The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Ok, based on this theory they could quit paying taxes too. And, if corporations are people, there's a chance in hell here...

I say, boycott Hobby Lobby for being unAmerican. And I have supported the Greens ....up to this point.

edit: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/09/12/835861/craft-store-sues-contraception/ better journalism for those that care about the poor...not like these Christian corporatists.

They have chosen to play in the secular sandbox of retail business.  That might apply if they were a church.  They aren't.

When did birth control become a Constitutional right to be paid for by one's employer?

It remains a choice..... that's what freedom is about.

You're not a woman. (sometimes)

Oklahoma Pastors Deliver Petitions to Hobby Lobby

http://www.ktul.com/story/19655526/okla-pastors-to-deliver-petitions-to-hobby-lobby?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/19655526/okla-pastors-to-deliver-petitions-to-hobby-lobby?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Senators Seek to File Brief in Hobby Lobby Suit

http://kwgs.com/post/senators-seek-file-brief-hobby-lobby-suit (http://kwgs.com/post/senators-seek-file-brief-hobby-lobby-suit)

Judge Rejects GOP Request in Hobby Lobby Lawsuit

http://kwgs.com/post/judge-rejects-gop-request-hobby-lobby-lawsuit (http://kwgs.com/post/judge-rejects-gop-request-hobby-lobby-lawsuit)

Overtime and minimum wage are not constitutional rights, and neither is Obamacare.  For that matter protection from  hiring discrimination is not a constitutional right.  Workplace safety.  Sexual harassment.  Employers not making fabricated with holdings or paying with company store credits...  none of that is a constitutional right.

Challenging the mandate on religious grounds and as an unconstitutional extension of governmental powers was fine.  Legit legal questions.  Which the Court heard and ruled on.  But this is taking religious freedom way, way too far.  The issue is not whether government should mandate certain health coverage.

The argument boils down to:  i believe in X.  I own business Y.  The government cannot enforce laws against Y because it violates my religious belief X.

Can a Jewish owned for-profit then refuse to hire Muslims or serve women on their periods?  Can a mormom owned business refuse service to Indians because they believe they are a cursed race? What about a Kosher packing plant refusing inspectors on religious grounds? 

Sorry, a for-profit business has to comply with the law regardless of the owners religious beliefs.  Otherwise every corporation would be owned by a shell with the most profitably advantageous religious beliefs. I know we have a legal fiction of businesses being people... but now legal entities for profit have religious beliefs? 

and this is why we need a like button in here

Unless that enterprise is owned by an Indian tribe then they can discriminate all they want in their hiring practices.

US urges court to deny Hobby Lobby lawsuit request

http://kwgs.com/post/us-urges-court-deny-hobby-lobby-lawsuit-request (http://kwgs.com/post/us-urges-court-deny-hobby-lobby-lawsuit-request)

Oklahoma City Judge Resets Hearing for Hobby Lobby Arguing Health Care Law

http://www.ktul.com/story/19973377/okla-hearing-set-in-hobby-lobby-health-care-claim (http://www.ktul.com/story/19973377/okla-hearing-set-in-hobby-lobby-health-care-claim)

Judge Denies Hobby Lobby Morning-After Pill Suit

KOTV.com

One option would be to shut down Hobby Lobby.

Well yes, that would be one option.

One option that wouldn't surprise me, given the foot-stamping going on from some conservative business owners.

They've line up consultations with Chick-fil-a's people.

Hobby Lobby Appeals Morning-After Pill Decision

http://kwgs.com/post/hobby-lobby-appeals-morning-after-pill-decision (http://kwgs.com/post/hobby-lobby-appeals-morning-after-pill-decision)

I think I might pass out of not-surprised.

You mean to tell me that an aggrieved entity is using the appellate process to have its objections heard? I cannot believe that. That never happens.

They need to get a prohibit copulation clause inserted into state law and go with the premise that you just can't throw that out there because it's swimmin' for the egg. These Federal judges are too dang librel.

When will you ever learn the diode/check valve principle?  Appellate process is only legitimate when initiated by the left.

It may already be there from our earlier days in the beginning of the 20th Century.

There is such an @ssload of truth in that comment. 

Unless you happen to be able to afford your very own Supreme Court...then you get elected President...

TW FB post:

Domino's owner gets an injunction.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/275015-judge-halts-birth-control-policy-for-dominos-founder

Here's the text of a letter (alleged) from CEO Green from Hobby Lobby I saw on FB:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp)

Thanks.

Another company gets an injunction:


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/missouri-company-wins-its-battle-against-obama-hhs-mandate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+%28LifeNews.com%29

Tom Monaghan was holding his mouth just right.

Now it's Taco Bell in Guthrie...

http://guthrienewspage.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/report-guthrie-taco-bell-hours-cut-due-to-healthcare-mandates/

So religious freedom means that these employers are free to impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees?  I seem to recall that churches cannot do that to employees in a secular business - a bookstore, for instance - that's run by a church. 

You could also look at it as the employees getting to impose their personal religious (or lack of) beliefs on the employer.

No, Red, it's not the same.  An employer has certain expectations regarding the conduct of his employees, but that does not include the ability to control their reproductive health.  I know women who use birth control pills to regulate their cycles in an effort to control pain.  I also know women (or did at an earlier part of my life) who used birth control pills as a normal part of their sex lives.  Yet these employers make no distinction between the two and simply deny them for all women.

I have to wonder if they're also against the use of drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Would it be equally right for an employer to demand that his male employees wear yamulkes, or that none of them wear the color yellow, or own a dog?  Would we regard that as unreasonable?

I'd expect there would be a public outcry if an employer insisted that prayer alone would be sufficient health care for his employees, or that those who fell sick deserved to do so due to their sinful natures.  Make no mistake about it - some of these companies take their positions because they believe that sex is sinful and that anyone engaging in it outside of marriage deserves some kind of punishment.   

I am not allowed to drink alcoholic beverages at work or during working hours.  My employer does not prohibit me from drinking alcoholic beverages when away from work.  I do not expect my employer to pay for my beer directly. 

Hobby Lobby is willing to and already does pay for many types of contraception according to the links posted here that I have read.  I have seen nothing prohibiting employees from using the day after pill.  Hobby Lobby just doesn't want to pay for it.

I think the Taco Bell stuff has more to do with the costs.

As for ED drugs, I would guess if using those would terminate a life, er.. pregnancy, then these companies might object. And btw, do you know how despicable  calling the termination of unborn babies "reproductive health" actually is? Call it what it is, not something else because it is more palatable.

I see this "controversy" to be no different than the pharmacist or doctor that refuses to provide a good or service they disagree with on conscience/moral grounds. A person should not have to surrender those beliefs merely by entering the marketplace.

The decision to refuse to pay for a morning after pill is based on religion, not a secular reason.  If Hobby Lobby was a church, that decision would be acceptable.  But Hobby Lobby is not a church but a business, and businesses have to adhere to the law without choosing which laws they find acceptable.  I think it's fine that they've opted to challenge the Affordable Care Act in court, but ultimately they're going to lose.

But you see, it's not enough that people have access to these drugs, which HL owners might detest, those that detest them on religious grounds must also now provide for them. Where in the hell does the government derive its power to do that?

And there's your equal protection argument...

So I need to look for an employer that refuses to pay for my beer for religious reasons rather than secular reasons.  Then I can get the Federal Government to make them pay for my beer.  Sounds like a plan to me.

I'm beginning to think you're just in this for the beer.  I'll have to buy you one sometime.

It will take more than one and I'll still disagree with you when I sober up.

I've changed my mind about the beer.  Buy me some AvGas instead.  I'll be sure to have the tanks down to minimum landing reserves.   ;D

...render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's...

And the secular business world they are in is Caesar's province.

That makes no sense.

The list of restaurants to boycott is getting larger. Wendys:

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Fast-Food-Worker-Hours-Cut---185827392.html

How about from a simple cost-containment issue companies simply don't want to pay for the consequences of their employee's sport bucking?

At what point did it become incumbent on employers to provide for every single "medical" whim and need of their employees?

Speaking of cost-containment, I was informed this morning by our office manager our health insurance premium for our company-sponsored plan is going up 23% this year on renewal.  I thought the "Affordable Care Act" was going to make the cost of providing healthcare less expensive.

They're smart to use a religion to try to (in this case) save money.  It's gets people behind them.

"We know you won't volunteer to help at a food bank et al but you can get in line to support us against extra cost."

Get in line to support us.  Eat more chikin and so on and so forth.

January 20, 2009


Stop thinking.  You'll just give yourself a headache.   ;D

I know, it's grounds for a horrible migraine every time!

Yeah,..it does.  Hobby Lobby is NOT a church.  Or a religious charity.  It is a business started by a guy who happened to have a certain religious orientation.  As a business, it is by definition secular - an artificial construct of the government specifically designed and enabled to fulfill certain societal goals related to economic activity.  None of which are inherently religious in nature.  But you know this already....

Deception has become the tool of the religious right. They even lend their tools to the Teabagger/GOP far right nuts that sit in congress.

The dumbing down of cuntry continues.... do not shop at Mardel or Hobby Lobby. (go get them KRMG...they fit right in with Mark Wayne Mullin's Plumbing and the other advertisers on hate radio).

JoAnn's and Michaels...

Paying for a pregnancy and childbirth is a hell of a lot more expensive than paying for the pill.

I hope you are not advocating an economic only solution.

Thought this was interesting about HH (from its website):

http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/ministry.cfm


Also its stated purpose:

Here is a not-so-great development.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20603065/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries

Only for those who would choose it.

It's official.  They have decided to let the federal government put them out of business.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-based-hobby-lobby-to-defy-federal-law-requiring-contraception-coverage-for-employees-attorney-says/article/3741128

$1.3 million in fines a day shouldn't' take long to retire that company through government induced bankruptcy.

514 stores and about 21,000 employees.

Wow. That's a awful tall soap box to fall off of.

Any comment I come up with just sounds cavalier.

Waiting for the guvna to chime in....

She hasn't been very active on this thread.

They could sell instead of losing the business.  That way, they keep their beliefs happy and they allow the job creators to do their thing.

I'm sure the fines will be much less than what has been yelled from the parapets.

Old article...

But, when they finally owe more than their company has do you think they will stand for it with their personal fortune?  Or do you think they will say Hobby Lobby is an incorporated entity unique and seperate from the owners and thereby their personal assets are protected?

Religion: personal and applies to my company
Debts: company is desperate from the person

Yay hypocrisy!

It'll never get that far.  I'd gamble the money will become very important before any real damage is done.

That's if any fines are levied at all.

The democrats have targeted Texa$$ as a turn around because of the huge potential in Latino citizens. The current tribe of dumbabies will migrate here when they realize it's their only safe haven other than Mexico.


It is "we the people" and not "my rights trump your rights"....

Except of course, it is my right to own firearms; then it's all about you and the Brady Bunch Buddies, ain't it?

Wrong thread.... Hobby Lobby does not need to do comprehensive background checks. God is dead. :-X

You brought up the "trumping of rights"....

Significantly, the rule draws a line at non-profit organizations and would not permit for-profit entities (companies like Hobby Lobby, for instance) to take advantage of the religious exemption.
Ha ha...
Everything You Need To Know About The Administration’s New Birth Control Rules
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/01/1528221/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-administrations-new-birth-control-rules/

When was it free birth control became an enumerated right?

I'm calling this discriminatory.  If I want to practice BC, I have to pay for jimmy hats.  Where's my free birth control?

http://www.okstate.edu/UHS/healthed.php (http://www.okstate.edu/UHS/healthed.php)


http://sexetc.org/states/oklahoma/ (http://sexetc.org/states/oklahoma/)


http://www.lesko.com/free_con_dom.php (http://www.lesko.com/free_con_dom.php)


I wish they were offered for free in many more places.  Schools, churches, hotel bed tables next to the bibles, etc, QT's, hospitals, and wherever people go to get child care and every healthcare provider.

Zing!

Your woman is showing.... :o

In a bowl next to the door at the bar.  ;D

Your Tea Head is showing.... :o

Zip your fly back up Clown.

Apparently somebody's never heard of food stamps.

Food stamps don't help poor suckers like me who are gainfully employed.  They don't help 3rd year law students making $60,000 a year forced to choose between a new pair of Balenciaga heals and a bowl of corn chowder.

Food stamps won't help a single mother of three working as a nurse who has to keep a roof over her family's head and deal with the rising cost of Happy Meals.

You heartless bastard!  Food stamps are for the lucky ones, while those who strive to be productive for the sake of some greedy boss unwilling to provide even the most basic of human needs, are left to spend their hard earned cash on food, when it could be used to keep their family warm, dry and healthy.

How can you flush the toilet without thinking "that's MY hard work swirling around that bowl!"?

They will apparently.

http://okc.about.com/od/health/a/okfoodstamps.htm


http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/Licensed-Practical-Nurse-Monthly-Salary-Details-Altus-OK.aspx

Average nurses salary in Tulsa is $63,603.  That's about 5,300 a month.  Even after taxes, that's far more than $1,838.  Try harder.
http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/registered-nurse-Salary-Details-Tulsa-OK.aspx

Hahahaha!

Salary dot com?

You must not know many nurses here.  I do.  They'd nearly kill to make that average.  I'm not saying some don't, but not the ones I know.

Uh. . .never mind.

There are many nurses that make far less than that in Oklahoma.

You didn't state:  "Food stamps won't help a single mother of three working as a nurse (making over $1,838 net a month) who has to keep a roof over her family's head and deal with the rising cost of Happy Meals."

You simply said "Food stamps won't help a single mother of three working as a nurse who has to keep a roof over her family's head and deal with the rising cost of Happy Meals."

Every person I have known to be on food stamps was working at the time. You persist in the mistaken belief that the need for assistance is some kind of moral failing. It's just bizarre.

You mean it's not?

Nice diversion, but that is not my point.

Much like the BC debate and framed in the same context, the exact same argument (actually an even stronger argument) can be made for employer financed grocery programs.  Why should the purchase of birth control be any more of a responsibility of an employer than food?

Why should birth control be considered a right that MUST be provided by employers under penalty of law?

Sure, birth control is important, and without it, the risk of unwanted pregnancy, and even serious health concerns increases.

Food, however, is necessary for survival and comprises a far greater financial burden than birth control.  In fact, skipping food for a month typically results in death.  We are obviously at a crossroads between the greed of corporate America and life itself!  If you don't support the right to food, you are campaigning for the death of innocent men, women and children.

I know you wouldn't possibly be suggesting that food is the financial responsibility of the individual?. . . That he or she should be expected to pay for it out of their own pocket?  That could be thousands of dollars a month!  Take, for instance, the average 3rd year George Town law student who would spend in excess of $8,000 on food durring law school (a conservative $300/mo).  If you were to look around that campus and see the faces of those affected, and listen to their stories.  $8,000 is more than twice what Sandra Fluke paid for birth control durring law school!!!

How can we expect our institutions and employers to take and take without supporting the workforce that fuels their profits?

Why are you against feeding people??

Why should a kidney transplant be the responsibility of an employer? Oh, right, it's called health insurance.

Some of the stuff you all are squabbling over, I can afford.   I want someone to buy my avgas. 

And there you have it--as sad as it is. Your employer is responsible for your having a kidney transplant. Not you, not your family, not even government. For all you non-employers out there? One less responsibility you have, and being shouldered by the evil 1%.

Because employment causes kidney disease.
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/understanding-kidney-disease-basic-information

That was an excellent effort at missing the point! Your employer is not responsible for your kidney transplant. The health insurance they pay (part of) the cost for is. I'm not sure why this becomes so difficult to comprehend when the insurance company is paying for hormonal birth control.

Deflect alert!!!

Come on, guido!  You, as an employer know that you "count" that as part of the total compensation package!  Every corporation I have ever worked for did that, too!  From small, 35 people places to big 150,000 + places.  That extra cost is counted against the paycheck that an employee gets.  The only difference is that the employer handles the disbursement for all employees to one insurance company.  Very much the most efficient way to handle that.  Otherwise, the hourly rate of pay going onto the W-2 would be that amount larger to account for the difference.  Or you could just 'settle' for employees that you could get who were so unmarketable or under-trained that they would not contribute to the accomplishment of corporate goals.  How long have you run your own practice that you would not understand that?  Or are you just trying to dissemble??

The never ending Fool's parade...wasting time and money....

Mard and David should learn what freedom from religion implies.

Hobby Lobby wins.

Tenth Circuit rules in favor of the Greens.
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6294.pdf

CONCLUSION
I would (1) affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction for Hobby
Lobby and Mardel on their RFRA claim; (2) conclude that the Greens have standing to  
assert their RFRA and Free Exercise claims; (3) reverse the district court’s holding that
the Greens’ RFRA claim is not substantially likely to succeed and remand for
reconsideration; and (4) affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on
the plaintiffs’ Free Exercise Clause claim.

Finally, I concur that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to this case.

This opens the door for every business with a similar mission to challenge Obamacare.

They don't have to pay the fines while it's still in court.

Too early to claim victory. This allows suits to progress. But yes, now every politically motivated, economically driven, fundamentally religiously based business will weasel the system. Its Fallin whirled where every problem is Obama/Obamacare in origin.

It means the Green’s live to fight another day.  In a plurality the case was remanded to the district course for further determination on the merits as to whether or not the Green’s should have an injunction while the matter is decided.  Now, the district court is strongly encouraged to rule that an injunction is proper and then hear the case – but not ordered to do so.

What you posted is the hypothetical holding of a single Circuit Judge dissenting in part and concurring in part.  The case has four written opinions.  The holding of the majority is:

“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below and exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we reverse the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and remand with instructions that the district court address the remaining two preliminary injunction factors and then assess whether to grant or deny the plaintiffs’ motion.”

The entire ruling is here:

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6294.pdf

The basic reasoning of the holding is this:
1.   STANDING
a.   The Green’s have standing because they own several trusts and those trusts hold for the corporate entities Hobby Lobby and Mardel.
b.   Hobby Lobby and Mardel are “faith based companies” who have a for-profit religious mission.
c.   The Green’s have sincere religious beliefs that pass through to their trusts and then on to the companies owned by their trusts.
d.   Individuals have a right to exercise religion, individuals can form organizations, religious organizations have a right to exercise religion.  Therefore, for-profit organization are people who can exercise religion.

2.   BURDEN ON RELIGION
a.   The Green’s believe some forms of birth control = abortion.
b.   ObamaCare forces large for-profit business to offer those forms of birth control to their employees.
c.   Forcing a for-profit company to offer birth control violates the beliefs of the people who own the trusts which own the companies – because forcing them to buy insurance coverage including birth control is not simply a matter of compensation.
d.   The religious beliefs of those owners trumps the governments interest (having already decided standing).
e.   The interest of the employees to not have the non-religious employer force  the owners religion on them is not relevant because employees can buy their own insurance.

The majority does raise a good point which I previously over looked:  a kosher butcher operates a for-profit business that necessarily serves a religious function.  That person/entity would certainly have standing to challenge a law making kosher butchering practices illegal.  The law stops the principle activity of the business on religious grounds and I think it must face additional scrutiny to succeed (e.g., if the government could prove Kosher Butchers poses a substantial health risk to the general public or somehow violates other peoples civil rights).   

But I think that is a relatively narrow exception and it certainly doesn’t apply to retailers whose principle activity is to sell crap to the public.  No matter how religious the owners are, the corporations principle activity is to generate profit by selling merchandise to the public and Obamacare does not hinder that function. The largest difference between Hobby Lobby and Jo-Anne Fabric is that the people who control the trusts which owns Hobby Lobby are more religious.  Therefore, they should have leave to disregard laws that dictate the operation of the business with which they disagree.  Mardel may have a better claim – but the law does nothing to stop or hinder the principle business activity of Mardel either.

The issues start with standing.  The Green’s are prevented from making a personal claim because Obamacare does not make them do anything.  It is directing Hobby Lobby to do something.  Even ignoring the trust ownership (which they do entirely), the Green’s lack standing under the Shareholder Standing Rule.  If a corporation and its shareholders have a common interest, the corporation is the proper actor as naming the individuals is redundant.  The ruling starts by ignoring the corporate distinction and continues throughout.

A corporation, even a family corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity.   Try suing Hobby Lobby, they will make sure to point that out to you if you name the Green’s personally.  Even though they wholly own and totally direct the operations of Hobby Lobby, the Green family is not Hobby Lobby.  A corporation is a separate legal entity, one that has “no conscience, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, and no desires.”  Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 972.  The Court is imparting the beliefs of the owners to the separate and distinct entity – which is improper under 413 years of English and American Corporate law.

Free exercise jurisprudence has always drawn a distinction between institutions whose principle activity is religious, and everyone else.  For profit corporations have NEVER been held to have free-exercise rights before. Not in the 140 years of the Free Exercise clause nor in the 20 years of the RFRA.  Not Congress, the Supreme Court, or the State of Oklahoma has ever legislatively or judicially granted religious rights to for-profit corporations and the logic in the 10th Circuit’s decision advocating such is flawed.  The dissent rightfully calls this a “radical revision of 1st Amendment Law and the law of corporations.”

In addition to the standing issue , the lack of evidence, and the lack of precedent – the massive gaps in logic  will prove to be fatal.  The term “faith based company” has never been used in any precedent setting environment (statue, appellate court, etc.).   A company has never before been held to have religious beliefs – as pointed out above the Supreme Court has specifically said they do not have beliefs.  The leap in logic from “individuals can have religion and churches can have religion” to “for-profit corporations should too” is embarrassing.   Not to mention wholly distorting the intent, history, and jurisprudence of the RFRA – which, according to the legislative history, was never meant to expand the free exercise clause .

Even the holding finds flaws within itself –
How does the Federal Government judge which corporations hold sincere religious beliefs and thus stop for-profit entities from choosing the most profitable “belief.”  Where is the line for corporations forcing their religious beliefs upon their employees?  If “person” in the entirety of Federal Law refers to individuals and corporations, how do we reconcile hundreds of incongruent laws?   If a new class of companies called “faith based company” is now created, are those companies exempt from any law the owners object to on religious grounds or must each be litigated?  Can the government regulate the behavior of “faith based companies” and still avoid “entanglement” with religion?  Can a church convert to a “faith based company” and distribute dividends to its founders?

The Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA are both designed and have always been held to protect the free exercise of religion by individuals and non-profit organizations.  This is clear by history, jurisprudence, and context.  Corporations are separate and distinct legal entities who do not have religious beliefs.   To impart the religious beliefs of owners unto their for-profit endeavors and by extension their employees without sound logic (which, I would argue, would exist for the kosher butcher) is in error.  For-profit corporations should not be allowed to disregard laws they do not like because of the owners' religious beliefs nor should owners of a for-profit corporation be able to force their religious beliefs on their employees.

This seems to be a continuation of the re-definition of "corporation" started by the RWRE to make it a 'person'.  Corporations have already been held to have First Amendment rights to free speech.  Wouldn't seem to be that big a stretch - particularly for this Supreme Court - to extend religious beliefs to a corporation, also.  Even though it is a contrived entity, whose only basis for existence is by definition of state/federal law.

I'm not gonna be surprised if they get a brand new, big, fat redefinition of precedent here.....and yes, this is extremely radical.  And just another step on the path to theocracy that we have been running down.

In instances like those they really need to consider the differences between "person" and "citizen".  They are not in all instances the same, and do not in all instances have the same rights.  Not all "persons", including corporations, have the right to vote for instance.

The basic question you asked is why is a corporation allowed freedom of speech but not the free exercise of religion.  (1) The answer is most succinctly stated that  “[a]lthough [the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses] reside within the same constitutional amendment, these two provisions have vastly different purposes and precedents, and we decline to make the significant leap Plaintiffs ask of us without clear guidance from Congress or the Supreme Court.”  Freedom of Speech and Free Exercise of Religion are two separate rights – the same logic does not apply.  Foremost among them:  corporations do not believe - but setting up a separate and distinct legal entity for the purpose of generating profit, protecting yourself from liability, and other benefits of that for-profit-entity you have to accept other things that come with it.  The entity is NOT you.

The dissent lays out the rest of the argument rather well:

(2) Hobby Lobby is not a religious institution. 
The owners may be very religious and the corporation may spend money on religious ads,  “but these alleged facts, though perhaps establishing a sincerity of purpose on the part of the Green family that is rooted in their faith, cannot alter the basic for-profit status of the two corporations, or otherwise place these corporations into a unique class for purposes of RFRA in particular, or federal or state law in general. Significantly, the majority, despite employing the unique characterizations of “faith-based companies’ and businesses with ‘a religious mission,’ does not cite to a single source in support of this new legal category of for-profit corporation. . . . That is because it cannot.”   Opinion of BRISCOE, Chief Judge,  at 6-7

(3)  200 Years of Free Exercise and RFRA law making and jurisprudence have consistently held that individuals and religious institutions have free exercise rights.  Not for-profit corporations.  For-Profit corporations  have always had some measure of free-speech and the same is codified in the constitution (freedom of the press, with “the press” a commercial enterprise even at the time of the founders [i.e. how Ben Franklin got rich]).

(4) Corporations are separate and distinct entities and have no beliefs of their own.
“The majority next states that it “cannot see why an individual operating for profit retains Free Exercise protections but an individual who incorporates—even as the sole shareholder—does not, even though he engages in the exact same activities as before.” Maj. Op. at 40. The obvious response to this is that, in the latter situation, a new entity separate from the natural individual has been formed. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that ‘incorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.’ Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 163 (2001). . . . and as I have noted, the specific purpose for which this new entity is created matters greatly to how it will be categorized and treated under the law. “Opinion of BRISCOE, Chief Judge,  at 18 – 19

(5) The Majority has no support for their argument.  The only citation they offer is O Centra which holds that a non-profit corporation in New Mexico which is owned by a religious sect has protection under the Free Exercise clause.  This is NOT a for-profit corporation.  Absent congressional intent, jurisprudence, or a logical argument – the contention must fail.

In sum, “there is no plausible basis for inferring that Congress intended or could have anticipated” that for-profit corporations would be covered by RFRA.  McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1942 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The majority’s conclusion to the contrary thus “amounts to a pure judicial override of the statute Congress enacted.” Id.   Opinion of BRISCOE, Chief Judge,  at 14.

I would be very much in favor of a constitutional amendment on defining personhood as a human. And that humans are the ones that have real constitutional rights and those rights include privacy.

Corporations, unions, political parties and the like are not people. They are made up of people with rights but they themselves as entities have no rights except those which are granted by law and are not constitutionally protected.

Further, legally I want no political donations from corporations or unions. PACs and Political Parties are ok as politically focused groups of people but donations can be limited and must be public and the groups themselves have no “rights”.

Point (4) would seem to be the one most under attack now - trying to change that line of thought.  Just keep picking away until this court or the next dominated by RWRE (radical judiciary anyone?) appointees finally gets the majority it needs - oh, wait...they already have that! - to undo decades or even centuries of precedent.  They already bought a Presidency once, so giving religious beliefs to a corporation shouldn't be any big deal!
 
Rust never sleeps!

Hobby Lobby president Steve Green issued an apology Thursday in response to a comment reportedly made by one of his employees to a Jewish customer asking why the store didn’t carry bar mitzvah cards.

According to a blogger in the Malboro, N.J., area, the employee told the customer: "We don’t cater to you people."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/hobby-lobby-president-issues-apology-after-incident-with-jewish-customer/article_5b03a8be-2d1e-11e3-a577-001a4bcf6878.html

This case was argued to the S.C. yesterday. Patty Murray, the stupidest person in the Senate, weighed in as only she can:




(http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1883662/flags/LL)

Who would have thought the store manager would still be bitter after all these years.   (Since the Jews killed Jesus and all.)

What's stupid is that we are treating corporations as people now.

What's stupid is Hobby Lobby wanting to have it both ways. The corporation is not its owners when it comes to liability, but it sure is when it comes to religion, according to them. I can't wait to work for someone who doesn't believe in blood transfusions.

Blood Banks are vampire pyramid schemes.

The best editorial I've seen on the Hobby Lobby case:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

There you have it. Work for yourself, that way you will never have to worry about it. But you will have to worry about opening a business based on your own beliefs, but have some republican Congress/President telling you those beliefs are wrong and you'd better change.

There is no requirement that you operate a business as a corporation. Sole proprietorships and partnerships still exist. If you want the benefit of corporate personhood, you should not be allowed to disclaim that separation when it suits you.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Repeating internet memes is no substitute for knowledge. Google "corporate personhood", research the court's view on the reasons why it exists and why corporations form, and get back to us in a few weeks. That is how long it should take you to understand the concept.

I understand the basic concept fine, thanks. If you disagree with something I say, feel free to rebut it. Dismissive responses aren't helpful to anybody. You might consider checking scotusblog for good arguments on both sides of this particular debate. It's not exactly a fringe opinion amongst corporate law types that a finding for Hobby Lobby could make for some problematic law.

That was very enlightening. Thanks, and I agree, its the best I've seen.

As one who had a sole proprietorship and a S-Corp, I can say both worked for me just fine at different times for different reasons. An LLC wasn't well known back then except for law and accounting firms.

And here’s another. 

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/25/five-false-perceptions-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/

I am exceptionally dismissive when it comes to people speaking so "matter-of-fact" about legal principles for which have no functional understanding. I would expect the same treatment if I were to start talking out of my hoss as to computer/IT matters, engineering, and some other fields that frequenters of this forum are in. In those cases, I tend to LISTEN and learn, rather than engage them as if I am some sort of a peer of theirs.

Your link backs up my overall problem with internet memes and how a perception from those agenda-driven becomes fact to the ignorant.

Agreed.   As long as we all realize that both sides are equally guilty of cherry-picking our sources to fit our opinions.

Remember the title of this thread. Not exactly one where you need to look far for cherry-picked sources.

Yep.   :)

There was a great discussion on this topic on POTUS radio yesterday.   Rick Ungar was filling in for Smerconish.  Did a great job of taking all the emotion out of both sides, and focusing the discussion on the aspect of incorporation and how/if that creates a separation from individual religious protection.  It's nice to hear a (rare) level-headed discussion about an issue like this.

Oh,....puuuulllllleeeeeaaaaasssseeeee....!!!!

Internet memes is what Fox is all about - with not even an attempt at a substitute for knowledge.  Are you "Foxing" on us here??

The court's views on corporate person-hood go the 'hijacking' of those courts by a reactionary judicial that has redefined what the tool was meant to be - a corporation - for the use and benefit of society.  Peter Drucker IS the definitive authority on said tool, and he defined what it's uses and operations SHOULD be.  "Harvard School of Business" in the meantime for the last 30+ years has gone another direction - the direction defined by the hijackers of both Congress AND Corporate America.

It's kind of like when God said something about giving man dominion over the earth - but man promptly forgot that he was also charged with the social responsibility to act as steward of that earth....as in Genesis 1:28.... well "Harvard School of Business" has forgotten it's responsibility to the society that corporations were created to advance.  They were NOT created as just a tool for a handful of CEO's to get rich with - they WERE created for  the benefit of society as a whole.  But hey, when you can buy your own Congress....what the heck...go for it!!




See that pesky little admonition about "replenish the earth" below.  But they really ARE such small words, they cannot possibly have been meant by God to apply to US....!!  We have done everything commanded except for one!

Genesis - King James version.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Hmmm......

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/01/Hobby-Lobby-invests-in-contraception-manufacturers/6221396380280/

Hypocrisy much?  Maybe not, since many companies do not know what mutual funds they're investing in for the company retirement portfolio.

However, this could come into play with the current SCOTUS case being heard.

How's:

They also DID offer these benefits under their old plan.  They only dropped the coverage after deciding to sue:

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

Just an excuse to be a fake martyr.  It was a non issue to their beliefs apperently until 2012...

Now Hobby Lobby is sponsoring Bible Class in Oklahoma Public schools, after thwarting the regular process.  Surely the school will offer Hindu, Satanist, and Islam classes too.  What?  No?  The State is just teaching one religion on a Protestant bible?

The hell you say.  Its almost like the Greens just want THEIR beliefs enforced.

Shocked I say, just shocked!  I would have never seen such a conclusion coming!

Hmm...and the plot thickens.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140521-oklahoma-school-board-members-met-privately-with-hobby-lobby-president-on-bible-class.ece

http://www.news9.com/story/25586839/ap-ok-school-board-discussed-bible-class-with-hobby-lobby-president

Love how they circumvented public meeting laws here.  Not really, but you get my point.  Why do that if they were afraid of some kind of consequence?

BREAKING NEWS: High Court Rules in Hobby Lobby Case

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/breaking-news-high-court-rules-hobby-lobby-case (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/breaking-news-high-court-rules-hobby-lobby-case)


Modified:

Anybody surprised??


Given the reactionary judiciary we have in this country....(quote from an extremely RWRE acquaintance - he was talking about other rulings, but this also applies.)

I wanted to be :'(

I'm waiting for Guido and the GOP to complain about activist judges granting for profit corporations religious beliefs, something that has never been done in the history of the world.  Think about it - a business entity formed for the purpose of making money while shielding owners from liability has religious beliefs and it can enforce those beliefs on others.

Hobby Lobby, Inc., has religious views that it can enforce against its employees and use to defeat federal law.  This is terrifying.  When the sovereign wealth fund of Dubai purchases another major american corporation, can it enforce Sharia law on employees, refuse to hire Jews, or not render taxes to the Great Satan on religious grounds?  Do corporations now have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to adopt the most profitable religion?  Can a for-profit corporation owned by a Muslim refuse to hire non-muslims?  Can religions that believe being black is the mark of Cain refuse to hire black people?

A new law was made today.  It will take a decade to really know what it means.  Must read opinion.

Could be ironic if they did comment.... bet you didn't know there was an agenda to make the US into a theocracy, did ya?

And undo what the Founders wanted.  I've been watching with great sadness how many of the Republicans complain about the lack of religious freedom...that is, until it doesn't affect them (and affects the non-Christians).  Some saying things like that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Muslims.

From what I understand from the news I have been seeing and reading, that they are doing this for "Closely held/Family run" corporations, which I take as privately held and not traded on the stock exchange. This is a lot of corporations, and at first I kind of chuckled about what CF posted, but it does open that door to allow discrimination for other religious beliefs.

The corporate veil is designed to insulate the owners from liability arising from acts of the corporation, correct?

Doesn’t the corporate veil also exist to insulate the corporation from the personal acts or beliefs of the owners?

Chastise moment;  Sense and knowledge of history....  This country was NOT founded on any ideal or desire for religious freedom!  It was founded in the largest part, by religious minorities in England who were being persecuted.  So, they came HERE so they could set up their own theocracies and persecute anyone in their area who did not adhere to their beliefs.  (Witches burning... Salem...Puritans....Quakers....etc)

That all started early 1600's by corporate ventures endorsed by James, such as the Charter of the Virginia Company of London and the Plymouth company.  The people who came worked out a different plan and after just a few years, it became an effort to use the company to advance their theocracy.  For a couple hundred years.  Today, we see like minded religious zealots of may widely different faiths attempting to take us back to the "good old days" of theocracy.  The big problem I can see with that is, what if Theocracy A wins out over B, C, or D.  Then we will have a repeat of Shiite versus Sunni like we are seeing in the middle-east these days.

Supreme Court has answered that question in HUGE, massively intrusive reactionary ways in the last couple years.  Citizen's United and today's ruling both say no to your second question.  Corporations are now people, as defined in the US Constitution and have all the rights therein.  Does this not send a chill down your spine?? 

In fact, part of today's ruling - the part that counts - specifically says that this covers corporations whose owners are so closely tied to the corporation by their beliefs.  Apparently not companies that have more diverse ownership.  Makes sense, doesn't it??   In a Bizarro-Murdochian Fantasy World....

Think about this CF.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=20403.0

I guess the loving of an independent judiciary is a good idea as long as its "independence" is in line with your thinking/liking.

I would hope that everyone would calm down about this, but given that pro-abortion is such a popular position for the left, I am reduced to just piling on.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H34ukFe8g[/youtube]

As for me, I am heading out to celebrate "Christians are special peoples" Day.

So how is that not wanting religious freedom?  If you're saying they came here to escape the religious persecution wouldn't that be seeking freedom from that persecution, and by proxy seeking religious freedom?

I guess my teacher didn't summarize it very well?

They wanted the freedom to impose their religion on their neighbors....I guess that IS religious freedom, too.

It's a strong volley back in the "War on Christ".

Not sure there's anything to do about it.  Don't buy your craft materials from Hobby Lobby I guess.

So if Religious beliefs are above the law where does it stop?

Where do you see it progressing?

They aren't as a general principal - only specific beliefs for members of the club that can afford their own reactionary judiciary.  As example; Mormons cannot legally be polygamists again.  Native Americans cannot legally use their traditional religious symbols in their sacraments.

Try starting with:  "The law should not interfere with religious beliefs".  That way, you will feel better. And be in line with the constitution rather than spitting out some bullsm!le meme.

You gave me nothing to think about Guido.  

I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of complaining about an "activist" judiciary when you don't like what they do, but saying nothing when there is truly activist rulings. Activist define as changing things that have always been - and analyzing the logic underpinning that decision.  So you linked me to a thread whereby I state the same thing?  Kudos!

Here's the deal:  Hobby Lobby has never gone to church.  It has never been baptized.  It doesn't fight with temptation.  It not only has no belief in God, it has no beliefs at all.  Its entire purpose for existing is to make money while shielding its owners from liability.  It is legally a separate and distinct entity from its owners - THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF A CORPORATION.  I utterly do not understand the logic behind the ruling and I have not heard anything that sounds logical about it.

Don't celebrate too much Guido.  This ruling does NOT say that liberal Christian views rule (Catholics are relatively liberal Christians), it says corporations can have religious beliefs.  Muslims, Fundamentalists, whomever get the same rights to force their religious beliefs through their corporations.

 
Conan:
 
Corporations are now for-profit enterprises that can not die, can not be imprisoned, can spend infinite to influence politics and can adopt "religious beliefs" such that they can ignore whatever Federal laws they want.   I hereby declare myself a pacifist and wish to NOT pay the portion of income taxes that goes to the military, spying, or the police state? Cool?

Hey GM... I hear you admit to negligently killing at least 13 people and hiding it for ten years - I assume you will be going to jail for the rest of your life?  Come on... Corporations are people too!  

Again, I need to review the the opinion itself to see what the logic is and what the actual impact will be.  I will withhold further comment until I have read the opinion.

I seriously suggest folks watch and listen to Laurence Tribe in the video clip at the bottom of this blog post. He is NO right winger.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/video-lefty-law-prof-tired-of-msnbc-mindlessly-bashing-the-roberts-court-as-pro-corporation/

You need to read the opinion as you are plainly guessing as to what was written.  You also need to listen to the Tribe video I posted above.

You are right, as stated repeatedly I need to read the opinion to speak intelligently.  I will try to post a summary of the issues tomorrow.

I tried to watch the video.  While waiting for the advertisement it occurred to me that the source is "hot air" and the video is entitled something about "lefty professor" and relates to an ancillary topic about the Court not being pro-corporation.  Thus, I respectfully decline.   Incidentally, every decision from this Court is pro-corporations  (from control of the government, to religious rights, to union busting)... mindless or not may be debated.  I am not interested in the deviation at this time nor do I wish to review mass opinions on the topic.

SCOTUS has been wrong many times - and they are continuing the wrong now.  Has nothing to do with right or left - it has to do with defining a corporation - a creation by statute of the state - as a human being (one of "the people" talked about so much in the Constitution). 

How about YOUR personal opinion.... do you believe a corporation is a "person" ??

Simple, straight up, yes or no question counselor...  Yes, or no??

That's why I said to watch the video. It's between an MSNBC talking head and Tribe--Law Prof, Bush v. Gore, etc. The point of the blog post I guess was to note how even lefties are sick of framing the Roberts Court as mere corporatists. Truth is, I didn't read the blog anyway. It was written by Allahpundit, who is more of a moderate to right blogger as opposed to a winger.

So does this mean that a Muslim business owner is now free to forbid lunch breaks and coffee breaks, and turn off the soda machine and the water fountain during Ramadan?

No

  I don't find this ruling as troubling as some seem to.  As someone who has a corporation, I can see that you can instill your corporation with a sense of it having qualities of a person.  You create an image of it, a "personality" it's beliefs and aspirations, a set of "we will do this and behave in this way towards others"  "we aim to have this or that impact on society, our city, our customers, our friends, etc." etc. etc.  I also see our country as a tapestry or "stew" of different cultures, religions, beliefs etc. and I find it interesting and informative to see and experience those differences.  

I assume there are differences set out in law between what a "corporate/person" and a "human being/person" is though I do not know what those differences are.

Also would be interested to know what the differences are between the rights of a "person" in the US and a "Citizen" of the US.  I suppose that all citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens?  Thus for example just because you're a person in the US does not mean you can vote, for you must be a person and citizen to do so.   Then it must also be that just because a corporation can be considered a "person" in the US again within some limited definition, that corporation does not have the same rights as a citizen of the US?  

Imaginary friends don't have rights.  :(

If a corporation goes bankrupt, is that murder?

That's exactly what the Supreme Court was saying in the Hobby Lobby case... ::)

If you are interested, here is a link to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the subject of corporate personhood and citizenship that I think is easy to read and enlightening. It's an 125 year old decision, but you would never know from reading it.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/125/181/case.html

Corporations aren't imaginary, they exist and were given rights, despite what any of us think about that matter.

It appears to me that what might have helped was a new "term" that could be used instead of "person".  Person in this legal context may mean one thing, but in our common everyday use mean another and what is confusing is that both definitions/meanings have overlapping "meanings" in this legal context.  For example the decision mentions that corporations have the same legal right to "hire", as a person could, they have the right to rent an office in another state, make contracts, as you or I could, etc.  The word "person" was used in this legal context of rights to mean certain things in the context of commerce and as given in previous declarations, but we in our everyday usage of the word person understandably find it difficult to then discern where to draw the line, especially when so many of the rights and actions of both understandings overlap.

 Perhaps an amendment to the constitution might have been added which elucidated a new set of rights solely for corporations, using a different term than "person".  But, it was a simple matter to step back in a strictly logical fashion and see that ok, "persons" have these rights to do this and that and then see that a corporation should have those particular rights as well, but most people aren't strictly logical and giving corporations the term "person" would understandably lead to "rights-creep" and a muddling confusion over time as different laws are made in the future pertaining to "corporation, artificial persons" and "human, natural persons".

 It is interesting to note as I suspected that "citizens" and "persons" have a different set of elucidated rights under the constitution.  


(...that in this particular it was in conflict with the clause of the Constitution mentioned, that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. But the Court answered that corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the clause; that the term "citizens," as used in the clause, applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the state, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only such attributes as the legislature has prescribed;
[/color]  

That line in red seems to be key in this discussion.

(Under the designation of "person" there is no doubt that a private corporation is included. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution. As said by Chief Justice Marshall: "The great object of a corporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men.")[/i]

This and other comments makes it appear to me that citizens and persons are treated differently, that "citizens" have a greater set of rights, under the constitution, above those of mere "persons", or in this instance "artificial persons".  And conversely this subset of "persons" can have all manner of legal restrictions placed upon them that you could not place on a "natural person" or a "citizen".

By statute, they were given one set of privileges - by reactionary, activist judiciary, they have been granted Life status!  So, it really does mean that SCOTUS not only feels itself the arbiter of all law (which they ARE under the Constitution) but also are God-like enough to grant life to inanimate tools created - supposedly - for the advancement of society and the common good!

IF there was to be no benefit to the common good, then why create the construct??   Again - goes to rich people getting their servants (Congress) to write laws for them....as always.

This is one of those classic, "founders spinning in their graves" moments....

The legislature can blame SCOTUS all it wants for this decision, but without Obamacare this issue would not have gone before the court, at least not at this time.

Here were the issues that the ACA should have fixed according to polls prior to it’s passage (whether I agree with certain provisions or not):

-Insurance portability
-Exclusions from pre-existing conditions
-Better prescription benefits
-Coverage for low income families
-Lower the cost of health insurance
-Lower overall medical costs
-Expand covered procedures
-Expand access to Medicaid for low income families

Certainly there are many other issues as I am going from memory. 

The law made it compulsory for corporations to purchase insurance for employees or pay a “fine” for not purchasing health coverage.  A better solution would have been to provide an incentive for corporations to provide employees with a stipend they could use to purchase health insurance in competitive state exchanges.  In order to assure the stipend is used as intended, if the employee used it for the intended purpose, it should be exempt from income tax.  If not used to buy insurance, it should be taxed at a rate higher than their normal tax rate.  Of course it’s still an incentive to attract the best and brightest and the contribution to employee insurance is still a tax break for the corporation.

Pre-existing conditions and portability would have been simple to legislate without re-jiggering the entire process for everyone.  Likewise, the government could have done a subsidy for lower income families to acquire insurance through the state exchanges.  A higher tobacco tax would have been an appropriate way to secure at least part of the funding.  Expanding Medicaid is trickier since much of that program is a blend of state and federal funds, which is why some states chose to opt out of the expansion.

Prior to the passage of the ACA, it was always a coveted perk used to attract the best and brightest employees and to help with employee retention.  Either that, or a union-negotiated benefit.  This, in my opinion, was the biggest flaw in the entire ACA.  They did not need to wreck the current free-market approach for those who already had insurance provided in whole or part by their employers.  By most accounts, it appears premium costs increased rather than decreased and/or people chose policies with less benefits which was the complete opposite of what Obamacare was claimed to do.

No need to read the post, just the title is freakin hilarious.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/bad-news-hillary-deeply-disturbed-that-supreme-court-upheld-statute-signed-into-law-by-her-husband/

Thanks, guys for putting it in perspective. Indeed it all comes back to Obamacare and Clinton. Everything does.

If we can just overcome their influence in this afternoon's soccer match........

I don't get what all the fuss is about.  There are over 700 companies and unions that were granted exemption to all or part of Obamacare.  Hobby Lobby should have just paid the obligatory campaign contribution and saved us all this grumble!

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14572164953_c1b01bcf21_k.jpg)

They could just consider it paying an "indulgence."

The "exemption" HL got was not bestowed by Barry. It's because Obama's black. It's Bush's fault. War on womyn...

Yowza

Thanks. I knew you would understand. The HL ruling had nothing to do with the law but more to do with the Supreme Court following mindless memes and overall irrelevant excuse making. I am curious, how many people in here actually read the hobby lobby opinion? Not the dissents, just the opinion.

How many US citizens know how many justices sit on the supreme court?

How many US citizens can name a Supreme Court justice?

I haven’t taken the time to read it through as it is 95 pages but I have scanned it and read some reputable summaries:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

However, my understanding of the issue is this was not a Constitutional referendum, but simply reaffirmed The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.  What has now happened is a convergence of the many layers of laws and regulations our heavy dependence on government has created.  At some point, I don’t see how you can force an employer to pay for comprehensive health coverage and expect they are not going to have a say in it.

If what I’ve read so far of the opinion is correct, it appears the exemptions given to religious organizations were used as justification for the lawsuit in the first place.  Here’s the summary in what the decision is about from the original SCOTUS text (pages 54 and 55):

I've read a few FB posts where people I know posted "Hobby Lobby won!"

I wondered if they knew what it was that Hobby Lobby won.  Did those posters know why they were excited?

I suspect there are just as many misinformed on the pro- Hob Lob side.

It’s unfortunate when we bestow scholarly status on journalists and media pundits to tell us the news as they see fit.

You are right.

Reading in process.  The first thing that pops out goes to the start of the suit in the first place - even though I am only part way through it - why was Hobby Lobby providing the said insurance coverages up until about a year... or a little longer, before they filed this suit?  Sudden change in belief structure?  Or just another shot at interference with anything and everything that this administration does....

And if the sanctity of life is an overriding concern of theirs, where exactly were they in 2003, when we started our latest expeditionary adventure in Iraq?  Didn't see them going to court to try to save lives then.   Sounds a lot like they put much more value on something that might become a baby than those already born and raised.   Sounds hypocritical.


I gotta get online and get my preacher's license.... got some things in Federal law I don't like!  NOW, I can finally do something about them!!  Get them so they don't apply to me!!   This may work out just right after all....

It works out for them.

Instead of Hobby Lobby covering whatever they choose not to cover, it'll be provided by the federal government.

Get excited.

Ostensibly, they did not become aware that the formulary they were paying for prior to 2012 had Plan B and Ella in it.  When they learned the mandate would require them to cover copper IUD’s, IUD’s with progesterone, Plan B and Ella that’s when they became concerned.  That’s really not a far-fetched notion that they had not paid that close of attention to contraceptive coverage until the media got ahold of it in the run up to ACA implementation.  I think a lot of employers are largely ignorant of what all is covered in their employer plans.

Hob Lob still offers 16 kinds of contraception including progesterone implants as well as sterilization which makes them look quite liberal compared to the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception.  That’s where the misinformation train has gone off the rails here.  People are screaming women have no choice now after this ruling.

Is that necessary since none of my Court cases have been Supreme?  ;D

Not according to one of my shrill liberal friends in New Jersey.  Wemmen will now all have to pay $1000 for IUD’s!!

Every side has its over-reactors

(http://cdn.fusion.net/images/Justice/gty_hobby_lobby_063014_16x9_1600.jpg)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JSwxcVt3e0[/youtube]

I find this whole thing entertaining as hell!  A long time ago we delivered the healthcare decisions that used to be our own free choice to our employers to manage.

Then we decided that healthcare was a basic human right, instead of a choice.  So we gave it to the government to regulate and ultimately mandate. Now everyone is upset because corporations and government are making choices for us, and laws designed to protect our freedoms govern some of those choices.  Any mention of personal responsibility, or free-choice is now considered a 'restriction of access.'

This train is already on the tracks and it can't turn around.  Don't know where it's going but I can guarantee, it's going to be expensive and entertaining. The level of language and lack of understanding on both sides is marvelous.  The politicians must be near orgasum from the music of the masses as they continue to protest against their own freedoms.

Soon we will demand that healthcare be turned into a well oiled machine like all other government institutions.

Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help... – Gandhi

It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville

It's politics.  It was a wedge issue used to get the GOP some extra followers.

Republicans used to support birth control access.

Exactly. Sad ain't it.

Perhaps people are starting to realize that dependence comes at the price of lost liberty.  You can’t have it both ways.

“I want my boss to pay for my birth control, but I want my boss to stay out of my bedroom!”  ::)

MC is personally insulted that it’s being portrayed as if sex is the most important issue facing women these days.

It's the consequence of sex which is the most important issue facing women apparently.

FIFY

As activist as HL has been, I suspect they knew exactly what was in their previous plans.  I have been involved in choosing/evaluating insurance program at a small company in town that I worked for and there was in depth, detailed discussion by both sides.  The insurance company covered EVERY single feature, and we paid attention.  It got boring and tedious, but at least BCBS made sure we knew every detail....could have been the reps we talked to, but I definitely got the impression that this was standard procedure with them.


Bottom line, there is always a choice....at the very least, none of those 16,000 who work there are required to stay.  They can find a job somewhere that has the plan they want.  And I suspect that if a significant number of their better people left, these people might decide it is costing them too much to try to intrude in their employees lives.   Might take a while, considering the apparent reactionary, heavily political, expedient, rather than religious nature of their beliefs.

And the indignant people out there who don't work for them - well, don't buy at their store.  Michael's has stores around in many of the same towns as HL.  And no reason some indignant person or group can't put together some venture money and start an arts/crafts store.


I don't really care about HL - to me this is more about the whole notion that an artificial construct, created by the state, can be defined as people.  That should just scare your livers pink!!

I really love the use of the terminology "blocking access."

My boss does not pay for my meals, therefore he is blocking access to food! 

This is getting so awesome.  It's shesing a spotlight on the true liberal groupthink.

Good for you.  What has it shesed?

And as I’ve illustrated in the math, there’s an incredibly small percentage of HL’s workforce who would not be able to get an employer paid-for IUD considering 8.5% of women in the U.S. rely on an IUD as their primary form of contraception.

Well, we crossed the bridge on corporate personhood a few years back.  Now we’ve determined corporations have religious rights.

Actually, it's called law of supply and demand... the total compensation system that has evolved over decades that benefits both employer and employee.  Employee's get the benefit of group purchases of things like insurance - including but not limited to health, life, disability, etc.  Vacations, and any and all other various items that may form part of a compensation package.  Employer's get a more stable workforce where what might be day to day concerns of dealing with these items on an individual basis are eliminated.  It is a very comprehensive win/win for both side.  

How can you not get that if you are as involved in 'business' as you would seem to be?

And ALL of it - thanks to unions!  If you want to see an example of reality BEFORE this modern era, well, I bet you see it almost every year.  Charles Dickens wrote about a guy named Bob Cratchit.  That IS the pre-union reality both here and in England as well as the entire industrialized world.  And we get glimpses of today's reality in China and India from time to time.  They are living that dream right now.  Up to and including child labor.

Very small group - and all of those could go to Planned Parenthood for a sliding scale cost for that or other type contraception prevention.  The cost isn't the issue at all - other means are available.  The two issues are the HL change of policy when they saw an opportunity to try to "tweak" this administration - the hypocrisy of their management.


And the personhood issues from an activist, reactionary, SCOTUS.      Is there an agreement point between us here on what the court has done??  Pretty amazing - common ground!  (I won't even go into whether we agree on if it is a good thing or bad thing - just a meeting in the middle is pretty good!)

Excellent! Logic would then dictate that it would be advantageous (to employers, employees, and the state as a whole) to mandate that all employers provide child-care, food, clothing, transportation and housing for all employees. Again, because employers would get a more stable workforce where what might be day to day concerns of dealing with these items on an individual basis are eliminated.  It is a very comprehensive win/win for both side.

It would be ridiculous to stop at healthcare since it represents such a small portion of the financial burden's placed on the American worker, especially when all of these things could be rationed by the employers and regulated by the state!

I didn’t like Citizens United as it opened the floodgates to lots of dirty money coming into politics as if our political system weren’t corrupt enough already.

I could honestly care less about the supposed hypocritical management at HL.  They are free to change policy at their own peril of losing customers and/or employees.  What has pissed me off about the fall out is all the unnecessary hyperbole and blathering from the left that makes it sound as if all women do is lay on their back and breed all damn day.

That is just the way the system has evolved to date.  Logic does dictate more and more of those things to the forward looking, highly successful companies we "pine away" over here in Oklahoma.  Google is the latest/greatest of perks in the country right now.  Well, except for the facility in Pryor.... But some of their other facilities have amazing things going on.

You mention food...32,000 employees - free food.  Of course, they simply can't be competitive with that kind of stuff going on....according to Okie logic.

http://www.gourmet.com/food/gourmetlive/2012/030712/inside-googles-kitchens

It's called "law of supply and demand" - isn't that one of the cornerstones of capitalism...??


Uh, oh....google is also putting in that other bug-a-boo of Oklahoma's ignorance - renewable energy!  Wind power!  I just wonder when the peasants will show up at the gates with pitchforks, torches, and scythes....

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/09/23/google-buys-former-gatorade-plant-near-oklahoma-data-center/


Actually, your little piece of nirvana was one of the ways things were done in the past.  There have even been songs written about the company towns....  And Hershey!!  Yum - chocolate!!

Your pic has people holding up signs. Where's the overreaction?

They look like they're waiting for Miggs to throw something.

Oh, that's what they are doing.

Ew

Just tweaking the post.

Yeah....what Conan said....Now we’ve determined corporations have religious rights.

LGBT's could incorporate and merge.

Speaking of LGBT.

One of the more air-headed quotes I’ve seen yet on the SCROTUS decision: “What does this ruling on contraception mean to the LGBT community?”

Uh, okay.  Threre just aren’t enough face palms.

I know it's from EVIL Fox, but Megyn Kelly does a decent job at explaining how dumb many of the arguments about the HL are.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/megyn-kelly-takes-on-sandra-fluke-video/

And for those hating on Kelly, remember she was the one that tore Darth Cheney a new one to his face a little while ago.

Here is some rationale behavior.

http://weaselzippers.us/191766-feminist-columnist-maybe-women-should-organize-a-fck-in-at-every-hobby-lobby-across-the-country/

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrlGlURCQAEmWby.jpg:large)

Yuck.

Now, for a quick diversion - they make M & M's with DARK chocolate!!   Who knew....??

And if they did, why didn't anyone tell me??

You just HAD to take that one thing from me.

YOU KNEW???   And didn't tell me??   What kind of friend are you???



And now, back to the topic at hand....well, it may be that birth control isn't covered, but don't worry guys - Viagra still IS !!!!

Viagra is birth control?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/934769_10152300720568432_1096984420158125704_n.jpg)

This pic has gone viral, with hate abound.

No.  But it is an unnecessary to health compound that is mandated - mostly for old white guys - while birth control is arguably not just a health related issue, but leads to a whole host of adverse issues for society when it doesn't happen and unwanted babies do.

Under ACA , birth control coverage is also mandated for old white guys.

Good!!  We're protected, then!  Would hate to start that nonsense (kids!) all over again!!

I could care less for Glenn Beck, but Ron Paul nails it:

Awesome. A district judge essentially takes the SCOTUS to task and tells them to ****.

http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/07/05/remembering-alexander-bickels-passive-virtues-and-the-hobby-lobby-cases/

Thanks Hoss. That hit the spot.

Did you read that article? If so, then this is one potential outcome of judicial deference/restraint.

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t1.0-9/10173722_433502450128355_1254479667_n.jpg)

It wasn't about jumping first thing to the most radical, extreme position.  It's about using a little discretion.  

But that would not play to the obviously political agenda this court has...corporations are people...??  Yeah...I wonder what the Pope would say about that...?  Might be tough to say given some of the radical precedents that office has presided over.

I read it and didn't see the huge leap you made, G. But then I'm not entrenched in radical politics and using law as a weapon.

Putin makes some pragmatic points. Sounds a lot like posters on this forum, actually.

The judicial restraint argument both diminishes the role of one-third of our federal government, and further ignores the accomplishments the S.C. made in the face of the failure in the other two.

Your opinion is not widely shared. One person's accomplishment is anothers abject failure.

Its like a Congress that approves a bill then refuses to appropriate funds for it. Or a Congress that refuses to consider presidential appointments. Or a president who pockets vetoes. Decisions are often made by making no overt steps at all. That is in fact, a form of decision making, not a failure.

Oh really. I am sure those people that liked Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott are among those.

Especially the accomplishment of defining a paper entity as a human being.  VERY accomplished!!!

In the face of the other two NOT defining paper entities as humans....


Dred Scott and Plessey just prove how horribly wrong the SC can be....just like they are this time.

Another opinion not widely shared. And for those who didn't view the link, a salient paragraph...

"To most people, the decision looks stupid ’cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding. The decision looks misogynistic because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception. While “looks” don’t matter to the logic of the law (and I am not saying the Justices are actually motivated by such things), all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law.*"

I am aware of how you ignore points that others make and prefer to travel down different paths to avoid recognizing them. Truth is that the decision is not a strong one and could have easily not been considered by the court till there was a stronger consensus. Truth is that 5 male, Catholic, republican appointed justices, that may be considered activist, made this 5/4 political decision. Now it will be revisited.

Are you freakin kidding me? You just ignored the FACTS about judicial restraint, offered no opinion other than those of others, and you call me out? Do you even know what judicial restraint is? That said, the S.C. not meddling with nearly 200 years of precedent that "corporations are people" is not activism at all. That a person's religious freedoms are not lost merely because they incorporate should not be all that foreign/activist either. Before you comment again, read the Hobby Lobby case. You know, the one written by those five males, and objected to by all three females on the court. Because those three, appointed by dems, were not slightly politically motivated.  ::)

All you are doing is complaining about a case, and grabbing on to some philosophy that advances your complaint. And while you at it, "google" judicial activism cases, and then let everyone in hear the most popular examples of that practice you abhor. Here's starter, Brown v. Board of Education.

No, I'm not freakin' kidding you. No, I'm not calling you out. Yes, I feel certain that judicial restraint is as it implies. No, except in the SC and the weird minds of atty's is a corporation a person. Yes, it is activism when law is interpreted to justify your beliefs as well as when mine are interpreted to support my beliefs irregardless of the intent of lawmakers or the constitution. Whose religious freedoms? Mine, as a Christian, certainly didn't feel lost by the ACA.

Before you post again, use some common sense and stop thinking like a lawyer. Comprehension is the key word here. Gas knows, appearance is reality for most folks. That's what the article spoke to.  Irony is another good word for you. You don't think the 5 Catholic men who voted for this decision were influenced by politics and religion? But you think the three Democratic appointees were? So, justice is dependent on which party can appoint the most judges?

All you are doing is grabbing on to a philosophy that advances your agenda. BTW genius, I never said I was against all judicial activism or any for that matter. Merely made the point that it may be the very thing conservatives have railed about for decades. You made an assumption not in evidence.

Yeah, Brown was such a tragedy.

So you think separate education as practiced in this country at the time was 'equal'.  As in section 1 of the 14th...
And the SC "calling out" the previous court on Plessy was wrong?



Let's see if I can get a straight answer here, this time...

H, since we're talking about infallible decisions by infallible, incorruptible supreme courts who Guido seems to think operate with divine guidance, how about the 1922 Major League Baseball exemption from the Sherman Anti-trust act making it the only sport to be considered a game and therefore not a monopoly. From no less than Oliver Wendell Holmes. Of course we all know MLB is not a monopoly.  Later courts thought that Congress should address the issue in legislation rather than being decided by the supremes. Imagine that. They deferred to Congress and diminished one third of the federal government.

Holmes' ruling was in keeping with other lower-court rulings from the era that stressed baseball's status as a game. (One judge who'd taken this position, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, was tapped as the sport's commissioner.) Over time, however, the ruling came to be widely regarded as flawed, as the Constitution's "commerce clause" was increasingly used as grounds for the government to regulate a range of dealings that had once been deemed off-limits to the feds. The court itself decreed, in other contexts, that exhibitions that crossed state lines were subject to federal control. Yet it had in effect rendered Major League Baseball exempt from antitrust law.

The Supreme Court had a chance to revisit its decision in 1953, when it heard arguments in Toolson v. New York Yankees. The case concerned George Toolson, whom the Yankees had reassigned from their minor-league Newark franchise to another team. Toolson sued, claiming that the reserve clause in his contract violated antitrust laws. But the high court stood by its 1922 decision. It stated that if Congress had disagreed with the earlier ruling, it would (or should) have introduced new laws in the interim. "We think," the court wrote in an unsigned 7-2 opinion, "that if there are evils in this field which now warrant application of it to the antitrust laws, it should be by legislation."  
David Greenburg, Slate 2002

(http://i.imgur.com/tyTc1Nl.jpg)

So what you are saying is that, as usual, you have no direct answer of your own....merely deflection and dissemination....  I gotta go to law school so I can get some formal training on that!!

The Hobby Lobby case may end up being meaningless.  Things are not going so well for the government in Halbig v Sebelius.  If Halbig wins, there will be no federal subsidies for any state using the federal exchange (most of them).  The existing language of the ACA states that the subsidies are only available to states who set up their own exchanges.  No such provisions exist for states on the federal exchange. Probably should have read the bill.

You just do not get the point of this silly judicial restraint/activism issue. If you like judicial restraint, which was the point of that article linked to above, you must accept that such conduct led to Scott and Plessy. If you detest activism, you must accept that Brown, Gideon, and maybe Roe was wrongheaded.

That explanation is why there are so many political arguments around here. Either/or. Black/white.

Its possible that some judicial restraint is preferable and natural. It follows then that sometimes it will be negative, sometimes positive. Used judiciously, of course.

Power is nothing until you use it.

No, actually, I do get it.  Perhaps Plessey is too much restraint, but Brown is not activism - not even close.  The words are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer - "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Well, unless one doesn't understand English.  Then it might not make sense.  Just because it took 86 years for the SC to become literate enough to understand the words does NOT mean it is activism.

I still think you need to get up to speed on what is "restraint" and "activism". Once you understand those terms, I think you should see why Plessy is the former and Brown is the latter. BTW, you do realize the two cases are connected, with Brown being a repudiation of what was at one point "settled" precedent (Plessy)?


And on the subject of restraint, here is an example of someone completely losing their religion on the abortion issue.  Language warning.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67z_xBe07Q[/youtube]

She is the face of the tolerant left?

Of course not.

I am sure we can find many examples of extremists for every side of any political issue.

If you really believe they are representative of the left, you missed.

Yes, I do realize that repudiation.  Plessey was also the "keep the status quo" that was the south.  It was extreme activism in the face of Federal Constitutional requirements of equal under the law - so it really wasn't restraint at all.  Another attempt by an activist, reactionary SC to rewrite the Constitution.  Brown wasn't - it was the turn around that put the country back in sync with the 1868 amendment.  It is tragically sad it took 80+ years to get there.


Oh, yeah...the guy that wrote the majority opinion - wasn't even a lawyer!  He was 'admitted' to the bar without full training - he took a couple courses.   Lots of credibility there for the SC!!  But he was an Alpha Delta Phi, so that probably makes up for it....  He was also a 'draft-dodger' during the Civil War!!   Are we starting to see a trend here?  And Republican, of course.

Or stick a knife in the wall outlet.

(http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070319212032/uncyclopedia/images/2/2c/ElectricityTest.jpg)

So you think judicial activism is following the status quo (Plessy). And so changing the status quo (Brown) is likewise judicial activism.

An absolute takedown of what happened in Hobby Lobby. Yes, it's faux news, but from the woman that took on Darth Cheeeeney.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4P3IkdA7Iw[/youtube]

Trying to be obtuse, are we??  Well, Plessey was activism going against the actual meaning AND intent of the law - 14th Amendment - as defined by Congress and the super-majority of states in 1868.  It continued the 30 year process of societal activism that went against the law of the land at every turn - all the laws written by the southern states (and northern) that went directly against the law of the land - and got away with it.  It is analogous to what the Oklahoma legislature does at every turn, passing law after law that they know is against the law, and will be struck down.  The difference is that the SC went along with those states with their illegal laws in an extreme activist way.

Many think Brown was activist - I guess if you consider that it went against 80+ years of blatantly, obviously illegal actions by so many states, ok, it is activist.

But real activist is when the court defines artificial constructs as people.  Corporations are not people!  I suspect you don't really believe they are, either, based on your background (Catholic) and the intense indoctrination you received through childhood about the importance of the human being, the sanctity of life, and all that jazz....   Of course, you could have gone REALLY rogue and put all that aside....but I don't get that feeling about you at all.

Um, I am not a cradle Catholic. Sorry. I am also moving on from this topic. You are talking out of your Obama again.

Too bad....

Rational thought just doesn't compute with lawyerland thought??  Move on, huh?  Never would have expected that....

http://front.moveon.org/

Now this is funny!  Here is the headline that the AP is running:
BREAKING: Senate Republicans block bill to restore free contraception under health care law.

Seems to lack a little detail and little liberal cream puff brains are exploding all over social media.

Contraception is a thing of the past!  Gone!  Babies everywhere! It's the end of freedom!

It goes well with Pelosi's statement last week:
“That court decision was a frightening one,” she said. “That five men should get down to the specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It's not her boss's business."

First of all, Hobby Lobby's insurance covers use of the diaphragm.
Second, I agree, it's not a bosses business to pay for anyone's personal healthcare, dental care, vision care, shoes, or personal hygiene products.

This also plays well with Harry Reid's statement:
“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determine by virtue of five white men,” Reid said. “This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous and we are going to do something about it. People are going to have to walk down here and vote.”
(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/thomas-large.jpg)

Not sure why the AP didn't just use the headline "GOP Votes to Block Out The Sun"

Was it "lol" funny?  You like "lol" funny.

Whole bunch of stuff happening today re: Obamacare. Two federal circuits with conflicting rulings apparently. This gives me the chances to post the "Papal Facepalm", which I do not recall seeing before...


(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/facepalm-papal.jpg)

Is that the right papal?

The "Emeritus Papal Facepalm".  smh

You're shaking it after you post a pic of someone stroking out?

Well smile.  I thought he said Paypal face palm!

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/43492660.jpg)

Hobby Lobby's Smuggled Artifacts Will Be Returned To Iraq
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/01/607582135/hobby-lobbys-smuggled-artifacts-will-be-returned-to-iraq