to take up a challenge to the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act. At stake in the case is the further definition of the rights of a corporation as a person, specifically, could it claim a religious conscience that could be "substantially burdened by government action" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
One of the cases was filed by arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores. Both are owned and operated by David and Barbara Green and their children, who are evangelical Christians. The administration of President Barack Obama sought the high court's review in that case after losing before a federal appeals court.

The other case was brought by a Mennonite family that owns a company in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties. The company, which lost in federal appeals court, is owned and operated by Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons. [...]

The cases are not a direct challenge to the mandate itself. The question is whether closely held companies owned by individuals who object to the provision on religious grounds can be exempted from the requirement.

Now that the Supreme Court has determined that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, it will determine if corporations also have religious consciences, and can impose those beliefs on employees' health care options. Citizens United was the cornerstone to the decision in favor of Hobby Lobby by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The Court said it had applied "the First Amendment logic of Citizens United" in ruling for the corporation.

9:46 AM PT: The White House issued this statement (excerpt):

The health care law puts women and families in control of their health care by covering vital preventive care, like cancer screenings and birth control, free of charge.  Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider a legal challenge to the health care law’s requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in insurance available to their employees.  We believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women’s health and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:32 AM PST.

Also republished by Street Prophets and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If the court rules that corporations have (38+ / 0-)

    religious freedom, this could be the beginning of the end of employer-based health insurance system.  (and the implications of a bad ruling on this are very broad).

    Wouldn't that be ironic if this helps accelerate the transition over to single payer where corporations would have no say in health care matters?

    I agree with President Obama, our country's journey is not yet complete. We must continue the work that our forebearers at Seneca Falls started, and put the Equal Rights Amendment into our Constitution.

    by pistolSO on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:39:28 AM PST

    •  Nothing about RELIGION from EdenFoods.. (6+ / 0-)

      SEE NOTHING ABOUT 'RELIGION' or health care here. “I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control,” Potter had said in the interview. “What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” Birth Control, The Supreme Court and Me.
      By Irin Carmon… TWEETED out by Cecille Richards

      Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial,Multigender and MiddleClass

      by LOrion on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:06:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This case is not about rights of corporations (25+ / 0-)

      This case is about whether conservative Christians can convince the SCOTUS to overturn its own precedent, in which the court has held that the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not allow people to exempt themselves from a law on account of their religious beliefs.

      The precedent is Employment Division v. Smith, and the court's opinion in that case was written by Justice Scalia, who wrote there:

      We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. ....

      [SCOTUS] decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." [quoting an earlier case]. ....

      ... to say that a nondiscriminatory religious practice exemption is permitted, or even that it is desirable, is not to say that it is constitutionally required, and that the appropriate occasions for its creation can be discerned by the courts. It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

      •  Do you really think... (18+ / 0-)

        that would keep scalia from writing a different opinion in this case?  It seems to me that scalia will do whatever he wants consistent or not.

        The republicons moan, the republicons bitch. Our rich are too poor and our poor are too rich. Ferguson Foont

        by Josiah Bartlett on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:51:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  from the folks who brought you (0+ / 0-)

        the activity/inactivity distinction with commerce clause, attorney for Hobby Lobby says at oral argument, "Justice Scalia, Employment Division involved a law that required the Native Americans from refraining in engaging in a generally prohibited activity.  This law compels my clients to act in a way that violates their religious convictions."  This doesn't hold up well, but good enough for at least 4 Justices.  Smith is also not really controlling whenever there is an element of discretion in the enforcement of such a law (so, it, itself, didn't completely overturn cases like Yoder and Sherbert).  I'm curious to see how that plays out in the briefs.  

        I think the more interesting recent cases are those expanding the ministerial exemption from certain labor laws, in the Supreme Court, Hosanna-Tabor.  They aren't really on point -- Hobby Lobby isn't a church by any reckoning -- but the legal realists would tell us they signal the court wanting an expansive view of conscience exemptions.  Perhaps distinguishable because not a regulatory statute, but i can't help but think to the Court, some religions are more equal than others.  (of course, the facts in Employment Division didn't involve members of the Native American church but state-employed drug counselors who tried to hide behind other people's religions, and thus narrowed their rights for them).

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:05:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  what could the court prescribe? (0+ / 0-)

          a) the administration cannot require contraception because there are some religious objections somewhere

          b) if a corporation objects to something on religious grounds its insurance company would have to come up with an individual policy exempting exactly what they do not want to pay for?

          I cannot see any other remedy.

          •  they get the same deal churches get, (0+ / 0-)

            just have to let their employees buy policies on the individual market and subsidize the cost of the employer portions.  Assuming they win -- and they shouldn't -- it only gets them so far.  While they may try to legalize discrimination, there are smart lawyers on the other side too.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 04:34:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, it's not that simple (10+ / 0-)

        Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) was decided in 1990. In 1993, Congress passed what I said at the time was the very unfortunate Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), sponsored by Chuck Schumer and signed into law by President Clinton, which was intended to limit Employment Division v. Smith and similar cases.  But I was part of a tiny minority who thought the RFRA was a bad idea. It passed the House by a voice vote, and passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3.  

        The RFRA has been declared unconstitutional as applied to state and local government action, but continues to be applicable to the federal government. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficenteuniao Dd Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), which held that a religious body and its members were exempt from the enforcement of federal narcotics laws banning the religious use of a hallucinogenic "sacred tea" that contained a Schedule I controlled substance.

        The RFRA provides in pertinent part as follows in USC § 2000bb–1:

        (a)  In general  
        Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

         (b)  Exception  
        Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

         (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and  

         (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.  

         (c)  Judicial relief  
        A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

        I think they will probably rule against Hobby Lobby on the basis either that the right to religious liberty applies does not apply to for-profit corporations, or that it doesn't apply because, rather than requiring employers to buy insurance, it requires them either to buy insurance or pay a penalty enacted under the taxation power of the federal government, and that the RFRA simply doesn't apply to statutes enacted under the taxation authority of the federal government.  Any other holding would invite a flood of litigation by pacifists refusing to pay taxes, part of which goes to pay for the military, and by a host of other groups.

        Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

        by leevank on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:14:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  sometimes those.. (0+ / 0-)

      unintended consequences are the best!

    •  Wishful thinking I'm afraid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris

      What you say on why a bad ruling here could help bring about Single Payer is exactly why I fear Single Payer may never become a reality in the US. It's not about choice of healthcare providers or saving money, or covering everyone. Abortion and 'religious liberty' issues are the big problem with implementing Single Payer.

      Look at the precedents already that no Federal tax dollars go to anything even vaguely abortion related. While that precedent may not be an issue in things like Medicare where everyone is too old to get pregnant, it's not the case if you cover everyone in the nation like Single Payer would. Unless we had a super majority in congress that included a majority of strongly pro-choice democrats, there's no way we could get Single Payer passed without severe limits on abortion rights. And even then, conservatives would try to change the law to ban abortion coverage in later years, or get it nixed from the law on religious liberty grounds in lawsuits.

    •  If the Supreme Court rules ... (0+ / 0-)

      that corporations have religious freedom, then the conservative members of the Supreme Court are their Gods.  They were, after all, the ones who made it so that immortal corporations have the same rights as natural born citizens.  And Mitt Romney is the son of their Gods.  He was the one who said on the car lift -- I mean, the Sermon on the Mount, that corporations were people, too.

      Gods work in mysterious ways.

  •  This is exactly what everyone expected. (13+ / 0-)

    There are conflicting decisions from the Courts of Appeal turning on issues of federal law (RFRA) and the Constitution (the First Amendment).  That's EXACTLY the kind of thing that needs to be decided by the SCOTUS.  

    I'll be interested to read the briefs and to see what amicus filings are made.  

    •  The outcome is predetermined: 5-4 for Hobby (7+ / 0-)

      Precedent and constitutional legal arguments will have exactly nothing to do with the outcome. Or are you naive enough to believe otherwise?

      •  Except few predicted Roberts would uphold ACA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        and prove the swing vote.

        So sometimes the SCOTUS can surprise which is why we do need to hear arguments first.

        •  Roberts upheld ACA not for constitutional reasons (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Capt Crunch, Loge

          but because he didn't want the political consequences that would fall on the Supreme Court if it threw out the whole ACA - he sided with KATS in finding the mandate unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but came up with a tortured rationale that it's constitutional as a 'tax'. Throw in some more states rights BS justifying allowing the states to deny Medicaid expansion (probably the price the liberals had to pay to get his concurrence), and you have NFIB v. Sibelius.

          •  IANAL, but since he did it on the basis of the (0+ / 0-)

            right to tax, and since people can't opt out of paying taxes for religious reasons, wouldn't that work in our favor? That is, let's say someone is a pacifist for religious reasons -- they can't legally refuse to pay taxes because taxes are paying for war. So how could they refuse to pay (since it's under taxing authority) when the government has determined that birth control is a health issue for women?
            One of the problems with this case is that it centers on birth control which is a dog whistle for the anti-abortion anti-women forces.
            But it seems to me that if it is decided that this is a matter of religious freedom, it would open the door to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the ACA.

            While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

            by Tamar on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 02:20:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Scalia Wrote Majority Opinion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xanthippe2, JG in MD

        on a similar issue. Here it was a real person (Smith) suing the state over what Smith thought was a restriction on his religious beliefs. The court said that a person cannot fail to obey a valid law based on religion.

        Of course, another way to view the ruling is that the court sided with the corporation (as they often do) vice a real flesh and blood person.

        Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Alfred Smith

        From Wiki on the case:

        The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.

    •  well, citing RFRA and the first amendment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, JG in MD

      more or less begs the question.  What's religious about a knitting store?  That's quite a yarn their lawyers are spinning . . . but i guess they found a loophole.

      A ruling against the administration would be a terrible corporate governance decision:  it essentially says the owners of a corporation can pierce their own corporate veils at will, and treat the corporate form as a manifestation of their personal interests.  So, the citizens united comparisons are apt.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:07:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Operating on the assumption that by "restoring" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irishwitch

        religious hegemony of Christians, that they aren't infringing on the rights of employees of different faiths.

        More Lawsuits waiting in the wings. Just you wait and see

        Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

        by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:31:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Will they hear an ED med challenge? (18+ / 0-)

    ..and apparently it doesn't matter if someone needs hormonal therapy for some reason that ISN'T contraceptive. Goddamn Scalia..

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:44:52 AM PST

  •  aren't the implications of this (48+ / 0-)

    rather huge far beyond health care?
    how far can a corporate head go in determining what their religious beliefs are?
    I mean, really? Could a restaurant refuse to serve gay people, interracial couples, Muslims, etc?
    I don't see a logical end to this...

    •  How can it be ONLY for BC? If a corporation is (12+ / 0-)

      a person then they can deny anything they don't like...i would refuse to cover ED meds unless married and young enough for a family, in my opinion.

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:07:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The consequences of Corporate Personhood... (24+ / 0-)

      ...are beyond Orwellian.

      Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:35:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The obvious way to fight back (14+ / 0-)

        is to make them culpable for crimes as though they were human.

        Any corporation that enacts a hostile takeover of another corporation should be charged with murder and cannibalism.

      •  It has nothing to do with corporate personhood. (9+ / 0-)

        Read the Citizens United decision (pdf here).  The majority expressly state that a corporation is not a "person" but is an association of people (which is what it is).  

        It's more about the fact that the First Amendment is NOT a right given to "persons."  Unlike the 2nd and 5th Amendments, which are rights given to persons, the First Amendment is not a right given to persons, but is a limit on the power of government:  "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."  

        This notion that CU declared that corporations were "people" is a myth.  It is not found in that opinion.  

        •  it's a bastardization of that view (5+ / 0-)

          it turns a doctrine designed to insulate owners from liability -- defensibly so -- into one in which the owners have the right to spend corporate assets as they see fit.  If anything, by ignoring agency costs, it holds that corporations don't exist separately, but of and for senior management and majority shareholders.

          The personhood question the court DID address was whether the advantages in capital accumulation conferred on corporations by the liabiltiy shield justified greater restraints on independent candidate expenditures.  Stevens said yes, it did, and didn't get into the shibboleth about the Santa Clara RR case.  However, to say corporate personhood wasn't at issue is a bit misleading,  too.  It's about 'how' corporations should be people, as is Hobby Lobby.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:16:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  '...Some animals are more equal than others' (7+ / 0-)

            All people are equal in First Amendment rights, but thanks to Citizens United, the practical result is that some people (i.e., corporations) are more equal than others.

            •  Yeah, I think coffee talk is too formalistic (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Berkeley Fred, Tonedevil

              It is the case that it didn't say they're literally human beings, but it did say they could do directly what could only have been done with pacs, which had contribution limits, soothe effectis to confer first amendment right on corporations directly, which is really just giving the corporate managers a bigger megaphone.  (And query whether election expenditures should be speech.  Forget citizens u, overturn Buckley v Valeo)

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 02:26:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me quote the exact words of the majority. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                xanthippe2, VClib
                This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech.  See, e.g., Button, 371 U.S., at 428-429, 83 S. Ct. 328, 9 L. Ed. 2d 405; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 56 S. Ct. 444, 80 L. Ed. 660 (1936).  Under the rationale of these precedents,   political speech does not lose First Amendment protection "simply because its source is a corporation."  Bellotti, supra, at 784, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 903, 89 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986) (plurality opinion) ("The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected.    Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the 'discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas' that the First Amendment seeks to foster" (quoting Bellotti, 435 U.S., at 783, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707)).

                The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not "natural persons."  Id., at 776, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707; see id., at 780, n. 16, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707.  Cf. id., at 828, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

                Is quoting the express language of the majority opinion, where they say that corporations or other associations "are not natural persons" too formalistic?

                What the Court held is that the speech of a corporation or other association comes within the ambit of the First Amendment even though those are not "natural persons."  

                And now let me quote the holding:

                Due consideration leads to this conclusion:   Austin, 494 U.S. 652, 110 S. Ct. 1391, 108 L. Ed. 2d 652, should be and now is overruled.  We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the   basis of the speaker's corporate identity.  No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
                The holding is that even though corporations or other associations were NOT "natural persons," that was not justification for the Government to suppress their political speech (i.e., in that case, a political movie).  

                You can disagree with that holding -- a lot of people did.  And the dissent believed that the fact that they were corporations justified Government suppressing their political speech -- they relied on the inherent ability of Government to regulate corporations.

                But IN NO PART of the majority opinion did the majority state, or even imply, that corporations are persons.  The whole question was whether the fact that corporations are NOT persons meant that Congress could pass a law "abridging the freedom of speech" if it was the speech of corporations and other associations that were NOT persons.  That was the whole issue that the Court addressed.  

                •  How quoting language and foot stomping (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Capt Crunch, Tonedevil

                  Refutes "too formalistic" escapes me.  I'm looking at the reasoning of the decision, and I didn't say what you suggest I did.  Disagree wit the "didn't imply."  It presumed corps have independent interests, and the cite to Belloti confirms it.  

                  Citizens u has two main flaws, and creating corporate personhood isn't one of them.  It's misapplying the reasons for the doctrine.  First, embracing Buckley v Valeo and treating the actions at issue as speech.  second, utterly ignoring that corporations only speak thru their managers.  That second point is where the "are people" criticism comes in - it ignored the systematic advantages the corporate form confers and ignored agency costs.  but note that Mitt Romney was really saying that corporations are just the people associated with them.

                  I'm sorry you fail to grasp subtlety.  

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 04:21:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  But unlike speech, religion is meaningless... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  Couldn't fit it all into the Subject line. But unlike speech, religious affiliation for a corporation creates problems on its own merits.

                  Speech can be anything. If speech is to be free, it can be anything that is communicated from a speaker.

                  The same can not be said of religion. In order for a body of "persons" to be able to practice a religion, it must be specified. As it is for churches and other religious institutions.

                  Could it Catholic on Monday and Jewish Saturday? What legally, would stop it? What if a corporation claimed pantheism as its religious affiliation and claimed exemption under all religions?

                  Is there any state or governmental agency that registers a corporations "religious identity or preference"? Under what guidelines does a body of persons even claim religious exemption?

                  Corporations, by necessity and statute, are regulated by government. Therefore, it would seem to me that religious affiliation would then also need to be regulated by the state, and does that open up an enormous bucket of worms, for local, state, and the federal government?

                  What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

                  by equern on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 04:37:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  so you've moved on from defending murders... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Capt Crunch, Tonedevil

          ...to defending the CU decision?  Someone else already indicated why you're wrong on CU, so I won't bother.

          •  clarification (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, Matt Z

            you've moved on from defending murderers of innocent and unarmed black teenagers, to CU.  

          •  Sigh. More unfounded attacks. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep, andalusi, xanthippe2

            Of course I did not "defend a murderer' -- unless you think that explaining the law is the same as "defending a murderer."

            And what I said is not "defending" the CU decision.  What I said is true about its reasoning.  If you want to criticize the majority decision in CU, -- and there's a lot of criticism out there -- you need to at least criticize it based on what it actually says, rather than some myth about what it says.

            So, go ahead -- show me where the majority says "corporations are people."    It does not.  It says corporations are associations of people (like clubs, or unions are associations of people).

    •  Yeah, like companies owned by Christian Scientists (11+ / 0-)

      could refuse to pay for any health insurance for their employees?

      Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

      by TAH from SLC on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:40:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Settled Law (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, Mayfly

      When reviewing laws, the Courts apply different standards depending upon the groups impacted.  Laws impacting race, religion & national origin receive what is called "strict scrutiny" - meaning the gov't need must be compelling and written as tightly as possible to achieve the gov'ts needs.

      Anti discrimination laws regarding, for example, restaurants that refuse to serve Blacks/Irish, et al are already settled law.  The Courts held such discrimination to be illegal.

      Laws impacting gender receive a mid-level of review.

      And, homosexual rights since they have historically not been recognized receive a low level review (state can do pretty much what it wants).

      Here, the question is when you run a business and choose to set it up as a corporation, rather than a partnership or a sole proprietorship do you somehow give up the right to your religious beliefs.  Can the state force you to do something you find immoral, that it could not force you to do as an individual.

      I suspect, given Citizen's United, the Court will find for Hobby Lobby because why would there be a different standard for one first amendment freedom (speech) as opposed to another (religion)?

      •  How can a government force you to ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, irishwitch

        live in a country where there are people engaging in activities your religion finds objectionable? Do you have a right to remove from the country those individuals that are living in sin?

        Can the state force you to do something you find immoral, that it could not force you to do as an individual.


        A mirror is facial recognition hardware. Your narcissism is the software.

        by glb3 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:59:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't partnerships have to provide (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        the same plans as corporations, if they have employees? It sounds like corporations not only have the same rights as persons, but extra ones (actually, by their very nature they have special protections that partnerships don't)? It seems corporations are not just people, they're super-people.

        It's really bizarre hearing the argument about people owning a corporation "giving up" rights that they absolutely still have as individuals.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:22:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you think that equal rights are immoral, that (5+ / 0-)

        begs the question about how "immorality" is defined.

        And warning--Pissed off First Person Rant below:  

        I believe it is immoral to force a woman to remain pregnant.

        I believe it is immoral to keep a woman ignorant of her own reproductive processes in order to assure her compliance in the desire to use her as breeding stock.

        I believe it is immoral to force a woman to have an abortion.

        I believe it is immoral to force a woman to be surgically or chemically sterilized.

        I believe it is immoral to treat a woman like a second class citizen.

        I believe it is immoral to shame a woman for having, or desiring sexual contact, especially given the double standard we impose on them that profits men sexually and economically.

        Women are not fucking slaves and I believe it is immoral to pretend or act as if the opposite were true and find it especially heinous when 2 faced yellow bellied mealy mouthed mouth breeders invoke some god to justify it.

        IN HER OWN TIME AND HER OWN SEASON!

        If you have to keep her ignorant in order to get her to accept your "marriage Proposal" or bear your seed, then how pray tell is that different than slipping her a mickey?

        If you have to keep her ignorant and shamed to keep her interested in your church, then clearly there is something wrong with your cult!

        INFORMED CONSENT FOR ALL WOMEN whether that be for marriage, sex, medical procedures or religion. Because yes-- the discussion has sunk to that level.

        Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

        by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:43:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the owner of a company or the shareholders of (0+ / 0-)

        a corporate entity hold to a religious belief that they hold is contrary to a tax-payer funded government's policies or legally conducted business, can that owner or company withhold all or part of their business tax and other liability because of their religious-based objection to some of the things being done?  
        When we go to pay our taxes, can we pro-rate our tax liability and choose to pay as though we were dining at a smorgasbord or all-you-can-eat-or-not, with religious belief as the primary criteria which we choose to apply?
        If a layed off worker receives workers compensation, which they use to pay for the premium for their health insurance which covers contraception, or pays for abortion services, can the employer share be reduced so that the employer can be satisfied that they are in no way participating in activities that rub their religious convictions the wrong way?
        Conscientious objection and following your own moral path, these things I have learned can be both simple and complicated at the same time.  Being consistent in your beliefs and actions takes a wisdom and commitment in a legally tangled world that is nearly impossible to navigate.  
        I find it fascinating that a business owner would choose one aspect of their religious belief, i.e., regarding contraception, and ignore all the other tenets, for instance, providing for the poor and indigent, or following business practices that are uncompromisingly ethical and in total accord with their religious convictions.
        In my mind there is a certain hypocrisy in choosing those religon-based issues to be unyielding on while ignoring or 'bending' on others, especially when your political or self-interest needs trump all other considerations.

    •  A business owned by Scientologists (10+ / 0-)

      refusing to include mental health coverage in their employee health plan....

    •  That's what I'm wondering too (0+ / 0-)

      I was about to ask if there is a way that they could rule narrowly against the bc mandate, but not open up courts to lawsuits of the kind you described.

    •  One would think, but thinking is so out of fashion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch

      these days.

      Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

      by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:33:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I could see a return to the days of Ford's... (5+ / 0-)

      ..."sociology department."

      Everyone has heard about how Ford revolutionized things in the early 20th century by paying double the prevailing wage.  What most people haven't heard about was the Sociology Department.  

      Ford paid a base wage that was the same as everyone else.  The "double" wage was considered a bonus.  But to get that bonus, you had to have approval of Ford's Sociology Department.  In order to get approval, you had to be a married man - single men could not get the bonus.  You had to live with your wife, so men that traveled to Detroit for a job to send money back home or eventually move their families up didn't get the bonus.  You had to go to church.  You could not be seen by any of the sociology department's spies in a bar.  You could not attend political rallies of candidates who were leftist.  You could not visit a union hall. Social workers from the plant would visit homes of workers and inspect them.  If you weren't living in a way that Henry Ford approved of, you would not get the bonus.  

      The UAW of course put an end to all that.  

      But I've met people who see no problem with it.  I talked to one guy who told me he believed that his employer had a right to tell him what he can do with his money since they are the ones giving it to him.  

      This could get really scary if we start down that slippery slope again.  

    •  I'd have a buddhist business (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch, Sychotic1

      that refuses to pay taxes to the federal government so long as it pays for a military.

      That's be great!

    •  It's just women (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch, Sychotic1

      That they feel free to openly discriminate against.

    •  If I were the Quakers I would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nchristine

      try incorporating and saying I shouldn't pay taxes because they fund war.

      There are those who don't believe in medical at all.  Hrmmm.

      I think I should incorporate.  I think I might have more rights.

      "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

      by Sychotic1 on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 12:17:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are toast (17+ / 0-)

    This is another example of how Joe Lieberman and his ilk sold us out years ago by allowing Alito and Roberts on the court.

    5-4 for Hobby Lobby.

  •  Assembly, Bearing Arms (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, fumie

    are rights specified as belonging to "the people" in the Bill of Rights.

    Speech and religion don't have a practitioner identified with them. Given the mentality and precedent of this Court there may not be any more to the question than that.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:54:42 AM PST

    •  Actually true. The 1st Amendment is not a right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Josiah Bartlett, Mayfly, VClib

      given to people.  The 1st Amendment is a restriction on government.  "Congress shall make no law . . . "  

      The 1st Amendment does not say "Congress can make a law if it affects associations of people (which is what a corporation is) but not individuals."  It simply says, "Congress shall make no law . . . "  

      As Justice Black famously said about the 1st Amendment, " I read 'no law . . . abridging' to mean no law abridging."

      •  Except that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Capt Crunch, xanthippe2

        the establishment and free exercise clauses are in tension in cases like this.  The court has already held that pursuant to RFRA, there needs to be a compelling interest.  I think the liberty of employees, and the free exercise rights of employees, are compelling interests.

        The analogy to free speech is inapt.  It is clear that corporations engage in speech, thus the extension of first amendment protections to corporate speech was not that much of a leap.  It is not at all clear that a for-profit corporation can exercise religion.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:00:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the question the SCOTUS will answer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          my only point was the whole "are corporations people" thing plays no role here, because the First Amendment is not a right granted to people, it is a limit on government.  

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
          It says (1) Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]; and (2) Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

          My point was, whether corporations are "people" has nothing to do with whether a law exceeds the limits placed on Congress in the First Amendment.

          •  I disagree to a certain extent (0+ / 0-)

            The first amendment operates as a check on Congress, but it is a check on Congress with respect to things that persons do.  That Congress cannot make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion necessarily requires a determination of what it means to exercise religion, and the court will have to do some line drawing.  Obviously, individuals can exercise religion.  Corporations can, too;  most churches are, in fact, incorporated, so it's not just about whether corporations can exercise religion, but what kinds of corporations can do so.

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:38:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, it's more than just corporations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              It's about whether associations of people can exercise religion.  That includes, but is not limited to, a corporation.

              For example, should there be a different outcome if the business is organized as an LLC rather than a corporations?  or a partnership?  or a Limited liability partnership?  or a sole proprietorship?  There are all sorts of ways that people organize for business purposes, and I can't see how you draw a line based on how you organize your business.  

              •  Very true (0+ / 0-)

                I made this comment with respect to the Freshways case a few weeks ago:

                One judge thought it was important that it was an S corporation;  an S corporation can have up to 100 shareholders, which is hardly closely-held.  And S corporation status is only a tax concept:  if S corporations can discriminate, what about partnerships and limited liability companies?  The tax treatment is essentially the same as an S corporation, but the number of shareholders is theoretically unlimited, and they can even be publicly traded.

                It is true that the judges apparently thought that it was easier to view Freshways (with two owners) as almost not quite a real corporation, but that flies in the face of decades of decisions that recognize a corporation as an entity distinct from its owners.

                Invoking tax-law concepts to justify discrimination is patently absurd.  There is no state that I know of that varies its corporate law based on whether a corporation has made any particular tax election.  In fact, Brown wrote:

                It is perplexing because we do not believe Congress intended important statutory rights to turn on the manner in which an individual operates his businesses.

                 But that is precisely what the decision to organise as a corporation instead of an LLC, to elect to be an S corporation, or to be public or private is all about:  Brown's opinion would not limit the decision to closely-held corporations.  

                "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

                by Old Left Good Left on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 05:24:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  But corporations are not associations (0+ / 0-)

        they are groups or individuals given special privileges, granted a charter by the state. They pretty much didn't exist (at least not in modern form) when the Constitution was written.

        Many corporations consist of one person, who still exists as an individual.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:30:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  My company (we are Buddhists, my company and I) (35+ / 0-)

    object to tax dollars going to bombs so what is the court going to do for me and my person company??

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:01:07 AM PST

  •  WAIT! HIPAA!! How can my employer access my (21+ / 0-)

    personal medical information to even know I am asking for BC pills? Because this medicine is used for more than birth control, won't the employer have to know if I am taking them for endometriosis? Or will the court let then deny me coverage even if this pill is NOT for birth control?

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:04:27 AM PST

    •  It's blanket denial of coverage, not individual (9+ / 0-)

      They just say no to everybody.

      Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

      by raincrow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:15:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are wrong on the science as well and that (7+ / 0-)

        should count. these pills do not abort a fetus but Hobby Lobby says they do....so why not a religious exemption for something that is wrong on the facts???

        "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

        by merrywidow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:36:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't they have the right to believe what they (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fumie, apimomfan2

          want to believe?  I mean, if they want to believe in the earth having been created in six days or how it's only six thousand years old and they're allowed and accepted to believe that, why must their religious beliefs on birth control science be forced on them?  Will the Supreme Court be deciding where science ends and beliefs are allowed to hold sway?  Will that be a line in the sand that can be wiped out when new science "proves" something different?  Or will a religious belief be able to override something "science" accepts as "facts"?  

          What about science like Global Warming?  Will Exxon and King Coal be able to ignore carbon taxes if they claim that their religious belief is that the earth isn't warming and therefore pollution from carbon isn't their problem?

          Religion is hard to specifically define, but I know it when I see it.

          •  good points (4+ / 0-)

            once laws are all viewed through the perspective of infringing upon religious rights, there aren't many, if any, that couldn't be found unconstitutional because it somehow, however indirectly, infringes on someones free exercise of religion.  
            the term "slippery slope" is overused, but it certainly applies here.

          •  They have a right to believe, but not the right to (7+ / 0-)

            impose those beliefs.

            Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

            by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:45:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But they don't want to have non-religious beliefs (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              merrywidow, apimomfan2

              like science, biology, equality, imposed upon them.  It's against their religion to have birth control.  They refuse to pay for it.  Fine for them, but they also want their corporation to not have to use their profits - which would otherwise be their money, to have to pay for it either, so they want to deny birth control for all their workers, because even if it's a few pennies out of their pocket, it is pennies they'd be paying for birth control for their employees and they're against it.  

              If they could have the employee totally fund their birth control, they might be willing to stand it, in the way that some states have tried to make purchasing abortion riders necessary if the woman is going to have an abortion - forcing them to try and determine in a two to three week period in one year whether they ever might need an abortion in the following year.  No matter whether it's for health reasons, whether it's because the child was the result of a rape or incest, or for any other reason.

              And more, why should they be forced to pay taxes to support schools that teach evolution?  Or fund public science museums that teach geology, astronomy, or other religions like Native American creation myths?  Why should they be forced to pay taxes to support the Military Industrial Complex so that people can worship killing things?  They may believe any or all of those things are wrong - why are they being forced to pay for them so that others will be taught heresies?

        •  That is so, so, so irrelevant. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep
          so why not a religious exemption for something that is wrong on the facts???
          One of the biggest principles behind the First Amendment is that government has no place telling religions which beliefs are "right" and which beliefs are "wrong." That kind of thing is what prompted the religion part of the First Amendment in the first place.  Saying that a religion is "wrong" in some belief so they shouldn't be allowed the free exercise of that belief would be about as unconstitutional as you can get.  
          •  so goodbye to any laws, or sound government (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            merrywidow, apimomfan2

            see my comment above, there isn't any law that could withstand scrutiny based on that test.

          •  their "belief" is what it is, but the science (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            schnecke21

            behind how the pill acts in the body is NOT a religious belief to be protected, it is just WRONG information

            like a law against masturbation because they believe it grows hair on your palms....

            "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

            by merrywidow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:05:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  nobody's forcing hobby lobby's owners (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irishwitch

            to believe birth control is ok.

            but they are the ones who entered into commercial relationships with employees.  

            Under the RFRA framework, the fact that birth control is not abortion goes to the point that there's a compelling interest in enforcing the generally applicable regulation requiring firms offering health plans to include it.  

            Theology aside, not every religion gets accommodated in free exercise to the same degree.  Right or wrong is tangential.  I imagine there are already limitations on proselytizing in the workplace on religious discrimination grounds, and a judicially enforceable rule allowing Orthodox Jews to have a separate fridge at work to keep milk for coffee or to leave before 5 on Fridays would also be ok, and wouldn't mean the state is endorsing kosher dietary laws.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:48:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  except for the exceptions. Same-old-same-old thing (0+ / 0-)
    •  You can always pay for it yourself (0+ / 0-)

      if you're lucky enough to live somewhere that it's available--that's the answer to everything these days.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:33:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a deal: NO taxpayer money or religious (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, scamperdo, apimomfan2

    corporations will ever have to spend a penny on any BC or abortion services, not a penny ever, and in exchange they leave ME AND MY BODY THE HELL ALONE AND BUTT OUT OF MY PERSONAL DECISIONS.

    that was easy

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:06:06 AM PST

    •  No deal (6+ / 0-)

      Their employees still need that coverage. I'll accept the part where they butt out though :)

    •  As I said in a similar thread (9+ / 0-)

      (here) at issue is whether your insurance premium subsidy is part of YOUR compensation, or something that THEY own.  

      I say that as part of your financial compensation, it is yours.  Same as the cash that gets deposited in your bank.

      •  Well, if you want to get technical, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blackhand, nextstep, VClib

        it's actually a benefit, sort of like if your employer pays for a parking space for your car, or if your employer brings in lunch every day.  A benefit that, as of now, you do not pay taxes on (as you would if the employer just gave you cash and you bought your own policy).

        The question is, can an employer, through his business, be forced to provide a benefit that violates his/her religious belief?  As a really simple analogy, say the employer was an Orthodox Jew, and he ran a business through a closely held (not publicly traded) corporation.  Suppose the government said, if your employees are working at least three of the hours between the hours of 10 and 2, you must provide lunch, and because we think pork is good for people's health, one day a week you must serve pork."  Would that violate the RFRA or the First Amendment?  

        •  Interesting point on the taxes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          It makes me wonder if there is a sales or other tax applied to the premiums, such that it becomes a matter of who is paying the tax.  Still, there could be a difference in tax rate, e.g. between sales and income tax rates.  This could be a regulatory inroad.

          Even as a benefit, I am still certain that your dollar compensation is still reduced accordingly to keep the total compensation in line with expectations.  

          I also have to wonder, how many people would opt for the "free market" solution to this sort of imposition on one's coverage and take a job elsewhere?

        •  That's ridiculous! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          merrywidow, Loge, Tonedevil

          Jewish folks do not force other people (outside their Judaic faith) to NOT eat pork (within their businesses or otherwise).

          •  The analogy is based on this proposition. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            apimomfan2, VClib

            1.  Eating pork is against the religious views of the employer.  

            2.  Forcing the employer to serve pork is not forcing him to eat it and commit a sin himself.    It is forcing him to assist others in doing what he regards as a sin.

            Does that violate his religious beliefs, RFRA, or the free exercise clause?

            •  still doesn't work (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              Orthodox Jews don't have any opinion about whether gentiles like me eat pork.  

              A better analogy might be what would happen if the employer refused to reimburse meal expenses that include trayf.  The burden on religious exercise, not to fight the hypo, would be in processing a payroll credit, whereas the insurance thing is a payroll deduction.  They're going out in the marketplace and offering a series of insurance plans that meet regulatory requirements and help them attract and retain employees.  They are not paying for contraception; they are paying others to pay for others to pay for contraception, if they want.   (of course, you've said in the mandate discussion that buying health insurance is just like buying food, so I guess that's just your thing.)

              Perhaps the litigation posture requires the Court to credit the claim that this is a violation of religious convictions: I am not the Court.  This is only a burden to the extent they don't have religious dominion, and it's a not-so-subtle way to avoid hiring young women, because what if they DON'T take contraception.  The class of people taking birth control is the class of people who may become pregnant: boom, maternity leave, lost hours.  It's always about them money.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:58:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's unrealistic (6+ / 0-)

          but a more apropos example might be the requirement to provide health insurance and an employer whose religion opposes/forbids medical treatment. Should the employer (in a for-profit, non-church related business) have the right to refuse to provide health insurance?

          Another example someone gave, if Scientologists own a business and oppose mental health benefits.

          At some level, a person with strongly-held religious beliefs should make a choice, based on those beliefs, whether to sully him or herself with involvement in the sinful world of business. There are other options, like working for someone else, or working for a church.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:41:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  RE the comment below (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irishwitch
            requirement to provide health insurance and an employer whose religion opposes/forbids medical treatment. Should the employer (in a for-profit, non-church related business) have the right to refuse to provide health insurance?
            I may be mistaken, but haven't the courts upheld that in cases where another person is involved that it becomes negligent to fail to seek treatment?  I am thinking that there have been cases where parents had sick children and attempted to cure them through prayer claiming religious reasons and been charged with a crime when the child died.  I am thinking that had something to do with involving another person who would have presumably chosen the normal treatment.
            •  Only in the case of dependent (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, irishwitch

              children or adults not competent to care for themselves--that's really a very different issue that is not implicated here. The negligence is based on being fully responsible (as parent or guardian) for the care of someone who cannot care for him- or herself.

              "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

              by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:21:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think that's a central question. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            But I perhaps would phrase the underlying question this way:

            Does a person have a right, under RFRA and/or the First Amendment, to operate a business in accordance with that person's religious beliefs?  

            This

            At some level, a person with strongly-held religious beliefs should make a choice, based on those beliefs, whether to sully him or herself with involvement in the sinful world of business. There are other options, like working for someone else, or working for a church.
            Would suggest he does not, that when he operates a business, he has no right to exercise his religious beliefs while acting on behalf of, or in conjunction with, the business.  It would suggest that not only is there a wall of separation between church and state, but there is also a wall of separation between church and private (as opposed to government) commerce.  And I'm not sure the SCOTUS has ever gone there.  

            If -- and only if -- someone has a right to operate his business in accordance with his religious beliefs, then one might look to a balancing of the competing burdens:  the burden on the employer by forcing him to violate his religious beliefs v. the burden on the employee who does not get contraception covered under the medical policy.  

          •  So, a landlord could refuse to rent to GLBT, unwed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irishwitch

            mothers, straights co-habitating, atheists, brown people, black people, children, the aged, etc., with a Get Out Of Jail Free Card if they claim renting to such individuals infringes on THEIR "religious liberty"?

            WHERE WOULD A BAD RULING FROM THE SCOTUS ON CONSERVATIVE RIGHTWING "RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" END?!?!

            Welcome to 1900, if this rightwing Conservative Xtian measure passes the SCOTUS!

    •  One of the problems with accepting the argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      that a business owner's religious objection to the law can allow the owner to defy parts of a law he doesn't like is that in doing so, he will be allowed to restrict the rights of employees to the protections of the law.  This should make for some interesting arguments.

      Once again, John Roberts will be the swing vote in this decision - good Catholic boy that he is.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:51:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I could see the argument (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SueDe

        That abortion (including forms of contraception that would be considered the ending of life if one believes that life begins at conception) as a special case.  One could say that people should be given more leeway in areas perceived as matters of life and death.

        The Greens told the justices in their brief that some drugs and devices that can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb are tantamount to abortion and that providing insurance coverage for those forms of contraception would make the company and its owners complicit in the practice. They said they had no objection to 16 other forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery.
        I could make a case that if they also objected to condoms, diaphragms, and sterilization, that those forms of contraception don't approach the seriousness of abortion, so that they shouldn't have the freedom to decline coverage in those cases, even if they should have the freedom to decline coverage for abortion and methods deemed to be abortion-like.
    •  Are you including hospitals (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      merrywidow

      In your definition of religious corporations so that they don't have to provide abortion services?

  •  So now corporations are (25+ / 0-)

    imaginary people with imaginary best friends in the clouds.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:07:04 AM PST

  •  Oh friggin GREAT. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, ratcityreprobate

    I wonder how much initiative the Court will take on this issue to plow its own new furrow as it did in Citizens United?

    Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

    by raincrow on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:13:34 AM PST

  •  How does this figure in -- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, ColoTim

    http://mychristiancare.org/...

    -- if at all.

    "The Affordable Care Act contains a special provision for members of Healthcare Sharing Ministries, making Medi-Share members exempt from the mandate to purchase insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties. Law Language  - (Sec 1501, page 148 addresses the exemption)"  

    Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 148
    ‘‘(ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings
    of such sect or division as described in such section.
    ‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—
    ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall not include any
    individual for any month if such individual is a member
    of a health care sharing ministry for the month.
    ‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—The term
    ‘health care sharing ministry’ means an organization—
    ‘‘(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and
    is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),
    ‘‘(II) members of which share a common set of
    ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses
    among members in accordance with those
    beliefs and without regard to the State in which
    a member resides or is employed,
    ‘‘(III) members of which retain membership
    even after they develop a medical condition,
    ‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has
    been in existence at all times since December 31,
    1999, and medical expenses of its members have
    been shared continuously and without interruption
    since at least December 31, 1999, and
    ‘‘(V) which conducts an annual audit which is
    performed by an independent certified public accounting
    firm in accordance with generally accepted
    accounting principles and which is made available
    to the public upon request.

    So these healthcare sharing ministries had an exemption written into the law. Specifically to avoid paying for insurance that includes coverage for abortions or the morning-after pill. http://mychristiancare.org/...

    If they can get an exemption, why can't hobby whatever it is?

    Or why can't that corporation join Medi-Share?

  •  How is it any different than minimum wage laws (15+ / 0-)

    that empower employees to have practices that the corporation's owners disapprove of?

    "I have learned that some of you are using your wages/insurance to buy rubbers, eat pork, or...something.  Therefore I am going to give you lower wages/less insurance so that rubbers and pork are too  expensive for you to buy."

    There is no moral or legal distinction between an employee using cash wages provided by the employer to sin and an employee that uses employer provided health care to sin.  None.

    If you have a policy that covers doctor's bills made necessary by a werewolf bite, and has the words "Health Insurance" on the cover, you can keep that policy!

    by Inland on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:18:05 AM PST

    •  Agreed. (9+ / 0-)

      If you are required by law to pay for your employees' health care, then that isn't your money going for their contraception: it's theirs.  Earned by them and owned by them.

    •  Exactly so! (11+ / 0-)

      Health care benefits are part of an employee's compensation. It's exactly the same thing as handing your employee their paycheck with a rider attached that prohibits them from using the money to buy contraception.

    •  Tortured Logic (0+ / 0-)

      I give you a car.

      You choose to use the car as a getaway vehicle in an armed robbery.

      Under your theory, I'm guilty since I facilitated your crime.

      Here, nothing stops Hobby Lobby employees from taking their wages and buying additional insurance services -- if they want them -- but, that is entirely outside of Hobby Lobby's control.

      Meaning they do not participate in what they believe to be immoral conduct.

      Now, put it on steroids.  If you do not violate your religious beliefs the Gov't may fine your business out of existence.

      That's the difference.

      •  Then you've got the issue (4+ / 0-)

        of unequal treatment -- a woman is forced to pay out of pocket for coverage that men get for free. I don't see anyone arguing that providing coverage for ED drugs is against their religious beliefs.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:16:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are they being forced to use birth control? No. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge, Tonedevil, irishwitch, Sychotic1
        Meaning they do not participate in what they believe to be immoral conduct.
        Actually, there's no issue at all as to whether the employer "participates in" the immoral conduct, since the immoral conduct is using birth control.

        We are already one step removed from the immoral conduct.  The issue is only whether a religious person can be made to facilitate....or can be prevented from punishing employees....by laws providing a wage or insurance that enables an employee to do something immoral.

        If you're going to stretch the concept of "immoral" to "making the actual immoral possible", then not only wages are immoral, but most taxes.  

        And here, the amount of premium actually paid by Hobby Lobby to buy contraceptives is zero.  The insurance company throws it in free.  The only act that Hobby Lobby takes that it can say involves it in pills is providing employee coverage which, as far as I know, the employees pay one hundred percent of, and which I am positive is subject to tax subsidy.

        Here, nothing stops Hobby Lobby employees from taking their wages and buying additional insurance services -- if they want them -- but, that is entirely outside of Hobby Lobby's control.
        Well, then, let's save Hobby Lobby's soul and put insurance out of its control, too.  Problem solved.

        If you have a policy that covers doctor's bills made necessary by a werewolf bite, and has the words "Health Insurance" on the cover, you can keep that policy!

        by Inland on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:22:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It may not be any different. (0+ / 0-)

      It's going to depend on how the Supremes' opinion is written.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:54:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because "disagreement" is not protected by (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andalusi

      the Constitution.  Religion is.  

      And no, you can't just say anything is "my religious belief" and have it constitutionally protected.  The SCOTUS has developed jurisprudence for what beliefs constitute a sincerely held religious belief meriting constitutional protection.  

      and this is pretty much one of the central questions:

      There is no moral or legal distinction between an employee using cash wages provided by the employer to sin and an employee that uses employer provided health care to sin.  None.
      Although I suspect Hobby Lobby might phrase it this way:  is there a distinction between (1) an employer paying wages, and the employee using the wages  to buy a sinful thing, and (2) the employer being forced to buy the sinful thing for the employee?  

      Part of the dispute, I think, will be over what the employer is doing when the employer pays for contraception coverage -- giving the employee money, or paying for the contraception? Or something in between?  

      •  So if you're a woman, (7+ / 0-)

        your employer's religious preferences can trump your own.

        Got it.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:20:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's an unusual question. (0+ / 0-)

          If your employer does not pay for you to get contraception, and you have to buy it yourself, does that "trump" your religious beliefs?  Is anybody saying there's a religious belief that is not violated if your employer pays for contraception, but is violated if you pay for it yourself?

          I'll have to read the briefs, but I don't think anybody is arguing that.  Instead, there may be a balancing of the burden on the religious beliefs of the employer against the burden on the employee if she is denied the mandated coverage for contraception.

          •  It is a burden on religious belief (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, Loge, irishwitch

            An employee whose religious beliefs mirror those of her employer is not burdened.  However, employees without the same beliefs receives less than what the law requires.  There is thus a difference based on religion.

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:47:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  but that's not a burden (0+ / 0-)

              imposed by the state.  

            •  Well, it's a burden, but not a religious burden (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              on the employee.  No one is forcing her to do something that she believes violates her religious beliefs.  Unless she has a religious belief that an employer must provide insurance coverage for contraception, her religious beliefs are not being violated.

              The employee is still perfectly free to get and use contraception.  The difference is that she now has to pay for it out of pocket.  That's a burden on the employee, but not a religious one.  

      •  there are plenty of sincere religious beliefs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        and many fall outside of the biggest traditional religions.  It might all work if the only religions to be considered were those big ones, as you not-so-subtly appear to want, but that's not reality.  

        •  Again, you are wrong in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          andalusi, OrganicChemist

          equating my explaining the law with somehow "defending" somebody" (as you said elsewhere or expressing what I "appear to want" (in this comment).

           Instead, what I am talking about is a test that the Supreme Court developed in conjunction with deciding whether people who were conscientious objectors were doing so on the basis of religious beliefs.  See the case here.

          You really need to understand the difference between (1) explaining the legal tests and standards as set out by the courts; and (2) advocating for a particular outcome in a particular matter.  I am doing the second, not the first.  There's a difference.

      •  Or just obeying the law? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        The ultimate question here is whether the government can decide to require companies to provide health insurance that provides basic, needed services. The question is ultimately a replay of whether the ACA is an intrusion into individual and private freedom. The ACA is designed with a lot of interlocking parts that are supposed to work together to promote better health, both physician and financial, for Americans. Already the Supreme Court has taken a big bite out of it with the Medicaid expansion being made voluntary, removing contraceptives will take another bite out of it, the objections of persons who benefitted from medical underwriting is an ongoing problem, all these things will continue to nibble away. The ultimate purpose of this lawsuit, like all the others, is to destroy the ACA.

        By the way, regarding religion--no individual or for-profit entity has the right to refuse to pay taxes based on religious beliefs. An awful lot of people over the years have tried not paying taxes because their religion opposed war, I don't think any of them was ever upheld as having that right (I imagine many just never got prosecuted and those who did settled with the IRS at some point).

        Roberts upheld the ACA based on it being a tax, so there's that.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:04:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They don't buy the sinful thing for the employee. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, apimomfan2, Sychotic1

        Certainly the employer isn't "paying for contraception" any more than it pays for pork.  

        Because the INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS FOR IT.

          At most, the employer buys the coverage...although in this instance, not a single penny of premium goes to buy contraception.  It's thrown in free.

        If you have a policy that covers doctor's bills made necessary by a werewolf bite, and has the words "Health Insurance" on the cover, you can keep that policy!

        by Inland on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:11:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  More Scalia "Originalism" (12+ / 0-)

    In which he mind melds with the founders to discover that they think exactly like his personal opinions would have wanted them to!

    What a pure coincidence in no way influenced by his own subjective biases!!!

  •  If only... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scamperdo

    ... Kennedy had a vision and decided to use this case not only to uphold the contraception mandate but overturn Citizens United.  

    Won't happen, he's a republican.  We're seriously more likely to find out that corporations are people and can have freedom of religion just like they have freedom of speech.  But the liberal 4 should hopefully argue that Citizens United was wrongly decided during deliberations.

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz

    by FredFred on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:36:14 AM PST

  •  All of employer regulation (18+ / 0-)

    seems at risk.

    Could you say that your religion doesn't allow women to work outside the home? Or that it won't let you hire people of different races or genders to work together?

    It used to be legal to fire women when they got married, or when they got pregnant (regardless or marital status).

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:38:13 AM PST

  •  "corporations also have religious consciences" (15+ / 0-)

    ROFLMAO

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:40:08 AM PST

  •  We Have Truly Gone Through The Looking Glass (11+ / 0-)
    Now that the Supreme Court has determined that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, it will determine if corporations also have religious consciences, and can impose those beliefs on employees' health care options.
    Corporations with religious beliefs. Are you fucking kidding me?

    Corporations do not have consciences, they do not have spirituality, they don't die. If corporations are "people" like SCOTUS says, then they are sociopathic people. And what does society normally do with sociopaths? Make them superior to human beings? Put them in charge of the nation? Not a good plan.

  •  In case you were wondering (5+ / 0-)

    Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Sotomayor are Catholic.

    Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan are Jewish.

    The decision is going to be 5-4 with Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy coming down on the side of Hobby Lobby and opening the door to more religious nonsense claims and litigation.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:41:52 AM PST

  •  Here is the question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, apimomfan2

    to ask the right wing fundamentalist Republicans.
     Ask them if a person has a spirit or soul, and if a corporation has one also.. if the corporation do not, how can they be considered the same as a person, and have the same rights? Make the argument about the spirit. It will split the Republican party down the middle.

    •  This is silly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      this has nothing to do with whether "corporations are people."  Zero.  Zilch.  

      Nowhere in the CU decision does the court say "corporations are persons."  And the CU decision is NOT based on corporate personhood.  That's a myth.  

      •  not a myth (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mconvente, apimomfan2, Capt Crunch

        and they don't have to explicitly say "corporations are people" in order to establish that they have the same rights as people.  Anyone capable of thinking beyond a grade school level knows it.  

        •  Sigh. Perhaps you should try, just once, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          actually READING the opinion.  I'll make it easy for you:  It's here.

          Let me give you an express quote from page 26, where the majority frames the issue:

          "This Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not natural persons."  

          The majority expressly STATES that corporations are not "natural persons."  Read it for yourself.

          •  You are willfully blind (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Capt Crunch

            The whole of the sentence before your boldface is the Court laying the foundations of the argument that corporations should have the same rights as natural persons.

            Corporations should NOT have the same bundle of legal rights as natural persons. But Citizens United gives them the same 1st Amendment rights as natural persons - specifically, they can spend as much money as they want for campaign spending, because thanks to prior SC decisions, money = political speech. So for the purposes of the First Amendment, and specifically campaign spending, corporations have now become equivalent to natural persons.

            You are the reincarnation of Roger B. Taney, who started from the then-legally correct (but factually and morally wrong) premise that African-American slaves are not persons but property, and decided Dred Scott accordingly from a property perspective.

          •  Geeeeze - you ignored red rabbit's point (0+ / 0-)

            and went off on a fantasy post.

            they don't have to explicitly say "corporations are people" in order to establish that they have the same rights as people.

            Get it?
            It's so simple. I don't know how you can't grasp it.
            The court can say anything.
            The point is that if the court grants those rights to corporations then... that is what the court has done - no matter what the court said.
            How hard can that be to understand?
  •  Somewhere L. Ron Hubbard is jumping for joy. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, Egalitare, GreenMother, Matt Z

    After all, he created his OWN corporate religion.

    That puts him in the 8th Circle, if I'm not mistaken.

    Wonder where Scalia will end up?  Evil Councilors?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:43:46 AM PST

  •  Free Exercise Clause (7+ / 0-)

    The free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not extend to actions which harm others.  We know this for sure because the Founding Fathers told us so repeatedly.  Their principal argument, indeed almost their only argument, was that the differing religious beliefs or ceremonies of others could do us no harm.  "If a man believes in twenty gods or none at all, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Jefferson)

    A man might believe with total honesty and conviction that it is his absolute religious duty to sacrifice a virgin to a volcano on the first of every month, and he has the right to believe this; and he also has the right to express that view and share it with others, verbally and ceremonially.  But if he attempts to act upon that belief, the law will come down upon him fast and hard, and if he attempts to defend himself in court with an appeal to the free exercise clause, there is not a judge in the country who will give him the time of day.

    •  Well, define "harm." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      I agree with you , I can't use my religious beliefs to hit you. That's "harm" to you.  

      But if not doing something for you is "harm," that's a really broad definition of "harm."  And under that definition of "harm," a religious person might say, "forcing me to violate my religious principles is harm to me."  And a court would balance the two:  which is worse harm: (1) a person being forced to violate long-held religious beliefs; or (2) a person being forced to buy her own contraception?  (the term more likely to be used is a balancing of the burdens.)  

      •  On your harm #1 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, Tonedevil, doroma

        The religious rules are surely against using contraceptives, rather than buying them, no?

        •  You'd have to ask the religious person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          but I would think facilitating someone else's sin is a sin.  I think it's that way in the Catholic Church, where, for example, facilitating the ability of women to have abortions is, in and of itself, a "grave" sin.  

          We don't get to decide for someone else what that person's religious beliefs are. The Courts can only look at whether it's a sincerely held religious belief, not tell a person what his beliefs should be or whether the beliefs make sense.  

          So, if someone says, "It violates my religious beliefs to buy contraceptives for someone else to use" the Courts take that at face value and then decide whether it meets the test of being a sincerely held religious belief under their jurisprudence.  

      •  Forcing women to run the constant risk of becoming (5+ / 0-)

        pregnant

        Seriously dude do you not know how stressful that is, and how chronic stress affects a body?

        And if she gets pregnant, do you not know how that can be a threat to her short term and long term health?

        Diabetes, Thyroid Dysfunction, Stroke, Hemorage, breech birth, premature birth, spontaneous abortion, placental abruption, heart attack, mastitis, complications arise from C-sections and episiotomies, the health risks of too many pregnancies too close together, urinary incontinence, kidney problems, and the list could go on and on and on.

        Pregnancy is something you just do because you had a whim. Its not like playing checkers or watching television.

        It's a live changing health event that leaves you with a child you must nurture and raise for at least the next 18 years, assuming you and the baby live through the experience.

        And the whole process carries a variety of health risks.

        The potential harm is huge. No one gets through this unscathed. If it's not one thing, its another--and with luck, none of those "things" will be life threatening or crippling.

        Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

        by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:52:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just to be technical, not paying for something is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CS in AZ, coffeetalk, VClib

          not forcing.  

          Linking Healthcare to employers is just a bad government policy, this issue is just an example of one of its problems.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:25:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just to be technical--removing a woman's right to (4+ / 0-)

            reproductive self determination makes her into chattel.

            2. I wanted single payer but the party of Do'h and the potus decided otherwise

            Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

            by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:21:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's absurd. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep, VClib

              How is this case possibly about removing a woman's right to reproductive self-determination?  This case has nothing to do with that.  

              It has to do with what insurance coverage an employer has to supply to employees.  Having, or not having, employer-provided health insurance is not the same as having, or not having, "reproductive self-determination."

              Does a woman only have reproductive self-determination if her employer provides contraceptive coverage?  What about an employer who does not provide health insurance at all -- say he has 40 employees.  Under your view, that means that he's "removing a woman's right to self-determination."  What about women who are self-employed, and have to pay for health insurance themselves?  Is that "removing a woman's right to reproductive self-determination" because she doesn't have an employer to provide contraceptive coverage? It's almost insulting to women (and I'm a woman) to suggest that the only way a woman can have "reproductive self-determination" is if she has an employer to supply health insurance coverage.

              I agree -- and said elsewhere -- that if the employer does not offer contraceptive coverage, that puts an additional burden on a female employee - she may have to pay out of pocket for it.  But that's in no way "removing her right to reproductive self-determination."  She still has "reproductive self-determination" -- the question whether she, or her employer, if she has an employer (through the health insurance premiums) pays for it.

              It doesn't help the discussion to vastly overstate the case like that.  

              •  BS! (4+ / 0-)

                I am dealing with attacks on my rights to reproductive self determination from the following directions:

                1. Refusal to cover OBVIOUS female specific issue of family planning, pregnancy and reproductive specific illness in insurance meant for ALL AMERICANS--that includes "Teh Womerns"

                2. Removal of informed consent--wherein certain states don't even have to tell you the truth on your tests if you are pregnant pertaining to the health of Yourself or the fetus.

                3. Denial of service for emergency contraception, spontaneous miscarriage or anything else that could end in a miscarriage by certain misguided, overcontrolling a-holes that work in the medical field.

                4. People like yourself who fail miserably to understand how this affects the lives of women, how it's all connected and originates from the EXACT SAME SOURCES every time, and who also fail to understand the broader implications for women and their right to live their lives as they see fit.

                Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

                Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

                by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 02:19:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Items 2,3, and 4 are not at issue here. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  This has nothing to do with informed consent, denial of service, or you thinking that I don't understand.  Those things may be relevant to something somebody else is trying to do, but are not relevant to the cases the Supreme Court will decide. These cases have to do with the scope of health insurance coverage.  

                  Where your comment was absurd was in equating a failure to cover contraception with "removing a woman's right to reproductive self-determination," in your words.  

                  Not having health insurance coverage does not equal "removing a woman's right to reproductive self-determination," as you said.  That's the part that is absurd.  Nobody is saying a woman can't make her own reproductive choices -- the only question here is how much of that has to be covered by employer-provided health insurance, if the employer has a religious objection.  That's the only thing at issue - not your other parade of horribles.  

                  Here's the problem:  When you take something like this, about health insurance coverage, and blow it up into something it's not - like denying a woman the right to make her own choices, as if someone is saying, "NO!  You cannot use contraception even if you buy it yourself!"  -- you lose all credibility.  It's the whole "Chicken Little" thing.  I understand you'd prefer that all employers be required to cover contraception even if it violates their religious belief.  But some employers already are exempt (churches and some religious entities), some employers aren't going to provide any health insurance, and some women are self-employed and don't have employers to provide health insurance.  The women in those situations haven't had someone "remove their right to reproductive self-determination."  They can still make all those decisions for themselves.

                  The problem with your over-hyping of the issue is this.  If the Court decides that some more employers are exempt from covering contraception (in addition to the ones who already are or who don't provide health insurance at all) what that means is that those women would have to pay for that out of pocket, or maybe buy some insurance rider on their own that covered it.  That would be a setback, but not the HUGE DISASTER REMOVING WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO REPRODUCTIVE SELF-DETERMINATION  that you make it out to be.  

                  •  Nope-I am right on track, this is a multipronged (0+ / 0-)

                    attack on women's rights by a coherent religious movement that seeks to achieve their goals by any means necessary, and that includes:

                    1. Scaring doctors and nurses into not providing certain procedures or options.
                    2. Religious hospitals not transporting or telling a patient all her options, even in cases of rape.
                    3. Defunding non religious charities that support Pro-women and pro-choice that do not kow tow to these primitive, reconstructed theologies, which include Planned Parenthood.
                    4. Removing Informed Consent, meaning test results are denied to women who might have a pregnancy involving genetic defects they cannot afford or do not wish to deal with.  
                    5. Inserting the "Conscience Clause" to deny prescriptions of BC pills, morning after pills, or other forms of treatment for sexually active women who may become or might be pregnant.
                    6. Reducing the window of opportunity one can get an abortion.
                    7. State Sanctioned Rape by Instrumentation via the Vaginal wand as a prerequisite for an abortion.
                    8.  And now, but not least, the attack on women to get comprehensive feminine specific health care, that includes family planning, prenatal care, abortion, midwifery services, and a variety of other services that are unique to a woman's needs.
                    9. Ignorance Only Training in schools that teach girls about their dirty shame cave and how they are like chewed up gum or hairy lollypops if they ever let someone else touch them "down there."
                    10. Redefining rape (see Legitimate Rape).
                    11. Attack on Women/Minority Voting Rights.

                    THIS IS ALL CONNECTED. AND IT ALL COMES FROM THE SAME EFFING GROUPS!

                    And if you aren't smart enough to see how all this works together, then I don't know what to tell you. But once again, don't sit here and blow smoke up my ass and expect me to kiss yours.

                    I have been fighting this battle for a long time. A long long time. And it never ceases to amaze me how quickly people can go into denial whenever things get hairy.

                    You are no friend of mine, if you think I should sit still and let any of this happen in perpetuity.

                    Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

                    by GreenMother on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 06:58:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  GreenMother - have women who work at companies (0+ / 0-)

                  who don't provide any health insurance lost all of their reproductive rights?

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:30:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, they have. (0+ / 0-)

                    But then anyone who is poor, who cannot access health care due to poverty is victimized over and over.

                    It seems so reasonable doesn't?

                    Don't want a baby? Cant afford BC? Stop fucking! There's your answer honey.

                    It leaves women open for too many pregnancies, too close together, now that we have begun defunding planned parenthood, assuming these women could find a ride and some time off to get there.

                    Tell me, are you really that ignorant of how life is for the working poor and the indigent?

                    Did you miss that whole Michael Moore-Sicko movie?

                    It leaves women open for chronic infections of STDs that can eventually lead to cancer.

                    It leaves women with children without adequate community support to raise the babies they have.

                    It leaves those children at risk too, because they need medical care too.

                    It leaves men open for STD infections untreated that can be spread to partner to partner and potentially lead to cancer too.

                    But you know, if they weren't such immoral, trashy sluts, none of this would happen to them.

                    If only they could embrace Jesus and keep their pants on while they work their fingers to the bone day in and day out, for pennies on the dollar--then maybe the creator would take pity on them and let them get runover by a bus or something and put them out of our misery.

                    Geez sometimes I don't like America at all.

                    Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

                    by GreenMother on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 07:05:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  GreenMother - in my view (0+ / 0-)

                      having the legal right to make your own health and reproductive decisions, without any impediment from government, and having free or very low cost access to female oriented healthcare are two very different issues. I understand that having a right and not the money to take advantage of it isn't much of a right. However, it is very different from denying all women reproductive rights as a matter of law, even if they have the ability to pay.  

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 11:12:41 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, this is exactly what I think too (6+ / 0-)
            Linking Healthcare to employers is just a bad government policy, this issue is just an example of one of its problems.
            This is the core issue here, to me. The whole idea of having your employer involved in your personal life, healthcare decision, options, and choices is just wrong.
      •  Harm (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, Sychotic1

        If you deny someone a benefit that is conferred by law, that is harm.  And as far as being forced to violate religious beliefs is concerned, one ought not to be able to self-define harm.  And a balancing test is grotesquely inappropriate when the founding fathers assumed no harm at all.

        Rising above law to truth and morality, a religious reason ought to be treated as no reason at all, since it has no rational basis (there's a reason it's called "faith").

  •  Corporate Religious Conscience? (6+ / 0-)

    The idea that a corporation would have a stake into whether its soul receives heavenly salvation, or eternal damnation, as a condition of its business choices on earth is preposterous.
    A corporation holds no allegiance to God, or country.
    When corporations are subject to imprisonment, and capital punishment, as real people are, then we can talk about the sentient corporate being.


    A mirror is facial recognition hardware. Your narcissism is the software.

    by glb3 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:51:12 AM PST

  •  it can't be emphasized enough (13+ / 0-)

    that the real issue here is backdoor legalization of gender discrimination.  

    and once again, the rights of millions depends on how Justice Kennedy feels about religious conviction versus His Place In History when the Court goes to conference.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:53:36 AM PST

  •  I really don't see it happening (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah

    Maybe if it was a non-profit organization, then you can make an argument for it.  I don't see them overturning it for a for-profit corporation however.

    My guess is that Roberts is going to compromise where non-profits can deny the contraceptive benefits while for-profit organizations have to provide it.

  •  "closely held companies owned by individuals" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nance

    How is that going to be defined legally?

    1. Books are for use.

    by looty on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:00:43 AM PST

  •  When corporations die, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, apimomfan2, irishwitch

    do they go to heaven, or hell?

    The problem with political jokes is they get elected.

    by shoeless on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:01:43 AM PST

  •  I wouldn't be shocked (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch

    If there was decision that drew a line permitting some corporations, but not Hobby Lobby, to have an exemption, based on the size and scope of the corporation.  Big, multi-state operations, no.  Small family-owned businesses, yes.

  •  This whole argument illustrates the need ... (13+ / 0-)

    to remove health care from the clutches of employment.


    A mirror is facial recognition hardware. Your narcissism is the software.

    by glb3 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:05:11 AM PST

  •  The way I see it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1

    It costs an employer no more to include birth control in an insurance policy than it does to exclude birth control.

    To say that an employee can find another employer if they need to have birth control coverage is discrimination based upon religious practice in the extreme. No, you don't have to stay at a job if you need birth control, but that's on you. The same onus is not put upon the employee to obtain health insurance coverage for other preventative medications, and employers don't penalize them for that.

    This objection by A VERY FEW employers is purely based upon religious grounds. If we allow this as a nation, we invite discrimination based upon parents of disabled children, spouses of the ill, and anyone who is getting older and likely to have more health related issues than a younger person.

    If we are not allowed to discriminate in employment based upon your religious preference, this can not be an option.

    •  Someone mentioned above (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2, irishwitch

      L Ron Hubbard -- Scientology. Would a Scientologist-owned company be able to deny insurance coverage for mental health issues, since they don't believe in them? Or a Christian Scientist-owned company be able to require that their employees only go to Christian Science Practitioners?

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:31:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Shared Responsibility Provision of the ACA. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, irishwitch

    If they were not offering their employees healthcare of any kind, they would be required to pay an assessment if any of their employees were certified to receive the premium tax credit for obtaining individual insurance on the exchanges starting in 2015. In that case, the company would still have to pay and have no say over whether or not birth control was included in any of its employees plans.

    Hmmm? Interesting.

  •  worse before better? (0+ / 0-)

    Citizens United was the thin edge of the wedge.

    Because "corporations are people, my friend", the logical extension of all this is that corporations have the same rights as individuals (guns, religion, speech, voting?).

    I fully expect this to devolve into absurdity, at which point it will become abundantly clear that the current constructs of incorporation require overhaul, if not outright abandonment.

    Now, that might not yet happen for many more years.  Given my revulsion to almost all things corporate, I hope to live so long as to see it.

    It's going to get really bumpy.

  •  your title... (0+ / 0-)

    shouldn't it be

    Supreme Court will "hear" Obamacare contraception challenges
    sigh
  •  I still do not shop at Hobby Lobby (6+ / 0-)

    And I will avoid companies that insist on forcing women to adhere to corporate religious codes.

    A singular human employer has the right to freedom of religion. But they do not have the right to force their views on an employee. And that especially includes gender issues, sexuality issues, and reproductive self determination issues.

    Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

    by GreenMother on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:28:43 AM PST

    •  I stopped soon after moving to GA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreenMother

      when someone spotted my nickle sized pentacle and I suddenly acquired an entourage that followed me through the store, dogging my heels.  I looked at my husband, and I proceeded to spend TWO hours looking at every embroidery thread color, every quilting, embroidery and cross stich patterns nd every page of every dress pattern book,. debating the merits with him.  When I finally left, I said loudly, "Don't worry, dears. I won't be back. I don't spend money at stores which practice rel;igious discrimination"--and et the door slam louydly behind me.  They'd closed down a cash register to attach their shadow to me. I hope it pissed off people who had to wait longer in line,.

      I frequent Michael's.  They have never given mea hard time about framing several darker fantasy prints by Nene Thomas, or about that nude oil portrait of my late first husband as a naked elf. IUn fact the framers love it when we come in because we have more intersting artwork.

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 11:57:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That doesn't surprise me now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irishwitch

        Way back in the day, I had no idea that they were run by fundies. Such a shame too. I might have been tempted to just go back periodically and make some rounds on nights known to be busy and just not buy a thing.

        Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

        by GreenMother on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 03:15:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't want to even LOOK (0+ / 0-)

          like I am patronizing them. ANd Michael's has nicer staff.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 07:26:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't blame you and I am sorry that anyone (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            irishwitch

            treated you like that.

            Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

            by GreenMother on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 07:14:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I'd known they were dominionist owned (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GreenMother

              I'd never have set foot there./ But we had just moved here to GA.  I flip pff the Lifeway CHristian Store every time I [pass it as my protest.

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:04:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It wouldn't bother me so much if only (0+ / 0-)

                they respected the rights and beliefs of others, as much as I tried to respect theirs.

                But their attempt to undermine all women's rights for religious wankery just sticks in my craw. Why tolerate them at all since they are intolerant assholes whose beliefs make no secret that they would like to burn some of us at the stake.

                Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

                by GreenMother on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 06:47:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  They don't respect the beliefs even of other (0+ / 0-)

                  Christians--I suspect they consider the Catholic Church the Scarlet WOman or some such idiotic apocalyptic reference (17 years of Catholic education, and not until college did anyone ever mention Revelations--we were taught not to worry about it because you know not the day or the hour so live  a good life---I read Revelations because Stephen King wasn't writing when I was in junior high). They sure as hell loathe non-Christians--it's fol;ks like this who bought into the testimony of an "expert" on the occult and sent the West Memphios Three to prison for 18 years. I have NO respect fopr them these days.

                  The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                  by irishwitch on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 08:32:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly, and how do you fit a Corporation... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, apimomfan2

    ...into the confessional?

  •  Hopefully whoever it is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    that presents the administration's case in front of the Court won't sleep through it this time.

  •  There's Reason for Hope from Precedent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    I'm tryin to find the exact ruling, but I do believe it was Scalia who stated that a person cannot disobey a valid law based on religious beliefs.

    •  Found the Decision (0+ / 0-)

      The majority opinion was written by Scalia.

      Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Alfred Smith

      The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.

  •  So then, what is the worse that can happen here? (0+ / 0-)

    Say they say that yep, corporations have feelings and we damn sure do not want to hurt the Green's feelings, then what?  You could still go to the corner drug store and purchase your birth control on your own.  It would only mean for these companies that are against contraception as I see it.  There is not a prohibition on this and if the women who work there get pregnant, they will have insurance to cover that, it will not be because of not having access.

  •  . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schnecke21, Sychotic1, HCKAD
  •  So if my religion teaches me about the sins of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irishwitch

    capitalism, like Pope Francis did today, I should be alright is walking into Hobby Lobby, picking out my favorite item and walking out without paying?  They can't force be to do something against my religion, right?

  •  Christian bullies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, irishwitch

    These companies will be satisfied no matter what the Supreme Court decides...............
     1) They get to force their religious values on others.
    or
    2) They get to claim religious persecution. They believe Jesus said,  "I give you permission to be bullies, and obnoxious brats, therefore when you occasionally
    don't get your way your can whimper and claim persecution for my sake
    . Never forget to play the persecution card!"~~~1 Baloney 3:16

    •  Using religion as a shield to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2

      changing social norms and attitudes, and trying to use it as protection against criticism.

      My religion says I can't.  If you say I must and force me to go against my religion, then you are defaming my religion.

      Some logic, hmm??

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 01:10:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One of the most devastating decisions... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, irishwitch

    ...in our history if it goes the way of the Christian right. This will be a huge strike against science and reason and we will plunged into a dark age.

  •  Step 1: have SCOTUS declare corporate religious... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose, irishwitch

    ...conscience exists.

    Step 2: Declare your corporation a Jehovah's Witness so you don't have to offer health care at all because of religious beliefs.  

     

  •  It can certainly be argued that life begins... (0+ / 0-)

    at conception, but it cannot be argued that U.S. citizenship (and all of its protections) begins at birth.  Otherwise, it would make sense that we should be able to extend constitutional protections to foreigners (giving the Guantanamo Bay prisoners the right to a speedy trial - which they obviously don't enjoy).  One of the central arguments here as I see it is offering constitutional protections to those who don't reside here, or to those who haven't been born yet, which would also exclude corporations.  And could you imagine the impact on immigration if all humans had the right to come here at will?

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."

  •  Any time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    there's an issue before the court that we think is common sense I cringe at the judicial gymnastics that the conservative justices will knot themselves into just to come down on the side of denying rights and freedoms to the minority, the consumer, the patient and the employee.

  •  Settled Law and forcing your views on others (0+ / 0-)

    Why do "they" keep dragging birth control out of the back closet?
    We have more pressing things to debate, settled laws are not one of them.

    If you don't want birth control—don't use it.

    I would tell you the only word in the English language that has all the vowels in order but, that would be facetious.

    by roninkai on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:41:02 PM PST

  •  28th Amemdment: (0+ / 0-)

    "Congress shall make no law restricting the reproductive freedoms of any citizen."

    This simple language takes the conversation forever out of our politics and in to private sphere where it belongs.  Have no children if you want, have ten if you want.  It is a private issue.

  •  In a feudal faux-republic... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    You don't have individual religious freedom. The lord to which you are a serf has religious freedom and will determine what religion you are and how you will practice it for you.

    -Scalia/Roberts/Thomas/Alito logic.

  •  So if they rule for Hobby Lobby (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schnecke21, delver rootnose, HCKAD

    That means people like me who had to take female hormones to keep from bleeding to death will either have to tell our employers our personal medical issues (which is none of their damn business) or get a hysterectomy.

    Seriously I wish there was a real campaign to label them not birth control pills but female hormones since there are many women who take them not to prevent pregnancy but to keep from having serious medical problems that can be life threatening.

    This stuff really turns me against religions like Christianity. Because there is nothing in the Bible that says they have the right to chose my health and safety. Yet they keep wanting too. F them.

    •  I am in your boat for other reasons (0+ / 0-)

      I was aborted before birth by 2-3 months It was to abort me or loose both my mother and I. Mother became septic from my waste.

      What the hospital did to save my mothers life goes against hobby lobby's religious beliefs.

      I can officially say, because of this article, and hobby lobby's actions,  I will never buy from hobby lobby again.

      another corporation to list of boycotted

      sony
      walmart
      dole
      hobby lobby
      wells fargo
      bank of America
      etc.

  •  It's even worse (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, delver rootnose

    If corporations have the right to dictate the terms of my insurance policy (which, one way or another, is an expense associated with me, and effectively coming out of my paycheck), what's to stop them telling me how to spend the rest of my money, based on their "conscience?" Seriously, this is kind of scary.
    They want to bring back the truck system. This is their opening gambit.

  •  Where does the money come from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    when Hobby Lobby buys wholesale stuff from a country that uses RU-486 abortion drug.  That's some messed up religious conscience.

    "The cases are not a direct challenge to the mandate itself. The question is whether closely held companies owned by individuals who object to the provision on religious grounds can be exempted from the requirement."

  •  My new job interview question (0+ / 0-)

    "Is anybody in my potential chain of command a religious nut?"

    "You can't run a country by a book of religion. Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." Frank Zappa

    by Uosdwis on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 04:26:35 PM PST

  •  The employer dictating what (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1

    the employee spends their earnings on reminds me of company scrip.  Health insurance is an earned benefit.  Your paycheck is also an earned benefit.  How can they tell you what you  spend your earned benefits on?  Can they revert to paying employees in company scrip that is only good at the company store?  Actually, I'm kinda surprised Walmart hasn't tried that already.  

    I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

    by fayea on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 04:43:10 PM PST

  •  I should incorporate... (0+ / 0-)

    ...myself, claim in my missions statement that I am against the military and especially war, and then refuse to pay the part of taxes going to the pentagon on religious grounds. (which are firmer than those against conception)

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 05:05:38 PM PST

  •  It is dangerous to pierce the corporate veil. (0+ / 0-)

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 07:04:29 PM PST

  •  You are wrong! (0+ / 0-)

    "At stake in the case is the further definition of the rights of a corporation as a person"      That is not what is at stake. Small companies are individual proprietorships and/or partnerships which are NOT "corporations". ObamaCare targets individuals and attempts to force them to abrogate their religion in favor of (the nonsensical and undefined concept of) social justice.

  •  If someone touched this topic sorry (0+ / 0-)

    Has anyone considered the ramification of a corporation being declared a religious person/entity?
    by proxy of saying that they have religious rights to deny its workers contraceptive and planned parenthood?

    This would open the door to other things like. Say,  since they are religious, then they have "separation of religion and state" thus being exempt from having to honor thing like Americans with disability act of 1990.  this civil rights law can not be enforced within a religious organization such as a church. but can in place of public accommodation, with the exclusion of federal government buildings and religious sites.
    If a corporation is declared religious then the entire thing becomes a de-facto religious site. thus I suspect the Americans with disability act would no longer apply.

    Then there is the issue of when does one persons religious rights trumps another persons rights. meaning when did it become acceptable for ones religious beliefs to be forced upon another, thus infringing on the rights of the second. In this case corporations religious rights infringes on its workers medical rights. This is about corporations as a religious person telling its workers it can not use contraceptive(by refusing to pay insurance), "the pill" etc, forcing its religious beliefs on the worker in a NON religious institution. In this case we also have 1 person Forcing 13,000 other people to do and believe a certain way. If the 13,000 people refuse to do as the 1 religious person demands, then punish the 13,000 by forcing them into the marketplace as punishment for defying the corporations religious beliefs.

    Also the contraceptive pill is not a contraceptive pill by design. It was designed to stabilize a woman's cycle, saving her life. The "SIDE EFFECT" is it inhibited pregnancy.  There is nothing religious about this it is medical in nature.

    Then there is the issue That I firmly believe this is truly about.  That is to try and shirk the responsibility of the employer paying for insurance for its employees under the federal law.  Since buying insurance for its many employees is going to hit its profit margins in a big way.

    Out of curiosity does anyone know if hobby lobby  insure its employees before the law went into effect? If not It gives my comment more weight in regards to shirking responsibility under the clause of religious person.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site