The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    Hobby Lobby--a conscientious objector to contraception. But just like a war resister, you still gotta serve.

    By jollyroger on Thu, 11/28/2013 - 12:00am |

    There is an interesting congruence between the waiver claimed by Hobby Lobby vis-a-vis contributing fungible resources to a purpose they loath, and the waiver granted a conscientious objector who ref.uses to take an active role in combat.

     

    Both are asking to be excused from  participating in that which they  find odious.

     

    The difference, however, is that the war resister must serve in a non-combat position or face punishment.  He may not be heard to say "No, I will not even be a medic, for that would free up some other soldier from medic duty to become a killer.  My service is fungible."

     

    This, essentially, is what Hobby Lobby wishes to argue in a civil context.  Since money is (completely) fungible, it wishes to be excused from freeing up resources.

     

    *We do not, after all, ask Mr. Hobby Lobby to unroll and apply the condom.  His demand to be excused from monetary contribution  is a bridge too far,

     

     

     

     

    *I cannot resist this analogy, sophomoric though it be.

    Comments

    Hobby Lobby religious rights as a corporation out weight the beliefs of its human employees. A Corporation that is a Jehovah's Witness would argue that it should not be forced to pay for blood transfusions. Fundamentalist corporations would argue that since alcohol and cigarettes are abominations, the corporation should not pay for disease that could be linked to those vices.

    An individual can decide not to allow people of other ethnicities on his/ her property. An individual may hang a Confederate or Nazi flag on private property. The rule has been that a public business has to serve the public and not discriminate. If corporations are people and corporate religious belief is superior to individual beliefs, why isn't the next step that corporations, like individuals, can discriminate?

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 11/28/2013 - 1:00am

    What if you're a Buddhist vegetarian? Can you refuse to provide health care to those sinful meat eaters?


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 11/28/2013 - 1:25am

    Maybe not health care altogether.  But in a somewhat analogous discrimination, can you refuse to pay for statins, which treat the side effects of eating meat.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 11/28/2013 - 10:19am

    Well, even an individual doing business as a diner is subject to the public accomodation components of the civil rights laws....so far...


    by jollyroger on Thu, 11/28/2013 - 10:17am

    Since carriers have agreed to furnish contraceptive coverage without co-pays because the alternative (pregnancy and/or abortion) will cost them exponentially more, my analogy is flawed.  Hobby Lobby is really demanding the right to prevent the carrier from opting to cover contraception without any monetary contribution from the premium paying employer.


    by jollyroger on Thu, 11/28/2013 - 10:40am

    The new Hobby Lobby that was just built in my town has the owner's religious autobiography book stacked at all the registers. I avoid the place but sometimes I have to go in there because they are the only place in town who has an item I need.  I have only been there twice.  The store is more of a import Pier 1 merchandise home dec stuff from China.  The craft and hobby stuff is displayed on the side and back after you walk through the other stuff.  The owner is on a power and ego trip.  I have other places I like to shop that don't tread on women's right to health care for craft supplies.  I am not alone. 


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 11/29/2013 - 7:27am

    I am not a crafter, but I bet you  can get what you need online cheaper.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 11/29/2013 - 5:12pm

    Sometimes I run out of a certain crochet thread that I bought on lline and I am trying to get an item finished and can't wait for shipping.  It happens when you are in a middle of a project. 


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 2:16am

    on a facebook thread one of Lindsay Beyerstein's 4000+ friends says they are an amazing store with deep and varied inventory of stuff she needs...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 12:52pm

    I only go to craft stores like once every 5 years when I can't find "it" online or I need "it" now to finish something. "It" is usually something along the lines of a tool or something needed to repair something that "they" haven't invented yet (and may never invent.) cheeky When I have gone, I am inevitably creeped out by some of the stuff for sale therein and how much some of it costs where the cost to produce would already exceed readymade without adding in labor. And I'm not talking about the Christian variety of craft store, just the secular kind....

    In these once every five years trips, I usually don't find the sorta thingie I'm looking for at a craft store, and then I go doh, why didn't I go to an art supply store, and then I do, and they often do end up having such a thingie. (Though if you are dealing with metal, I have found it is best to go to the auto supply store....)


    by artappraiser on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 1:18pm

    Your analogy strikes me as problematic and your last sentence hints at why:

    His demand to be excused from monetary contribution  is a bridge too far,

    It's not about required service it's about a required outlay of money.

    Neither is it about women's rights, as others are getting into.

    The correct analogy is the "taxation without representation" thingie.

    The war protestor is represented, he can protest the war and vote for representatives against the war and become a conscientious objector, but he cannot withhold a portion of taxes to fund a war that has been approved by Congress.

    Likewise, he cannot withhold buying the kind of health insurance that has been required by Congress. (Employer mandated insurance is basically just another tax.) He does not have to use it, nor do his employees, but they still have to purchase it.

    Also likewise, it strikes me as illogical to include requiring inclusion of birth control in health insurance as a "women's right." If it was not required, people could still chose to purchase plans that included it or purchase it outside of insurance.  It is merely a societal choice that Congress decided upon, no different than going to war. It's like taxation. If you're represented, you gotta pay, whether you agree with what they spend it on or not.

    Where this gets a little stickier is  not with corporations like Hobby Lobby but with actual registered religious organizations that don't pay taxes. Like the Catholic Church. Where they run things like non-profit hospitals with lots of employees...

    I honestly don't get why they took this case. It would make more sense if it were such a church-owned non-profit/charity, but it's not;  there would at least be some kind of unresolved questions there.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 11/29/2013 - 7:05pm

    Taking your points seriatim but in reverse order, recall that by taking the Hobby Lobby case they are accepting the appeal of the government from a decision below granting Hobby Lobby the relief sought! (hence, Sibellius, appellant v. Hobby Lobby, appellee  It's the companion case from a different circuit that represents granting cert. to an agrieved employer who has lost at the circuit court level.

     

    That said, they have no choice but to resolve the conflict between the circuits, or to leave it that the law in one set of states is different from the law in another set.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 11/29/2013 - 7:15pm

    It's not about required service

     

    Exactly.  required service would be making him unroll and apply the condom...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 11/29/2013 - 7:16pm

    Here's the other thing I don't hear brought up: Hobby Lobby had (and has) shops in Massachusetts, and when Romneycare made the exact same requirement, as best as I can tell, but didn't even mention it back then.


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 8:08am

    Different circuit?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 12:54pm

    Except they didn't even complain, much less sue!


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 2:10pm

    One difference, the Republican primary campaign debates of 2012 (thank you Rick Santorum) had not yet occurred.  Are we really moving back to pre-Griswold?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 2:16pm

    I confess that I had always thought birth control to be unexceptional in its broad acceptance.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 2:17pm

    Yes, I think that was the deciding factor. Perhaps they should sue the GOP?


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 5:20pm

     back then.

    Perhaps before ciizens united no one could assert a corporation's first amendent rights with a straight face...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/30/2013 - 2:02pm