jollyroger's picture

    Why Hobby Lobby will probably win, and why it should.

    Let's call this the Peyoteros revenge, or "unintended consequences bite", shall we.

     

    Now, I am, of course, appalled (as would any right thinking person be) that the societal benefits of co-payment free birth control and insurance coverage for medical advice about the same) should be undercut by a law specifically intended to vindicate the influence of religion in the sphere of secular behaviour.

     

    But let us be clear--the harm flows not from the unforeseen elaboration of the stated primacy of religious beliefs, but from the decision by the state to give religion special status in the first place.

     

    Let us begin by taking off the table the manifestly outrageous extension to a corporation of a religiously based scruple.  This particular oddity is an artifact not of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act  (RFRA) which governs the jurisprudence underlying the Hobby Lobby case but of the decision in Citizens United, extending to corporations the rights which are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

     

    For sake of clarity, let's assume, arguendo, that instead of a corporate business structure, Hobby Lobby was one of the myriad business owned by an individual, one of the Koch brothers, for example.

     

    Now let us assume that David or Charles Koch were before the court, arguing that his personal religious promptings were outraged at the idea that any business of his might facilitate, even if only in its choice of medical insurance carrier, the use of this or that contraceptive intervention in the intended plans of the Lord for procreation.

     

    Suspend, for a moment your outrage at this preposterous extension of personal privilege to the behaviour of out of sight and out of mind female employees thousands of miles away from the City of New York (and the David Koch Theatre where the eponymous brother may be found pursuing his hobby of fucking ballerinas--not that there's anything wrong with that).

     

    Consider, instead, one of the cases that will inform the judges thinking tomorrow, when Hobby Lobby will be decided.

     

    Evelyn Smith owned two duplexes in Chico, California and sought to avoid renting to unmarried couples. (Significantly, she did not live in either one, and therefor would not have been subject to hearing the sounds attendant upon the ongoing unsanctioned fornication to which she objected.)

     

    The California Supreme Court rejected her RFRA based claim of  exemption from the relevant housing anti-discrimination statutes, mostly on the grounds that if she wished to preserve her religious scruples she could sell the property and invest the money in some way which would not give rise to the possibility of such offense to her faith. The burden of re-deploying her capital was held to be lower than the threshold harm that RFRA was intended to avoid.

     

    The US Supreme court refused review of   the case, to the consternation of a young lawyer in the Clinton White House whose 1996 memo described the California Supreme Court’s reasoning that the anti-discrimination law wasn’t a substantial burden on Smith’s religious beliefs as “quite outrageous,” warning that, “taken seriously, this kind of reasoning could strip RFRA of any real meaning.”

     

    Her name was Elena Kagan.

     

    The RFRA was initially proposed in response to the general distress amongst the religious (including Ted Kennedy) occasioned by the reversal at the Supreme Court level of a lower court decision that two drug counselors who had used Peyote as part of their unequivocally religiously motivated practices and were then dismissed were eligible for unemployment compensation meaning that their firing was not based upon "good cause".

     

    Thus was born the RFRA, and today we see the revenge of the Peyoteros-a straight line of consequences that flow from the initial evil.

     

    That evil: The conscious decision taken by society to elevate behaviour motivated by religion to a special status not granted other sorts of motivation.

     

    You have your freedom of religion, America.  Now choke on it. 

    Comments

    RFRA-making unlocked medicine cabinets legal in church based child care, because, Jesus!  This should give you an idea of just how pernicious this law can be in its daily application!


    Uhhhh . . .

    Quickest way to get all this government/religion/ACA BS out of the way is to tell the male population they can't have their boner-bloating-woodie-hardenin' drugs covered on their policies.

    There'd be a stampede in the halls of Congress.

    ~OGD~


    Now Waaiiit, just a damn minute!

     

    Thumbnail

     

     Don't you remember how Lazarus was risen from the dead?  Well, those drugs are the instruments of Jesus, and ya don't spit in Jesus eye, do you?  No, you don't.

     

    Or, put another way, (and maintaining the musical theme,)

    Are you ready for a miracle?


    I just came from reading Eclectablog's take on the Hobby Lobby ruling and now this.  My head is spinning!

    One of Chris's readers over at E wondered why Hobby Lobby would be selling Chinese goods, given China's penchant for forced abortions.  Interesting, too, that they were fine with paying for contraceptives before ACA said they had to.  Now they don't want to.

    And yes, it's hard to justify paying for penis-extending drugs when they won't pay for the reaction to the action. 

    Next thing, they'll want to stop paying taxes and every Hobby Lobby will have double doors and a steeple.  Maybe a choir singing as their parishioners shop. And a rack in the back, just in case.

    Yes, indeedy, give them that old time religion. If it's good enough for them it had better damn well be good enough for the rest of us.  Because we're One Nation Under God.  Dammit.

    My question:  How did this get as far as the Supreme Court?  What ever happened to frivolous? 


    Boom, boom, boom! You're on fire here, Ramona. I loved your points about:

    1. buying Chinese goods when China engages in forced abortions;
    2. them already paying for contraceptives; and
    3. them paying for the male side of the equation.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Hobby Lobby.


    Um, it got to the Supreme Court because Kathleen Sibellius lost at the Circuit Court level and she wasn't happy about that....It's not Hobby Lobby appealing, it's the government!

     

    Edit to add: Electablog sums up its error in closing:  "America is not a theocracy"....Wrong, Jethro...Just look at the fuckin' money!


    But let us be clear--the harm flows not from the unforeseen elaboration of the stated primacy of religious beliefs, but from the decision by the state to give religion special status in the first place.

    Explain this.  Edited to add that I'm not sure if you're talking about the RFRA or the First Amendment.


    Both.  The RFRA was passed to pencil in the lacunae left after the Peyote case came down on this side of subjecting religious scruples to rules of general application...That being a bridge too far.

     

    More to the point, if church run daycares don't  have to lock the aspirin away from the kiddies, why should a business have to pay for licentious ladies and their licentious lady parts?

     

    Edit to add: no quarrel with that part of the First Amendment "respecting the establishment,etc,etc,."  it's the "free exercise" part that is causing all the trouble...

     

    Now, I say this in my clerical capacity as Autarch of the Church of the Gnosis of the New Paradigm, founded close to 50 years ago, now dba the Church of the Appolonian Christ.

     

    No property tax for me, thank you very much...


    Bottom line is the freedom of Republicans to do or say whatever they want; gun owners, Tea Baggers, Koran burners, right wing crackpots, bigots, swift boaters, draft dodgers, Deciders, for profit TV preachers, philandering politicians, corporate hucksters, Bible thumping hypocrites or slave owners... is protected by both the Scriptures and the Constitution. Where there is a conflict,  Republicans have the legal right to stand their ground. Obama and liberals do not have that freedom and in fact, don't deserve any.

    The Supreme Court cannot usurp that truth legally.  It's why America is what it is today.


    The Management (of the country) wishes to congratulate you upon arriving at this moment of equanimity, which comes with the wise acceptance of things as they are, and the abandonment of your futile resistance, previously expressed.

     

    Obedience is freedom, resistance is futile....

     

    (Remember, with The Borg, you also get Jeri Ryan....)

     


    I think the case is dumb and dangerous, for a number of reasons, including that it turns the notion advanced by conservatives that corporations are people into something very peculiar indeed.  A corporation has religion now?

    But I am still glad we have the First Amendment, and would hope that it not be emasculated to protect these shares of stocks and the rodents behind them.  

    The First Amendment is a tool, and having just read a fabulous book about Oliver Wendell Holmes and how he changed his mind about what means free speech, one can only hope that this present Court will use the tool as well as he did . . eventually.


    Oh, I'm totally down with the speech part....It's the God thing that sends me up the wall.   They are not, after all, intuitively linked.  

     

    As for the personhood of corporations, the whole thing is a fuckin' editing mistake going back to that Santa Clara case...It's a footnote, fer crissakes!

     

    Edit to add:  it's not even a footnote, it's a  Headnote written not by any judge whatsoever, but by an editor after the fact.  What the fuck!

     

     

     

    a


    Just saw a bumper sticker today that gave me a laugh.

    I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.


    On today's oral argument in Hobby Horse:

    The court seemed ready to accept that at least some for-profit corporations may advance claims based on religious freedom. But the justices appeared divided along ideological lines over whether the objections before it, based on a requirement in President Obama’s health care law, should succeed.
     
    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote, asked questions helpful to both sides. He appeared skeptical that the two family-controlled companies that objected to the contraception coverage requirement were burdened by the law, as they could cease providing health insurance at all. He also expressed solicitude for “the rights of the employees.”
     
    But Justice Kennedy also had reservations about whether the government could require the companies in the case to provide coverage in light of the many exemptions and accommodations it has offered to other groups.
    And from TPM, and the questions from the women on the bench.  I'm still smarting from Judge Sotomayor's denial of my summary judgment motion against a pro se plaintiff back in 1996, but good for her today.
     
     
     

    I've never liked her-she was a prosecutor.

     

    I love the remedy they offer-stop paying for health insurance.  Kinda mirrors the Chico case,  "sell your apartments".

     

    Bear in mind the anecdote about Kagan--unless her thinking has "evolved" on this topic, she could be a land mine waiting to go off.

     

    Edit to add: Summary Judgment is never an easy win...maybe she was right in your case

     

    Further edit to add: WTF is Kennedy talkin' about, anyway?  Isn't there some kinda mandate that health insurance be provided by employers of the Hobby Lobby size?


    I wondered the same thing. Hobby Lobby has ~15,000 employees as I understand it, and Conestoga Wood Specialties (the other company involved) also does not seem small enough to be exempt.

    Edit to add: Here is Conestoga Wood Specialties' Wikipedia page, which states "They are one of the largest employers of all manufacturing companies in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania."


    Actually, on reflection, the penalty for not providing coverage is actually fairly modest compared to the forgone cost of premiums, and, who knows, if the court goes the right way and drives these fuckers outta the marketplace, we could get single payer yet, as the exchanges sop up the now uninsured and therefore subsidy eligible workers.


    I know women who will not walk into a Hobby Lobby because of this case.  If they win this case and women began to loose their right to medical insurance coverage for contraceptives, there could be a backlash and sales drop.  I just wonder if they have thought of that. Women are their customers and women do care about reproductive rights. 


    I would venture a guess that their clientele is 85-90% women (if not more)...I myself gave up needlepoint ages ago, altho I do cherish my wall hanging that says (in memory of my mentor, James Hook, late of His Majesty's Navy *"Avast & Ahoy, and Keelhaul me for a Boy", which was the last thing that he said before he was taken off by that damnable crocodile..

     

     

    *It has that capricious capitalization that so often adorns needlepoint, for reasons which escape me.


    The CEO of Chick fil a just apologized for his stand on gays.  The boycott must of hurt his bottom line after all.

    Actually Hobby Lobby is more like Pier One with a fabric and yarn section.   A lot of over priced Chines imports.    


    Oh my gawd.  How do I put this so as not to send your already healthy ego over the edge? 

    Okay, let me try:

    Have you ever thought about publishing some of your more hilarious comments in book form?


    (openblushing) not really--they're kind of ephemeral, doncha think--time and place specific?  Or, (as they say) ya hadda be there.  But thanks (closeblushing)


    Oh, Jeez, I made JR blush.  I didn't see that. . .


    Although not modest, I am humble...


    A fine trait for a pirate, I've always said.


    Women should go to Hobby Lobby in droves!  They should pile up their carts with tons of little things and once all checked out and bagged, should announce their SHOCK that they forgot to bring any money.

    BUT........once near the exit they should yell, "Oh, now I remember!  I left my money at home because I had a doctors appointment for birth control and I knew I wouldn't need it!!!!!


    Great idea, C'ville!  The only problem is that it'll be the "gals" who will be putting those things back on the shelves.  Those idiots who come up with this stuff stay up there in the aerie offices, free from the goings-on of the riff-raff. 

    Not their problem. . .


    Who cares?  Those "gals" are getting paid by the hour.  If they spend a lot of time restocking, Hobby Lobby (what a sucky NAME!) might have to hire more people just to keep up. 


    The early line seems to be Hobby by a nose...Kennedy is reported to have exclaimed, almost in pain, to Verrilli "Your interpretation would leave them open to  being coerced to pay for abortions! "  

     

    Well, duh. abortion is a legal procedure, Judge, what's your major malfunction?


    Can someone tell me what is wrong with my thinking?

    The ACA says that if a company employs x number of people they have to provide them with health insurance.  PERIOD

    The ACA says that insurance companies have to do several things, some of which are:  to make premiums that are not influenced by pre-existing conditions; to have no lifetime caps on health care expenditures; to have no co-pays for preventive care or for contraception. PERIOD

    The corporation should have no interest or say in anything to do with what is covered. To me this is so obvious!  I think the arguments are ridiculous.

     

     

    ...but re Ramona's comment above, do the Supremes get to find out that Hobby Lobby already paid for contraception before without objection?  If yes, they should just throw the whole thing out of court with a stern warning about wasting their precious time. If no, then WHY THE HELL NOT?  It is surely a valid point that would challenge their basic point of saying that it is against their religion. 

     


    do the Supremes get to find out that Hobby Lobby already paid for contraception before without objection

     

    Hah!  you appear to be a fugitive from the reality based world.

     

    These bozos are so far removed from reality, that when confronted by Verilli with the scientific fact that IUDs and the morning after pill are, not, abortifacients, in that they do not , in fact, prevent that pulsating with life zygote from implanting, Roberts opined that, this being religion (and, the unspoken premise, therefor immune from rational analysis....) it doesn't matter if the believer is WRONG in the factual foundation of his believing, what counts is (wat for it...) HE BELIEVES!


    What is even worse, the carriers, who apparently know how to add and subtract, are delighted in the final analysis to provide free contraception to their female customers, because any alternative outcome of human behavior is gonna cost several orders of magnitude more to the carrier, whether by way of delivery or termination of the statistically predictable pregnancies!


    This comment has been deleted.

    Wow!  I heard you the first time!   Hahahahaha


    new york, ny--so nice they named it twice...I SWEAR I deleted the extra post, but, oh, no, not on this server!


    Nina Hagen fan?


    Isn't everyone?

     

    Edit to add: just for fun, I went back and listened to the 1983 cut, and surprize, all the clubs she names (at which, may I say, I was a regular--and often comped--are closed!  O, Peter Gatien, we miss you so.)


    Sad - people'll remember Bill Graham, but Gatien's just a minor footnote in global consciousness. Maybe they'll give him a Universal Club.... "I'm dancing in my club, I'm talking to myself, I'm talking to myself... in my own Disc-ohohohohoh"


    True story--I was standing next to Graham in the park in SF and some kid comes up and asks him for "spare change" whereupon he replies.  "Spare change?" pause..."spare change?" pause "What the fuck is SPARE CHANGE?"


    A new band? an old one? a happening? a Janis post-coital habit? (notice, her Wikipedia page has been a bit vandalized, slightly humorous)


    No, you fuckin' incompetent server, IT HAS NOT!


    Took care of that last one.  It was a bugger!  Had to wrestle it to the ground and feed it chocolate chip cookies, but think it's gone now.  Relax.


    Sad to have been right....


    Latest Comments