meandmyuncleDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 874
- Reaction score
- 48
Wrangor=knowledge of constitution sorely lacking.
Agree with this. Alito's best point, and the one Ginsburg never really answered was how the HHS can define "person" in include people and non-profits, but not closely-held for-profits. Looked to me like Alito was trying to patch over the slippery slope problem you point out by saying that the views of a publicly-traded corporation are so dispersed that it's impossible for it to adhere to any one religious practice.
Ginsburg's strongest point, I thought, was that it doesn't substantially burden their practice. Alito talked a lot about the burden that would be placed on HL if they didn't provide the required coverage, but not how it would burden them if they did comply with the statute.
Bottom line, IMO, is that the RFRA needs to be changed to explicitly exclude for-profit corporations. Should be an easy fix, but nothing's ever easy with Congress.
I figured as much. I do think if the Court wanted to find a distinction between for-profit and non-profit corporations in cases like this that would be the place to look. It's much easier, IMO, for a non-profit that incurs any financial burden for exercise of religion to claim that the burden is substantial. The financial loss would prevent the non-profit from fulfilling its religious (or partly religious) purpose since all the funds it has go towards that mission (in theory).
When a for-profit corporation suffers a financial burden for exercise of religion it can be said that it's non-religious purpose (making profit) is being stymied more-so than it's religious purpose. For the burden on religious exercise to truly be "substantial" the financial burden would have to pretty much wipe out the non-religious purpose in order be said to infringe substantially upon the religious purpose.
Not if the constitution was formed with the intent to give special privileges to judeo christian values/faith. In my opinion it clearly was.
Health coverage needs to be separated from employment.
We're also overlooking that Congress could have prevented all of this by just passing the bill with reference to individuals only.
Just thinking ahead, I don't really know what widespread impact this case will have. Closely-held corporations can opt out of this specific provision if they apply for a waiver, but I can't really think of another topic where they would be allowed to cite substantial beliefs that aren't already protected as a compelling interest for the government in a narrowly tailored way. Obviously race and gender are going to be compelling and override any individual substantial belief (although there might be a small amount of litigation on these fronts stemming from this case) but what else could arise? Employers can already fire people for being gay in the majority of states (I believe it's still the majority) so they don't need the RFRA explanation for that.
What other topics out there exist that employers can claim RFRA protection for that won't easily be defeated by the government's narrowly tailored compelling interest? I legitimately can't think of one.
Why doesn't it say that then?
Just thinking ahead, I don't really know what widespread impact this case will have. Closely-held corporations can opt out of this specific provision if they apply for a waiver, but I can't really think of another topic where they would be allowed to cite substantial beliefs that aren't already protected as a compelling interest for the government in a narrowly tailored way. Obviously race and gender are going to be compelling and override any individual substantial belief (although there might be a small amount of litigation on these fronts stemming from this case) but what else could arise? Employers can already fire people for being gay in the majority of states (I believe it's still the majority) so they don't need the RFRA explanation for that.
What other topics out there exist that employers can claim RFRA protection for that won't easily be defeated by the government's narrowly tailored compelling interest? I legitimately can't think of one. Taxes won't fall under this for the rationale given by Alito and the Lee case, so anything related to that will be stripped.
The more I think about it and after reading the case, I think this is a relatively meaningless case that is very, very narrowly scoped to this particular issue. It will of course get religious nuts riled up about taking back the country and establishing that this is religious America, and it will of course get the "this is an assault on women's rights" crowd going, but what else is the impact?
Two and a half centuries of interpretation seems to be a fairly strong precedent.
There is clearly a point at which imposing a financial burden on a for-profit company would be extreme enough to constitute oppression of religious beliefs but I don't know if Hobby Lobby reaches that point. The financial burden of opting out of insurance and paying a penalty would be slight, if any.
The majority's response to this seems to be that Hobby Lobby has legitimate religious reasons for providing health insurance. But health insurance is really just a form of compensation from HL's standpoint, so if it feels that strongly about providing health insurance it can increase employees compensation such that they can purchase their own insurance.
I disagree with the majority's decision I just don't think it's as atrocious as many are making it out to be.
He's probably being inundated with media requests since he called this.RJ will be back in an hour or so. I'm sure he will have thought of plenty.
Two and a half centuries of interpretation seems to be a fairly strong precedent.
Two and a half centuries of interpretation seems to be a fairly strong precedent.
Isn't there a self-selection process going on with HL's employees? HL didn't offer certain forms of birth control before ACA and they're not paying for those forms of birth control now. If that benefit is key to an employee, clearly they can find other employers who will pay for those forms of birth control. There's mobility to labor, so if that's absolutely your key selection criteria on where to work you're not precluded from working somewhere else. Kinda think the similar principles apply to wedding photographers or bakers who oppose marriage equality. Don't think they should be allowed to discriminate, but why would you entrust a (presumably one-time event) to someone who doesn't share your values and may do a crappy job, thereby marring a special day for you?
Not if the constitution was formed with the intent to give special privileges to judeo christian values/faith. In my opinion it clearly was.