Supremes got it right

[tlynn78]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Popehat ‏@Popehat 34m
More
As MSNBC misstates legal basis of ruling, @cnn identifies SCOTUS as "some sort of animal, possibly a badger."

[silverscreenselect]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

If someone could demonstrate to me how a corporation could practice a religion, I might agree with you.

[Vandal]

Oh, those Supremes.

I thought you were going to say:

Spoiler

You Can't Hurry Love

[Bob78164]

I've only skimmed the opinion but it seems a much narrower decision than I'd feared, particularly in light of the concurrence of Justice Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote. 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. Given that demonstrably feasible alternative, the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was violated by administrative regulations that required the owners of for-profit corporations to provide such coverage in violation of sincerely held religious beliefs.

This analysis has two consequences. First, it probably doesn't apply to things like blood transfusions or vaccination, because there is no demonstrably feasible alternative means of providing the program. Second, because the opinion relies entirely on statutory analysis, a future Congress could overrule it. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

[tlynn78]

Oh, those Supremes.

I thought you were going to say:

Spoiler

You Can't Hurry Love

lol!

[AlphaDummy]

Popehat ‏@Popehat 34m
More
As MSNBC misstates legal basis of ruling, @cnn identifies SCOTUS as "some sort of animal, possibly a badger."

WHAPWHAPWHAPWHAPWHAP

[silverscreenselect]

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.

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.

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.

[Bob78164]

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.

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.

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.

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. --Bob

[MarleysGh0st]

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?

[ghostjmf]

Marley, you better watch out! Espouse truths like these (sarcastically) & we might be able to lure you over to the Dark Side, i.e. the Dems. [I initially wrote that "the Drake Side", before the autocorrect that's either suddenly on this board or on this computer, got it (makes it hard to spell things my way, darn it). I kinda like that. "The Drake Side".]

Sincerely, you actually generally have shown a civil-libertarian stance on this board, totally beside the "what party you are going for" stuff, for which I applaud you.

[Bob Juch]

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?

Some deserve capital punishment.

[Bob Juch]

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.

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.

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.

Of course Hobby Lobby has no problem importing most of their stuff from China where abortion is state mandated.

[Bob78164]

Democrats are, of course, using the decision to fire up the base. Although I believe they are overstating the practical impact of the decision, there is one useful takeaway. 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.

The point of a corporation (or most other forms of business entity) is to limit the owner's personal liability. It seems to me like a reasonable trade-off that if you choose an entity designed to shield you from personal responsibility, you don't get to assert personal religious rights to avoid the corporation's obligations. Corporations aren't people. They shouldn't be treated as people. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

If someone could demonstrate to me how a corporation could practice a religion, I might agree with you.

Show me a Corporation

[silverscreenselect]

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.

You really think there's a snowball's chance in H*ll of that happening in today's political climate?

[Bob Juch]

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.

You really think there's a snowball's chance in H*ll of that happening in today's political climate?

There will be in November.

[Bob Juch]

[dimmzy]

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.

Of course Hobby Lobby has no problem importing most of their stuff from China where abortion is state mandated.

And its owners, per Mother Jones, have no problem investing THEIR retirement plans in companies that actually manufacture said birth control and abortifacents.

I hate hypocrisy.

[mrkelley23]

If anyone's interested in a non-inflammatory, non-pandering, but still analytical essay on the decision, one of my friends posted this earlier today on EFB. The author apparently runs a service aimed at explaining legal issues to religious organizations. I was impressed by his analysis, particularly by some of the implications for religious organizations because of this decision.

[littlebeast13]

If anyone's interested in a non-inflammatory, non-pandering, but still analytical essay on the decision

I would doubt anyone here would be interested in such a foreign beast....

lb13

[BackInTex]

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.

Of course Hobby Lobby has no problem importing most of their stuff from China where abortion is state mandated.

And its owners, per Mother Jones, have no problem investing THEIR retirement plans in companies that actually manufacture said birth control and abortifacents.

I hate hypocrisy.

I hate ignorance. Ignorant activism even more.

[silverscreenselect]

I hate ignorance. Ignorant activism even more.

I don't know how you can look in a mirror.

[BackInTex]

Ignorance defined:

I don't know how you can look in a mirror.

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.

Yes, you are the true hypocrite. Fed by ignorance of who and what you are fighting against or what you are truly fighting for. It is your mirror with problems.