That’s probably because his coca cola is all warm and “pubey”.
What does Leviticus have to do with it? The Hobby Lobby owners aren’t Jews but Evangelical Christians.
The court ruling did not address at all the religious beliefs of corporations. What it said was that not applying a religious exception to closely held corporations was an unconstitutional restriction on religious believers’ right to incorporate their businesses. Which is why the ruling was restricted to closely held corporations. BTW, the Amish are exempt from paying Social Security tax because of their religious beliefs. I would be curious to know if any Amish owned corporations exercise this exemption.
Ask a question, and it might get answered. Here’s your answer about the Amish. Social Security (which is actually payment into a government trust for late personal use) is considered insurance. That’s why they refuse it. In some cases, they pay more taxes than other people.
1 Like
How would one know?
I guess it’s hard to tell. Well…maybe just look at Scalia?
Just read a bit about the Amish and social security.
The Amish were exempted from self-employment social security taxes by congress (after a petition, very soon after social security was extended to farmers). They fill out a special tax form and accrue no benefits.
They were required to pay for employees of businesses. In 1982 an Amish business owner got this to the supreme court, arguing that he should not have to pay for his Amish employees who don’t want social security. He lost. Then congress passed an exemption such that if the business owner and employee fill out the waiver form they can not pay and accrue no benefits.
This is a long way from this ruling.
Basically:
A) The governments interest in establishing a universal system was found to override the Amish religious objection. (I would imagine the objection is weakened by the fact that an Amish person does not have to take the benefit, so can still follow the more important part of their religious restriction.)
B) The Amish employer does not seem to have ever attempted to prevent his non-Amish employees from participating in Social Security, only to opt out along with those who shared his beliefs.
C) Congress decided to accommodate religious objections to social security such that only when the employer and employee both wish to opt out is either allowed to opt out.
D) The companies involved were very small and entirely family owned.
3 Likes
RBG’s dissent is a song, you guys!!!
1 Like
But only if you’re married, then its OK.
If what he proposes is robbery, then Jesus Christ was a bigger thief than Robin Hood.
Fortunately, I learned of this DIY Chik-fil-gay that is similarly tasty and has the advantage of being available in NY unlike actual Chik-fil-a. I’ve made it two or three times - pretty easy and a nice treat for the family every so often. I like to top it with a little rainbow flag.
3 Likes
I love this bitch.
2 Likes
Exactly! In the case of the Amish, they’re opposing a law that contradicts their own beliefs, and enforce it on themselves evenly. (They don’t “do” insurance because their religious belief is that the group should take care of the individual in times of need. So they typically don’t get insurance at all. This isn’t an attempt at partial exclusion to avoid a cost.) At the same, they aren’t obstructing any workers who aren’t Amish from receiving those benefits they would expect. They recognize that other people have other belief systems.
It makes perfect sense that the Amish wouldn’t have any problem with this. After all, the employer must do the tax paperwork no matter how the problem is solved. No additional hardship exists no matter how the law is applied, so no one is being mistreated.
What’s so outrageous about the Hobby Lobby scam (and it is a scam) is that the ACA already worked out a deal so that they wouldn’t be the ones providing direct funding for the contraceptives. The workers’ payment for insurance was named to that use. That way both groups’ rights could be protected - after all, a portion of payment comes from the workers, and they should be able to choose how their money is used. Hobby Lobby wants to be protected more than their workers ---- even thought they don’t apply their religious belief evenly when profit is involved.
5 Likes
That’d be a bit too meta. Will the CEO of the corporation be another corporation?
Seriously though, large corporations are comparable in their bureaucratic mess to be almost indistinguishable from governments. Every time one person in a sufficiently large bureaucracy becomes too liable for the acts of the many, their position is subdivided, and another level of hierarchy is established.
This behavior is uncanny in it’s evolutionary finger print for how cells evolved into horses.
It’s an odd fellow who thinks that a large corporation will handle anything in the public sector with more grace, speed, efficiency or any of the lauded virtues thrust on the private sector.
And thus, capitalism begat slavery…
Yes, it’s important to vote for Democrats like Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Daschle, and Feingold, all of whom voted for the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 without which this SCOTUS decision would have been impossible.
Misapplication of an existing law by SCOTUS law doesn’t equal blame applied to those who passed that law in the first place. In case you haven’t read it yourself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 doesn’t actually provide for this decision at all. The RFRA shouldn’t have even been used to defend this decision by SCOTUS! Here’s why:
The RFRA mainly re-introduced the Sherbert Test to American law. The Sherbert Test, for determining whether a law violates the religious rights of any individual (not corporation), asks this:
• whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
• whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
Only if those two elements are met, does the government then have to prove:
• that it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and
• that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.
The RFRA was never intended to defend groups. It openly states it defends “a person” who might be unfairly burdened. Unfortunately, SCOTUS wants to ignore that.
In the case of Hobby Lobby’s actions, they fail the Sherbert Test right at the start. They do it by not equally applying their “religious” belief. They have no qualms about investing (for personal gain) in companies that make the very same contraceptives that they want to obstruct the insurance access for their female employees (to avoid payment). They also provide funding for both Viagra and vasectomies for male employees.
Even if they did pass parts one and two, they still wouldn’t pass the Sherbert Test. That’s because providing desired health insurance according to the employee’s wishes is needed to meet Civil Rights guidelines. The law does further a compelling government interest. Also, a workaround (in the form of payment pools) was designed to minimize religious hardship, and that was already offered by the government.
Since Hobby Lobby failed the test, and the government already did what they need to do anyway, the RFRA suggests that no further action should be taken. The law can stand as written. No undue hardship directed toward Hobby Lobby is being created by the ACA, and SCOTUS shouldn’t have offered that financial “out” to Hobby Lobby.
(actual verbiage)
3 Likes
Yes, it’s important to vote for Democrats like Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Leahy, Mikulski, Murray, Daschle, and Feingold, all of whom voted for the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 without which this SCOTUS decision would have been impossible.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 had nothing to do with corporations. It was created to protect the rights of individual humans, not corporations. It’s now Republicans that have distorted it.
Why would you disingenuously blame the Democrats for the future actions of Republicans and conservative Supreme Court Justices put into place by said Republicans who distorted the intentions of the Act?
When you have to bend over backwards in order to blame Democrats for something that Republicans did, you should probably ask yourself why you’re contorting yourself. 
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
