Skip to main content

To hear the best and the brightest of the conservative movement tell it, Americans' freedom of religion is in dire peril. At Liberty University in April, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz cautioned, "Religious liberty has never been more under attack." Ben Sasse, the Nebraska GOP Senate candidate, went even further in declaring that "the free exercise of religion is co-equal to our right to life," adding "government cannot force citizens to violate their religious beliefs under any circumstances." Competing with Cruz in the 2016 Falwell primary, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal used his Liberty University commencement address to similarly warn his audience. "Make no mistake," Jindal said, "The war over religious liberty is the war over free speech and without the first there is no such thing as the second."

Coming as it does on the eve of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the right-wing outcry about a supposed war on religious freedom is especially galling—and more than a little ironic. After all, less than two months ago in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Roberts Court ruled that sectarian Christian prayers used to open a town council meeting did not violate the constitutional prohibition against government establishment of religion. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court in McCullen v. Coakley ruled that 35-foot buffer zones created to protect patients entering family planning clinics in Massachusetts were unconstitutional. (As Sarah Posner summed up, with the opinion limiting women's protections from verbal harassment and threats of violence, the court in essence concluded that "your uterus is 'an important subject' about which your fellow citizens 'wish to converse.'") In April 2011, a 5-4 majority upheld an Arizona law designed to evade restrictions on school vouchers by giving taxpayers there a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit of up to $500 for donations to private "student tuition organizations." Meanwhile at the White House, President Obama has continued to pour billions of Americans' tax dollars into George W. Bush's so-called faith-based initiatives, despite his unfulfilled 2008 campaign pledge to protect beneficiaries and employees alike from discrimination practiced by grant recipients.

But even more reprehensible than social conservatives whining about the war against the separation of church and state they started, is their transparent hypocrisy on the issue of religious liberty itself. As any number of case studies (real and imagined) and their wave of draconian anti-abortion restrictions across the nation show, Republicans are really demanding "religious freedom for me, not thee."

To understand why, it's important to start with Hobby Lobby's challenge to the popular contraception mandate for employer-provided health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Continue reading about conservative religious freedom frauds below.

At its core, the case will decide whether the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the free exercise of religion by corporations from the federal government's regulation of interstate commerce. As Taylor Malmsheiner explained, while the ACA exempts religious organization and religiously affiliated non-profits from the mandate:

The mandate does not exempt any for-profit employers--even those that are owned by religious families. Hobby Lobby, for instance, is owned by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians, while Conestoga Wood is owned by the Hahn family, who are Mennonites. Both owners have stated that covering certain contraceptives would violate their religious beliefs--for example, they view Plan B, which can prevent pregnancy when taken up to five days after unprotected sex, as a form of abortion.

When the companies filed suit against Obamacare, they argued that the contraceptive mandate breaches the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which states that the government cannot "substantially burden religious exercise" unless there is a compelling interest met in the least restrictive means. The Court will not look at the whether the owners' religious beliefs are accurate, but whether the mandate will substantially burden the corporation, says Laurie Sobel, a senior policy analyst for women's health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The plaintiffs have argued the fine they will face for noncompliance with the mandate would be a substantial burden.

Leave aside for the moment the Green family mission to introduce its biblical curriculum into public schools, its past employee health insurance plan that covered the very same emergency contraceptives it now opposes and its retirement plan investments in companies manufacturing the birth control products in question. As Garrett Epps argued, if the long history of Supreme Court precedent through Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure means anything, Hobby Lobby should lose.

In the 1981 case of United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court ruled that Amish farmer Edwin Lee could not refuse to pay Social Security payroll taxes for his employees despite his religion's clear rejection of social insurance:

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice," the Court's unanimous opinion said, "the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity.
Importantly, in 1994 Congress came to the aid of Lee and those in his position by revising section 26 U.S.C.A. § 3127 of the Social Security law to exempt any employer or partnership consisting of members of any "recognized religious sect" that is "conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance" from paying payroll taxes for any employee "who is also a member of such a sect." That date is important, because it came a year after bipartisan passage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

And RFRA came into response to Justice Antonin Scalia and his 1990 run-in with peyote. In Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia wrote the majority opinion rejecting the claims of two Native Americans denied unemployment benefits for having ingested peyote in keeping with their religious practices. "To permit this," he wrote in Smith, "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."

The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," he wrote, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.
Alas, that was then and this is now. Though Congress since passed and President Clinton signed RFRA in 1993 in response to Scalia's 6-3 majority opinion in Smith, it was not designed as a sword for businesses. "Once you went into the commercial marketplace," the law's architect Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explained, "It was always understood you were subject to the law there." Nevertheless, the court's conservative wing—including Justice Scalia—has given every indication that past precedent will be no indication of future performance. As the New York Times demonstrated in May, "For Justices, Free Speech Often Means 'Speech I Agree With.'"

And if the Supreme Court reverses course to declare that the free exercise of religion by a company's owners trumps the law of the land, the consequences could be staggering. While the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, like the offended Arizona taxpayers, suffer no actual injury by the contraception mandate, employees at their businesses—and others around the country—most certainly would.

When over 11 million women between the ages of 15 and 44 use oral contraception—58 percent of them for health reasons beyond family planning—the government's interest would seem compelling indeed. And as Elena Kagan described the impact on Hobby Lobby and its 16,000 employees:

When the employer says, 'No, I don't want to give that,' that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.
And that woman won't be alone. As the Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State warned, Hobby Lobby could open "a Pandora's Box with some very ugly creatures flying out."
"Scientology-believing employers could insist on non-coverage of its nemesis, psychiatry. Jehovah's Witness-owned corporations could demand exclusion from surgical coverage, under the theory that so many of such procedures require the use of whole blood products forbidden by their faith."
That's just the beginning of the hypothetical horror stories. Christian Scientist-owned Gray Spaulding Industries could refuse to cover blood transfusions or even to provide health insurance at all. Huckabee Enterprises, a publicly traded but Baptist-controlled firm might rightly claim it was exempt from providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners or married gay couples. (After all, its CEO declared "We are under an obligation to obey God" and compared same-sex marriage to the Holocaust.) If the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) ever made it out of Congress alive, it would be dead on arrival at Huckabee's front door. It's not hard to imagine the next Hobby Lobby arguing it is exempt from any state and federal paid family leave laws, at least when it comes to "sinful" single mothers or same-sex spouses.

In their amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT) and David Vitter (R-LA) explained why. "The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to free exercise of religion," Cruz proclaimed, charging that the Obama administration is refusing to grant waivers "to people with sincerely held religious beliefs." As Cornyn put it in defending the Green family's right to deny mandated contraception coverage to Hobby Lobby workers:

I join in filing this brief to protect the rights of all Texans and all Americans to practice their religious beliefs without obstruction from the federal government.
And what goes for employees, they and their allies insist, goes double for their customers.

Over a dozen states are currently considering so-called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Acts" to enable Oregon bakers, New Mexico photographers and just about any other business to refuse to sell to same-sex couples seeking to purchase their goods or services for upcoming weddings. While the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin's case, their lawyers and their allies argue that New Mexico's anti-discrimination laws represent "compelled speech."

Of course, religious conservatives otherwise have no problem at all with compelled speech, especially when the speaker is a physician and the speech is about abortion.

As I previously noted about the tidal wave of abortion restrictions being added to the books in GOP-controlled states:

Republicans are legally requiring that American doctors commit medical malpractice. In many states, physicians must withhold potentially life-saving care or, conversely, provide unneeded tests and procedures. When it comes to topics like "fetal pain," so-called "post-abortion syndrome" and the mythical breast cancer link, doctors are mandated to lie to their patients. And if they remain silent about severe fetal conditions which might lead a woman to terminate her pregnancy, physicians would be immunized from liability.
Conservatives increasingly insist that doctors and the companies that employ them cannot freely exercise their own religions or exercise free speech at all. And while the GOP would protect physicians from litigation for what they don't say, Republicans would expose them to lawsuits for what they do say. Take, for example, so-called "abortion regret laws" like the one proposed in Iowa last year:
Under the legislation, a patient could sue a doctor within ten years of terminating a pregnancy, even after signing a form acknowledging informed consent. In addition to suing for physical injury, a patient could sue for emotional distress, which would include a negative emotional or mental reaction, grief, anxiety, or worry.

The bill significantly increases the risk doctors face in providing abortion care in a couple of important ways. First and foremost, it creates an entirely separate legal claim related only to abortions, despite the fact that any patient injured during an abortion can already sue for medical malpractice. Second, it increases to at least ten years the amount of time a patient has to sue, and allows a claim to proceed even if a patient acknowledges that the risks associated with the procedure were explained.

To put it another way, for Republicans like Ted Cruz, Sam Brownback, Rick Perry and so many more, doctors providing abortion services don't have First Amendment rights. They would even muzzle a Christian obstetrician like Dr. Willie J. Parker, who decided to perform abortions after "I came to a deeper understanding of my spirituality, which places a higher value on compassion."

On the other hand, if doctors, nurses and pharmacists, or the hospitals, clinics and drug stores that employ them place a higher value on a fetus than the woman carrying it, conservatives have codified their rights to refuse treatment. As the Guttmacher Institute recently summed it up:

A patchwork of federal laws explicitly allows many health care professionals and institutions to refuse to provide care related to abortion and sterilization services. Collectively, these laws prevent government agencies from forcing the provision of services or "discriminating" against individuals and institutions that refuse to provide them; they also prevent institutions receiving certain federal funds from taking action against health care personnel because of their participation or nonparticipation in beliefs about abortion or sterilization. Separate federal laws and regulations, notably Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibit employers from discriminating against personnel based on religion, including religiously based objections to performing specific job functions; an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
And when the employer is one of the rapidly growing networks of Catholic hospitals that now provide 15 percent of the nation's hospitals beds, that means all of the undue hardship will be imposed on the patient.

The flurry of mergers and acquisitions by Catholic hospital chains is altering the landscape of American health care. Even in pro-choice states like Washington, entire cities and large rural areas are now lacking hospitals and clinics that can provide abortion services, even in life-or-death emergencies. Increasingly, the clashing requirements of the Catholic hospitals' public mission and their religious tenets are putting patients, doctors and staff at risk. In 2007, physician Ramesh Raghavan wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association of his wife's experience. As Jonathan Cohn recounted the horrifying episode:

[Raghavan's wife], a woman, also pregnant with twins, whose pregnancy was failing, threatening infection that could jeopardize her ability to have future children and perhaps her life. Distraught, she and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy--only to learn the Catholic hospital would not perform the procedure.
A few years later, New Hampshire waitress Kathleen Prieskorn went to her doctor's office after a miscarriage—her second—began while she was three months pregnant. She quickly learned that her emergency was not one for which treatment would be available from her hospital's new operators:
Physicians at the hospital, which had recently merged with a Catholic health care system, told her they could not end the miscarriage with a uterine evacuation--the standard procedure--because the fetus still had a heartbeat. She had no insurance and no way to get to another hospital, so a doctor gave her $400 and put her in a cab to the closest available hospital, about 80 miles away. "During that trip, which seemed endless, I was not only devastated but terrified," Prieskorn told Ms. "I knew that, if there were complications, I could lose my uterus--and maybe even my life."
Perhaps the most notorious case, as both the New York Times and the New Republic reported, involved Catholic Health West and one its hospitals in Phoenix, Arizona. A 27-year old woman, 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from "right heart failure" came to St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center. What happened next may be a frightening omen of things to come:
Physicians concluded that, if she continued with the pregnancy, her chances of mortality were "close to 100 percent." An administrator, Sister Margaret McBride, approved an abortion, citing a church directive allowing termination when the mother's life is at risk. Afterward, however, the local bishop, Thomas Olmsted, said the abortion had not been absolutely necessary. He excommunicated the nun and severed ties with the hospital, although the nun subsequently won reinstatement when she agreed to confess her sin to a priest.
Imagine instead the reaction of Tony Perkins, Cardinal Timothy Dolan or Rick Santorum if an emergency room physician, previously a victim of clergy sex abuse, refused to assist a Catholic priest stricken by a heart attack.

Thanks to the conservative logic in the Hobby Lobby and Town of Greece cases, our right-wing parade of horribles doesn't have to stop there. What if a Muslim doctor said no to saving the gunshot victim whose T-shirt read, "Judea and Samaria Belong to Israel?"  What would Michele Bachmann or Pamela Gellar say about the Muslim gas station owner who refused to serve those who endorsed the arson at his Murfreesboro, Tennessee mosque? Or, what about when the city council of Dearborn, Michigan, invites an area imam to join the list of local clergy delivering its opening prayer?

On this there is no need to speculate. Many of the same voices who vociferously opposed the planned mosque in lower Manhattan (which John Cornyn proclaimed, "not about freedom of religion") have been slandering Dearborn for years.

Bordering Detroit, that city of 97,000 residents has had a large and prominent Arab American population for a century. But in the wake of September 11, 2001, many of those cheering for a Hobby Lobby victory now quickly made Dearborn the place "where Americans come to hate Muslims." Whether it is Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones, incendiary blogger Debbie Schlussel, the California-based Bible Believers or RenewAmerica, Daniel Denvir explained two years ago:

Dearborn is a must-visit location on 21st-century America's newly established anti-Muslim protest circuit.
Coming to fight in their imaginary battle against Sharia law, the Bible Believers protest the city's annual Arab International Festival. Last year, the Christian missionaries brought a pig's head and signs insulting Islam's prophet. The 2014 event over Father's Day weekend was cancelled.

Cancelled, that is, like the freedoms of speech and religion that the champions of Hobby Lobby claim to defend. This month, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal confused aggressor and defender at the recent Faith and Freedom Coalition conference when he warned there was a "silent war" on religious liberty being fought in the U.S.:

"I am tired of the left. They say they're for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them," he said. "The left is trying to silence us and I'm tired of it, I won't take it anymore."
But the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion don't include a right not to be offended. As the Hindu-turned-Catholic Jindal well knows, religious views like any other must compete in the "marketplace of ideas." (When a majority of Americans believe Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson is wrong, that doesn't mean he's been wronged.) And when one group of Americans demands the government replace the religious beliefs of others with its own, religious freedom is not protected but threatened. Jefferson's wall separating church and state doesn't just protect government from religion; it also protects religion from government. That's why it was so appalling to hear Rick Santorum complain he "almost threw up" when he read John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Southern ministers. And it's also why, before he too became a religious freedom fraud, Santorum's fellow Catholic Antonin Scalia was right when he declared of the Native American plaintiffs defending their use of peyote from government sanction:
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.
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

    •  I have been told by a "Christian" that no, (14+ / 0-)

      There is no right called "freedom from" religion.  That they have the right to proselytize and evangelize at any time and any length in the public domain, no matter how much stress it inflicts on those who have been religiously traumatized,  brutalized.  Or maybe we just find it disgusting and ignorant and a sound/sight pollutant.

      Yes, it would parallel Nazis in a Jewish neighborhood or KKK in a black one.  All those abusers have the freedom to beat us over the head in public and to avoid it, we must keep indoors and out of earshot.  Some freedom this is.  I can see a greater parallel in the argument against "fire" in a crowded theater.

      It is our hearing and minds that are being assaulted.  It seems it is the same as physical and, to many, it is every bit as painful.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by cowdab on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:30:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re Abortion Clinic Protestors: An Answer (5+ / 0-)

        Re the abortion clinic protestors SCOTUS has just given license to harass us--I think I have an answer. Its based on the very grounds you cite: that we ought to be able to be free from hearing what someone spouts, just because they spout it in public.

        My idea is that some intelligent pro-choice organization should hand out noise-canceling headphones to anyone coming in an abortion clinic.

        Problem partially solved.

        •  Or… (9+ / 0-)

          they could bring out a big boombox and play some encouraging and woman-affirming music full blast.

        •  Or the could hand out... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hnichols, G2geek

          MACE.

        •  There is no such right when you are in (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yosef 52, ccyd, DAISHI, raynmakr, VClib, Skippah

          a public forum.  

          that we ought to be able to be free from hearing what someone spouts, just because they spout it in public.
          There are certain areas, like public sidewalks, the public square, etc., that for over a century have been considered a "traditional public forum" where we, as citizens in a country with a First Amendment right, cannot expect the government to shield us from speech we do not like.  

          In a public forum like that, people have a First Amendment right to walk up to you and say something to you, even if it's something you find offensive.  That principle is why the Westboro Baptist Church stays on public sidewalks.  

          The McCullen case did not invalidate buffer zones.  It said this particular law, which prevented Ms. McCullen from walking up to someone on a public sidewalk and saying something to that person, was too broad.  That's ALL the case said.  

          •  So isn't the forecourt to the Supreme Court (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, Skippah, StrayCat

            public property? If so, why is it constitutional to prohibit protests there?

            •  Not the same thing. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, Skippah

              "Public property" is not the same thing as a "public forum."  Read the link in my comment above.  A "public forum" is a place where people traditionally are expected to have the most right of free speech.  It's places like "the public square," parks, public sidewalks -- places people traditionally pass out leaflets, try to persuade others of views, that kind of thing.

              Public property is simply property owned by a government entity.  That does NOT mean that we all have access to it whenever we want to use it however we want.  Think of it this way -- the White House is public property, but you can't go on the White House driveway passing out leaflets.  That's because, while the White House is public property, it's not a "public forum" under First Amendment law.  Same for most courts, for the FBI building, the State Department,  etc.  All are public property.  None are considered a public forum. But you generally CAN go on a public sidewalk and pass out leaflets.  That's  because it's both public property and a public forum.  

              The Supreme Court issue was discussed in United States v. Grace, in 1983.

        •  Somebody is trying to provoke civil disobedience (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Old Sailor

          Think very carefully about the constant Supreme court decisions and provocative Legislation that have come down the tubes in just the last two years. Most from Conservative Republican controlled areas of the government.

          Somebody is intentionally trying to provoke conflict. Too what ends is anyones guess.  If this was going on with Egypt and the the CIA , every one here would be screaming from the roof tops.

          Somebody may be hoping for marital law....  

      •  Not just the public domain (7+ / 0-)

        They will do so in the workplace as well.

        I have worked for these people and know from experience.

        •  That's for sure, in the workplace. (6+ / 0-)

          That would be a hostile work environment but.... in a bible belt town you would only be labeled; and the air would be very thick in a work environment like this.  
          I know of a good Christian man who contracted to an area like that for 18 months.  Says they were the longest of his life, putting up with that shit and hearing Lumbo on the radio all day at work.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by cowdab on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:27:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Kkk has a right to go door to door, or March (0+ / 0-)

        In a black neighborhood, and however outrageous such conduct would be from a civilized point of view, such right must be protected.  Any step beyond speech into threatening action of course must be prosecuted.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:32:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That Phrase Has Been Popping Up in RW LTE's and (18+ / 0-)

      other messaging "the Constitution doesn't guarantee a freedom from religion" -- for nearly 40 years in my experience.

      I have to wonder if it was in the first messaging advice put out by the Heritage Foundation, or maybe has Vatican origins.

      "but no religious test shall ever be required" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" are the 2 freedoms from religion found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights respectively, before any freedom OF religion is mentioned.

      But lying about the Constitution is an essential part of a healthy rightwing message.

      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 Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If only that were the case... (0+ / 0-)
    •  rocksout - I don't think you will find that phrase (0+ / 0-)

      "freedom from religion" in the Constitution.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:52:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Freedom FROM a government-sponsored... (11+ / 0-)

      ... religion imposed on a populace, as was done in England in the religious wars after James I, then his heirs, came to the throne, although it had started when Henry VIII made himself head of the Church in England so he could be the final authority to get himself divorced from Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Boleyn (she was pregnant with Elizabeth by then, so he was working with a time crunch in order to have legitimate [male] heirs; he had two illegitimate sons, and one was by Anne's sister Mary Boleyn).  Neither son lived long enough to produce children, his one legitimate son by Jane Seymour died of tuberculosis as a teenager, and the Tudor line daughtered out.  At one point there were something like seven females eligible to become queens of England, and no males.

      English history is disgustingly boring after 24 March 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I died.  All those religious wars are tedious to read about.

      In the five years before Queen Elizabeth I took the throne, her half-sister, Mary I, aka Bloody Mary, had more people tortured, put to death, and burned at the stake in Smithfield trying to re-impose Catholicism on England than Queen Elizabeth I had executed for ANY reason during her 45-year reign.  Elizabeth "did not want to peer into men's souls" and kept the protestant version of religion her father, Henry VIII started when he named himself head of the Church in England in order to divorce Catherine of Aragon (Mary I's mother) so he could marry Anne Boleyn (Elizabeth's mother).  'Only' two of Henry's six wives were beheaded; Catherine Howard was Anne Boleyn's first cousin.

      Queen Elizabeth I's heir, James I of England (James VI of Scotland) is the one who had the Bible translated into English (still known as the King James Version).

      After James and his heirs became rulers in England , it turned into a hotbed of various religious "leaders" who wanted their version of religion imposed on the population by government and/or royal decree..., and that is what prompted the Separatists (my ancestors among them) to move to Leiden, Holland, then take the Mayflower & Speedwell to the new land; they had to turn back and leave the Speedwell in Plymouth, England when she began taking on water, and only the Mayflower landed at Plymouth, MA.  A decade later, "The Great Migration" started and became known as the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  In 1630 the Winthrop Fleet began bringing Puritans over (a few more of my ancestors came on some of those ships).  Quite a few of the individuals with the Great Migration were the strict Puritans who did the same things to their people and communities that had prompted them to leave England: they imposed their version of religion upon their communities and tried to enforce it by local government decree.

      That is the very, very brief overview of early New England history with all kinds of other juicy details left out.  Between elementary and high school history, then fifty+ years of genealogy research and finding out my own ancestors played some roles in their communities, one finds out what some of the issues were during that time.  None of it is what the teahadists and reichwing nut jobs say it was if one reads texts of books authored by people who lived there then.

      This, then, is part of what was "recent history" for the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights..., and to avoid the religious strife of a government-imposed religion..., we have the First Amendment's freedom OF and freedom FROM religion wrapped up in very few words.

      Amendment I

      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.

      [My bold.]

      HOWEVER, the [unconstitutional and illegal] 'office of faith-based initiatives' created by Dumbya and signed into law by one of his first executive orders after he was appointed by SCOTUS to his first term to please the reichwingnuts who got him elected... COULD, conceivably, be considered a foot in the door to introduce a government-imposed religion.  The office desperately needs de-funding and disbanding.  Certainly, their influence in writing misogynistic and anti-abortion legislation that the Cretinous Congress Critters could be coerced into voting for (if not bribed by 'campaign contributions' from our taxpayer dollars and figured into the budget for the office is problematic..., and quite likely the foot in the door to mandatory religion being forced on us could turn into a body slam that crashes the door down and swiftly becomes another executive order that outright imposes religion on people by executive order.

      As I said, this office desperately needs to be de-funded and disbanded!  As a life-long student of history, the cognitive dissonance screams bloody hell that this office is dangerous to all of us - most especially women...!

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:38:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you want to play in public economy, supported (38+ / 0-)

    by public infrastructure, public safety nets, the currency system, consumer protection, contract law . . . ad infinitum . . . you play by the rules of the public economy.

    You don't get to pick and choose.

    You choose to play or not.  That's your choice.  But once you've chosen to play, the rules apply.

    IMO.

    "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

    by Rikon Snow on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:38:52 AM PDT

    •  Some religious sects live in their own communities (20+ / 0-)

      and play by their religious rules but they do not try to bother  me or change our laws so they can be part of the greater economy, they ride buggies, they don't have phones...

      if hobby lobby wants to be in business with Mamon, they have a choice to make, not me

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

      by merrywidow on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:01:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sounds like we need to go back to 1981 (18+ / 0-)

      At the beginning of the Reagan era, not coincidentally.  

      When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice," the Court's unanimous opinion said, "the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity.
      Deviating from that clear, common-sense ruling in US v. Lee is what has gotten us into this mess.  A sensible ruling would be to strike down RFRA where it does not comport with this earlier SCOTUS ruling.  That won't happen, of course, since stare decisis is one of those rules conservatives only honor when it is to their advantage.

      I guess we need to start demanding that RFRA be amended to comport with that earlier ruling.  If SCOTUS bases its decision on the law, and not the Constitution, it's time to change the law.

      I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

      by Dallasdoc on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:28:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's the basis for that statement? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, Rikon Snow, raynmakr, VClib

      The free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless you are in a commercial setting, where Congress can prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs."  

      There clearly have been instances where a religious belief has to fall to the law.  But there's never been some kind of principle that people do not have the right to the free exercise of religion in commercial settings.  In fact, labor laws actually PROTECT the free exercise of religious beliefs in commercial settings.  The law requires a "reasonable accommodation" of the free exercise of religious beliefs in the workplace.

      This comment is just wrong, it seems to me.  

      •  I don't know. Not being libertarian perhaps? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, Old Sailor, G2geek

        Not thinking that a corporation (privately or publically held) constituted under the laws of a society or not, perhaps, slightly SUBJECT to those laws?

        I am not a lawyer.  
        I'm a citizen.

        "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

        by Rikon Snow on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 11:09:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The First Amendment is not a right of people (6+ / 0-)

          It's a limit on the power of government.  It begins "Congress shall make no law . . . ."  

          There's nothing in the First Amendment to say that Congress CAN abridge speech, or limit the free exercise of religion, in certain settings.  

          If Congress decided that it did not like Muslim beliefs, it could not pass a law that outlawed stores selling Muslim religious material.  That would be patently unconstitutional -- even though it's a commercial setting.  That's because there's no rational basis for that OTHER THAN trying to say "we don't approve of this religious belief."  Government absolutely positively cannot use law as a way of expressing disapproval of, or trying to inhibit, a religious belief.    Even in a commercial setting, Government cannot pass laws that have a primary purpose, or a primary effect, of burdening a religious belief.  That's the whole POINT of the First Amendment.  

          When Congress passes a law for another purpose, and it has an effect -- not necessarily intended -- of burdening a religious belief, that's when there's a question about its constitutionality.

          Remember, the Civil Rights laws were found constitutional despite -- not because of -- the fact that they had a moral basis.  A moral basis ALONE probably would have been insufficient to make those laws constitutional as they applied to privately-owned business.  What made those laws constitutional is that Congress had a lot of evidence that African Americans could not participate equally in commerce and the Civil Rights laws were intended to remedy that.  

          We all have a constitutional right to our religious views -- even when we venture out into the public -- even if other people find those religious views abhorrent.  

          •  Thanks. I appreciate the insight. (NT) (0+ / 0-)

            "The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”" -- Paul Dirac

            by Rikon Snow on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 12:50:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  discriminatory effect. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JG in MD

            The civil rights laws and established case law prohibit religious discrimination in employment and public accommodations.

            For a business corporation to declare a religious identity, is equivalent to expressing a hiring preference for people of the same religious identity vs. those of differing religious identities.  Even if there is not an obvious "discriminatory intent," there will be a "discriminatory effect," which is sufficient to meet the test for discrimination.

            We got the future back. Uh-oh.

            by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:08:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We have a right to our view, but not the right (0+ / 0-)

            to require them to be observed by others.  If an employer believes in witchcraft, and believes that people of a height less than five feet are witches and refuses to hire them, does that religious belief justify a clear discrimination that would be improper by any other employer?

            Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

            by StrayCat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:47:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Hobby Lobby case isn't about freedom of speech (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rikon Snow, G2geek, StrayCat

        IANAL, but as far as I can tell, it's about whether an employer's religious beliefs can be imposed on their employees.

        •  Oops, sorry, I responded too quickly... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rikon Snow, StrayCat

          I see you're not arguing about freedom of speech; but I still don't see how an employer's right to practice their religion allows them to impose those rights on their employees.

          •  Nobody is arguing that Hobby Lobby (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            imposes their religion on their employees.  Not paying for four types of contraception does not impose the employer's religion on their employees.  The employees are free to get those four types of contraception on their own.  

            And if you want proof of that, read the briefs that the opponents of Hobby Lobby submitted to the Court.   There is no argument that this is "imposing the employer's religious beliefs on the employee.  That's because an employer refusing to buy something for an employee (Hobby Lobby is self-insured) is not legally the same thing as "imposing their religious beliefs" on the employee if the employee can take her salary and buy it herself.

            Scotusblog, which is probably the best site to explain and provide information about Supreme Court cases, does a good job of defining the issue before the Court:  

            Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.
            •   Jewish shopping mall owners should ban Gentiles (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, Tonedevil, StrayCat, Old Sailor

              they are considered un-clean heathens  LOL

            •  not even wrong. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, StrayCat, Old Sailor

              An employee who suffers a job injury and gets taken to the ER, only to discover that his/her employer's health policy does not cover blood transfusions, is hardly "free" to get that type of coverage "on his/her own."

              Make no mistake, if HL wins this one, that's where we're headed.

              And "s/he should have read the policy first" is no excuse, particularly in a high unemployment economy where "I need to take these things home and read them first" is a guaranteed ticket to losing a job offer.

              We got the future back. Uh-oh.

              by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:15:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  G2 - you know that on the job injuries are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek

                covered under Workman's Compensation, not by the employers standard healthcare plan for employees. Even employees who are injured on the job in companies who offer no health insurance are covered.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:55:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  watch what happens to Workman's Comp. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  StrayCat, Old Sailor

                  If companies can't get religious exemptions to Workman's Comp, they have no ground to argue for religious exemptions to ACA.

                  But if companies can and do get religious exemptions to ACA, then on what grounds could anyone deny them religious exemptions to Workman's Comp?

                  Never underestimate "unintended" consequences;-)

                  We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                  by G2geek on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:23:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The initial care, even in workers comp cases (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Old Sailor

                  is often covered by an employees health insurance until the issue of work relatedness, etc. is sorted out.  So going to an emergency room could very well leave a person without care, and thus without the right to life based on a corporations claimed religious beliefs.

                  Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                  by StrayCat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:54:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  So, there is a financial burden imposed upon (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Old Sailor

              employees depending on their religious beliefs, and the practice thereof.  The fact is, the insurance company providing the medical coverage is not the employer.  In addition too, also, a corporation cannot, by definition have a religion.

              Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

              by StrayCat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:51:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Well, as an employee with a religious basis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        that allows abortion in certain circumstances, it would mean that Hobby Lobby would have to make reasonable accommodation for my choice.  That would mean insurance coverage.  And would an employee have such a procedure, would Hobby Lobby be justified in denying post surgical leave granted to employees after an appendectomy?

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:43:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rikon Snow - this is about public rules (0+ / 0-)

      Hobby Lobby isn't a constitutional case, it's about the interpretation of legislation passed by a nearly unanimous House and Senate, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:00:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, the specific legislation in the ACA, passed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        after the general rule in the protection of religious liberty act carves out the subject of health insurance from the general rule.  Basic rules of construction and rules of statutory application of general versus specific statutory provisions.  Are you a lawyer?

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:58:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Whining about "religious freedom" = bullying (18+ / 0-)

    All this shit is about FORCING their superstitious belief system on us.

    I should go to their home and force-feed them powerful pot brownies and complain they are offending my sensibilities by resisting and saying stupid shit about pot.

    And then, really, they should be [redacted] until they cry real tears.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:41:29 AM PDT

    •  oooh... if companies gain a right to insist on... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StrayCat, Old Sailor

      ... religious observances at work (the logical implication of an adverse decision in HL), then could a Rastafarian-owned business in Colorado insist on a right to require its employees to eat those brownies...?

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:17:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a major scandal, not Benghazi or the IRS. (34+ / 0-)

    That because of religious beliefs certain groups can hold the rest of us hostage and indeed threaten our very life. If Hobby Lobby is successful I can see blood transfusions, vaccinations or any other proven medical procedure, that some religious splinter group disapproved of, being fair game for claims of why they cannot provide insurance and perhaps even terminate employment. Barry Lynn is exactly right. Hobby Lobby is a PUBLIC company, not a church (come to think of it the way they worship money they may be a religion after all.)

    And by the way, if the owners of Hobby Lobby are so damned Christian, why are they selling goods made in godless Communist China, a country that not only allows, but requires abortions, or at least used to only a short time ago, and I don't think that the company just started selling Chinese goods yesterday.

    Hypocrite can be spelled "Hobby Lobby."

  •  Hmmmm (22+ / 0-)
    "I am tired of the right. They say they're for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They pretend to respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them," he said. "The right is trying to silence us and I'm tired of it, I won't take it anymore."
    Plus they are fucking liars.

    They believe in lying, they have pursed court cases to protect lying.

    They do not have appropriate fear.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:46:08 AM PDT

    •  while we sit around analyzing their hypocrisies... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JG in MD, Old Sailor

      .... they are proceeding down the road, un-hindered, toward their underlying goal which is POWER without limits.

      The overt hypocrisies are just doggie-treats tossed in our direction to distract us while the Oligarchy's grasping at power moves on to its next step.

      There are no "principles" on their side.  It's all about the POWER.

      The sooner we recognize this and fight it as what it is, the better.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:23:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dear Super-Religious wingnuts looking in on this (21+ / 0-)

    Fuck you.

    Shut the fuck up and leave me the fuck alone.

    I am never believing your horseshit.

    I am never going to your lame-ass church.

    I cannot waste my days cowering about some fucking superstition from a primitive tribe.

    Life is just too short to be wasted on your shit.

    [I have other thoughts that I can't post here. Try to imagine what they might be]

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:49:29 AM PDT

  •  We do have one good thing in all this. (10+ / 0-)

    If Hobby Lobby goes against us, we don't have to amend the Constitution to undo it. We simply have to repeal RFRA and as DADT showed that can be done.

    •  Repeal would unlikely get support of majority of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, raynmakr

      Democrats in Congress.  Voting to repeal would be seen or portrayed as anti-religion and anti-Christian. Such support and votes would be seen as likely very risky politically.

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

      by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:06:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It wouldn't be risky if the backlash (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DRo, G2geek

        is as bad as I think it will be. I do not think people will like the idea of being at the mercy of their employer's religious beliefs.

        •  If SCOTUS rules in favor of HL, very few employees (5+ / 0-)

          will see any impact, and those that do will see very little.

          The only employers effected will be those with more than 50 employees, that are privately owned by a very small number of people, who are also highly religious and also believe that some types of contraceptives are immoral, who also decide to have employee health coverage reflect this belief.  I would be shocked if this would impact even 1% of employees.

          For the employees effected, we are talking about $10/mo in a copay for otherwise uncovered contraception, if the employee decided not to switch the type of contraception, partially offset by a lower insurance premium.

          While some on the right and left will portray this as a big decision in terms of constitutional rights, the actual impact on people lives will be very small.  

          In parts of the country where people are not very religious, and voters solidly voting for Democrats, a Democrat could safely vote to repeal.  Otherwise, trying to get that vote would be a bridge to far.

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

          by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:21:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This ^^^^^^^^ (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, nextstep, raynmakr

            I think this diary is really overblown.  I suspect that this will be decided on very narrow grounds -- RFRA -- and only apply to closely-held corporations.  And I think the impact will be far less dramatic than some here think it will be.

          •  Complete nonsense. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Old Sailor, raynmakr, G2geek

            If Hobby Lobby wins this case, Goldman Sachs will rewrite it corporate mission statement to express its "religious" view that paying taxes and complying with SEC and Federal banking regulations violates its "freedom of religion". Soon every corporation in America will become a "means to express the sincerely held religious beliefs" of its directors, officers and shareholders. A Hobby Lobby win is the door to complete civil chaos.

            •  You neglect to put /snark on your comment. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, VClib

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

              by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 11:29:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  canoebum - what is complete nonsense is your (0+ / 0-)

              comment. Goldman Sachs has no interest in having a religious "mission" unless it's the God of Cash. A Hobby Lobby win will hardly be noticed.

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 04:02:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  an HL win will lead to... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Old Sailor

                ... organized shareholder groups seeking to get publicly-traded corporations to declare religious affiliations, and using boycotts and shareholder resolutions and lawsuits toward that end.  This will become a huge stinkypoo for Boards and managements to deal with.  Even if those protests fail, they will still waste time and money.

                Mark my words, if HL wins, you will see this within a decade.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:33:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  This closely held corporation stuff is nonsense. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Old Sailor, Tonedevil, Ahianne, G2geek

            It has no basis in law. A corporation is a corporation period. Who owns the stock is immaterial. So if Hobby Lobby has religion then so does GM.

          •  I can't agree (8+ / 0-)

            Many of the women who would be affected can't afford a co-pay and most prescription co-pays are much, much more than $10 (my own is $30 per prescription with lots of drugs not covered at all).  

            Even if it is only $10, that money can put a meal on the table for a minimum wage worker leaving her to decide (again) between food for her kids and unplanned pregnancy.

            The bigger problem, however, is that if religious exclusions ARE allowed, no prescription for contraceptives will be covered at all.  And maybe even the visit to the gynecologist to get that prescription won't be covered either.  That leaves the woman to pay for the entire cost herself (and they're not cheap).

            It's easy to talk about how "cheap" things are when we don't walk in the shoes of a minimum wage worker.

            There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

            by Puddytat on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 12:10:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not discussing preferences in outcomes. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chrisculpepper, raynmakr, VClib

              The number of women who will see a change from a ruling that favors HL will likely be less than 1% of the workforce.  That makes a major political uprising in the population highly unlikely.

              There has been no uprising over the tens of millions of employees who get no employer paid health insurance under ACA because the employer has 50 or fewer employees, or the employee works less than 30 hours/week. They get $0 of employer paid heathcare even for life threatening disease such as cancer.  

              There is no comparison with the above without employer paid heathcare and those who have ACA coverage with extensive coverage, but need to pay a copay for some types of birth control.  

              A person with ACA coverage with cancer is expected to pay the copay for cancer drugs, but the heathy woman needing to make a copay for contraception is the more pressing issu?.  Getting outrage over the contraceptive copay will be difficult.

              My personal view on contraceptives is that a wide range of such products should be free to all, including the uninsured, even visitors to the US, paid by the Federal government out of general revenues.  The government should purchase from manufacturers, and allow clinics, schools, hospitals, drug stores, grocery stores, etc.  to distribute at no charge to the population.  Such a policy would even decrease government spending over time.

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

              by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 01:31:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're male (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil, Old Sailor

                Amiright?

                There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

                by Puddytat on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 01:41:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  what's 1%....? (0+ / 0-)

                It's a number of religious minorities in most of the US: Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and atheists and agnostics for whom "freedom of religion" means freedom to believe in the nonexistence of deities.

                Which other 1% of the workforce do you want to tell to go fuck off?  "No Jews Need Apply" affects less than 1% in many places.  Are you so sure you want to go there?

                As for contraception being no big deal, have you ever given birth?  Hint: try pooping out a small watermelon and tell us it doesn't hurt.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:41:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please read the last paragraph in my comment (0+ / 0-)

                  Based upon your comment you either never read it, or don't -understand the difference between the analysis of politics with what one personally advocates, or what I think is very unlikely - that you have no regard for employees who have no employer paid coverage, or no regard for those with cancer.

                  That last paragraph in my comment you replied to advocates coverage far beyond what the ACA covers with or without HL.

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

                  by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:41:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  According to the ACLU (0+ / 0-)
            Approximately 60.4 million people are employed by “closely held” corporations in the United States. We have no idea how many companies will take advantage of the Hobby Lobby ruling, but we hope it will not be many.
            A little math says:

             At 243,284,000 working age adults in US (2012 estimate: source) that brings it to about 24.8%. My guess would be the majority of these corporations won't follow suite - but I've been known to be wrong on more than one occasion.

            It would be better not to know so many things than to know so many things that are not so. - Felix Okaye

            by eclecticguy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:03:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  KB - It will be hard to find a real backlash (0+ / 0-)

          because so few companies, and employees, will be affected.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 04:04:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How about an amendment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raynmakr

        to exempt corporations, other than those that have a specific religious intent? (I'm thinking of book publishers that only print religious works, like Bibles, study guides/commentaries, hymnals and the like.) I think that could possibly fly with both Democrats and less wing nutty Republicans (what few are left).

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

        by Cali Scribe on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:20:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That does not address the issue before the court, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yonit, coffeetalk, VClib

          religious owners of a closely held private company, not being compelled to pay for what they believe is immoral.

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

          by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:35:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are not being compelled to do anything. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Old Sailor, raynmakr, G2geek

            THEY chose to go into business. If they don't like what is required to operate a business in a SECULAR country, they can sell off its assets and retire comfortably to their own little island. They are not threatened with government action for not operating a business. It's their choice to do business, just like their religious beliefs are a choice. No one is demanding they believe in tales told to frighten Bronze Age sheepherders in the Sinai.

            •  The first amendment gives religions rights (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, VClib

              to individuals and religious organizations in an otherwise secular government.

              I am apothistic, but I also understand the constitution.

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

              by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 11:40:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Constitution does not exclude (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nextstep, VClib

              business settings from the reach of the free exercise clause.

              Nothing in the Constitution says that the free exercise clause does not apply when you choose to go into business.  

              •  And if if Hobby Lobby was (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Old Sailor, raynmakr

                actually owned directly by the Greene's this wouldn't be an issue but they chose to incorporate. Which protects them but also reduces their control. That is supposed to be the how it works.

                •  Not exactly. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, nextstep, KBS666, raynmakr

                  It's not simply the fact of incorporation.  The Administration has recognized that non-profit corporations may be entitled to religious waivers.  The issue is that Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation.  Should a for-profit corporation be treated differently under RFRA than a non-profit corporation, and what's the basis in the statute for that?

                  The question is whether, when Congress passed RFRA, Congress intended that the protections in that statue would extend to people operating in a closely-held for-profit corporation.  That's an interpretation of that particular statute.  

                  •  there is no distinction in law between (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Old Sailor, G2geek

                    closely held corporations and other for profit corporations so if Hobby Lobby has religion then so does GM which is obviously absurd.

                    •  Sure there are distinctions in law (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib, nextstep

                      There are different tax ramifications, for example.  And there are differences in SEC regulation.  There are lots of laws that apply differently for a closely held corporation and a publicly traded corporation.  

                      The SCOTUS could point to some of those differences if it decided that its decision applied only to closely held corporations.  In fact, I strongly suspect that if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, that's exactly what it will do, so that a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby won't apply to GM.  They may say that the ruling won't apply to publicly traded corporations, or they may simply say the ruling only applies to closely held corporations of this type, leaving the "GM" issue for another day.  

                    •  KBS666 - there are significant differences (0+ / 0-)

                      between public companies, traded on a major exchange, and private closely held companies. If Hobby Lobby wins, which I doubt, it will be for private closely held companies only. The Chief Justice gave a hint of that at oral argument.

                      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                      by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 03:57:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  disingenuous arguement. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Old Sailor

                1st Amendment arguements were also used to justify racial and religious discrimination in employment and public accommodations.

                Fail.

                We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:46:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Setting minimum standards for earned benefits is a (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raynmakr, G2geek

            reasonably compelling state interest.

            I'd also note that the fact that the pre-ACA insurance that HL offered to its employees provided birth control coverage is pretty good evidence that HL's claims of religious motive are disingenuous.

            Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

            by krow10 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 11:55:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  HL's suit is over not offering 3 of the 20 means (0+ / 0-)

              of birth control under ACA regulations, HL is not objecting to 17 of them.  HL has not proposed no birth control coverage.

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

              by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:54:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  no, because... (0+ / 0-)

          Never pre-emptively compromise with those whose only goal is power.  Giving in to them at all allows them to further their agenda, by smaller steps but none the less.  

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:43:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are 10x more secularists than all Jews &... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cowdab, Ahianne, G2geek

        ... Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. in this country. Numbers approaching 20% of the population. And that's not counting all the religious who support the wall of separation. Against a total of 50% of all Americans who vote?

        It's a huge untapped block of voters simply because we don't advertise support for politicians who might tap it. Certain parts of the country could become bulletproof against religious favoritism with that support made obvious and with a few politicians willing to act as catalysts.

    •  KB - I don't think a majority of Democrats (0+ / 0-)

      in Congress would vote to repeal RFRA, even with a Hobby Lobby win at the SCOTUS. It would be a political nightmare, just before the midterms.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 04:07:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Popular with many. (0+ / 0-)

    Some of us are past the point of having, or otherwise unable to have children.  Before ACA, we could save a little money by buying insurance without that coverage.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

    •  *sigh* (29+ / 0-)

      And I could save money if my insurance didn't cover anything males need, or anything that I know I am not at risk for, but guess what? If we each have tailored insurance, the risk pools are all small and rates go up, not down.

      The best insurance covers us all for all medical needs. Trying to get an exemption for one set of things (pregnancy-related expenses) opens the door for everyone to pick and choose, and then we all lose.

      "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith

      by Urban Owl on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:58:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  under ACA, heath insurance not based on economics (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, DRo, raynmakr

        of insurance.  It is more like a tax program with government defined benefits with subsidies across groups.  Examples of cross subsidies include the young subsidizing the old, males subsidizing females.  This is not a criticism of ACA, this is how ACA was intentionally designed.  What were once health insurance companies play a role in ACA for political and historic reason, and they are still called insurance companies, even though they no longer operate as economics understands insurance.

        Under the economics of true insurance what a person pays is based upon what the average expected cost of the benefits for that person will be where some factors are known about that person in advance of they buying insurance.  Under real insurance, if a person decided not to get a type of coverage, no other customer is effected by that decision, because there are no cross subsidies.

        When ACA is discussed and what people pay and what benefits they get is discussed, we should say that what a person pays and what benefits they get is not based upon the principles of insurance but of a tax and social benefit program.  So yes, people will see the many ways how ACA does not work like insurance.

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

        by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, the ACA fixed a lot of problems. n/t (4+ / 0-)

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

      by Back In Blue on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:08:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dinotrac, how much could I save by dropping (20+ / 0-)

      my coverage of sickle cell anemia? Or of ovarian cancer? Suppose I drop my coverage of geriatric problems. Can I reinstate it at a later date?

      When you carve out exceptions, two things occur. First, you increase overall costs, as Urban Owl points out. Second you give the insurance company cover for denying coverage under some vague pretext.  

      If everybody is covered for everything, there is just one risk pool: human beings. No arguments about what is covered and what is not.

      Primo pro nummata vini [First of all it is to the wine-merchant] (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:18:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't know, but, once upon a time, you could (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TerryDarc

        indeed carve out certain exceptions. You can do the same thing with auto insurance -- decline collission, decline uninsured motorist protection.

        ACA has changed that for health insurance.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:35:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  corporations are people... (6+ / 0-)
        Second you give the insurance company cover for denying coverage under some vague pretext.  
        The day may well arrive when Mr./Ms. Insurance Company Executive says that pre-existing conditions are "God's Will" and, thus, it is against the company's religious belief to cover them.  

        This Supreme Court/Mitt Romney pretense that corporations are people, with human rights, thoughts and emotions grows more preposterous, by application, day after day after day.  

        •  They're not. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raynmakr

          And the Court hasn't exactly said that. (And, contrary to net legend, it didn't say that in Citizens United, either).

          The Hobby Lobby ruling will be interesting -- especially in terms of any comparisons to Citizens United.

          Will they:

          a) rule against Hobby Lobby?

          Seems like the most likely outcome, but you never know.

          b) rule in some strange way for Hobby Lobby that requires the disputed insurance to be made available for Hobby Lobby employees.

          That wouldn't be a first.  Picture this:  Yes, Hobby Lobby can't be forced to do this, but the law does require that their employees have this coverage. So, so long as their employees have it, Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide.  Good Luck, HL, on figuring out how you're going to pull that off.

          c) rule for Hobby Lobby, period.

          This could still be a slightly narrow decision.  Hobby Lobby is not publicly traded.  It is a large corporation, but it is a privately held one.

          Citizens United could come into play, especially in light of HL's status as a private corporation, if the Court decides to view the company as an association of individuals and apply the First Amendment accordingly (ie, associations of individuals are accorded the same First Amendment rights as individuals themselves -- not new to CU, btw).

          Will be fun.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:35:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Far be it from me to predict SCOTUS' decision (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac

            FSM knows one cannot make book on it, but it seems to me that even a die hard Tea Party conservative would give some thought to the doors that a decision for HL would open.

            We shall see shortly.

            Primo pro nummata vini [First of all it is to the wine-merchant] (-7.25, -6.21)

            by Tim DeLaney on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 12:27:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Are you saying ... (12+ / 0-)

      that under ACA you are being forced to pay higher rates for your insurance to cover children you do not have? How much per year?

      Is this like property tax, where your taxes go to support public education even if you don't have kids? Perhaps it is helpful to remember that you were a kid once and people without children were paying taxes for your schooling.

      Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

      by edg on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:29:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. I'm saying we're forced to pay more for (0+ / 0-)

        children we're not going to have.

        That's a damned disingenuous question, isn't it? Without the option, I have no idea what the savings would be.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:37:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So I get to demand a rebate on the cost of (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          La Gitane, DRo, raynmakr, G2geek

          Viagra prescriptions, testicular cancer, treatments for prostate disease, and any illness/injury related to alcohol abuse?  Cool!!!!!  I assume my check is in the mail.

          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

          by I love OCD on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:17:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two wrong points there... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raynmakr

            First, I don't get to demand such a rebate, why should you?
            Second, you're already getting a deal under ACA.  Without ACA, women's coverage would be more than men's. Under ACA, men subsidize the higher cost of women's health care.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:27:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And I fully support equalizing that burden, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              La Gitane, cowdab, raynmakr, G2geek

              after about 10 Centuries.  Or men could quit impregnating women resulting in a stunning drop in the cost of women's healthcare.  

              I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

              by I love OCD on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And that's fine. (0+ / 0-)

                As to not impregnating women, that's a specific part of women's healthcare that actually used to be declinable.  And -- women's care was still more expensive.

                Personally, I'm fine with men subsidizing women.  I think it helps take care of a potential discrimination against women in employment due to cost differentials.

                What I'd really like to see is an end to the cost kicker for older Americans.  Insurance companies are allowed to charge us 3 times what they charge you.  That's a big ouch.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:37:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Insurance isn't a panacea, but it beats the fuck (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dinotrac, Old Sailor, raynmakr, G2geek

                  out of being uninsured.  Ask my credit rating.  

                  I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                  by I love OCD on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:01:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes indeed. Especially these days when the whole (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    I love OCD

                    system is centered around insurance (and, believe me, I have engaged in many very violent rants on that topic --- big grrr.).

                    Next up: Rationalize the care itself?

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:25:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The care is a bigger issue for me (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dinotrac

                      than the insurance thing.  I'm about to go 100% naturopath.

                      I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                      by I love OCD on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 12:31:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  please don't. quackery is not the solution. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kfunk937, I love OCD

                        In most places, the certifications for naturopaths require them to have studied subject matter such as homeopathy and "energy healing," which are 100% quackery.

                        Really:  Naturopaths stay in business by pandering to emotions, not by preventing or curing real illnesses.  If/when you ever get seriously ill, you're going to end up choosing science-based medicine if you want to live.

                        We got the future back. Uh-oh.

                        by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:56:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  My last 4 prescriptions gave me, (0+ / 0-)

                          individually, a shut down digestive tract, joint pain that stopped me cold for 48 hours, extreme dizziness, no energy to even make coffee in the AM.  Energy healing/balancing cured PTSD that has kept me mentally ill and depressed for 49 years.  I'm not silly enough to not have stents put in blocked arteries, I'm also using alternate routes to reduce inflammation that appears to be the real culprit in artery disease.  It's a balance.  

                          I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                          by I love OCD on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:18:46 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  What a sexist moron you are. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              raynmakr

              Men don't subsidize the cost of women's care.  Instead risk is spread out among a larger group of people.  Sure, individually, women have a higher risk, but that is mostly because they can have babies.  You will note, men play a substantial role in this.  Letting men off the hook because they won some genetic lottery is stupid and indefensible.

      •  ACA is Insurance not Medical Care (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tobendaro, Naniboujou, Yonit, Ahianne

        When you pay your ACA premium you are not buying medical care, you are buying insurance.  And insurance savings occur when things are grouped.  It would be impossible to pick and choose what you want and don't want.  And who pays when something you chose not to buy is now the disease/disorder that is attacking your life.  And laws do regulate what you MUST include in your insurance.  Try opting out of uninsured motorist coverage in PA and see if you can get car insurance.  

    •  I don't think you can demonstrate... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      krow10, G2geek

      that this is true.  Costs of providing contraceptives is offset by costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth.

  •  The idea of a business (10+ / 0-)

    being able to force its "religious" beliefs on workers really just shows me that the people who think this is correct actually put money above any "religion".

    Not that this is any new revelation, but each passing day it gets demonstrated more and more clearly.

    •  They do not fear 'natural consequences' (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, tampaedski, Old Sailor, JeffW, G2geek

      If they did, I fully believe we would not be dealing with this.

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:58:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I went to Hobby Lobby (9+ / 0-)

      ...and I don't, but if I did I'd be going there to buy some crappy, stinky, Chinese made artificial flowers.  Not to have communion or hear the gospel and lesson of the day.  Would HL's religious belief also mean they'd have no penalty for not hiring any muslims, hindus, atheists, etc?  How far are we going to carry this "owners' religious belief in the commercial sector" before it turns into outright discrimination?  And aren't there some corrupted religious beliefs of individuals that still say blacks are genetically inferior?  This is truly a steep slippery slope if the supremes issue a 5/4 decision from the depths of their bowels in support of HL.

    •  It certainly means employers get more freedom (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor, Ahianne, G2geek

      than employees. Were Hobby Lobby's claims to be upheld, employers would get to exercise their religion, and, in addition, they get to put restrictions on their employees, based on those same religious beliefs (which the employees may not share). It would be "my company, my rules," even though the rules here don't have anything to do with the company's business.

  •  our corporate masters (22+ / 0-)

    As I understand it, the justices are going to decide whether the religious beliefs of corporate owners trump the laws of the land governing any number of issues, as long as corporate owners profess to some religious beliefs that run contrary to the laws.  We don't have that right as individuals; why should corporations?  I don't believe in the morality of the Iraq War.  My religion taught me murder was a mortal sin.  I cannot decide that since a portion of my taxes goes to pay the war debt, that I can withhold what I owe.  Insane!  Where on earth can they draw the line?  The wall that Jefferson drew between church and state is evaporating before our eyes, and the results are going to be a disaster!

  •  Jon Per, McCullen v. Coakley sentences should be (4+ / 0-)

    taken out of second paragraph.  This was not a religious freedom case, it was a freedom of speech case.

    While nearly all if not all of the protestors may oppose abortion for religious reasons,  both sides arguing the case did not argue freedom of religion as the basis of their arguments.  Nor did the SCOTUS judges base their ruling on religious freedom.

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

    by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:57:59 AM PDT

  •  actions have consequences (15+ / 0-)

    "The plaintiffs have argued the fine they will face for noncompliance with the mandate would be a substantial burden."

    So the argument is that if they do not comply with the law, the consequence (or punishment, if you will) is a burden. But isn't that the purpose of punishments for breaking the law, to be a burden so people don't break the law?

    If someone chooses to be "noncompliant" with the law aren't they also choosing to suffer the consequences of that action?  

    What's the difference between paying an employee their salary, and they consequently purchase plan B, and paying for the health coverage which could be used for the same thing? Either way, money directly from the employer goes to purchasing Plan B. So, next employers will demand to control how employees spend their salaries?

    •  Corporations are "People". (11+ / 0-)

      Technically, corporations are spoiled teenagers who want all the fun of being a grown-up with NONE of the actual responsibilities.

      No taxes.

      No responsibility for harming people or soiling the nest.

      Just money and fun and leave me alone while I fuck with you.

       

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:04:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmmm.... (10+ / 0-)
        Corporations are "People".
        Technically, corporations are spoiled teenagers who want all the fun of being a grown-up with NONE of the actual responsibilities.
        No taxes.
        No responsibility for harming people or soiling the nest.
        Just money and fun and leave me alone while I fuck with you.
        Sounds like the current 'R' party.
        Spoiled entitled teenagers running amuck with no responsibilities for any of their actions.
        It certainly was the motto of the last horrific 'R' mis-administration, especially the 'no responsibility' (ie. zero accountability) part.

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:22:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've heard people actually argue that! (13+ / 0-)

      As a public school teacher, I've heard people say "I don't want my tax dollars going to the teachers' union."  Well--their tax dollars don't go to the teachers' union.  Their tax dollars pay me to perform a public service.  I use some of my earned income to pay union dues to the teachers' union.  It amazes me to hear people make that argument--as if they have the right to control how I spend MY earned income.  You can bet they would do the same if the question was about purchasing plan B.  That's how fanatics think.

      “It is the job of the artist to think outside the boundaries of permissible thought and dare say things that no one else will say."—Howard Zinn

      by musiclady on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:35:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Church was the original fascist institution. (13+ / 0-)

    Either you are with us, or you're a witch.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:01:44 AM PDT

    •  Crypto-Fascist (4+ / 0-)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Crypto-fascism is a pejorative term for the secret support for, or admiration of, fascism. The common usage is "crypto-fascist", one who practices this support. The term is used to imply that an individual or group keeps this support or admiration hidden to avoid political persecution or political suicide.

      The term is largely credited to Gore Vidal. In a television interview during the chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Vidal described William F. Buckley, Jr. as a "crypto-Nazi", later correcting himself as meaning to say "crypto-fascist". However, the term had appeared five years earlier in a German language book by the sociologist Theodor W. Adorno, Der getreue Korrepetitor (The Faithful Répétiteur).[1]

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

      by JML9999 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:06:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh well.... (5+ / 0-)
      Either you are with us, or you're a witch.
      I guess I'm outed....cause I'm not with them.
      FWIW....they can believe anything they want privately, but it spins way outta control when they feel everyone has to abide by their private beliefs.  That opens up an endless can of very dangerous worms.

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:12:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Freedom to Do What? (6+ / 0-)

    It would be nice to challenge one of the freedumb fighters and ask what Freedom.

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

    by JML9999 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:04:41 AM PDT

  •  Ask the Rastafarians (15+ / 0-)

    If they have religious freedom. Ask the Native Americans just how recently their traditions were actively repressed in this country.

    This isn't about religion or freedom, it is about large cults trying to gain more political power. It is long past time to tax these cults and remove their influence from the political arena of America.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:09:10 AM PDT

  •  Of course they're frauds, but the system works for (6+ / 0-)

    them because they're evil white & rich. They're the people who created the lie that is the USA.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:10:36 AM PDT

  •  If you need the government to write laws.... (14+ / 0-)

    ....to help you enforce your religious tenets, you don't have much of a religion.

  •  Excellent article. The do as I say not as I do (8+ / 0-)

    RWNJs are just putting off the inevitable.  I really wish they'd all go and establish their own country based on what they think the laws should be for their citizenry and leave the rest of us alone.

    As you point out, Hobby Lobby has always provided this type of coverage.  Now that they are mandated to provide it, they object.  This goes beyond hypocrisy and lands them in the lunatic fringe.

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:20:27 AM PDT

  •  Cool! Corporations no longer have to pay taxes! (8+ / 0-)

    A corporation owned by Muslims will no longer be required to pay corporate income tax or collect personal income tax and payroll tax from employees. Under Islam, wealth is taxed rather than income, and wealth is taxed at 2.5% annually.

    I think I shall convert.

    Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

    by edg on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:22:18 AM PDT

  •  Right-wing "liberty" (15+ / 0-)

    is the freedom to dominate others without being dominated oneself. Never forget that.

    When you understand it this way, it becomes obvious how their "religious liberty" is under attack. And it's equally obvious that the attacks must not let up.

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:26:06 AM PDT

  •  Religion helped bring down the Roman Empire (7+ / 0-)

    and it looks as if it's going to bring down ours.

    I feel as if I'm living in a theocracy called The Republic of Gilead. Or something.

    Very fine diary, Jon!

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:31:12 AM PDT

  •  Jindal (7+ / 0-)

    "As the Hindu-turned-Catholic Jindal well knows, religious views like any other must compete in the "marketplace of ideas."

    --- Right, situated where he is, as though Jindal would have a political future as a non-Christian!  As far as I know, he converted with an eye to his political viability.

  •  I they want a country dedicated to fundamentalist (10+ / 0-)

    Christian values they can go explore the world for a place to settle, like abandoned oil rigs and start their beloved republic there. Religious freedom means you get to hold whatever religious views that you might want to espouse.
    Fine and dandy, I'm good with that.

    When you try to impose your beliefs, convictions, and code of conduct on another person in any way you are directly violating the religious liberty you so cherish for yourself. It becomes a case of my god is better than your god, Or my interpretation is superior to your interpretation of God's will therefore I'm right and you're wrong and must SUBMIT TO MY (gods) WILL. It devolves into a pissing match that some people seem to think that (S)He who yells the loudest while pissing the most and farthest, wins.

    I want no part of this. This is not my republic. This is not what I fought and suffered for so that I would live in a theocratic christian state. I will not have it, tolerate it, understand it, nor submit to it. This isn't religious dissent. This is whiny rich people hiding behind religion to try and dodge doing the right thing by their employees and the law.  

    Give blood. Play hockey.

    by flycaster on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:39:49 AM PDT

  •  Remember... (8+ / 0-)

    Every haircut, every BBQ spare rib, every tattoo, and more are affronts to you know who. Wanna bet hobby Lobby doesn't ban them. The entire evangelical culture would be banned.

  •  Make A Noise (11+ / 0-)

    The recent SCOTUS decision that effectively bans abortion clinic buffer zones applies equally to Hobby Lobby.  Imagine if 50 or so protesters showed up in front of every Hobby Lobby and screamed in the faces of its customers as they entered and exited the store?  Those of us that are inclined to do so can even offer to pray with those misguided customers and spare them the life-long guilt of scrap-booking.

    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:44:16 AM PDT

    •  How about signs that said: (9+ / 0-)

      Abandon the Hobby Lobby Lifestyle!
      Save your Soul from Eternal Damnation!

      This could be a contest.

      Now commenting as Eric Eitreim aka ratcityreprobate.

      by ratcityreprobate on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:53:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sigh. McCullen does NOT BAN BUFFER ZONES (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Albanius, raynmakr, VClib

      READ THE OPINION.  

      All the opinion says is that THIS PARTICULAR LAW, which prevented Ms. McCullen from walking up to someone on a public sidewalk and saying something to her, was overly broad.  That's it.  The law was too broad and prohibited too much.  The FEDERAL law is not affected at all. And the Court talks about ways that the state could pass a different law that would not be too broad:  

      If Massachusetts determines that broader prohibitions along the same lines are necessary, it could enact legislation similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE Act), 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(1), which subjects to both criminal and civil penalties anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” Some dozen other States have done so. See Brief for State of New York et al. as Amici Curiae 13, and n. 6. If the Commonwealth is particularly concerned about harassment, it could also consider an ordinance such as the one adopted in New York City that not only prohibits obstructing access to a clinic, but also makes it a crime “to follow and harass another person within 15 feet of the premises of a reproductive health care facility.” N. Y. C. Admin. Code §8–803(a)(3) (2014).
    •  YES YES YES. Informational pickets. (0+ / 0-)

      Protest sign:  "Do you know what Dominionism is?  Then you'd better find out!"  (and hand out leaflets.)

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:06:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  mojave mike - you could do that if you kept (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kfunk937

      your crew on the sidewalk. Most Hobby Lobby stores have some type of private space or parking in front. You couldn't enter that space, you would have to remain on the sidewalk, and off the street.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:10:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The male RWNJ's (5+ / 0-)

    on the SCOTUS have shown their disdain for women's rights before, so look for them to turn themselves into pretzels trying to do it again. Not sure they can even make the case, but they'll try.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:46:13 AM PDT

  •  The SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Sharia Law ruling will b... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Old Sailor, ZedMont, G2geek

    The SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Sharia Law ruling will be hated by those now cheering it in the near future.

  •  Contraception Coverage in the ACA (7+ / 0-)

    I think everyone should know that contraception coverage is required by employers in 28 states(state law). This has been a reqirement long before ACA was passed. The ruling on Monday is the application of RFRA to the ACA(federal law). This will not affect the 28 states that mandate contraception coverage.

    •  I didn't know that. Can you post a link showing... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kfunk937

      I didn't know that. Can you post a link showing which states?

      •  sometimes google is my friend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        from Gutmacher 10 June 2014:
        http://www.guttmacher.org/...

        from National Conference of State Legislatures, updated February 2014:

        State Laws and Insurance Coverage for Contraception
        At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive.  These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
        For more information, please see the State Policies in Brief on Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives by the Guttmacher Institute, which features a state chart of coverage mandates.
        Table Key: * The state allows exemptions from contraceptive coverage requirements for insurers or employers for religious or other specified reasons.
        http://www.ncsl.org/...
        The table (at the link above) outlines state-by-state mandates and restrictions.

        NPR Health News and LA Times both had excellent discussions (February 2014) on the history of contraceptive mandates at state and national levels prior to and including ACA:
        http://www.npr.org/... and http://articles.latimes.com/...

        Hope this helps. Good question, and the results (there are many more) make interesting reading.

        One thing that strikes me is that ALEC's - strike that, Hobby Lobby's - objection must not be to paying for contraceptive coverage, per se (because that predates ACA), but to the mandated no co-pay provision for treatment, whether services or prescriptions. But that is not what they've argued, as I understand it. And of course history shows that Republicans, including Huckabee and G.W. Bush, supported - or at least, did not oppose - mandated contraception coverage, Not until ACA. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

        Many here are probably already aware that Attorney Mark Rienzi, who represented McCullen at oral arguments, is employed by Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, who brought most of the anti-ACA cases, and is behind Hobby Lobby case - both cases are intimately inter-related, and seek to set up conservatives as victims whose rights are being oppressed.

  •  I see a fair amount of whining about (7+ / 0-)

    religious oppression on FB.  On my more evil days I support prayer in schools, gush about how wonderful it would be for all of our children to participate in drum circles, Solstice circles, to use prayer rugs when calling to Allah, etc.  I also pretend to be a pharmacist who just can't morally fill Viagra prescriptions, since God clearly has ascertained that some men aren't worthy of an ongoing sex life.  I also warmly support religion's place in government, and am so pleased to know that a majority of citizens are willing to embrace the laws of Kasruth in support of our Jewish brothers and sisters.  It's fun!  

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:26:49 AM PDT

    •  Yes. we need more of this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      I love OCD

      Only thing is though, make up a real good pseudo before you get anywhere near Mark Zuckerberg's surveillance empire known as Facebook.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:08:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have completely given up on the (0+ / 0-)

        concept of privacy- not cuz of NSA, but because Amazon/Google etc know more about me than govt spooks could ever amass.  There is no privacy in the age of the Internet and cell phones.  I've fully embraced quick and easy.  

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:09:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They're actually ignoring the Bible (6+ / 0-)

    in this situation:

    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.
    Romans 13:1-7

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

    by Cali Scribe on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:30:28 AM PDT

  •  Fascinating Piece! (7+ / 0-)

    First off, loved reading your article. Very insightful.

    This case to me is quite scary, especially when considered in the context of recent SCOTUS decisions regarding corporate personhood. I could very well imagine the conservative wing of the court moving to expand the first amendment right of the corporate person above us lowly humans with this case. To me, that is the true danger here, which is articulated to a sense in the above piece, but of which doesn't get enough enough play in the overall coverage of this case. The argument to me essentially boils down to which person's first amendment right takes precedence: the corporate person or the human.

  •  It seems to me that Hobby Lobby seeks to control (6+ / 0-)

    the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of those outside its own faith, as opposed to the situation in Lee, because in Lee, both the employer and the employee were of the same faith.  Lee presumably would have been required to pay payroll taxes for an employee who was not of his faith.  

    Importantly, in 1994 Congress came to the aid of Lee and those in his position by revising section 26 U.S.C.A. § 3127 of the Social Security law to exempt any employer or partnership consisting of members of any "recognized religious sect" that is "conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance" from paying payroll taxes for any employee "who is also a member of such a sect."
    An employee of the same faith as the Greens who is merely required (by conscience) to refrain from using contraception is no more a substantial burden to the corporation than is that employee's decision to refrain from anything else the corporation deems a "sin."

    For example, allowing employees of the opposite sex to share breaks together creates the opportunity for an adulterous relationship to flower, but I doubt the Greens have separate male/female break rooms (although I could well be wrong about that).  

    I believe the Greens' religion provides for the exercise of a certain degree of "free will" in such circumstances, or at least recognizes the general concept.  

    One could argue that Lee's Amish employees could likewise have payroll taxes paid on their behalf and simply refuse to apply for benefits, and that is to some extent a weakness in my argument.

    However, in the magical world of insurance, almost any peculiarity is possible. For example, the Greens' insurance company could in fact provide a policy with two options, one with contraceptive coverage for those who want it, and one without, for those who conscientiously oppose it.  This would be analogous to Lee paying payroll taxes only for employees not of his faith and would be squarely in compliance with the revision to 26 USCA 3217

    Tinkering with the policy would be ridiculous of course, but since when have insurance companies gone out of their way to avoid ridicule when there was a buck to be made?

    If the Supreme Court rules that a corporation cannot be required to provide the opportunity for non-believers to participate in an activity otherwise guaranteed by law, an opportunity that the corporation and employees of the same faith as the corporation (but not every employee} believes is a sin, then it seems to me it goes beyond what was put in place by the revised 26 USCA 3127.

    And that is exactly what Hobby Lobby seeks to do.  It seeks to impose its will upon those not of its faith under cover of what it disingenuously terms "religious freedom."

    Ruling against the mandate will, as others have pointed out, open Pandora's box.  

    We'll see how willing the court is to roll the dice with its eyes closed.  It is said that Justice is blind.  We're about to find out exactly how blind.

    Ted Cruz president? Pardon my Vietnamese, but Ngo Pho King Way.

    by ZedMont on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:57:14 AM PDT

  •  First (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raynmakr

    I thought it was about my responsibility; but I now know it was the drugs...

    "the northern lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see. Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge, I cremated Sam McGee". - Robert Service, Bard of the Yukon

    by Joe Jackson on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:20 AM PDT

  •  As time goes on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, raynmakr, G2geek

    I tend to think of bad Supreme Court decisions as tools, which can be put to good use.  That Massachusetts buffer-zone ruling?  That's going to be an awesome case to cite when challenging free-speech zones or other public protest restrictions.

    And if Hobby Lobby wins, I think it would justify hospitals or clinics in defying certain anti-abortion laws, especially those which involve lying or endangering the life of the mother.  It is very easy to argue that one has a religious mandate for telling the truth and for saving life/health.   It's no small thing to defy the law out of a sense of civil disobedience, but if Hobby Lobby wins I hope there will be someone brave enough to become a test case.

  •  Christians1 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raynmakr

    "The Christian Right was never Christian, nor has it ever been Right!"

  •  None of This Matters; You Draw Up a List of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor, ickamaus

    policies the Federalist Society and any dominionist affiliations of the KRATS 5, and that's their decision.

    They've already proven themselves free of both stare decisis and the setting of future precedent.

    It's on the list or it's not.

    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 Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:26:57 AM PDT

  •  Here's What I'm Going To Do... (6+ / 0-)

    I'm going to go to Hobby Lobby, fill up a cart with hundreds of dollars' worth of stuff, and when I go through check-out, I'm just going to give them five dollars. And when they tell me I must pay the total amount, I'm going to yell, 'YOU ARE VIOLATING MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!! I'M JEWISH AND I'M ENTITLED TO A VOLUME DISCOUNT!!!"

    •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor

      Reminds me of the brief scene in The Good Wife when a client told Eli Gold "I bet you already cashed the check." And Eli responded, "Of course. I'm Jewish. What did you expect?"

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 04:27:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I suspect Hobby Lobby will win on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, raynmakr, VClib

    RFRA grounds.   If I had to predict, this is how I suspect it will be decided.

    It will be hard to meet the "compelling government interest" standard when so many employers (some non-profit corporations, employers with fewer than 50 employees, part-time employees) do not have to comply.  If it were a "compelling" government interest, the argument will be, then why doesn't it apply to everyone?  As for the "least restrictive means," if you want to be sure that women whose employers don't offer contraceptive coverage have access to contraception, there are clearly ways of doing that that would not force the owners of a closely-held corporation (where it's not publicly traded) to violate their religious beliefs.  (Hobby Lobby is self-insured.)  The government could, quite simply, offer a voucher for birth control for any woman with a full-time job whose employer doesn't offer that coverage. It could be built into the subsidies -- the government could subsidize a "rider" the woman gets directly from the insurer without involving her employer.  If there's a way to make sure women who work full time but don't make enough money to buy birth control have access to it, it could be done through government subsidies the way government subsidizes people who make below certain levels of income and whose employers don't provide the coverage.

    I strongly suspect it will NOT be decided on constitutional grounds but instead it will be decided on RFRA grounds.  And the Court will essentially be telling Congress:  YOU passed the law that says that the government has this high standard to meet if it burdens a religious belief.  If Congress votes to change the law it passed, the outcome will change.  

    •  Good luck getting this through Congress (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Old Sailor, G2geek

      any time soon:

      The government could, quite simply, offer a voucher for birth control...
      •  That's not part of the Court's analysis, however. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        The second part of the test -- whether it's the "least restrictive means" -- does not ask whether it's the "least restrictive means" that can get through Congress.  It simply asks whether there are other legal means available, whether Congress elects to use those means or not.  Under RFRA, if there are other legal means available that aren't a burden to religious beliefs, the law falls.  

  •  Add HL to my boycott list (5+ / 0-)

    Whether they "win" or "lose", the pretext of their case convinces me to add them to my personal list of retailers to avoid.

  •  Thank you for a most comprehensive (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, raynmakr, G2geek, kfunk937

    piece.  It seems to me that ones' personal beliefs (the Greens) are rightfully their own, without a doubt. That their beliefs would not in anyway be diminished or forsaken if, as an employer the total package of health insurance coverage is left in place for their approx. 23,000 employees in their 500 or so stores.

    They are not using the contraceptives nor the Plan B.  They are certainly not advocating their use.  But, if we have free will, freedom of personal rights, dominion over our own bodies, it is imperative that the choice be ours to take or not.  

  •  GOP has different view of freedom (8+ / 0-)

    Freedom to force their religious beliefs on others
    Freedom to discriminate
    Freedom to pollute
    Freedom to invade other countries
    Freedom to pay workers less
    Freedom to block workers from organizing
    Freedom to make voting more difficult
    Freedom to ship jobs overseas
    Freedom to allow trade violations that hurt US companies
    Freedom to shoot someone for just about any reason

    How many others can we name?

  •  The Oregon Bakers Protection (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pale Jenova, raynmakr, G2geek, Old Sailor

    didn't make it to the ballot.  The AG wrote the ballot tile to read  "exceptions to anti-discrimination laws."  That pissed off the backers because they said it  "stages it as intolerant instead of protecting equal rights of conscience" among the clergy and other "individuals of faith."  

    Can't make this shit up.

  •  Fight fire with fire (5+ / 0-)
    Of course, religious conservatives otherwise have no problem at all with compelled speech, especially when the speaker is a physician and the speech is about abortion.
    The United Church of Christ has sued the State of North Carolina to invalidate its law prohibiting anyone from officiating at the wedding of a same-sex couple on the basis that it violates the Church's religious freedom.

    May you be spared from people who tell you, "God never gives you more than you can handle."

    by ccyd on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 01:16:06 PM PDT

  •  And here we go down the slippery slope of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor, Amber6541, G2geek

    corporate personhood.  Did anyone really think that the rights of the corporate person would not override the rights of actual human persons?

  •  Hobby Lobby is not a business, it's a church. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor, G2geek

    The Right Wing plan is working why pass legislation when you can force you will onto the people through the Supreme Court. If the Dems and the Progressive are still a sleep now, then nothing will wake them up. This is a "All hands on Deck" moment.

  •  I predict a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby (0+ / 0-)

    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan in favor of the corporate person.  [Most of those have worked for corporations - it's in their Wiki bios - (and they've voted in favor of corporations in past cases), so they seem to feel some kind of misplaced loyalty or sympathy for corporations, altho I've no idea why.]

    Ginsberg will, I hope, vote against the corporate person.  Kennedy and Breyer may be coin tosses, but I'm hoping they vote against the corporate person who took such offense at having corporate insurance pay for birth control.

    [Please, please, please, please, please, let my hunch be wrong!]

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:52:57 AM PDT

  •  It's unreal that such things have to be decided... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Old Sailor

    It's unreal that such things have to be decided by the Supreme Court....it's unreal how blind (or simply arrogantly blind) the so-called conservatives are to their monumental hypocrisy. The conservatives, particularly the socially conservative kind, have done nothing but damage our nation as a whole. The mutually beneficial pact of evil between big corporate money and obsessed social conservatives has been the biggest threat to our democracy and our people...we shouldn't fear outside threats but threats of right wing lunacy from within. I cannot imagine the right wing robots on the court would find in favor of Hypocrisy Lobby....but with that bunch, you never know. Scary.

  •  Teabaggers want congress to call an Article 5 (0+ / 0-)

    convention. What's an article 5 convention you say?

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
    What do you suppose the purpose of this could be? One purpose is to change the 1st Amendment to say that religious freedom is for white Christians only. Teabaggers are serious about this. Where do they come up with this kind of ridiculous nonsense? Fox News? Well, when Glenn Beck was on Fox this was one of his conspiracy theory rants to prevent Sharia Law. But the constitution says it is the supreme law of the land. It says so in Article 6. The fact that the supreme court is making decisions based on Fox news shows propaganda doesn't say much about our system of government.

    Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is not bliss, it is suffering. If you like hypocrite Obama, you'll love hypocrite Hillary.

    by harris stein on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 11:41:23 AM PDT

  •  Congrats, human rights of Hobby Lobby employees (0+ / 0-)

    have now been violated in the guise of a phoney corporate religious freedom right.  Welcome to Amerika.  Fascists always wrap themselves in the flag and the pulpit.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:15:04 PM PDT

  •  Best Diary of the day on this. nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site