Author Topic: About this Hobby Lobby ruling  (Read 125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« on: July 01, 2014, 12:27:53 PM »
So, I guess I have to say "something" about this Hobby Lobby thing.

In the decision, Justice Alito immediately admitted an error that the supreme court has consistently made for the last decade: He wrote:

"Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law,"

No Alito, The suggestion that corporations are incapable of exercising religion has nothing to do with the fact that their purpose is to make money, it has to do with the fact that they ****AREN'T PEOPLE****.

He also came dangerously close to being honest about his motives when he wrote:

 "[T]he HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs."

What he 'should have said was: "the HHS mandate demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates [MY] religious beliefs.


The conservative justices in this case don't see the mandate that all employers (weather they're religious or not) provide basic medical coverage to their employees as an attack upon "religious beliefs", they think that it's part of an attempt by secularists to "De-Christianize" America. And this is their attempt at a counterpunch at something that isn't actually taking place. Christianity's problem with birth control is so arbitrary and nonsensical that it hardly warrants consideration from most people, a company might as well say "We should be exempt from building codes because our religion tells us that the bible is the only 'code' we follow" - what???

In the courts descent, Justice Ginsburg quite correctly pointed out that:

 "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,"

The only thing more startling than the breadth of that decision is that Ginsburg stated in plain language, exactly what conservatives think freedom of religion means. It doesn't just mean (to them) that the state can't force you to worship in a state religion or stop you ( THE INDIVIDUAL) from worshiping as you see fit. They think that it sets religion - its self - apart. Gives it special dispensation and special recognition as being "above" secular law and "above" secular interest. They see "freedom of religion" as "primacy of religion". Don't take my word for it, listen to what they say and write.

The supreme court usually gets it right, but it has a very bad track record when it comes to understanding the difference between a person and a business.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 12:54:34 PM by Philosopher_at_large »
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4403
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2014, 12:43:01 PM »
So if I have non religious beliefs can I do the same thing to a religious employee?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2014, 12:57:18 PM »
So if I have non religious beliefs can I do the same thing to a religious employee?

Of course not! Everybody knows the logical conclusion regarding the fact that some of the founding fathers were a particular sect of a religion. It means that, although we don't have a state religion, we can have some of the effects of a state religion. It's called tradition! :D

*Bangs head on wall*
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2014, 01:13:11 PM »
In the courts descent, Justice Ginsburg quite correctly pointed out that:

 "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,"

(My bold)

A minor nit picky question but didn't the government argue and the Supreme Court agree that the ACA IS a tax?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4403
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2014, 01:47:06 PM »
So if I have non religious beliefs can I do the same thing to a religious employee?

Of course not! Everybody knows the logical conclusion regarding the fact that some of the founding fathers were a particular sect of a religion. It means that, although we don't have a state religion, we can have some of the effects of a state religion. It's called tradition! :D

*Bangs head on wall*
we Injuns  had traditions too,but those damn religious nuts killed us for it,those who survived are on reservations and were put in residential schools.... Are you saying tradition upholds belief?  Your basis for your statement has no basis in a progressive society.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2014, 01:47:54 PM »
In the courts descent, Justice Ginsburg quite correctly pointed out that:

 "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,"

(My bold)

A minor nit picky question but didn't the government argue and the Supreme Court agree that the ACA IS a tax?

Kinf of. they said that the penalty for not having health insurance is a tax and is therefore within the power of congress to levy and enforce.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2014, 01:50:07 PM »
So if I have non religious beliefs can I do the same thing to a religious employee?

Of course not! Everybody knows the logical conclusion regarding the fact that some of the founding fathers were a particular sect of a religion. It means that, although we don't have a state religion, we can have some of the effects of a state religion. It's called tradition! :D

*Bangs head on wall*

we Injuns  had traditions too,but those damn religious nuts killed us for it,those who survived are on reservations and were put in residential schools.... Are you saying tradition upholds belief?  Your basis for your statement has no basis in a progressive society.

Dude, I was being sarcastic. I'm saying that that's how they see it.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1607
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2014, 01:53:20 PM »
I sincerely hope these hypocritical (insert cuss word of choice here) are also refusing to cover Vi@gr@. Cause if God decided it's time for your weenie to stop going up, you shouldn't interfere with his will, right?



My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2014, 02:02:24 PM »
I sincerely hope these hypocritical (insert cuss word of choice here) are also refusing to cover Vi@gr@. Cause if God decided it's time for your weenie to stop going up, you shouldn't interfere with his will, right?

Hopefully. I ain't holding my breath tho. I wonder if vasectomies are covered?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4403
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2014, 03:55:08 PM »
So if I have non religious beliefs can I do the same thing to a religious employee?

Of course not! Everybody knows the logical conclusion regarding the fact that some of the founding fathers were a particular sect of a religion. It means that, although we don't have a state religion, we can have some of the effects of a state religion. It's called tradition! :D

*Bangs head on wall*

we Injuns  had traditions too,but those damn religious nuts killed us for it,those who survived are on reservations and were put in residential schools.... Are you saying tradition upholds belief?  Your basis for your statement has no basis in a progressive society.

Dude, I was being sarcastic. I'm saying that that's how they see it.
a theist with a sense of humour on these forums,very refreshing
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4403
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2014, 03:56:15 PM »
Humble apologies PaL
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline shnozzola

Re: About this Hobby Lobby ruling
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2014, 05:13:07 PM »
Justice Ginsberg : (From Mother Jones)
   "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers'   beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
_________________________

   "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
___________________________
   "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
___________________________
   "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
____________________________
   "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
________________________________
   "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
__________________________________
   "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
____________________________________


Hillary Clinton today:  "I think there should be a real outcry against this kind of decision," she said. "Many more companies will claim religious beliefs and some will be sincere, but others maybe not. And we're going to see this one insurable service cut out from many, many women."


Rachel Maddow piece about the Supremes: 

Rachel speaks about "the case of restaurant owner Maurice Bessinger, who believed that segregation was justified by the Bible. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled [8-0] that he had to desegregate his Piggie Park restaurant chain."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/rachel-maddow-hobby-lobby-scotus_n_5547211.html
“I wanna go ice fishing on Europa, and see if something swims up to the camera lens and licks it.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson