Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius -- CU revisited

[kandrathe]

The arguments have been made before the SCOTUS.

My preference is that they extend religious liberty rights only for private, closely held corporations, who can then, like non-profits, seek exemption. Like CU, it doesn't make as much sense for publicly held corporations, to have individual liberties. Although, I would argue publicly traded corporations may have more need of "speech" rights, than "religious freedom" rights.

How an incorporation of individuals forms its consensus opinion is really up to the incorporation. I think it's important for people to realize that to own and operate a business in the US, you really should be incorporated, even when you are a sole proprietor. This is more for liability than for monetary issues. When your business hires any employees, then its almost a requirement due to regulatory concerns. However indefensible some of these corporate positions may be, I'm really not keen on denying them their day in court.

[Bun-Bun]

My feeling is that if the founders/proprietors/owners shed the liability to form a corporation with the right to own property, enter into contracts, etc., they have created a new entity that cannot use religious liberty as a shield to avoid the law. This has the virtue of simplicity; all corporations are equal and have equal exposure to the law.

The founders have the choice of not incorporating; they can then reflect their biases in business behavior with the consequence of exposing themselves to financial liability.

In any case, there needs to be a limit to religious claims. There should be a very high bar to curbing the individual's right to behave in concert with their beliefs; likewise, there should be a very high bar to allowing religious sentiment to curb the privileges and behaviors of others. Hobby Lobby, et al. seek to limit an advantageous social policy by refusing to permit even a diffuse financial connection to aiding behaviors they don't like, even to the point of restricting doctor-patient relationships. That's bordering on ridiculous; they are seeking to impose a narrow religious restriction on employees that are in all likelihood not adherents to that view. The First Amendment would appear to cut against HL more strongly that with it.

[kandrathe]

My feeling is that if the founders/proprietors/owners shed the liability to form a corporation with the right to own property, enter into contracts, etc., they have created a new entity that cannot use religious liberty as a shield to avoid the law. This has the virtue of simplicity; all corporations are equal and have equal exposure to the law.

The founders have the choice of not incorporating; they can then reflect their biases in business behavior with the consequence of exposing themselves to financial liability.

In any case, there needs to be a limit to religious claims. There should be a very high bar to curbing the individual's right to behave in concert with their beliefs; likewise, there should be a very high bar to allowing religious sentiment to curb the privileges and behaviors of others. Hobby Lobby, et al. seek to limit an advantageous social policy by refusing to permit even a diffuse financial connection to aiding behaviors they don't like, even to the point of restricting doctor-patient relationships. That's bordering on ridiculous; they are seeking to impose a narrow religious restriction on employees that are in all likelihood not adherents to that view. The First Amendment would appear to cut against HL more strongly that with it.

I'd be more inclined to agree most vehemently if we were talking about regulatory laws governing corporations (and completely if they were at a state or local level). The SCOTUS is having to apply the Constitution to the rights of the "Corporation" of a closely held private individuals. Like the CU decision, when it gets to this level of jurisprudence, we should be nervous about how somewhat vague corporate identity is clarified by court edict. I'd much rather it get discussed, and debated by representatives and enacted as regulatory law. As it stands now, if they go in favor of HL, then every right wing fanatic corporate owner will be ram rodding their belief systems into their corporate policies, and if it goes the other way, then the government will be able dictate to all companies how they must operate, and what they must provide to their employees. I don't view either as palatable solutions. Like I said above though, in the balance, I think less harm would come from giving some corporations (private, closely held) some latitude in "religious beliefs" so long as they are reasonable and applied equally. For example, should an Islamic, or Kosher butcher be forced to deal in "unclean" animals? Sometimes the religiousness is integral to the business itself (probably not so much for HL). But, here I'm thinking about the many specialty and ethnic shops around here catering to a various religious faiths. Can CVS pharmacies stop carrying tobacco products since it's merely their "belief system"?

The Constitution doesn't really prevent individuals from being discriminating to each other, or from acting like complete jackasses. It was meant to constrain what the Federal government could do to us as individuals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, does however draw a distinction what free association means for businesses. We are free to discriminate on the basis of religious liberty in our practice of religion, but not in the service of mammon.

Generally, I'm not very comfortable with federal "You must be nice to everybody" laws. Now, there are some federal laws regarding employment discrimination, and not really how corporations must administer their benefits as long as they do it equally.

And... at the heart of it I believe the ACA oversteps our Constitutional liberty by "punishing" individuals, or corporations who choose not to participate in the health insurance industry. They might package it as a tax, but we all know with a wink and a nod that it is a fine -- in fact, it was written in the law as a fine. I believe the recent ACA "tax" ruling by the SCOTUS will be viewed as a defining moment in Constitutional Law, where for the first time ever the government can now impose its will upon an individual, or corporation for not acting or participating in social programs.

Employees can choose to seek employment from a different employer who offers the kind of benefits plans with those forms of birth control with which the owners of HL objects. The alternative for HL is to offer no health insurance benefits, which will surely be worse for both employer, and employee.

For me, I'd rather the ACA had moved to prevent employers from offering medical insurance as a benefit, because it ultimately creates price distortion by removing the consumer of the medical care away from the costs of getting that care. In order to control the costs of health care in the US, either of two things need to happen. A) the government takes over the rest of the health insurance industry and we move towards a single payer system, or B) we allow the price mechanism of markets work by letting consumers shop and purchase their own health care (and insurance). The way it is now, having both government controlled, and market controlled, causes distortion in both of them.

HL would have no say in which insurance plans an individual bought for themselves. But, likewise, if we're relying on our employer to buy us our insurance, then we're beholden to whatever plans they choose. Or, we can opt out of the employer subsidized plan (they typically pay about 60%) and pay the full price for the insurance we want (however, now limited by the ACA). Or, we can seek employment where they offer plans more to our liking.

Personally, I'm more hacked off that my insurance plan covers my impossible potential pregnancy, than my impossible potential abortion.

[Jester]

I believe the recent ACA "tax" ruling by the SCOTUS will be viewed as a defining moment in Constitutional Law, where for the first time ever the government can now impose its will upon an individual, or corporation for not acting or participating in social programs.

Conscription? Or is the military not "social"?

-Jester

[shoju]

My thoughts are pretty simple.

1.) The family running the business chose to operate a for profit craft business. In doing so, they are open to all laws that govern the rights of a for profit business, including those that may go against their personally held religious beliefs.

2.) As has been reported this week, They have no problem with investing in the companies that make the drugs. If it's good to invest in, it's good to cover it. I have problems with corporate donations to campaigns, I have a problem with corporate sponsored political ideologies, be it conservative, or liberal. When you allow business to get involved in things like this, it leads to a feeling that somehow, my middle class life is not as important as a company's bottom line.

3.) I have legitimate concerns about extending things like "religious freedom" and even "freedom of Speech" to a company. I would rather we didn't extend these rights to any company. Even those whose opinions / desires / stances match mine. A company is not a person. It's a group of papers that outline business transactions. It's not a person. It should not have the rights that are constitutionally protected for a person.

4.) If we were to live in a world where businesses have "rights" to freedoms of religion and speech, I do believe that trumping the rights of a minority to protect the rights of a majority is an acceptable position to take. I don't take joy in that ideology, but I do believe that it's an acceptable position. The rights of their employees outnumber the rights of the owners. Even, if I don't believe that it should ever need to come to that. Like I said. It's not the Green family being forced to do something. It's a company being forced to do something. A Company can't have a religion. It's soul cannot be "saved" by religion. It's a stack of papers. It "has no soul".

[Jenjan]

3.) I have legitimate concerns about extending things like "religious freedom" and even "freedom of Speech" to a company. I would rather we didn't extend these rights to any company. Even those whose opinions / desires / stances match mine. A company is not a person. It's a group of papers that outline business transactions. It's not a person. It should not have the rights that are constitutionally protected for a person.

I agree, but Just to expand a bit on that, there's a difference between rights and policy. As a policy, i tend to support free speech for corporations. In general the government shouldn't be restricting what corporations say, at least not without good reasons for specific restrictions such as false advertising.

But that is not the same thing as taking such regulation out of the hands of the government and enshrining its non-existence for all time in the constitution. Corporations have no constitutional right to exist at all, and as far as I'm concerned everything they do, from their inception on up, is fair ground for the government to regulate if that is the democratic will of the people. If a corporate regulation doesn't make sense, vote a new government in and get rid of it.

[kandrathe]

It's a group of papers that outline business transactions.

The legal fiction that corporations are treated as individuals dates back to Roman times. It is what allows them to own property, sue, and to be sued by others. To unravel it would be pretty much impossible. In US case law the question was decided in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Also consider that from a legal framework, there is little difference between a collection of stock holders banding together and calling themselves incorporated and a collection of workers banding together and calling themselves a union. Union's certainly would advocate they have speech, and esp. political speech rights. While our experience of unions is more secular today, it has not always been the case (e.g. The Knights of Labor c. 1870).

"The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the free American enterprise system." -- Newmyer, R. K. (2001). John Marshall and heroic age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Consider also that in the Federal Dictionary Act; "the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; "

If the decision is to gag corporations religious 1st amendment rights, would it be that much removed to gag corporations 1st amendment political speech rights? Isn't that exactly the finer mesh the SCOTUS refused to employ in CU? Kennedy wrote for the majority in that opinion, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Wouldn't this argument extend to religious practice? Especially in light of the recent congressional action in Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was very interdenominational, and an almost unanimous vote, and signed by Bill Clinton. We are not privy to how corporations develop their political positions, just as we are not privy to how corporations develop their religious positions. I would suggest if we are to maintain this legal fiction of corporate personhood as we do, we need to understand it in its full legal context.

Generally I agree with your #1 point, "The family running the business chose to operate a for profit craft business. In doing so, they are open to all laws that govern the rights of a for profit business, including those that may go against their personally held religious beliefs." Although, in law, this has only applied when it comes to service of the public, yes, their religious beliefs cannot discriminate against, or for any particular protected classes. But, in their internal operations, I believe they retain the rights to decide on things within their belief systems if those "beliefs" are generally lawful. At odds here is that the new ACA law determines which health insurance plans can be purchased, and they claim some of the mandates violate their beliefs. Also, they cannot opt out without harms, in that a "fine/tax" is imposed if they do not purchase these insurance policies to which they hold are against their conscience. In their minds, it is very much "damned if they do, and damned if they don't" -- they have two options that both violate their beliefs.

In #2, you bring up the alleged hypocrisy of Hobby Lobby exercising conscience in employee health insurance, but not the same scrutiny of employee retirement plans. And, I bet that a) they didn't realize, and b) they'll make some changes. But... This case isn't about that -- and it's just not about Hobby Lobby. What about Conestoga Wood Specialties, who are a Mennonite community who also object to being forced to violate their conscience? What about AutoCam? They are a deeply religious Catholic family that also feel the mandate violates their conscience. And... I guess most people don't understand how 401K plans work. The employee picks their investment, the employer contracts with a company that provides the choices. In fact, it is very likely that the reporters at Mother Jones are also hypocritically heavily invested in Defense Contractors, Big Pharma, and Big Oil. Unless you own a fund expressly limited to "conscience" investing, your fund manager has the latitude daily to invest your money with the most profitable investment regardless of who/what had to die in the process.

For #4, I would just ask you; Can a corporation have a "stance", or an "opinion" worthy of speech rights? Can that be a position they may need to speak about, either in advocacy or in opposition? Can a group like the Sierra Club have an opinion against building a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, and similarly can Keystone have the right to defend their plan against powerful political criticism? If corporations, unions or communities can have deeply held positions, or convictions, what makes that different from deeply held convictions that are religiously inspired? No, you are right, there is no single soul, but rather the participants who belong to the community, the union, or the corporation in which they participate at some level do so because they believe in the principles of the founders, or owners, top management, or even the board of directors. However the group formed its identify, and its convictions are probably foundational to how the entity was organized.

I don't know about you, but for me... My decisions on who to work for are deeply influenced by what impact my work would have on the people and the planet. I've variously chosen not to accept lucrative positions with companies that build weapons, government spy agencies, or junk food wrapper makers, and some who rip off poor people with easy high interest rate credit. I have built educational software, helped a railroad survive deregulation, helped various manufacturing companies better automate themselves, and lately, I'm working with helping a number of colleges and universities remain relevant and adapt to innovations the world wide web makes possible. If I didn't believe in the mission and the work, then I'd do something which is mentally easier and probably more lucrative.

Edit: Another wrinkle I've been mulling upon... Currently HHS has a REE (Religious Employer Exemption), but it only considers non-profits eligible. Some private companies, like those in this case are for-profit religiously oriented companies that have all the characteristics as the ones allowed in the REE. The only difference is the 401c3 status. Does the for-profit, versus the not-for-profit status of an organization make a difference? It is clear in the REE language that it is not made for financial reasons, but to side step issues of conscience with many religiously oriented not-for-profit organizations. If not-for-profit corporations can have a conscience, would it also be possible for for-profit corporations to have a conscience?

[shoju]

You raise fantastic talking points. I don't want you to think that I"m ignoring you. I'm just deep in work / home buying. I'm going to carve out some time to post a well thought out response. You've made my brain itch, in a very good way.

[Hammerskjold]

It's a group of papers that outline business transactions.

The legal fiction that corporations are treated as individuals dates back to Roman times. It is what allows them to own property, sue, and to be sued by others. To unravel it would be pretty much impossible.

That link seems to contradict what you're trying to say, if I read your posting right at least.

If you mean the basic idea of corporation goes way back, ok sure.

If you mean the contemporary version, U.S. 14th Amendment, 'corporations are people too' idea. That seems to be relatively newer.

If not-for-profit corporations can have a conscience, would it also be possible for for-profit corporations to have a conscience?

Well, based on observable actions that I can see so far. If a for profit corporations were an actual, real person? Probably 'not likely', to 'absolutely not'.

The more I read about this story, the more I'm getting the impression that this is not really about religious right\freedom.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201..._same.html

If Hobby Lobby was an actual person who profess that it's also a strong believer in Jesus-ism. I would ask what he\she would think about that story with the servant and the 2 masters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:24

Also, whether or not their googly eyes packs are ethically, and sustainably sourced.

[kandrathe]

If you mean the basic idea of corporation goes way back, ok sure.

Yes. Romans did not have the Thurgood Marshall version.

Also, whether or not their googly eyes packs are ethically, and sustainably sourced.

That verse out of context, like many others, is often used as a foil to chastise most anyone. It's hard to live up to this standard (out of context), unless you immediately sell all your possession, donate the proceeds to your local charity, and join a monastery. I believe there is more nuance when read in context.

The full thought in that part of the sermon was; "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

If the choice is to attempt to run your business in a manner consistent with your belief system, whether that be Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or whatever, then you'd be closer to the former (building spiritual treasure), than rolling over to a civil authority that has demanded you surrender what you see as key to your morality.

The key for me is; For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. If you do something because "God", then A) but if you do it because "I wanna be rich, and comfortable" then B). The trouble hinted at throughout Christ's message is that the temptation that Mammon brings soon cause the eye to wander. Not all the rich and comfortable are necessarily Mammon seekers, but it is the rare duck indeed who had it showered upon them and still walks the "spiritual" path.

Another take on this ruling is it's risk of piercing the corporate veil, in making individual owners more liable for corporate behavior. I believe most executives secretly like the "no risk of jail" for criminal corporate behavior.

[Hammerskjold]

That verse out of context, like many others, is often used as a foil to chastise most anyone. It's hard to live up to this standard (out of context), unless you immediately sell all your possession, donate the proceeds to your local charity, and join a monastery. I believe there is more nuance when read in context.

Wait which verse, the ethically and sustainably sourced googly eyes or the 2 masters parable?

Ok serious-er, the overly literal\extremist interpretation of the 2 masters story, is not worth discussing and not what I meant. Does anyone actually believe that everyone should have only a begging bowl and be in sack cloths, and any profit is bad mmmkay?

If the choice is to attempt to run your business in a manner consistent with your belief system, whether that be Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or whatever, then you'd be closer to the former (building spiritual treasure), than rolling over to a civil authority that has demanded you surrender what you see as key to your morality.

Yes, consistency in their professed belief system would be nice and uhm, consistent. And the more I read about the case, the more I'm doubtful that it is about their right to freedom of religion\morals. Ditto to the scenario that it's the authora-tays demanding HL surrendering it's professed morality.

To me it's looking more like an attempted legal runaround to use 'morality', as an excuse to avoid paying a part of their health coverage for their employees.

And HL having invested in companies that produces the contraceptive products, the kind of products that HL claims is against their beliefs. Well let me just ask you, doesn't that make you go kind of, .....Hmmmm... Even just a bit?

Maybe they really were ignorant of the fact. But how long is the shelf life on that defense? If this really is a matter of -consistent- morals for this company, are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Another take on this ruling is it's risk of piercing the corporate veil, in making individual owners more liable for corporate behavior. I believe most executives secretly like the "no risk of jail" for criminal corporate behavior.

Secretly like? If that's a secret, that would be one of the worst kept secrets around then.

The possibility of a conscience to me, diminishes in proportion to the chance of culpability. If there's no to laughably low penalties for bad to outright criminal behaviour, then unconscionable actions can still be written off as a cost of 'doing' business.

And I'm saying that as someone who may or may not incorporate for legal liability protections in the near future.

[kandrathe]

Yes, consistency in their professed belief system would be nice and uhm, consistent. And the more I read about the case, the more I'm doubtful that it is about their right to freedom of religion\morals. Ditto to the scenario that it's the authora-tays demanding HL surrendering it's professed morality.

To me it's looking more like an attempted legal runaround to use 'morality', as an excuse to avoid paying a part of their health coverage for their employees.

And HL having invested in companies that produces the contraceptive products, the kind of products that HL claims is against their beliefs. Well let me just ask you, doesn't that make you go kind of, .....Hmmmm... Even just a bit?

Maybe they really were ignorant of the fact. But how long is the shelf life on that defense? If this really is a matter of -consistent- morals for this company, are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Ah, well, is it really hypocrisy? Or, are we holding them to a nearly unattainable standard? Is your cocoa or coffee picked by slave child labor? How about the labor that went into the clothes you are wearing? Have you looked through the business practices of the 90 to 200 companies in the your average fund/401K plan? I bet you'd find something at least slightly tainted in some of them. I think for most people, they don't look at 401k plan with this level of scrutiny to see if they're invested in "evil", so to speak. And, so maybe you did check them out once upon a time. They are not static, and so it is probable that what you once thought may no longer be true. It seems more of a "Gotcha" type of counter attack or hatchet job to debunk their claim for religious liberty. How hard an argument would it be to take any person or institution of high moral authority, and say, "You claim to be a moral person, but look at that evil that your involved in". You just need to find one smudge, anywhere in their history -- then make the "hypocrisy" charge. For the liberal establishment, who suddenly found themselves in an uncomfortable position of being caught out trouncing on liberties once again, cub reporter Molly Redden's gotcha story was just the remedy to reassure themselves that "Hey, yeah, those right wing zealot hypocrites are repugnant and deserve neither my consideration or their 1st amendment rights."

Investigating here; http://www.brightscope.com/401k-rating/3...bby-Group/

Here are the holdings in one of three funds (the balanced option) for HL 401K participants which is 15% of the HL employee participant assets held; https://www.americanfunds.com/funds/deta...pNumber=11 Did you find all the bad bits?

So, again, I believe its more nuanced than checking out the monks robes, or to roll over and accept the fallen world. Religious freedom is not predicated on our interpretation and judgement of the consistency of the person seeking to assert their religious freedom. The 1st amendment right to religious liberty means not forcing people to violate their claimed religious/moral convictions, even if that means the rest of society must incur some degree of inconvenience or tolerance of this inconsistency. It's really about respecting their beliefs, and not our judgement of their beliefs.

[Hammerskjold]

Ah, well, is it really hypocrisy? Or, are we holding them to a nearly unattainable standard?

If you have trouble understanding why some people can think a company investing in a product it claims it's against, might be seen as hypocritical. Which has little, to nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

It's the ' Product-X- is against my belief' part. Ok still with me? Now, hold on to your hat, because the next one might be tricky.

That company then invests in, Product X. Product X in this context, is contraceptives.

If the subject of contraceptives is too controversial, or maybe the word 'christian' is too much of a dog whistle issue for you. Let's substitute 'contraceptives', with tofu. And pretend this corp has no stated 'religion'. Company Y, is against tofu, tofu consumption, and soybeans usage. It claims it is against it's Mission Statement.

Then it invests in other companies who happens to be in the business of soy. Soy beans, tofu, soy sauce, soy feed, soy based ink, soy based bio polymer and fuel research, soy milk products, you name it they do it. It's big business.

Is the soy business 'bad'? Not necessarily. Is it hypocritical? In what sense and context? By itself? Uhm, no, who the hell would seriously say that? It's a meaningless, incomplete thought at best.

Is company Y being a hypocrite for claiming it has deeply held mission statement against Soy and Tofu, then invests in companies that produces and deals in such products? Yeah, it could be seen as that. At the very least it looks strange. Or perhaps it never really believed that much in the anti-soy mission statement it claims.

But oh emm gee, there's a lot of soy in everything. It's in the ink the newspaper and magazines you read. It's in ice cream. It's everywhere and this modern world of ours is made of soy! Truly, can anyone claim they're completely soy free?! It's unattainable perfection. 'Liberals'! Gotcha politics! Nuance and context! It's everyone else that's Manichean black and white!

...uhm...wasn't there another thing oh yeah Lamestream media!


Uh huh. And sometimes, it's just about people trying to figure out an excuse to skimp out on a bill, after they finished eating the meal.

Religious freedom is not predicated on our interpretation and judgement of the consistency of the person seeking to assert their religious freedom. The 1st amendment right to religious liberty means not forcing people to violate their claimed religious/moral convictions, even if that means the rest of society must incur some degree of inconvenience or tolerance of this inconsistency. It's really about respecting their beliefs, and not our judgement of their beliefs.

....yeah...that really only works when everyone is reasonable all the time, everywhere. At once.

What happens if I say my religion and belief is the worship of Odin Allfather, wielder of Gugnir, his son Thor wielder of Mjolnir and Mother Goddess Freya?

The 'real' ones, not the namby pamby watered down version of late. My faith -demands- that you give me in tribute the following each month:

- 115 stones in weight, bars or ingots of the finest grade steel.

- 50 stones in weight, bars of gold, 99% gold 1% base metal alloy.

- 12 maidens pure and of fair countenance, strong constitution, and of breeding age. The strong shall serve as Shield and Sword Maidens, the fair shall serve as Handmaidens, and the most worthy shall be breeding stock.

- 20 casks of ale, mead, or wine. Each casks shall match as close to the width of a full grown cow.

I do this not for vainglory, but in the name of Odin the Allfather, his son Thor, Mother Goddess Freya, Protectors of Midgard from the evils of Jotunheim and it's Frost Giants.


May Gugnir pierce the Frost Giants evil heart, may Mjolnir's Wrath strike those who disobey, it's lightning burns their crop fields to a cinder, and strike with thunder all their chattels dead!

In the name of Odin the Allfather, his father, and his father's father, this I obey and so shall you!

Wooooootan!!!!

Ipso facto, I demand you and the rest of society, to respect my religion and beliefs. Inconvenience schmenience. Sounds like Frost Giant gibberish. I shall expect my tributes at the end of the month.

Anyone who does not give tribute, is actively barring my religious right. And risking the wrath of mighty Thor, and depriving the Warriors of Valhalla waiting for Ragnarok. I am kind and gentle, but Thor is not so nice. So send your tributes to:

54 Mellonville Drive
PO box 592


Wotan!

[kandrathe]

If you have trouble understanding why some people can think a company investing in a product it claims it's against, might be seen as hypocritical.
...
What happens if I say my religion and belief is the worship of Odin Allfather, wielder of Gugnir, his son Thor wielder of Mjolnir and Mother Goddess Freya?

There is quite a difference between HL choosing to invest in Merck, and HL offering their employees options to invest in 401K funds which of the 200+ companies invested happen to also contain (at this particular time) Merck. This is a very, very indirect consequential support of Merck's product.

As I understand it, HL is not against all contraceptives. I understand their beliefs are against the use of abortifaciants.

And, on your advocacy of Asatru, did you see the SCOTUS ruling on Cutter v. Wilkinson?

[Hammerskjold]

As I understand it, HL is not against all contraceptives. I understand their beliefs are against the use of abortifaciants.

You know I like the Acton quote. It's an oldie but a goodie. But why does the rest of that blog give me a 'War On Christmas!!!11' vibe?

Anyhow. You seem to be stuck on to the 'christian beliefs' part.

Frankly, I'm getting more curious about the company's action, in regard to their health coverage for their employees.

I mean reading some of the bits from this,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...obby-case/

This in particular is something that gave me some pause.

...Many of the groups supporting the government's interpretation of this case also bring up what a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby would mean in the future. What other religious protections will corporations argue for?

I mean this was\is hilarious in cartoon form.



But it'd probably be less funny if it happened in our actual world.

Episode recap can be found here.
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Joy_of_Sect

" As Movementarianism gains popularity, Mr. Burns decides to start his own religion, jealous of The Leader's tax-exempt status (claiming the $3 a year he already pays for taxes is outragous). "

And, on your advocacy of Asatru, did you see the SCOTUS ruling on Cutter v. Wilkinson?

Did you also read the part where it's talking about when someone is in an institution (such as a prison)?

It might be just me here, but the PDF you yourself linked, points to a larger idea that rights and freedoms are not always absolutes and unconditional.

Something something....nuance and context wasn't it?

[kandrathe]

You know I like the Acton quote. It's an oldie but a goodie. But why does the rest of that blog give me a 'War On Christmas!!!11' vibe?

Well, yes, I did at least check out their board of directors to ensure they weren't complete raving lunatics. But, it is a one sided source telling their side.

And, on your advocacy of Asatru, did you see the SCOTUS ruling on Cutter v. Wilkinson?

Did you also read the part where it's talking about when someone is in an institution (such as a prison)?

It might be just me here, but the PDF you yourself linked, points to a larger idea that rights and freedoms are not always absolutes and unconditional.

Something something....nuance and context wasn't it?

The 1st amendment restricts what the government can do, and so it will mostly apply to what they do to the "people in their care" -- like prisoners, soldiers and federal employees.

I've also read somewhere that some non-mainstream religion followers won something, something for military practices (Dianic Wicca, Druidism, Gardnerian Wicca, Pagan, Seax Wicca, Shamanism, and Wicca)... I was just pointing out that its not all teh Christians. They just have the squeakiest wheels... at the moment.

[Hammerskjold]

I've also read somewhere that some non-mainstream religion followers won something, something for military practices (Dianic Wicca, Druidism, Gardnerian Wicca, Pagan, Seax Wicca, Shamanism, and Wicca)... I was just pointing out that its not all teh Christians. They just have the squeakiest wheels... at the moment.

That's something of a sidetrack perhaps, but one that I personally find interesting.

I'm biased towards practicality most of the time, so I'm kinda wondering how reasonable, religious accommodation would play out during, say basic training.

[kandrathe]

I've also read somewhere that some non-mainstream religion followers won something, something for military practices (Dianic Wicca, Druidism, Gardnerian Wicca, Pagan, Seax Wicca, Shamanism, and Wicca)... I was just pointing out that its not all teh Christians. They just have the squeakiest wheels... at the moment.

That's something of a sidetrack perhaps, but one that I personally find interesting.

I'm biased towards practicality most of the time, so I'm kinda wondering how reasonable, religious accommodation would play out during, say basic training.

I think it gets to the heart of it. Take mess for example, it is a bit harder to provide for a variety of religious based guidelines (non-pork, vegetarian perhaps, kosher, lent, Ramadan, etc.) If you accept XYZ person into your military and as long as their personal beliefs/practices do not detract from the strength / esprit du corps, then it should be allowed. Of course, the other thing most people do not know is that when you sign up with the military you are no longer protected by the civilian justice system, and therefore there is very little chance of getting your day in civilian court on issues.

This gets back to the RFRA. It specifically limits federal law that substantially burdens a person's free exercise of their religion.