Skip to main content

Demonstrators in support of abortion and contraceptive rights read on their mobile phones as the ruling for Hobby Lobby against their cause was announced outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington June 30, 2014. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of U.S. President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires closely held companies to provide health insurance that covers birth control. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: RELIGION POLITICS HEALTH CIVIL UNREST) - RTR3WGDK
Some 14,000 people work for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, the two companies who brought this suit. But those are by far not the only employees whose healthcare choices can now be limited by the beliefs of their employers. For one thing, there are still 46 pending challenges to the contraceptive mandate in the law out there.

A total of 71 companies brought those cases, but Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods got to the U.S. Supreme Court first. Even if all those cases are now dismissed as being settled by Hobby Lobby, there are 71 companies that want to take away healthcare choices from their employees. That ranges from Trijicon, "a military contractor specializing in optics equipment for weapons," to  Joe Holland, "a born-again Christian who owns a local car dealership," and "is taking on the contraceptive mandate in court even while publicly touting his company's support for women." Here's a surprising one to go on boycott lists: "Eden Foods, the Michigan-based organic food company."

Don't worry, many pundits are saying—this is a "narrow" ruling. (Note: Perhaps only people who have uteruses should be allowed to weigh in on whether and how this is really "narrow.") It only applies to "closely held" corporations, so really you won't have tons of employers claiming this exemption. Closely held, though, doesn't necessarily mean "small." In fact, some of the country's biggest companies could qualify. And of course that includes Koch Industries. And Cargill and Dell and Bechtel and Mars, among dozens and dozens of others.

Now, most of these companies aren't the kinds of political attention-seekers that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga chose to be. One hopes. One also hopes that these companies want to provide a welcoming and supportive working environment for all of their employees, even the ones who have lady parts. They're also not all employers whose religious beliefs trump, you know, reality and science and biology. But it might take all that to make them want to opt out. Hating Obamacare is about all they'll need, now. Because it's not like Alito and Scalia are actually going to be taking them through catechism, determining whether they really do have these religious beliefs.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  The First Church of Koch (26+ / 0-)
    In fact, some of the country's biggest companies could qualify. And of course that includes Koch Industries. And Cargill and Dell and Bechtel and Mars, among dozens and dozens of others.
    Washington D.C., Dec 19, 2013 / 03:45 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Catholic University of America has defended a $1 million gift from the Koch brothers against “presumptuous” criticisms that accepting the grant would cause scandal and obscure Church insight on economics.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:08:28 PM PDT

  •  when WalMart gets a chapel: one stop preying (20+ / 0-)
    As Jordan says in his prescient article, the trends are gloomy for malls. Sales are down. Numbers of malls have closed or they are on the precipice of closing. Vacancy rates are up. Jordan notes "there are more than 200 malls with over 250,000 square feet that have vacancy rates of 35 percent or higher, a clear marker for shopping center distress." He further provides data that indicate over 10 percent of malls will close in the next five years.
    Malls and churches may seem like an strange combination, like Auntie Annie's pretzels washed down with communion wine. Still, over the past decade, congregations in Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Colorado, among others, have taken advantage of cheap suburban retail space to expand.
    "It's definitely unconventional; it's not the norm," said Christopher Geralch, director of public policy and research of the International Council of Shopping Centers. "[Mall] owners are dealing with persistent bankruptcies. If churches can bring traffic to a mall on Sunday, it can be a benefit for a mall especially if they've had some vacancies."

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:15:37 PM PDT

  •  A closely held corporation is one that (25+ / 0-)
    •Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
    •Is not a personal service corporation.
    This definition is from It defines many corporations in our country. As a male I'll risk saying that the USSC's ruling today is broader than many think.  

    Roman Catholic by birth---thoroughly confused by life.

    by alasmoses on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:19:03 PM PDT

  •  Narrow enough (10+ / 0-)

    to fit in uteri.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

  •  What do the Koch Brothers do? (7+ / 0-)

    Probably nothing. This isn't their deal. Walton's as well.

    Some of the Koch's are even typical libertarians and have views on social issues we agree with.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:26:26 PM PDT

    •  If it means that they can pay less, (15+ / 0-)

      billionaires like the Kochs will get religion.  Trust me.

      •  When you run a company as large (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hnichols, johnny wurster

        as Koch Industries, and have no history of any religious influence on how you run your business it is impossible to meet the "sincerely held religious belief" test. Ain't going to happen. It's not their deal. Their money and energy are focused on political issues they care about. This isn't one of them.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:14:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When you run a company as large as (8+ / 0-)

          Koch Industries, if you have an opportunity to reduce the cost of employees, you will take it.

          •  No, you don't unless it's something that is a big (7+ / 0-)

            deal to you personally. I don't know for sure, but my guess based on the Koch Brothers libertarian views that they have no interest in being involved in the contraception practices of their employees. I think the Koch's are looking for ways to get back under the radar, while keeping their political influence. They aren't looking for another white hot opportunity to be the villain.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:30:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Market forces will always prevail for (5+ / 0-)

              people like the Kochs.

              If they can be more competitive with a particular business model, they will employ it.

              This is not rocket science.  It is very straightforward.  Everything about the Koch Brother's history is totally antithetical to your thesis about them.  They don't care what people think about them.  They will take what they want when they can get it - however they can get it.

              •  But this isn't an issue they care about (0+ / 0-)

                And they could never meet the "sincerely held religious belief test". How hard is this to understand?

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:57:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who is going to test their religious views? (9+ / 0-)

                  They can claim to be believers and it is done, if anyone even bothers to ask them.

                  Do you think that any administration or Congress is going to direct the IRS to start to verify people's religious beliefs?

                  How hard are the realities of the situation to understand?

                  No effective way of policing.  No disclosure.  No politicians who would ever go there.  Those things all add up to an open door through which business people will go if it saves them money.

                  •  The Courts have a test for holding a (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    "sincerely held religious belief" that was developed during the Vietnam War to assist in evaluating people who wanted to be excused from the draft for religious reasons. It is a very robust test and you don't pass just by saying a few words. Your actions over the course of your life determine if you meet the test. There is NOTHING in the history of Koch Industries that I am aware of that comes close to meeting the test. This isn't something you can turn on like a light switch.  

                    Koch Industries isn't going to try and piggyback Hobby Lobby because this isn't an issue they care about and they could never qualify.

                    I don't have anything more to add.  

                    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                    by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:13:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's in the context of a military interview (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueoasis, ditsylilg, Penny GC, kitchieboy

                      not in the context of greater society.

                      And who is going to fund the legions of interviewers that would be required to cover half the business owners in the country?

                      •  Now you are being absurd (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Jon Says, kitchieboy

                        Half the business owners are not going to claim the Hobby Lobby exemption and if they do they will have to meet the "sincerely held religious belief test", just as Hobby Lobby did. And if that creates a long queue, so be it. I think HL is a bad decision.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not even remotely absurd. (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ditsylilg, onionjim, Penny GC, kitchieboy

                          Accountants and business lawyers around the country will counsel their clients to opt out in favor of the savings.  Nothing at all absurd about that notion.

                          You're being absurd not recognizing the incredibly power of the promise of financial savings for businesses.

                          •  The challenge of meeting the test is such (0+ / 0-)

                            that no ethical accountant or lawyer would counsel their clients to try and qualify for the exclusion if the clients don't run their business in a manner that is clearly in line with their religious beliefs. That would be fraud and the professionals would lose their licenses.

                            I have a great deal more faith in the business owners, accountants and lawyers than you do. There are some closely held businesses who wear their religion on their sleeves, and everyone knows it, their employees, customers and service providers. Those are the closely held businesses who will pursue this exemption, but only if contraception is an important issue to them.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:04:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think that you are exhibiting (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            madhaus, ditsylilg, Yonit

                            much of an ability in this discussion to imagine or understand how most people think about money and finance where it comes to running a business.

                            Plus you don't account for people who would not have engaged in this sort of religious persecution of their employees, but will now feel perfectly free to do so.

                            In any case, let's regroup in a couple of years because I am pretty certain that I'm going to be proven more than right in my view that this decision will both affect how people will run their businesses and also will open the flood gates to other particular challenges that will further strip away an employee's protection from being forced to observe the religious beliefs of their employers - which is the much bigger issue here, imo.

                          •  We shall see in a few years (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ColoTim, Justanothernyer

                            However, I have spent more than 40 years working in business and finance with experiences ranging from being a financial officer of a Fortune 500 company, to the co-founder and CEO of an AMEX listed company, the co-founder and Chairman of two NASDAQ listed companies. In addition, I have funded through investment funds I managed more than 100 startups. I am very familiar with how people manage money and finance when it comes to running a business and how they work with their accounting and legal professionals. This isn't going to be a big deal because there will not be a lot of companies who will qualify. It will be the rare company who will meet the two requirements, fulfilling the religious belief test and wanting to deny contraceptive coverage.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:57:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Over 90% of American Corporations qualify (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            as "Closely Held" and comprise 52% of the American workforce, per Business Insider.

                            Many, many people will be affected by this terrible ruling.

                            Join the Hobby Lobby Boycott on Facebook

                            by edwardssl on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:51:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No they won't (0+ / 0-)

                            How many of those companies meet the "sincerely held religious belief" test and manage their company with their religion on their sleeves? Not many. Of those how many really want to deny contraceptive coverage. Not many.

                            I didn't think Hobby Lobby would win, and wrote about that here. I do not believe there was a legitimate basis in the law for the ruling today. However, I also believe this ruling will impact a small percentage of US workers.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:58:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Even if you're right (and I sincerely doubt (6+ / 0-)

                            you are), how would you like to be one of those "small percentage of US workers (who happen to be women, btw) who would be denied?  That's discrimination, and it doesn't matter the number that'll be affected.

                            Join the Hobby Lobby Boycott on Facebook

                            by edwardssl on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:04:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm hoping the power of the market (and boycotts (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WednesdaysChilde, edwardssl

                            and similar actions) will teach those companies to modernize or fade away.  It's hope, but it's what I have.

                          •  the test isn't difficult (0+ / 0-)

                            cite to your vast experience all you want, the HL decision proves that the "sincerely held religious belief" test is easy to pass, no matter how many times you keep repeating that it isn't.  

                          •  "I've been saved! Praise Jesus!" - David Koch (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Penny GC, inclusiveheart

                            "I've been saved! Praise Jesus!" - David Koch

                          •  LOL - in more ways than one! n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Not so sure about the savings. . . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            In the debate leading up to the Supreme Court arguments, I thought the insurers said that it cost much less for them to provide contraception than it did to pay for prenatal care, labor and delivery.

                            Not to mention the costs of health care for a child born prematurely or with even minor birth defects.

                            So theoretically the insurers could justifiably charge MORE for a company that didn't offer contraception.

                            "He not busy being born is busy dying" -- Bob Dylan

                            by Kascade Kat on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:37:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  VClib, this robust test wasn't applied in the (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      inclusiveheart, Yonit, ColoTim, leema, Penny GC

                      Hobby Lobby case.  How robust could such a test be, if a corporation that invests in contraceptives and does most of its business with a country that has a history of forced abortions and sterilizations, is able to claim that it has a consistent history of actions indicating "sincerely held" belief against contraceptives and abortions?

                      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

                      by concernedamerican on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:21:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The parties in the case stipulated that the three (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        defendants met the test. As it relates to Hobby Lobby, and the other two defendants, the issue is mute. However, going forward it will be an affirmative test that other companies will have to pass.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:42:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  not if the same thing happens in future cases (0+ / 0-)

                          the parties can stipulate to the beliefs, and even if they don't, there are countless closely held businesses owned by religious nuts other than the Kochs who could pass the test, because there's no way the current rightwing majority is going to strictly apply the test to those who claim they follow the "right" religious beliefs--even when those beliefs are contrary to established science, which the HL majority admitted.  

                    •  The only evidence of religion that HL showed was (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Yonit, ColoTim, Penny GC

                      closing on Sunday, remember. Pit that against providing the same insurance before ACA and buying most of their stuff from evil abortion China, as well as investing in drug companies producing birth control items. They weren't religious enough to ut their money where their mouth was, but ut was enough to convince this Supreme Court!

                      •  Nannyberry - it wasn't an issue the Court could (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        even review. The defendants in the case stipulated that the three plaintiffs, including Hobby Lobby, met the sincerely held religious belief test. Because it was not an issue in the litigation, the Court had no role to play.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:45:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thus you undermine your entire argument (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          that someone is going to police people's sincerely held religious beliefs.  No one is going to go there.  That's the kind of thing that produces witch hunts and Spanish Inquisitions.

                          •  That was the three defendants in the case (0+ / 0-)

                            before the Supreme Court. In the other situations companies will have to meet the test unless they were in the pipeline and the defendants in those cases also stipulated that the plaintiffs met the test. We are talking about going forward. For this ruling to be broadly applied, which I don't think it will, companies WILL have to meet the test. I just don't think the investment options in the 401K plan will be a material metric in those evaluations. However, based on the national outrage that Hobby Lobby employees can invest in index funds you can be certain that investment options, in 401K plans, are being severely restricted at those companies who want to meet the test.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:04:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is it considered fair that future corps don't have (0+ / 0-)

                            to meet the same standards that HL and Eden did? Doesn't seem right, somehow.

                          •  Nannyberry - future candidates who want to (0+ / 0-)

                            claim the exception due to a sincerely held religious belief will have to present evidence of that belief. The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case didn't because the defendants didn't challenge them on that point and stipulated to the Court that they did meet the test.

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:18:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Finally got your point, but I think that sinks. N/ (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                          •  Your view has lots of company (0+ / 0-)

                            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                            by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:34:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's nothing in the decision outlining (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            red rabbit

                            how anyone is to define or determine people's closely held beliefs.

                            You're basically making up an argument that isn't based on anything relating to actual laws, existing protocols or anything that could or would counter-balance this decision.  There is no such thing as a "religious belief panel" in the US government.

                            No court in this country is going to touch that subject with a ten foot pole - not yet anyway.

                          •  says you (0+ / 0-)

                            "For this ruling to be broadly applied, which I don't think it will, companies WILL have to meet the test."

                            BULL. SHIT.  If you think the current rightwing majority is going to be placing companies that claim to hold conservative christian beliefs under the microscope, then you are truly a delusionional conservative apologist--and my opinion and predictions are as valid as yours, regardless of your supposed vast experience in the business world (hint: when you have to resort to citing to your supposed resume to give your opinion more validity, you're already losing).  

                    •  "sincerely held religious belief" test. (0+ / 0-)

                      based on the HL decision, the test isn't nearly as stingent anymore.  Good that you don't have anything more to add, you're making a fool of yourself again trying to defend conservative scumbags.  

                  •  codairem - I have read the Mother Jones (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    article and the choices available to employees to invest their 401K assets in mutual funds like an index fund, or big cap fund, that has some small percentage of Big Pharma stocks, isn't the kind of evidence a Court would look at to meet the "sincerely held religious belief" test, and with good reason. The actual amount invested in the specific troubling companies is too small to be material. Plus, the 401K  assets are owned by the employees, not by Hobby Lobby.  

                    My guess is that many politicians hold mutual fund shares that have very small ownership of companies, or industries, they deride. I own mutual fund shares that hold positions of companies I don't agree with on lots of levels. But holding index funds is a great way to hold a diversified portfolio with very low fees.

                    It's a straw man, but it has been the subject of dozens of diaries so it seems to be a very popular topic here. The Courts won't view it as anything material.  

                    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                    by VClib on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:41:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  In the case of a corporation, then, how is (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ColoTim, Penny GC

                      "sincere religious belief" to be assessed?

                      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

                      by concernedamerican on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:22:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The argument would have some merit (0+ / 0-)

                        if Hobby Lobby had a defined benefit plan where the retirement assets were owned by the company, and not by the employees.

                        The sincerely held religious belief test is one that was developed by the Courts during the Vietnam War to make judgements about draftees who were opposed to serving based on religious reasons. For individuals it was a review of that person's connection to their religion and their historical involvement in their faith.

                        I would imagine the test for corporations will include a variety of metrics, but for the most part deeply religious business owners typically wear their religion on their sleeves. In the case of Hobby Lobby being closed on Sundays when all the malls where the stores are located are open would be a significant metric because being open on Sundays would increase sales and profits.

                        I personally didn't agree with the majority in Hobby Lobby, and had written here that I thought Hobby Lobby would lose this case. However, I think this focus on the 401K investment options for employees is focusing on an immaterial issue. However, you can be certain that all the other companies who will be seeking a designation as a company owned by a small group of people with sincerely held religious beliefs are rapidly reducing the investment options for employees in their 401K plans to be certain they are in line with their religion. I doubt that's what public who are pushing this issue really wanted.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:38:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  If HL matches 401K contributions (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      inclusiveheart, Penny GC

                      then it's exactly 100% like HL subsidizing health insurance.

                      Banana Republic: it's not just a clothing store.

                      by northbronx on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:24:04 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  How about the we covered it without objection but (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Yonit, arlene, Penny GC, Ahianne, red rabbit

                      now that it is mandated it is a burden argument?  That is the fallacy of their firmly held beliefs.  It was ok until it wasn't.  I believe we call that flip-flopping.

                      From the Mother Jones article:  "On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom.  The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue."


                      The bolding is mine

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

                      by ditsylilg on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:30:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  But couldn't (shouldn't?) Hobby Lobby be only (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Penny GC

                      allowing those funds from a social portfolio that agrees with their philosophy?  There are portfolios that specialize in stocks in green companies, or ethical companies, the same way there are ones that specialize in large companies or from certain countries.  I'm sure there are ones that are religious-based, where the funds are invested in companies of similar religious values.  Hobby Lobby could direct that the 401K stock funds available to their workers are only of the right religious tenet.

                      •  Tim - they could (0+ / 0-)

                        But why aren't we happy that the employees have the option of investing in index funds, and other well diversified mutual funds? Why do we want to put pressure on Hobby Lobby, or any other company who seeks to meet the sincerely held religious belief test, to restrict investment choices? I don't get it.

                        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                        by VClib on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:32:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  They aren't libertarian (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yonit, ColoTim, Penny GC

              They are oligarchs.

              There is a huge difference.

              A libertarian would oppose a law that advantaged a corporation over a person. Can you ever imagine the Koch's refusing the passage of legislation that put money in their pockets?

              Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

              by The Termite on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:24:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "back under the radar"? (0+ / 0-)

              lol, a little too late for that, but thanks for your hilarious attempt at favorable spin for some rightwing nutjobs.  

          •  Maybe. (0+ / 0-)

            My nephew is an engineer for Koch and he loves working there.  The compensation is excellent, the benefits are good and he feels well-treated.  

            Koch Industries needs to recruit good workers and they aren't going to be messing with them to save a buck here and there.  Their politics aside, they're pretty good businessmen.

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." - John F. Kennedy

            by Dem Beans on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:41:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think what everyone is missing (0+ / 0-)

            is that insurance policies without birth control coverage should be more expensive than those with - to cover the extra costs of higher rates of pregnancy and birth.  Even if they existed, which I have seen no evidence for.

            'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none go just alike, yet each believes his own. - Alexander Pope

            by liberaldad2 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 at 10:26:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And Hobby Lobby (6+ / 0-)

          has a strong, recent history of investing in corporations that manufacture and sell birth control products, including the Pill and IUDs.  So much for religion guiding their every corporate move...

          Banana Republic: it's not just a clothing store.

          by northbronx on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:22:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Church of Forest Products and Toiletries (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        onionjim, inclusiveheart, Penny GC

        With Pope Koch I and II tanned, rested and waiting.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:31:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it is their deal. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      See the excellent summary of their extensive financing and coordinating of Hobby Lobby and other similar pending cases at:

    •  Libertarian, David Koch was 1980 VP Candidate (0+ / 0-)

      of the Libertarian Party, which supported same sex marriage 32 years before the Democratic Party did.  Certainly not a fundamentalist Christian.

      If the Libertarian Party had won only an additional, 49% of the vote, Koch would have been VP of the US :)

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

      by nextstep on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:05:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Compared to what did happen in 1980, (0+ / 0-)

        who knows if we'd be better or worse off now?

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:14:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You should add statistics about (7+ / 0-)

    how many incorporated small businesses there are in this country.  

    "Closely held" is another way of saying "small business" and our nation is brimming with small businesses.

    In small towns the freedom to persecute others with your religious views is completely alive and well already.  Everybody knows whether or not you go to church on Sunday in those communities.  Now the billionaires get a bite at the apple, too.  

    And let's just be totally realistic here, even if those five or fewer people who control more than 50% of a corporation do not have any real religious views, they're gonna get some if it saves them money on their bottom line and makes them more profitable.

    My guess is that organ transplants are next up on the chopping block of coverages.  Corporations, insurance companies and whatever fundamentalists will find strong common ground on the fight to eliminate expensive medical care from health coverages.

  •  Actually taking Eden Foods at face value (8+ / 0-)

    it is no surprise at all that they'd be against contraception.

    Because if memory serves, their namesake garden spurred a huge population explosion of humans on this planet.  

  •  but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit, Penny GC

    "But it might take all that to make them want to opt out. Hating Obamacare is about all they'll need, now. "

    and note, as Robert Reich pointed out yesterday, the part of the ruling that says the employee can go to the government (the ACA) for the medication.

    This ruling also puts the SC in the position of defining what is a legitimate religion and what is not. They court may say "Christian values" but they not only do not define what is a True Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Gnostic, etc.) but now other religions, great and small,and any bunch that calls themselves a religion, have an open door to doing the same thing as HL.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:27:25 AM PDT

  •  Single payer. (7+ / 0-)

    Employer gets no say.

    How long does that have to take?

    •  Yep, But Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GayHillbilly, muddy boots

      didn't do that, he had to preserve and immoral for profit health care system.  Now we all are paying the price.

      •  Social Security was a weak, foolish (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        bill after everyone got their 2 cents in.  Not so much today.  I look at each of these losses as steps on the road to single-payer.  You may not remember this but the biggest block to SP was the bloc that got insurance through their employers.  They were vocal enough and angry enough to ensure that SP didn't stand a chance.  Obama, despite rumors to the contrary, thought and still thinks SP is the best solution.  He also does shitloads of background work before moving on anything.  He knew SP was dead.  4 years later, I wonder how many of those employees are still willing to fight ebil gubmint healthcare.  Hobby Lobby may be our BFF.  Women are pissed off, the war on women is front and center for 2014, and 52% of the population is pretty clear that their bosses are all up in their vaginas.  We could see SP support grow as radically as we're seeing civil rights for GLBTQs grow.  

        (And to think we owe Obama and Holder for reusing to defend DOMA!  It really is past time to start giving Obama credit for some major changes.)

        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 Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:13:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Till Hell (or the US House) freezes over. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC, muddy boots
  •  Rebuilding the European Feudal State.. (5+ / 0-)

    One Supreme Decision at at time.

    Absolutely Flipping Medieval, these guys.

    If the Conservatives are spoiling for a fight as much as I think they are, I think they will get one in not too distant future.

    This court has been one Dred Scott Disaster Decision after another, and they have NO idea of the anger they are raising among the socially liberal and tolerant people of America.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:29:52 AM PDT

  •  I smell the Koch's all over this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, Penny GC

    What links do they have to Hobby Lobby ? The Koch's are pushing their agenda and forming alliances wherever they can find them.

    This one smells like three day old fish.

  •  On the other hand... (4+ / 0-)

    The Supreme Court told these people to get their contraception through SOCIALIZED private medical insurance.

    This is one step closer to socialized government medical insurance...Medicare-For-All.

    I don't like anything about the Supreme Court decisions Monday, but...throw this at any RWNJ you know.  Hobby Lobby's bigoted owners' freedom means socialism for the workers. about Medicaid providing free contraception for all women?

    I support Medicare-done-right-For All.

    •  That Would Be Okay If The Republican Party Was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      sane - however, just think of the hoops Democrats would need to jump through to get Congress (i.e. the right wing nut jobs in the House) to fund coverage for contraception through Medicaid. And even if contraception DID manage to get funded through Medicaid, it would be another politicized hot potato that the right wingers can use to extort/hold hostage the American public (along with food stamps, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, etc.).  

  •  I see a number if diaries (0+ / 0-)

    recommending a boycott of Hobby Lobby and Conastoga - I agree.  In my case I never shop at either one and don't recall doing so for many years.

    I'll add this,  another avenue is, women who work for these companies begin looking for another job and quit.  Of course don't quit if another job isn't available.

  •  Make these "Christians" pay. Especially (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    now the suddenly devout ones who'd like to get away with making more money out of this. I hope coercive religion suffers from this.

    Anything good that can come from religion will suffer, too. Fucking idiots.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:43:03 AM PDT

  •  I would not call a company with 15,000+ (3+ / 0-)

    Employees small. The term "closely held" only distinguishes it from companies who sell stock on public exchanges. This ruling is not narrow, no matter what the justices and the media would have us believe. Most employees at such. Companies are young and female and now the companies, not the employees get to decide their employees' method of family planning. Note that the Court's opinion and the companies' sincerely held religious beliefs are right in line with Roman Catholic doctrine on birth control. Given that all of the justices in the majority are Roman Catholic and that their decision promotes the religious rights of a legal fiction over human beings, I think the establishment clause of the First Amendment took a beating yesterday from the very men who were sworn to protect it.

    How can Republicans say they love America when they hate Americans so very much?

    by Tchrldy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:44:42 AM PDT

  •  personal opinion (0+ / 0-)

    Businesses with more than 100 employees shouldn't qualify for this exemption. If they have more than 1000, they shouldn't qualify as a small business.

    (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

    by PJEvans on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:45:54 AM PDT

  •  The ruling does not affect most "contraceptives" (0+ / 0-)

    The ruling did not cover most birth control pills..  it covered:

    • Plan B "morning-after pill"

    • Ella "morning-after pill"

    • Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

    Very narrow.

  •  Did the Backseat Boys attend some ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, Ahianne

    secret Koch funded meetings and get their marching orders before ruling on the Hobby Lobby case? Their "narrowly focused" ruling sure has cut a wide swath through the amber waves of grain.

    My life is in total anarchy. I’ve lost all respect for my own authoritarianism.

    by glb3 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:48:36 AM PDT

  •  Corporations have more rights than I do, (3+ / 0-)

    and less liability.  Now that they can believe they're on their way to receiving relations and becoming deities themselves.

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

    by Rikon Snow on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

  •  seems a slight wedge for lawyers here: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC

    I heard that the wording stressed the sincerity of said corporation's religiosity. Which makes me wonder who is to judge their sincerity and by what standards...since corporations cannot speak for themselves, attend church or have children....But in the Hobby Lobby case I hear that they are invested in industries that make birth control  items.  Which, if true, would seem to counter their sincerity.

    "When wealth rules, democracy dies." Me

    by leema on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:58:22 AM PDT

  •  But this is great! (0+ / 0-)

    Because there is no buffer zone allowed by law, protestors can go straight up to Hobby Lobby's doors and inform their mostly female customers of the company's anti-woman policies.

  •  Roberts & Co (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Citizens united Shelby v. Holder McCucthison Holly Lobby
     of the Roberts court are
    by  Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)

     If Congress legislates for the protection of the public, may it not proceed on the ground that wrongs, when effected by a powerful combination, are more dangerous and require more stringent supervision than when they are to be effected by a single person? Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 556.

    In all such combinations where the purpose is injurious or unlawful, the gist of the offense is the conspiracy. Men can often do by the combination of many what severally no one could accomplish,  There is a potency in numbers when combined which the law cannot overlook, where injury is the consequence.

    By MR. JUSTICE BREWER concurring with Majority

    A corporation,
    while by fiction of law recognized for some purposes as a person and for purposes of jurisdiction as a citizen,

    is not endowed with the inalienable rights of a natural person,
     but it is an artificial person,
     created and existing only for the convenient transaction of business.

    in a republican government nothing
    can be more impolitic
     than to give to wealth superior encouragement,
     and facility in obtaining office.

    Story, Joseph A.  Familiar Exposition of the Constitution
    A.J. of the SUPREME COURT W/ C.J. Marshall

    In Shambala I can see the forests & the trees

    by Joseph Westfall on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:03:32 AM PDT

  •  This Is A "Narrow" Ruling All Right - A Bunch Of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC

    narrow minded right wing (all white male Roman Catholic) Supreme Court justices just decided that certain companies "religious beliefs" trump women's medical rights. Because Hobby Lobby can now deny women contraceptives who need them for medical reasons (not just pregnancy prevention reasons). This is blatant medical discrimination. Oh, and I wonder if Hobby Lobby is going to cover male vasectomies (another form of contraception)? My guess is, Hobby Lobby won't have any "religious objections" to that medical procedure, since it involves covering men.

    •  Since when was Clarence Thomas white? (0+ / 0-)

      Scalia's sockpuppet maybe, but a POC nevertheless.

      Cogito, ergo Democrata.

      by Ahianne on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:53:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is only poor Clarence's illusion that by hangin (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with the white assholes he can somehow be considered the same.  What he doesn't even get after all the Obama hysteria, is that his color will always matter to them and their ilk.  Marrying white doesn't change the racist's perception of him.  He only imagines that it does.  He does little to change that perception by sitting and wagging.  

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

        by cowdab on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:32:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's against my religion to hire Muslims. (4+ / 0-)

    Or Jews. Or pagans. Or anyone who doesn't follow my specifically narrow beliefs. Or anyone who's any shade of brown. Or has hair that I feel is too long. Or dresses incorrectly.

    It's also against my religion to obey mandated workplace safety laws for employees. Or minimum wage laws. or environmental and pollution laws. Or anything else I can think of that I can use religion as an excuse for. Because now there are no laws, because freedomz.

    How dare you use my own words against me?? - Chris McDaniel, (Teahadist), MS

    by Fordmandalay on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:07:39 AM PDT

  •  I hate this decision (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I love OCD, Ahianne

    It's wrong in a dozen different ways.  But maybe it's a step toward getting healthcare out of employers' hands.  All the people who can't get full coverage from their employers need to be allowed to go on the exchanges, at least.

    God, if this country only had the sense to socialize medicine.  Medical care should be treated as schools are: the providers are government employees, and every citizen can get help.  Filthy rich people can have their own "private" clinics and hospitals, just as they have their own private schools.  And their private healthcare should be without any government funding.

    Single payer is only a compromise.

    "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

    by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:13:40 AM PDT

  •  I keep thinking they have enough rope now, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but they just won't finish themselves off. High threshold if I ever saw one.

  •  It's coming? (0+ / 0-)

    First corporations were guaranteed the freedom of speech thereby being allowed to buy elections.  Now corporations apparently have the freedom of religion guaranteed.  How long will it be before corporations go after the right to vote?

  •  Here's what troubles me -- infuriating, actually (0+ / 0-)

    Individuals who claim a religious exemption (under RFRA or otherwise) from generally applicable laws have been largely unsuccessful -- Quakers who don't want to pay for war through their taxes, Native Americans who use eagle feathers in religious rituals, Muslims who want hallal food in prison, students who want to wear headscarves (or yamulkes or Sikh turbans) in a school with a "zero tolerance" / anti-gang ban on all headwear and hats.

    So suddenly RFRA is being used to allow corporations a free pass out of otherwise applicable laws, far beyond what individuals have been able to get.

    Or maybe the anti-birth-control plea struck a nerve with the mostly-Catholic Supreme Court that other people's religious practices and beliefs don't. In other words, certain religious beliefs are more equal than others -- the very target of the Establishment Clause.

  • (0+ / 0-)

    write them and tell them you're boycotting their products.  Then do it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site