Hobby Lobby and the war on religious liberty (attorneys, holidays, dollars)

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Egbert

I gave up on trying to understand the court other then in a purely partisan logic along time ago. Quite frankly I don't see how you can have and continue to expand corporate personhood and not run afoul of the 13th amendment eventually.

Good point. Corporations already have us by the balls. They don't need any help from the SCOTUS.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Operating a business is not a right. It is a privilege, subject to licensing.

Owning a home is not a right.

[Fox Terrier]

Originally Posted by whogo

I have never seen any biblical condemnations of impotence treatments.

To tell people that in order to engage in business they must finance sinful actions is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment.

I've never seen any condemnations of birth control in the bible, either.

Sinful actions?

How does Hobby Lobby know that the men getting Viagra prescriptions aren't using it to keep their girlfriends happy?

How does Hobby Lobby know that women aren't using birth control pills for reasons OTHER than preventing pregnancy? There are many women who have really bad, painful, heavy, and/or irregular periods that can be quite debilitating. Birth control pills fix those problems.

[Fox Terrier]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Sorry, but your interpretation of the First Amendment could not be any more wrong.

When you rely on definite and indefinite articles for support, your argument becomes really weak, especially when you agree with Harrier in the bolded type above.

So, you think they were sloppy in their use of the English language?

[jackmccullough]

Here's what your boy Scalia said in 1990:


We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

Most of the liberals on the court dissented, but I think they were wrong and Scalia was right.

Why doesn't it apply in 2014?

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

Here's what your boy Scalia said in 1990:


We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

Most of the liberals on the court dissented, but I think they were wrong and Scalia was right.

Why doesn't it apply in 2014?

Yes, it's going to be very interesting to watch him on this.

[jjrose]

I'm interested to see what Scalia says in this case.

From employment division V Smith.

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,’’ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by Egbert

I gave up on trying to understand the court other then in a purely partisan logic along time ago. Quite frankly I don't see how you can have and continue to expand corporate personhood and not run afoul of the 13th amendment eventually.

Exactly. Best point made so far.

[Darkatt]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

So your solution, is that they must violate Federal law?

They can choose the "Pay the fine for not offering insurance"... I wouldn't ask it of them, nor would I ask them to violate their faith and provide insurance that has provisions they are in disagreement with.

I think the only proper response is, they close down ALL their stores, and let everyone go.

That way they aren't forced to violate their faith. Everyone else gets to follow their faith, and when they can't they sue, they sue the gym for not letting them work out wearing a head covering, not being allowed to pray in the empire state building, and the coup de grâce, EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination,

Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs

Now it doesn't matter that they signed a contract to haul whatever they were assigned, and that some office flunky simply saw 2 names, saw a load, and assigned it, nooo.... They refused to do their job as they contracted to, and now they get to sue their employers because their employers terminated them for failing to abide by their own contract.

So everyone else is forced to accomidate SOME religions, but in this case, we are now going to allow the owners of this company to follow THEIR religion, and foist upon them the responsibility to cover for others what they believe is wrong?

I hope the Supreme court finds in their favor, or in the event that the court doesn't, that the family closes ALL of it's stores down, sells off all their merchandise and fire sale prices just to unload it, and then gets to live their lives in peace.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

I thought religious liberty was afforded to the individual. How can an enterpise, composed of many individuals, have religious freedom?

Maybe because Obama HAS granted what Hobby Lobby is asking for to OTHERS