Entry tags:
HOBBY LOBBY AND OTHER ALTERNATE REALITIES
I’m pretty sure by now you know the outcome of the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby case. And I’m required by law to post something about everything that has a trending outraged hashtag on Twitter.
So.
For those of you who want a good breakdown of the decision, you can check out SCOTUSblog here and here and The Volokh Conspiracy here if you want a good breakdown.
(NOTE: SCOTUSblog is not the official blog of the Supreme Court, contrary to popular belief on Twitter.)
If you read any of those links – and if yr social media feeds look anything like mine – you may notice is that people are drawing conclusions and taking a stand based on what they think the Hobby Lobby ruling means, rather than what it actually means.
That’s fairly typical, especially with politically charged cases. However, this is one of those times where the disconnect is actually understandable.
Take for example the legal reasoning that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs. I’ve actually read it and I sort of get it, but I still have a hard time applying that legal concept to Real Life. The concept relies on century-old legal technicalities so labyrinthine and complex that it reads more like the product of an alternate universe that has little to do with the universe we live in now.
The same arguably goes for Justice Alito et al’s views on the role of contraceptives in healthcare, the government’s ability to cover the cost in other ways, alternative ways of acquiring them, and the ability of Congress to come up with legal remedies to the situation if they don’t like the outcome. On paper, strictly following the letter of the law, the argument makes a kind of sense. In real life, it’s misguided and impractical.
Hence all the dithering on Twitterbook.
So it’s no surprise people are upset over the ruling. Yes, it’s partly because Hobby Lobby won, but really it's because they haven’t been given a good and practical reason why their side lost. They’ve been handed complex conceptual legalese that – when applied to the real world – basically says this: (1) A corporation can have religious beliefs, (2) it is under no real obligation whatsoever to prove that a legal business requirement interferes with its religious beliefs as long as it says it is a sincere believer, and (3) the rights of religious business owners are more important than the rights of their female employees (religious or otherwise).
None of which sounds very sensible when you put it like that.
It can’t help matters that J. Alito et al reached that conclusion without giving much (if any) thought to the realities on the ground for women affected by the ruling. (It’s probably no coincidence that none of the female justices backed the majority decision.)
And within the broader context of the current national discussion on Obamacare, birth control and women’s issues in general – to say nothing of the considerable power and influence corporations already have over our lives – it’s no surprise Hobby Lobby opponents are both angry and terrified of the potential consequences, real or imagined.
As for those consequences … my gut feeling is that the worst-case scenarios being tossed around (i.e. OMG now every CEO in America will suddenly find Jesus and use the ruling to not only get out of the contraceptive clause of Obamacare, but also fire gays and lesbians and refuse them service and opt out of minimum wage laws, etc) are way overblown, if only because (1) worst-case doomsday scenarios rarely happen and (2) as I understand it, they’ve theoretically been able to do that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act since 1993. I have doubts they’ve been waiting for a case like this to make their move.
On the other hand, we didn't have Obamacare in 1993, and we don't exactly live in rational times when it comes to Obamacare, contraceptives and women’s issues (among other things). So while most companies probably won’t exploit the ruling, some will probably try their luck. If nothing else, there’s already some early indications that the decision will have a much wider impact than J. Alito thinks. (By some accounts it already has.)
As for the conservative Christian groups crowing about religious freedom, I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post about this: they’re really in for a surprise when a “closely held” company run by Muslims or Wiccans or Satanists or whoever does what Hobby Lobby is doing now. And they’ll have a lot of nerve to complain.
Stop making sense,
This is dF
So.
For those of you who want a good breakdown of the decision, you can check out SCOTUSblog here and here and The Volokh Conspiracy here if you want a good breakdown.
(NOTE: SCOTUSblog is not the official blog of the Supreme Court, contrary to popular belief on Twitter.)
If you read any of those links – and if yr social media feeds look anything like mine – you may notice is that people are drawing conclusions and taking a stand based on what they think the Hobby Lobby ruling means, rather than what it actually means.
That’s fairly typical, especially with politically charged cases. However, this is one of those times where the disconnect is actually understandable.
Take for example the legal reasoning that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs. I’ve actually read it and I sort of get it, but I still have a hard time applying that legal concept to Real Life. The concept relies on century-old legal technicalities so labyrinthine and complex that it reads more like the product of an alternate universe that has little to do with the universe we live in now.
The same arguably goes for Justice Alito et al’s views on the role of contraceptives in healthcare, the government’s ability to cover the cost in other ways, alternative ways of acquiring them, and the ability of Congress to come up with legal remedies to the situation if they don’t like the outcome. On paper, strictly following the letter of the law, the argument makes a kind of sense. In real life, it’s misguided and impractical.
Hence all the dithering on Twitterbook.
So it’s no surprise people are upset over the ruling. Yes, it’s partly because Hobby Lobby won, but really it's because they haven’t been given a good and practical reason why their side lost. They’ve been handed complex conceptual legalese that – when applied to the real world – basically says this: (1) A corporation can have religious beliefs, (2) it is under no real obligation whatsoever to prove that a legal business requirement interferes with its religious beliefs as long as it says it is a sincere believer, and (3) the rights of religious business owners are more important than the rights of their female employees (religious or otherwise).
None of which sounds very sensible when you put it like that.
It can’t help matters that J. Alito et al reached that conclusion without giving much (if any) thought to the realities on the ground for women affected by the ruling. (It’s probably no coincidence that none of the female justices backed the majority decision.)
And within the broader context of the current national discussion on Obamacare, birth control and women’s issues in general – to say nothing of the considerable power and influence corporations already have over our lives – it’s no surprise Hobby Lobby opponents are both angry and terrified of the potential consequences, real or imagined.
As for those consequences … my gut feeling is that the worst-case scenarios being tossed around (i.e. OMG now every CEO in America will suddenly find Jesus and use the ruling to not only get out of the contraceptive clause of Obamacare, but also fire gays and lesbians and refuse them service and opt out of minimum wage laws, etc) are way overblown, if only because (1) worst-case doomsday scenarios rarely happen and (2) as I understand it, they’ve theoretically been able to do that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act since 1993. I have doubts they’ve been waiting for a case like this to make their move.
On the other hand, we didn't have Obamacare in 1993, and we don't exactly live in rational times when it comes to Obamacare, contraceptives and women’s issues (among other things). So while most companies probably won’t exploit the ruling, some will probably try their luck. If nothing else, there’s already some early indications that the decision will have a much wider impact than J. Alito thinks. (By some accounts it already has.)
As for the conservative Christian groups crowing about religious freedom, I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post about this: they’re really in for a surprise when a “closely held” company run by Muslims or Wiccans or Satanists or whoever does what Hobby Lobby is doing now. And they’ll have a lot of nerve to complain.
Stop making sense,
This is dF