Supremes got it right
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:58 am
Popehat @Popehat 34m
More
As MSNBC misstates legal basis of ruling, @cnn identifies SCOTUS as "some sort of animal, possibly a badger."
If someone could demonstrate to me how a corporation could practice a religion, I might agree with you.tlynn78 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Vandal wrote:Oh, those Supremes.
I thought you were going to say:
Spoiler
You Can't Hurry Love
WHAPWHAPWHAPWHAPWHAPthemanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Popehat @Popehat 34m
More
As MSNBC misstates legal basis of ruling, @cnn identifies SCOTUS as "some sort of animal, possibly a badger."
This is the type of rationalization that Kennedy often uses to justify his rulings. I appreciate the fact that he realizes (and is probably somewhat uncomfortable with) his role as the swing vote, but his justifications often don't hold water. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company with nearly 600 stores and over $2 billion in revenue. They aren't a Mom-an-Pop craft store on the tow square. This decision gives them a competitive advantage by being able to opt out of coverage that their competitors can't. Saying that the federal government could pay for coverage still wouldn't alter that fact.Bob78164 wrote: The fundamental analysis of the decision is that the Administration has already demonstrated, in the context of not-for-profit religious organizations, a feasible alternative method of achieving the goal of providing cost-free contraception to women.
Your first point is a good one. As for your second, courts are often in the position of evaluating whether professed beliefs are, in fact, sincerely held. This was, for instance, a big issue during the Vietnam War for anyone claiming conscientious objector status. --Bobsilverscreenselect wrote:This is the type of rationalization that Kennedy often uses to justify his rulings. I appreciate the fact that he realizes (and is probably somewhat uncomfortable with) his role as the swing vote, but his justifications often don't hold water. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company with nearly 600 stores and over $2 billion in revenue. They aren't a Mom-an-Pop craft store on the tow square. This decision gives them a competitive advantage by being able to opt out of coverage that their competitors can't. Saying that the federal government could pay for coverage still wouldn't alter that fact.Bob78164 wrote: The fundamental analysis of the decision is that the Administration has already demonstrated, in the context of not-for-profit religious organizations, a feasible alternative method of achieving the goal of providing cost-free contraception to women.
Courts are now going to be in the position of trying to determine whether other companies have "sincere" beliefs or not or if they're just trying to even the playing field.
Some deserve capital punishment.MarleysGh0st wrote:So...
Corporations are people.
Corporations can have religious beliefs.
When will we see a corporation, found guilty of committing a crime, being sent to jail?
Of course Hobby Lobby has no problem importing most of their stuff from China where abortion is state mandated.silverscreenselect wrote:This is the type of rationalization that Kennedy often uses to justify his rulings. I appreciate the fact that he realizes (and is probably somewhat uncomfortable with) his role as the swing vote, but his justifications often don't hold water. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company with nearly 600 stores and over $2 billion in revenue. They aren't a Mom-an-Pop craft store on the tow square. This decision gives them a competitive advantage by being able to opt out of coverage that their competitors can't. Saying that the federal government could pay for coverage still wouldn't alter that fact.Bob78164 wrote: The fundamental analysis of the decision is that the Administration has already demonstrated, in the context of not-for-profit religious organizations, a feasible alternative method of achieving the goal of providing cost-free contraception to women.
Courts are now going to be in the position of trying to determine whether other companies have "sincere" beliefs or not or if they're just trying to even the playing field.
Show me a Corporationsilverscreenselect wrote:If someone could demonstrate to me how a corporation could practice a religion, I might agree with you.tlynn78 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1
You really think there's a snowball's chance in H*ll of that happening in today's political climate?Bob78164 wrote: Congress can (and in my view should) amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to make clear that for-profit corporations are not entitled to its benefits. That would solve the problem pointed out by sss -- that for-profit corporations now can obtain a competitive advantage with strategic religious objections to requirements that impose a cost.
There will be in November.silverscreenselect wrote:You really think there's a snowball's chance in H*ll of that happening in today's political climate?Bob78164 wrote: Congress can (and in my view should) amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to make clear that for-profit corporations are not entitled to its benefits. That would solve the problem pointed out by sss -- that for-profit corporations now can obtain a competitive advantage with strategic religious objections to requirements that impose a cost.

And its owners, per Mother Jones, have no problem investing THEIR retirement plans in companies that actually manufacture said birth control and abortifacents.Of course Hobby Lobby has no problem importing most of their stuff from China where abortion is state mandated.
mrkelley23 wrote:If anyone's interested in a non-inflammatory, non-pandering, but still analytical essay on the decision
I hate ignorance. Ignorant activism even more.dimmzy wrote:I've become involved with Facebook (sigh), which I had to do for my business but I've missed the bored …
In regards to this discussion, I wish the bored gave one the opportunity to LIKE comments!!
I knew I would find intelligent, non-inflamatory discussion here.
And its owners, per Mother Jones, have no problem investing THEIR retirement plans in companies that actually manufacture said birth control and abortifacents.Of course Hobby Lobby has no problem importing most of their stuff from China where abortion is state mandated.
I hate hypocrisy.
I don't know how you can look in a mirror.BackInTex wrote:I hate ignorance. Ignorant activism even more.
Everything about corporate America you complain about is not true with respect to Hobby Lobby. Thy treat their employee with dignity and respect and pay them far better than any of their competitors or similar businesses. They pay them enough more that the few who may need an abortion could afford it themselves. Those that don't get to provide their families a better life than the employees of their competitors. But for you and others it's not about better wages or a better quality of life, as you claim. It's about abortion. Period.silverscreenselect wrote:
I don't know how you can look in a mirror.