![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Or, more specifically, my only post about the Hobby Lobby case currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Actually, there are two cases – one with Hobby Lobby, and another with Conestoga Wood Specialities, but I guess more people are familiar with Hobby Lobby, plus it rhymes and sounds a little silly in a courtroom setting.
Anyway, as you probably know, both cases focus on the same two legal questions:
1. If corporations are people, are they also religious people?
2. If they are, does that mean they’re exempt from Obamacare, which requires you to pay for contraceptives forall the sluts who work for yr company female employees?
As usual, there is a lot of debate about this on Facebook and Twitter. And by “debate” I mean “posting hysterical hyperpartisan memes that oversimplify a vey complex issue in the name of political convenience”.
If you prefer something with a little more depth and nuance, I recommend this piece from The Economist, this lengthy breakdown from WaPo, and this translation of the legal issues at hand from SCOTUSblog.
As a blogger, I'm required to post my own non-expert opinion on this. So let's break it down into two (2) questions:
1. Who will win?
No idea, though based on what little I’ve heard, Hobby Lobby has its work cut out for it. It will probably depend on to what extent SCOTUS decides that the law cited in the case (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) applies to businesses. Also, even if it does, the RFRA doesn’t allow you to do anything you want in the name of religious freedom, so they may also take into account the potential can of worms a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby will open, but that’s not necessarily guaranteed.
There’s also some indications that Chief Justice John Roberts knows all this and is looking to hammer out as narrow a ruling as possible to ensure it isn’t applied too broadly.
Meanwhile, if you have the time (which you probably don’t), you can always read this TL;DR assessment from a Stanford law professor who estimates that – if you go strictly by the legal arguments being deployed here – Hobby Lobby has a stronger case than you might think.
2. Who should win?
As you might imagine, I’m not with Hobby Lobby on this one, mainly because of the aforementioned can of worms (which is covered pretty well in the above links), even though others have pointed out that under both RFRA and various state laws already in place, the worst case scenario predicted under a Hobby Lobby victory (i.e. employers using religion as an excuse ton ignore every business regulation on the books) would have happened a long time ago.
It’s also worth mentioning – as others have pointed out to me from personal experience – that birth control pills aren’t always prescribed strictly as an anti-pregnancy tool. There are other medical applications, like treating hormonal imbalances. So it’s not as simple as the “we don’t want to pay for yr heathen slut lifestyle” argument championed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
I do understand why a CEO would want to run a business in a way that doesn’t violate his/her religious beliefs and associated mandates. (That includes, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, etc.) But aside from the fact that I think it’s impossible to stick 100% to yr ideological guns without impinging on someone else’s rights sooner or later, I admit that I have a problem with Hobby Lobby’s argument that there’s no difference between a business and the person who runs that business.
That might be technically true for start-ups and family-owned private companies like Hobby Lobby. But it’s not true for other businesses, whose boardrooms and CEOs change all the time. And either way, for all intents and purposes, Hobby Lobby does not, as an entity, believe in God – the Green family does. I don’t see how they’re the same thing.
That said, given the increasingly blurred line between religious and political speech in modern America, thanks to the conservative Christian juggernaut – and given that corporations have a right to political speech (by which we mean $$$) – it’s possible they’re confusing one for the other. It’s also possible that it’s not entirely unintentional.
Anyway, I see a lot more downsides than upsides to Hobby Lobby winning their case unconditionally, so I’m hoping that, if SCOTUS decides Hobby Lobby has a point, whatever ruling they hand down will be as narrowly tailored and cautious as possible.
The other thing I’d add is that most of the conservatives championing Hobby Lobby’s case have – as usual – gone into this under the assumption that the freedom of corporations to exercise their religious rights will apply only to Christian-owned businesses. (See Oklahoma City for an idea of the potential surprises that await them if they win.)
Get off yr hobby horse,
This is dF
Actually, there are two cases – one with Hobby Lobby, and another with Conestoga Wood Specialities, but I guess more people are familiar with Hobby Lobby, plus it rhymes and sounds a little silly in a courtroom setting.
Anyway, as you probably know, both cases focus on the same two legal questions:
1. If corporations are people, are they also religious people?
2. If they are, does that mean they’re exempt from Obamacare, which requires you to pay for contraceptives for
As usual, there is a lot of debate about this on Facebook and Twitter. And by “debate” I mean “posting hysterical hyperpartisan memes that oversimplify a vey complex issue in the name of political convenience”.
If you prefer something with a little more depth and nuance, I recommend this piece from The Economist, this lengthy breakdown from WaPo, and this translation of the legal issues at hand from SCOTUSblog.
As a blogger, I'm required to post my own non-expert opinion on this. So let's break it down into two (2) questions:
1. Who will win?
No idea, though based on what little I’ve heard, Hobby Lobby has its work cut out for it. It will probably depend on to what extent SCOTUS decides that the law cited in the case (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) applies to businesses. Also, even if it does, the RFRA doesn’t allow you to do anything you want in the name of religious freedom, so they may also take into account the potential can of worms a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby will open, but that’s not necessarily guaranteed.
There’s also some indications that Chief Justice John Roberts knows all this and is looking to hammer out as narrow a ruling as possible to ensure it isn’t applied too broadly.
Meanwhile, if you have the time (which you probably don’t), you can always read this TL;DR assessment from a Stanford law professor who estimates that – if you go strictly by the legal arguments being deployed here – Hobby Lobby has a stronger case than you might think.
2. Who should win?
As you might imagine, I’m not with Hobby Lobby on this one, mainly because of the aforementioned can of worms (which is covered pretty well in the above links), even though others have pointed out that under both RFRA and various state laws already in place, the worst case scenario predicted under a Hobby Lobby victory (i.e. employers using religion as an excuse ton ignore every business regulation on the books) would have happened a long time ago.
It’s also worth mentioning – as others have pointed out to me from personal experience – that birth control pills aren’t always prescribed strictly as an anti-pregnancy tool. There are other medical applications, like treating hormonal imbalances. So it’s not as simple as the “we don’t want to pay for yr heathen slut lifestyle” argument championed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
I do understand why a CEO would want to run a business in a way that doesn’t violate his/her religious beliefs and associated mandates. (That includes, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, etc.) But aside from the fact that I think it’s impossible to stick 100% to yr ideological guns without impinging on someone else’s rights sooner or later, I admit that I have a problem with Hobby Lobby’s argument that there’s no difference between a business and the person who runs that business.
That might be technically true for start-ups and family-owned private companies like Hobby Lobby. But it’s not true for other businesses, whose boardrooms and CEOs change all the time. And either way, for all intents and purposes, Hobby Lobby does not, as an entity, believe in God – the Green family does. I don’t see how they’re the same thing.
That said, given the increasingly blurred line between religious and political speech in modern America, thanks to the conservative Christian juggernaut – and given that corporations have a right to political speech (by which we mean $$$) – it’s possible they’re confusing one for the other. It’s also possible that it’s not entirely unintentional.
Anyway, I see a lot more downsides than upsides to Hobby Lobby winning their case unconditionally, so I’m hoping that, if SCOTUS decides Hobby Lobby has a point, whatever ruling they hand down will be as narrowly tailored and cautious as possible.
The other thing I’d add is that most of the conservatives championing Hobby Lobby’s case have – as usual – gone into this under the assumption that the freedom of corporations to exercise their religious rights will apply only to Christian-owned businesses. (See Oklahoma City for an idea of the potential surprises that await them if they win.)
Get off yr hobby horse,
This is dF
