Hobby Lobby Decided

Looks like another brick in the wall. SCOTUSBlog:

Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.
[…]
The Court says that RFRA requires the Govt to provide closely-held corporate objectors the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organization objectors.
[…]
The first reactions from other news sources overread Hobby Lobby significantly. The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.
[…]
To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are “persons” for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious “belief” within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs.

This is the RFRA.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






303 replies
  1. 1
    pharniel says:

    Continuing to see if they can get worse than Dread Scott/Citizens United

  2. 2
    cermet says:

    So corporations have souls? Well, at least we now know that five members of the Inferior Court have no soul’s.

  3. 3
    Morzer says:

    @pharniel:

    Dread Scott is the mis-governor of Florida.

    Dred Scott was the slave screwed over by SCOTUS.

  4. 4
    Emma says:

    Time to launch a major boycott of Hobby Lobby.

  5. 5
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @pharniel:

    They’re certainly doing their best to get there, that’s for certain.

  6. 6
    Derelict says:

    How long before a “closely held” corporation decides that its religion prohibits it from hiring minorities, or mandates that it use slave labor exactly as described in the Bible?

  7. 7
    Bobby Thomson says:

    Fat Tony can’t die too soon, but I have a feeling he will outlive half the current members of the Court.

    And Alito’s a baby.

  8. 8
    Walker says:

    Does this mean that owners of “closely held” corporations can be held personally responsible for the actions of the corporation?

  9. 9
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    ” The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious “belief” within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs.”

    I swear that sounds like something out of a dystopian novel.

  10. 10
    pat says:

    How about finding a Hobby Lobby store near you, standing on the public sidewalk outside such store, and trying to gently persuade the would-be shoppers at such store to go somewhere else because Hobby Lobby is owned by misogynistic religious nutcase assholes.

  11. 11
    Soprano2 says:

    Bad, bad, bad decision. How awful, corporations don’t have religious beliefs, only people do. I wonder how “closely” a corporation will have to be held in order to force the religious beliefs of the owner onto the female employees?

  12. 12
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Walker: I hope so, but I suspect we’re going to see “closely held” being held as a one way shield.

  13. 13

    @Emma: I have lived in four states and I have never seen a Hobby Lobby.

  14. 14
    Randy Khan says:

    Quite a bizarre decision by all accounts – and definitely anybody who says that it ends contraceptive coverage is wildly overreading the result.

    It:

    1. Is limited to closely-held corporations.
    2. Does not go to other types of health care (blood transfusions, in particular)
    3. Specifically says that the waiver mechanism used for religious institutions (which ends up giving employees contraceptive coverage) is sufficient, so that’s of course what the Administration will do.

    I’m waiting for the Tea Partiers to start saying Alito is a RINO for this decision, actually.

  15. 15
    catclub says:

    From the previous decision (Voting Rights Act), I know I will want to read Ginsburg’s dissent.

    She is really good. And has facts on her side, for all the good they do.

  16. 16
    Betty Cracker says:

    Shorter conservative majority: “Women have no rights that a corporate-person is bound to respect.”

    Also, look for “corporate-persons” to become Christian Scientists en masse, opting for prayer-based remedies instead of paying for medical care.

    The conservative majority also screwed public sector unions in another ruling. This is a great day for plutocracy.

  17. 17
    catclub says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Gas liquid solid plasma
    Air water earth fire
    grace innocence guilt knowledge
    confusion despair exultation nirvana

  18. 18
    Patrick says:

    This decision, just like the abortion one in MA, is just mind-boggling. Why should one religious group get an exemption, but not other groups? And aren’t these the Christians that keep screaming about Sharia law? It looks like the USSC already started our own version of it as of today.

    Furthermore, if they were eventually to grant other religious groups exemptions, where would it stop? If I had a closely held corporation and was against stupid Iraq wars, could I now stop paying taxes?

    leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs.

    How? So, is Apple (as an example) going to take a vote at the shareholder’s meeting to see what the religious beliefs are of the shareholders, which will then become the religion of the company? It is beyond laughable…In business school we learned that the goal of a company was to enhance the value for the shareholders. What the hell does religion have to do with a company?

  19. 19
    aimai says:

    @Emma: Then they will whine and moan that the boycott is hurting “their workers. Their female work force.”

  20. 20
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Randy Khan: On DK, Joan McCarter points out that any health care that men use is, of course, untouched. Only women can have someone else’s religious beliefs override their own. Odd that.

  21. 21
    SFAW says:

    As I wrote in an Open Thread:

    ITMFA.

    And pat’s idea re: “gently” persuading – or “counseling” as the Forced-Birthers like to call it – could be a winner.

    Although I imagine the Inferior Court would find that THEIR (the persuaders/counselors) First Amendment rights get trumped by Hobby Lobby, because Hobby Lobby is not Planned Parenthood, and Freedumb, and Shut Up!

  22. 22
    Trentrunner says:

    Silver lining: If Dems can run with it, this really REALLY reinforces the idea that Republicans just want to control women and their sexuality.

    Your move, Dems.

  23. 23
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    I’m sure Burnsie (Defender of the Faith) will be along shortly to school us that this decision is no big deal, that although the individual Justices do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim The Law infallibly, and that this decision, like all recent Court decisions, is clear, and decisive, and beyond the ken of lesser mortals like ourselves.

  24. 24
    catclub says:

    @Betty Cracker: Someone at LGM wrote that this was decided in such a way as to NOT bring on the backlash that Citizens United did. I am not so sure, given your gloss on it.

  25. 25
    D58826 says:

    Any one notice that buffer zone in the TV coverage of the SCOTUS this morning? I though that was the place were American citizens can engage each other in thoughtful conversations. There are day’s that I wish Obama really was the tyrant the GOP claims he is.

  26. 26
    CaseyL says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: One is about to open here in Seattle. I hope it dies quickly.

    Not much else to say. This is an awful, awful decision from an awful, awful Court.

    “Thanks, Ralph” doesn’t go far enough. Thanks should go to every one of the 62,000,000 voters who went for GWB in 2004 (Alito and Roberts were both nominated in 2005).

  27. 27
    David in NY says:

    So, wait. This is a statutory case. Not a constitutional case. Is that right? So in the better world to come, Congress could change this without having to have a new Supreme Court change constitutional doctrine or a constitutional amendment?

    That would be better than having this enshrined forever in the constitution.

  28. 28
    Patrick says:

    @Randy Khan:

    Does not go to other types of health care (blood transfusions, in particular)

    And why doesn’t, it? How can the USSC create an exemption for one group, but rule it illegal for other groups? What am I missing?

  29. 29
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: They are like a virus in North Carolina.

  30. 30
    pat says:

    And let’s see what happens when a business owned by some Jehovah’s Witness assholes refuses to pay for blood transfusions.

    I swear these judges do not live in our world.

  31. 31
    Emma says:

    @aimai: Life’s a female dog in heat. I am so sick and tired of taking a dull knife to a gun fight. We’re getting clobbered because we don’t fight back. We’re too nice, too constitutional, too whatever. They beat us up and eat our lunch and we let them.

    We need to start pushing back in every way possible. Forget politics. Our politicians are just as much in the bag as theirs — the difference is that ours are centrists while theirs are bats__it crazy. But we need to realize they won’t help. We need to figure it out ourselves.

  32. 32

    2. Does not go to other types of health care (blood transfusions, in particular)

    Some religious opinions are more equal than others. Specifically, the ones that might negatively affect men.

  33. 33
    kc says:

    Son. Of. A. Bitch.

  34. 34
    kc says:

    Son. Of. A. Bitch.@Walker:

    Haha, don’t be silly.

  35. 35
    piratedan says:

    aren’t “closely held” LLC’s like 85%+ of all businesses in the US?

  36. 36
    Patrick says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    Every election, I over-hear co-workers talk about it. And it never fails, there are younger women who don’t vote. And their reason always seems to be that they can’t figure out who to vote for or that they are all the same anyway. I wonder how much it will take for these women who don’t vote to realize that them not voting makes a big difference.

  37. 37

    Aren’t most of Hobby Lobby’s customers women? Except for the the Quiverfull movement and the most orthodox Catholics doesn’t everyone (even most pro-lifers) else use some form of contraception? The Theocratic Court may have overplayed their hand here.
    The Democratic Party needs to be aggressive in using this decision to GOTV for the midterms.

  38. 38
    Belafon says:

    @pat: They ruled that this doesn’t apply for things like blood transfusions. As Laura Clawson said at DK, things that men might need.

  39. 39

    @Patrick: I would guess that the five justices that voted for this (all Roman Catholic, IIRC) realize exactly what their decision would logically entail, and went with a ‘one-time’ kind of decision because they wanted to.

    Whether or not that will stand when other religions start making objections to hiring gays or other laws or when corporate polluters start citing God’s command to have dominion over the Earth as a sincerely held religious belief against environmental or conservation laws, is something to be decided later.

    But, at least thus far, it does seem like Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t jerks enough to try to force their viewpoint on their non-believing employees. Well… other than showing up at their front door every weekend.

  40. 40
    Elizabelle says:

    @SFAW:

    ITMFA.

    Which means WHAT?

  41. 41
    D58826 says:

    @Randy Khan: While it does seem that the decision is ‘narrow’ in comparison to what it could have been, it does seem to open the door for more litigation. As others have mentioned why not blood transfusions, etc. Also why is only a closely held corporation entitled to religious freedom. Other then the number of owners is a closely held corporation like Hobby Lobby any different than GM when it comers to corporate law and the veil of immunity that separates the owners from the corporation itself? A lot of lawyers are going to get very rich pushing these cases.

  42. 42
    Belafon says:

    @piratedan: It’s a company where five or fewer people own 50% or more of the shares. The one out they gave is that the government can pay for the contraceptives.

  43. 43
    Randy Khan says:

    @Patrick: Because they say it doesn’t go to blood transfusions. I’m not telling you it makes any sense at all, because it doesn’t. (I could, I suppose, construct a rationale for the distinction, but so far as I’ve read so far, the Court made no effort to do so.)

  44. 44
    Betty Cracker says:

    @catclub: I’m no expert, but from what I read at SCOTUSblog, it does look like it was crafted narrowly to avoid backlash. Good luck with that, Alito & fellow dickheads; Americans don’t do nuance, and maybe for once that fact will bite Republicans in the nutsack instead of Democrats.

  45. 45
    eldorado says:

    but there isn’t any difference between bush and gore…

  46. 46
    dmsilev says:

    @aimai: Well, apparently ‘involuntary counseling’ is A-OK according to this Court, so if they’re fully consistent, they should be fine with it.

    Hell of an ‘if’ of course.

  47. 47
    Hal says:

    BTW, closely held is 90% of us companies. Hobby lobby is closely held, and has over 10,000 employees.

  48. 48
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    This is bullshit.

    All of it.

  49. 49
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @aimai: Collateral damage?

  50. 50
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    They’re all over the place down here. I’ve been in the one near me a few times, but not since I realized a couple of years ago what awful people they are. It’s the kind of “boycotting” that makes me feel better (like my “boycotts” of Chick-Fil-A and the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure) but that the entity in question will never notice because I never spent much money there to begin with.

  51. 51
    catclub says:

    @Randy Khan:

    1. Is limited to closely-held corporations.

    How well did they define closely held? I bet that is going to become a big loophole.

    All those Vulture Capitalist (Mitt Romney and his ilk) funds that takeover companies are going to take advantage of it.

  52. 52
    beltane says:

    Now that Hobby Lobby is a person, I look forward to it being tasered, waterboarded, and raped with a transvaginal wand just like other people are.

  53. 53
    Citizen_X says:

    You people think that his was not decided on principle, but the principle is very clear:

    Corporations are people (at least, sometimes).

    Women are not.

  54. 54
    Elizabelle says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Yes. I see this decision motivating women voters (and males who like and respect women) in the midterms.

    And maybe hurting Hobby Lobby’s business, although we may not learn of that impact for a while, being that it’s privately held.

    Contraception is popular among Catholics and people in the heartland. There are other stores for crafts supplies. Will be interesting to watch if they experience an uptick in business.

  55. 55

    I asked the question in the last thread. Is this the worst Supreme Court post Civil War? In the last 100 years? Roberts and company have dropped all pretense of impartiality.

  56. 56
    Citizen_X says:

    @Citizen_X: “this” was not decided.

  57. 57
    catclub says:

    @Hal: Wonderful. What percentage of employees? Any idea?

    I expect that much of Koch Industries will count as closely held, since they are privately held.

  58. 58
    Randy Khan says:

    @D58826: Oh, there definitely will be more litigation. And I assume we’ll also see some effort to gin up shareholder resolutions at public companies on contraception to see if they can get a test case. (My guess is that those resolutions will fail because institutional shareholders will all oppose them.)

    For what it’s worth, I think the best way to read this is to assume that the majority went precisely as far as Justice Kennedy would let them go, and no further. SCOTUSblog says that his concurrence largely was about how narrow the decision actually is.

  59. 59

    @Belafon:

    The one out they gave is that the government can pay for the contraceptives.

    Which really makes perfect sense, of course.

    “It’s a complete violation of a corporation’s free exercise of religion for an insurer to take the premiums they pay and use them to pay for birth control, but it’s a-okay for the government to take their tax dollars for the same purpose.”

    I’m just going to go bang my head against the wall for a while.

  60. 60

    Hobby Lobby’s customer demographic must skew older, who has the time to knit, sew, crochet and mess around with a glue gun? Does anyone know?

  61. 61
    Someguy says:

    Wow, this is a terrible decision. It’s rolled back the clock on contraceptive coverage to the dark, dismal old days of November 2012, when women waited near back alley… er, pharmacies like Rite Aid to pay for their own contraceptives, at least those on some plans. It’s like the goddamn dark ages. Hell, I remember back then, when Eric Cantor’s campaign manager could have a serf flogged just for filing a primary candidacy application, and when John Boehner used to drive to the court on a rickshaw pulled by a dozen negroes in fine gold limned livery…

    Not that this is getting 57 varieties of blown out of all fucking proportion or anything.

  62. 62
    kindness says:

    Guillotine? And Shakespeare wasn’t correct. It won’t be ‘first kill all the lawyers’.

  63. 63
    Cervantes says:

    @pat: Organize it. Do it.

  64. 64
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Belafon: I could be wrong on this, but I think the govt can provide Hobby Lobby and similar assholes with the same procedure they give religious non-profits–the company certifies they have religious objections to contraception and the govt requires the insurance company to provide the coverage anyway, notify employees, etc.

  65. 65
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Elizabelle:

    Impeach The MoFos Already.

    (I think.)

  66. 66
    burnspbesq says:

    @Emma:

    Time to launch a major boycott of Hobby Lobby.

    Wrong. Time to get out the vote in November, and elect a Congress that would be open to amending the RFRA in a way you would find congenial.

  67. 67
    SuperHrefna says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: the problem is that women are just as susceptible as men to ” fuck you, I’ve got mine” tribalism. But yeah, I think some protests are called for, both of HL and of the Supreme Court. What the hell was their justification for saying this ruling applies only to birth control, not to anything else? Did they even make one?

  68. 68
    dmsilev says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Last hundred years, certainly. Some of the Gilded Age stuff was pretty bad, so we might not have to go all the way back to Taney and Dred Scott to find an equivalent.

  69. 69
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @beltane:

    And executed in Texas.

  70. 70
    Ella in New Mexico says:

    First thing to be done is for the Obama administration to make and executive order that opens up subsidized coverage on the exchanges for anyone denied contraception coverage in their health insurance plan. That’ll sting a bit.

    Then, we need a “closely held” company to decide it will not be required to cover pregnancy and childbirth for it’s employees on the religious grounds that we are overpopulating the planet and that it is immoral to pay for health care that supports that. It probably won’t go anywhere but again, a little whack on the head won’t hurt.

    Then, a coordinated effort to stand at the doors of Hobby Lobby and all the other businesses who will now jump to disallow contraceptive coverage for their female employees.

    What would also help are multiple lawsuits in multiple regions that state this ruling violates the rights of women, exclusively, and there for is unconstitutional. Someone’s gotta decide what comes first, the right to be female or the right to impose your religious beliefs on others, because, you know, seriously…

    Sharia Law.

    Of course all this could be settled by dumping this completely stupid, wasteful gratuity to for-profit healthcare industry called the ACA and going full on for National Health Insurance/Single Payer/Full Coverage for all with income based premiums and minimal out of pocket costs.

    And–an RN can dream, you know—we have to somehow find a way to get rid of for-profit healthcare as much as possible in this country. Trust me, after the Iraq-Afghanistan war, it’s the second most wasteful, money-draining and unjust enterprise in this country, and it’s gonna ruin our economy in the long run.

  71. 71
    beltane says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Old ladies, teenage girls, preschool teachers, etc. Their should be some kind of effort to get the latter groups, if not the old religious ladies, to avoid Hobby Lobby like the plague.

  72. 72
    japa21 says:

    If I had the money, I would start a large craft store near a Hobby Lobby, and when plaing help wanted ads would 1) point out that I include the BC coverage, and 2) point out I pay above minimum wage.

    My guess is 50% of HL’s employees would be applying for jobs.

  73. 73
    Emma says:

    @burnspbesq: Besides that, you dolt. I am not unmindful of the political side. I am saying that until we hurt corporations in the pocket they will continue with their bad habits.

  74. 74
    becca says:

    Kennedy said the government could step in and pay for contraception.

    I think this strengthens the case for single payer, if anyone should choose to pursue that line of reasoning, of course.

  75. 75
    Cervantes says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Also, look for “corporate-persons” to become Christian Scientists en masse, opting for prayer-based remedies instead of paying for medical care.

    Were that to happen, would the enactment of a single-payer health-insurance scheme be more or less likely?

  76. 76
    SuperHrefna says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: me! And I’m still of reproductive age, you git. I wouldn’t shop at Hobby Lobby though, even at gunpoint.

  77. 77
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Plessey v. Ferguson, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, Citizen’s United, Bush v Gore

  78. 78
    pat says:

    @Cervantes:

    I live in Wisconsin. Have never seen a Hobby Lobby. But if there was one around here, I’d be tempted.

    edit: omg, there IS one here. Now what to do…. Who’s with me?

  79. 79
    Cervantes says:

    @burnspbesq: She’s not wrong and neither are you (in this instance).

  80. 80
    Trentrunner says:

    Politically, what to watch for:

    Whether Dem leaders (Obama on down) come out TODAY vocally–in person, not press releases–against this.

    This will indicate whether Dems will run on this ruling as part of a pattern of Republicans hating women and all the hot, hot sex they appear to want to have “consequence-free,” as Eric Erickson put it today.

  81. 81
    Belafon says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: My middle child. He started off making those rubber band bracelets, and has moved on to knitting. We’ll just have to buy stuff from Micheal’s and Jo Ann’s.

  82. 82
    chopper says:

    @pat:

    oh, the court is way ahead of you. they went out of their way to point out that this case doesn’t apply to blood transfusions and shit, you know, stuff that dudes can do. just icky girl stuff. cause broads, amirite?

  83. 83
    dslak says:

    @burnspbesq: Indeed. Much easier than waiting around for one of the Supremes to keel over. Well, easier in an institutional sense. Not if you’re lazy and just like to complain.

  84. 84
    burnspbesq says:

    @Comrade Scrutinizer:

    I’m sure Burnsie (Defender of the Faith) will be along shortly to school us that this decision is no big deal, that although the individual Justices do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim The Law infallibly, and that this decision, like all recent Court decisions, is clear, and decisive, and beyond the ken of lesser mortals like ourselves.

    Nope, and that comes with a jumbo side order of fuck you, dickhead.

    I haven’t finished reading the opinions yet, and unlike you and countless other assholes, I won’t have a view until I do.

  85. 85

    @SuperHrefna: Why are you mad at me? What did I do? I am not in favor of either Hobby Lobby or the Supreme Court. What the hell is a git any way?

  86. 86
    Betsy says:

    @Betty Cracker: Our era seems to be becoming another corporatist era just like the period 1870-to-FDR. Courts finding that corporate rights trump personal rights.

    Only now, it’s one better: the political union between religious nutcakes and corporatists has seeped into the court system — so the court has another “basis” for finding against humans and in favor of corporations.

    This is so bogus. I can’t wait til the lawsuits start to be filed citing this decision as precedent. It won’t be long before we see how this will be mis-used.

  87. 87
    D58826 says:

    @Randy Khan: Until the next time and then Kennedy will do his salami act again. The result will be death by 1000 cuts. The entire underlying principle that a corporation, any corporation, can have religious rights is absurd. Does my do have religious rights? At least he is alive. A corporation is just a piece of paper.

  88. 88
    Cervantes says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Hobby Lobby’s customer demographic must skew older, who has the time to knit, sew, crochet and mess around with a glue gun? Does anyone know?

    Example: young mothers who work at home making baby clothes, baby shoes, etc., to sell at craft fairs and via the Internet. (I am aware of two such mothers although I have no idea how much money they make.)

  89. 89
    Belafon says:

    @Someguy: You know, kind of like how Bush v. Gore was blown out of proportion. It’s not like their “narrow” decision didn’t have consequences.

    The point of this “blowing out of proportion” is that it seems that a blog of legal amateurs is better able to think of future consequences than a court full of judges.

  90. 90
    Morzer says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    who has the time to knit, sew, crochet and mess around with a glue gun?

    You’ve just named four of Madame Morzer’s great pleasures in life. She doesn’t get her stuff from Hobby Lobby though.

  91. 91
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @becca: The case for single payer has always been strong, and we have several working models, some here in the US. What’s needed is the political will.

  92. 92
    Cervantes says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    What the hell is a git any way?

    Not you.

  93. 93
    Ash Can says:

    What slays me is how all the court’s clarification and explanation of the decision does nothing but show that this decision is designed to discriminate against women. Which is totally OK, of course, since that pesky Equal Rights Amendment never passed. (And the reason it didn’t pass was because the moneyed/power class envisioned situations precisely like this one, and hoodwinked the great unwashed into going along with them in opposing it.)

  94. 94
    GregB says:

    Fox News largest shareholder outside of Murdoch, Saudi Prince Al-Aweed will now demand Sharia law for Fox News Employees. #ThanksAlito

    Looks like burkhas for Megyn Kelly from now on.

  95. 95
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Lots of young moms are into scrapbooking. Also, holiday* decorations.

    *Every possible holiday. Except Ramadan, of course.

  96. 96
    chopper says:

    @Ella in New Mexico:

    Then, we need a “closely held” company to decide it will not be required to cover pregnancy and childbirth for it’s employees on the religious grounds that we are overpopulating the planet

    just get some company to refuse to cover a pregnant employee who isn’t married. ‘we’re not covering some child conceived in sin!’. see how the Shittiest Court in Generations ™ tries to wrap their heads around that one.

  97. 97
    Mr. Longform says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    I have lived in four states and I have never seen a Hobby Lobby.

    Just imagine the world’s biggest yard sale in a warehouse, consisting mostly of people getting rid of plastic plants, craft kits their kids never used, and ugly throw rugs.

  98. 98
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @burnspbesq: Tell me your bidding, my Master.

  99. 99
    Soprano2 says:

    I believe the government has laws that mandate mental health parity, or at least some coverage for mental health. What’s to keep a Scientologist owner of a “closely-held” company from filing a lawsuit saying that they have religious objections to the medical treatment of mental health problems, and asking to be let out of paying for it through their health insurance plan because it violates their religious beliefs under RFRA? As far as I can tell there is no difference between this and the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage.

    This is why we need some kind of national, single-payer system, to take employers out of the mix.

  100. 100

    I was just trying to figure out the demographic make-up of Hobby Lobby customers. No insult to any crafter of any age or gender was implied.

  101. 101
    Cervantes says:

    @pat:

    Who’s with me?

    Now that is precisely the question.

    Try to organize and you will find out.

  102. 102
    PaulW says:

    @Emma:

    I’ve been boycotting Hobby Lobby ever since I heard from fellow job-seekers in New Port Richey FL how the newly-built store off Little Rd back in 2009 (or was it 2010?) had promptly fired all the employees they had furbishing the new store just before it had its grand opening, so they could hire newer and cheaper labor despite the fact they were firing tens of employees already trained and prepped for work. It was like Circuit City in 2007 all over again.

    Biggest thing that should happen will be the number of female employees… how many are willing to quit the company and look for work elsewhere. While quitting a job in this sh-tty economy is never a good idea, how many women are willing to work for a company that’s gonna treat them like dirt?

  103. 103
    Betsy says:

    @Trentrunner: * we pass * crickets *

  104. 104
    catclub says:

    @Emma:

    We’re getting clobbered because we don’t fight back. We’re too nice, too constitutional, too whatever.

    Oh, baloney. That is exactly what you will hear your opposite number on Townhall saying. It ain’t true for them either.

  105. 105
    nellcote says:

    In this case Hobby Lobby objected to providing 2 brands of morning after pills and 2 forms of IUDs because they consider them abortion. Does this ruling go beyond those 4 things to other forms like bc pills?

  106. 106
    srv says:

    It would appear Scalia has more pitchforks than we do.

  107. 107
    Mnemosyne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    who has the time to knit, sew, crochet and mess around with a glue gun?

    On this here website alone, me, MomSense, and PurpleGirl, for starters (and I think dance around in your bones was crafty when she had a little more money).

    But you’re actually missing the main chance here: as a group, knitters and crocheters in particular are very politically mixed, and at least half are liberals, especially the younger ones. And we love to be mobilized to action. There’s a reason the tricoteuses were feared during the French Revolution. ;-)

  108. 108
    pat says:

    What no one seems to be talking about is all the prospective FATHERS out there whose girl friends, wives don’t have adequate coverage for birth control.

    They seem to think the sluts are getting pregnant all by themselves. Just start telling the guys that they can be paying for an unwanted child for 18 years and see what happens.

  109. 109
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    @PaulW:

    Biggest thing that should happen will be the number of female employees… how many are willing to quit the company and look for work elsewhere. While quitting a job in this shitty economy is never a good idea, how many women are willing to work for a company that’s gonna treat them like dirt?

    Welcome to our New Feudal Society!

  110. 110
    Mnemosyne says:

    @nellcote:

    The Catholic Church considers all forms of the Pill to be abortion. So the answer is yes.

  111. 111
    LAC says:

    @Trentrunner: let’s hope they do. And some of our side gets off their collective duffs and stops listening to the “it just doesn’t matter! Both sides do it! DRONEZ!!” bleating and votes.

  112. 112
    PaulW says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Time to get out the vote in November, and elect a Congress that would be open to amending the RFRA in a way you would find congenial.

    Agreed. THE VOTE MATTERS PEOPLE. We need to keep the US Senate in Democratic control in 2014, and we need a Democratic President winning in 2016 to await any SCOTUS vacancies. If the Democrats can secure the House in 2014 (unlikely due to f-cking gerrymandering) then reforming RFRA is a possibility too (as well as shoring up the gaps in ObamaCare and crafting a stronger Medicaid program to cover ALL states).

  113. 113
    Elizabelle says:

    I think we should force Hobby Lobby to close on ALL religious holidays.

    Money changing in the temple and all. Live those biblical precepts.

  114. 114
    Mnemosyne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Hobby Lobby customers in particular probably skew older and more Christian — they have entire aisles full of Jesus crap. In fact, most of their stuff is crap — their store-brand yarn is awful and they don’t carry the better quality mass-market yarns.

  115. 115
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    …Still waiting for Burnsie to tell me what I think about this decision…

  116. 116
    SuperHrefna says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: You assumed that crafters are old ladies. I find that annoying. Hence “git” a standard expression of annoyance.

  117. 117
    PaulW says:

    @nellcote:

    Yes. Despite the science about contraceptives, the Far Right and the Catholic Church view all forms of birth control “abortion”. It’s really about controlling sex, not abortion.

  118. 118

    @Mr. Longform: OK like Jo-Ann Fabrics or Michaels, then?

  119. 119
    SatanicPanic says:

    Fine then, Hobby Lobby. Force everyone onto the exchanges. Only making the exchanges stronger.

  120. 120
    Belafon says:

    @Soprano2: How are they going to discriminate against women and minorities if we have a Single Payer system? I can’t wait to see the SCOTUS ruling on that:

    We find that, for the purposes of the RFRA, the national healthcare system is a person, and therefore has the first amendment right to associate with whoever it chooses.

  121. 121
    PaulW says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Hobby Lobby customers in particular probably skew older and more Christian — they have entire aisles full of Jesus crap. In fact, most of their stuff is crap — their store-brand yarn is awful and they don’t carry the better quality mass-market yarns

    So… is Michaels the better store then?

  122. 122
    Lisa says:

    Thankful for the (female) voice of reason: Ginsburg’s dissent here:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com.....c-20140630

  123. 123
    Cervantes says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I know. Your question was clearly neutral and asked in good faith. It just happened to rub someone the wrong way this morning. Nothing you could have done about it. Just laugh at foolishness and move on.

  124. 124
    MomSense says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I’m thinking we should have some knit-ins at Hobby Lobby.

  125. 125
    Gian says:

    @Comrade Dread:
    Bush v Gore was explicitly a “one of a kind” because if the arguments were flipped and gore the Republican they would rule the other way

  126. 126
    catclub says:

    @Comrade Scrutinizer: Go read Ginsburg’s dissent.
    No more of this only letting the priesthood interpret scripture.

  127. 127
    chopper says:

    @nellcote:

    dunno. what’s funny is, in this case the court didn’t even take up the idea that HL’s assertion that ‘IUD’s cause abortions’ is total horseshit.

    apparently, the ‘religious objections’ under this decision don’t even have to be based in reality.

    so my company could refuse to cover psych drugs by arguing that prozac et al makes your head literally explode scanners-style and that’s just fine according to the scotus.

  128. 128
    Morzer says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    “Git” is a Britishism for “annoying/silly/contemptible person”. See: “sad old git” for an extended usage.

    From Middle English get (“offspring”, especially “illegitimate offspring”).

  129. 129
    PaulW says:

    @Mr. Longform:

    And overly expensive picture framing.

  130. 130
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @catclub: How well did they define closely held?

    SEC and IRS define that precisely.

  131. 131
    Morzer says:

    @PaulW:

    Madam Morzer gets some of her crafting stuff from Michaels, although she thinks they are kinda lame.

  132. 132
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Cervantes: I don’t know. The fact that we already had a byzantine patchwork of employer-based coverage providing access to healthcare for most Americans was obviously a major impediment to adopting a saner (than the ACA) single-payer system in the first place, so I’m tempted to say a mass corporate conversion to the Mary Baker Eddy plan would hasten the move toward a better system. But in the current political climate, maybe we’d all just have to die of preventable illnesses in besieged ERs instead.

  133. 133
    D58826 says:

    What isn’t getting a lot of comment is the Harris decision that limits the ability of public sector unions to collect fees from the free riders. Again while not as bad a decision as it could have been it is still one more limit on unions. How is this related to Hobby Lobby? Well it seems to me in two ways. First Hobby Lobby is a win for at least part of corporate America and Harris is a loss for working people. SCOTUS continues to tilt the playing field in favor of the 1%. And second, since unions tend to support the Democrats it give the corporate interests even more power over public policy. Democrats, if they wish to compete with the GOP money machine will have to turn even more to big corporate donors.

  134. 134
    catclub says:

    @Lisa: From the article:

    Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan comprise the entirety of the bench’s female justices.

    Also three quarters of the total number of female USSC judges in the history of the United States.

  135. 135
    PurpleGirl says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Even many orthodox Roman Catholic women could use hormonal BC — Their hormone systems are messed up and they need hormonal BC to make them regular so they can then use the Church-approved rythym method of BC. At least when I was in my early 20s, that’s what my situation was. (Not that I was a orthodox RC, but that’s how my doctor explained how he could prescribe me a BC pill and not fall afoul of RCC beliefs. I daresay a lot of women don’t get that technical.)

  136. 136
    Mnemosyne says:

    @PaulW:

    If you don’t have a local yarn store (LYS), then Michael’s or Jo-Ann’s are both better choices. Better quality with less Jesus in every aisle. (Not Jesus-free, but less of it.)

  137. 137
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @D58826:

    What isn’t getting a lot of comment is the Harris decision that limits the ability of public sector unions to collect fees from the free riders

    It only involves workers. No biggie.

  138. 138
    Face says:

    @nellcote: Of course it does. It goes to anything Hobby Lobby claims is an “abortion-causing” drug. Science be dammed.

    As others have said, how in hell did they codify that the beliefs of some religions (Christians) are valid enough to be protected, but other religions (Christian Scientists, JW’s w.r.t. vax and transfusions) are not?

    Can companies run by fundamentalists be allowed to refuse to hire gay employees? If not, why not?

  139. 139
    raven says:

    @D58826: One hysteria at a time please.

  140. 140
    Biscuits says:

    @Iowa Old Lady:

    That’s what struck me about this decision. Women are once again deemed not equal and different. I’m so so tired of these old creeps making my business their business. What’s it gonna take for women in this country to rise up and demand equal treatment? Single payer cannot come soon enough.

  141. 141
    WereBear says:

    This is simply very very very bad law-giving, and I don’t have to be a lawyer, or read their whinings, to know that. My brightest cat, once I explained it to him, would grasp that.

    Ironically, the spine of “corporation” is to dis-corporate… to create an entity which is not a person, and thus, narrowly liable as defined in the law.

    If a corporation now has a soul and a conscience and religious convictions, the actual people in whose hands this thing is closely held are now on the hook for anything the corporation does.

    Per this decision, corporations have rights above half the human race.

  142. 142

    @SuperHrefna: I did not assume anything, I was asking a question and making a guess. Sorry that I hurt Milady’s delicate fee-fees.

  143. 143
    Randy Khan says:

    @D58826: I won’t say you’re wrong about Kennedy, as I don’t particularly trust him, but his concurrence does fence him in a bit. Unlike certain other Justices, he does seem to have some concern about being obviously inconsistent from one case to another.

  144. 144
    Heliopause says:

    Let’s see if I can summarize the morning’s news in a nutshell:

    Mass-murdering sociopath mercenaries can gun down dozens of civilians in foreign countries and when government officials attempt to investigate their lives are threatened, and nobody does anything about it.

    Unions have all but been dismantled in right-to-work America.

    Five old, hyper-conservative Catholic males decide all social and health policy in this country.

    Floods and tornadoes in the upper midwest.

    God bless America.

  145. 145
    Mnemosyne says:

    @MomSense:

    I like it! I have to wait for the first one near me to actually open, though — I think it’s supposed to happen next month.

  146. 146
    SuperHrefna says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: OK, I admit I am seeing so red about this bullshit decision that I am way more short tempered than usual this morning, so sorry if I offended/mystified you. But honestly crafting is an all ages/ genders activity, it’s really just a question of what you choose to make time for. Plus if you gave time to watch tv you have time to knit.

  147. 147
    raven says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Cat fight!!!!

  148. 148
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @SatanicPanic: I don’t think you’re exchange-eligible if your employer-provided package is otherwise PPACA-compliant.

  149. 149
    SuperHrefna says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: OK, I take back my previous apology. Git.

  150. 150
    raven says:

    @SuperHrefna: Time for soccer!!!!!

  151. 151
    Morzer says:

    @raven:

    Thou murderous crow!

  152. 152
    SuperHrefna says:

    @raven: argh!

  153. 153
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    @catclub: Edited b/c my math sucks.

    You’re correct.

  154. 154
    Betsy says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Women with breadwinner husbands … aka Republican pearl-bearers and prairiemuffins

  155. 155
    blondie says:

    What you get when you cross A Handmaid’s Tale with 1984 — the Hobby Lobby decision. The current group of so-called Justices is appalling.

  156. 156
    Biscuits says:

    @Patrick:

    Because this involves lady parts. We all know women lack proper agency to control their icky bits. Smirk.

  157. 157
    Mnemosyne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    Doubling down on your mistake is probably not the best idea. Just sayin’.

  158. 158
    The Other Chuck says:

    Ultimately, this could turn out to be a great decision, because the coverage is still provided, and now the employer gets zero opportunity to fuck around with it. One more step toward single-payer.

  159. 159
    celticdragonchick says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    It’s a British thing. You hear it a lot in the wargaming community, especially around Games Workshop games (which are British) as in:

    What a lucky git! He killed a fucking Chaos Lord in terminator armor!”

    Also:

    That beardy git is wasting time poking around in the store and not spending anything even though his army list is out of date.

  160. 160
    raven says:

    You can’t fight here, this is the war room!

  161. 161
    raven says:

    @The Other Chuck: Quit that shit, this is THE WORST THING EVAHHHH!

  162. 162
    Missouri Buckeye says:

    @Elizabelle: Related to Dan Savage’s DTMFA, just replace “Dump” with “Impeach”.

    Urban Dictionary is, occasionally, your friend.

  163. 163
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    It’s scary but I think I’ve wrapped my head around the reasoning for the claim this applies to birth control but not blood transfusion. This isn’t a First Amendment decision. It’s a decision based on some religious restoration panic law that requires the govt to use the least restrictive means available to achieve a goal. For birth control, the govt has already established another means of providing the insurance: require the insurer to provide it anyway.

    This is what they’re doing for religious non profits. It’s what the Little Sisters of the Poor are objecting to, claiming even signing the statement that they want to be exempt violates their conscience.

  164. 164

    @Mnemosyne: What mistake, I asked a question SH took offense. She was the one who start name-calling and took offense where none was intended. I get it that crafters are not just little old ladies, they come from all walks of life and all age groups. I was trying to figure out who the majority of their customers were, that’s all.

  165. 165
    JPL says:

    @raven: Did you see my reply below. I wasn’t complaining about the messenger, I was just bitchin.
    Imagine that!

  166. 166
    Morzer says:

    It sure would be a dreadful shame if, one dark night in July, Injustices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Roberts were to accidentally brutally stab themselves to death with knitting needles…

  167. 167
    Cervantes says:

    About RFRA: People should remember that it was Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress that enacted and signed it into law in 1993. Chuck Schumer, then in the House, was one of the sponsors. The House vote — a voice vote — was unanimous; the Senate voted 97-3. (The three Senators who opposed it: Jesse Helms (R), Robert Byrd (D), and Harlan Mathews (D), this last being new VP Al Gore’s appointed replacement in the Senate.)

    RFRA was a (stupid) reaction to the Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), and in 1997 it was downgraded so as not to apply to state law — but here we are, still stuck with it federally.

  168. 168
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Won’t that make it non-compliant?

  169. 169
    raven says:

    @JPL: I guessed that was the case when I headed for the pool! I should have block quoted all those quotes.

  170. 170
    Elizabelle says:

    @Missouri Buckeye:

    Thanks. I tire of the inside baseball acronyms, although FYWP is quite understandable (usually in context).

    LOL re Urban Dictionary.

  171. 171
    Betsy says:

    @becca: Exactly.

    Only one type of person will apply for subsidized BC coverage – – people who need BC for whatever reason – – and all of a sudden then you basically have a mini-market for just free or low-cost BC and the only “insured” are those who use the product …

    Wait, what??? That kind of looks like single-payer, where health care is just …ahh … *provided,* and that’s that.

  172. 172
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Nevermind, I guess the company gets an exemption, while the government handles the cost.

  173. 173
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Heliopause: It’s not that they’re Catholics per se.. Raúl Grijalva, Nancy Pelosi, Marci Kaptur, the entire Massachusetts House delegation — all Catholics.

  174. 174
    Emma says:

    @catclub: Really? Have you looked at the recent SCOTUS decisions? Have you looked at how BofA got away with raping half the home buyers in Florida? How WalMart treats its employees? Tell me, which corporation has paid any price for anything it has done lately?

  175. 175
    D58826 says:

    Time to revise the preamble of the constitution – We the Corporate People of the United States, in Order to form a more profitable Union, establish Justice for the few, insure the subjugation of the 99%, provide for the defense of the 1%, protect the corporate welfare, and secure the Blessings of our wallets to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  176. 176
    SuperHrefna says:

    @Morzer: It would be a terrible shame. And if that failed we could knit them some new working robes to keep all that pesky reality away from them: http://www.instructables.com/i.....body-Sock/

  177. 177
    Scuffletuffle says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: There is one in the Holyoke Mall.

  178. 178

    @Cervantes: Thanks! I know we have had our differences before.

  179. 179
    Sherparick says:

    @Randy Khan: Although Alito has opened the barn door to challenges by all sorts of businesses, including publicly owned corporations, to challenge aspects of insurance coverage provided by company under the mandates of the Affordable Care Act. Although he rules out challenges that would assert the right discriminate against someone race based on religious grounds, he basically leaves open to future the litigation to discriminate on the basis of sex, or religion, and of course sexual orientation. Also, other types of medical procedures may be subject to RFRA challenges as burdening the free exercise of the business’s owners and managers and there being less burdensome alternative to provide the treatment. So let the Federalists games begin.

    46
    BURWELL
    v.
    HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.
    Opinion of the Court..

    …employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third-trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held Corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in
    the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome. In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance
    coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the
    spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing
    them. The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might
    be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post at 32–33. Our decision today provides no such
    shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the work
    force without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.”

  180. 180
    D58826 says:

    @Cervantes: And it was passed after Justice Scalia wrote in that decision, that the first amendment does not apply if the law serves a compelling public interest and is otherwise neutral toward religion. Of course in that case the religion was of a couple of r-skins who count for even less than women.

  181. 181
    C.V. Danes says:

    The Bush legacy just keeps paying dividends. Elections matter, folks.

  182. 182
    SuperHrefna says:

    @C.V. Danes: Yeah, although in that case the election was decided by the Supreme Court. They really are a pernicious bunch.

  183. 183
    Betsy says:

    @Soprano2: No one will ever complain about that, because it does not pick on women.

    “The difference” that you can’t see is that this picks on women. And has something to do with sexytime, sometimes.

    So it’s a whole nuther thing. Different from allllllllllll other health care. Because women, the slutty sluts, and their slutty slut-parts.

    That’s all.

  184. 184
    Bex says:

    @The Other Chuck: And there might be people out there, maybe including few HL employees, who could start a rival company that would provide better service and merchandise since they may be able to quit and try to do so because of the ACA.

  185. 185
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Walker:

    Does this mean that owners of “closely held” corporations can be held personally responsible for the actions of the corporation?

    [Trying out some RW think]. God does not acknowledge corporate personhood, so God will hold the souls of the owners of closely-held corporations liable for violations of God’s law. Corporations (limited liability) are however working shields against secular liability. God (Leviticus) also feels strongly about stealing wages from laborers, dishonest weights and measures, and other unsavory business practices, and also about working on “the” sabbath. (Does Hobby Lbby sell fabrics with blends of different types of fiber, also prohibited?)

  186. 186
    elm says:

    So now the RFRA applies to (some, for now) for-profit companies. What a fascinating theory.

  187. 187
    Origuy says:

    Interesting, and possibly not a coincidence, that The Michaels Companies, Inc. had their IPO last week. They also own Aaron Brothers. This ruling therefore does not apply to them.

  188. 188
    Applejinx says:

    So, basically all corporations have to become ‘closely held’ in order to gain this competitive advantage, now?

    This is good news for about five Walton heirs. Go, 0.0000001%!

    Things are getting very silly as they race for the bottom, aren’t they?

  189. 189
    Heliopause says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    It’s not that they’re Catholics per se.

    Right. Hence, the three other modifiers I added.

  190. 190
    nancydarling says:

    @Someguy:

    Not that this is getting 57 varieties of blown out of all fucking proportion or anything.

    Spoken like some guy.

  191. 191
    Culture of Truth says:

    The facts that it appears to be narrowly crafted is what makes it so offensive.

  192. 192
    PurpleGirl says:

    @PaulW: From the quality of its merchandise, yes, Michael’s is better. But it too is a closely-held or privately-owned company. Its owner is a Republican donor. I think Michael’s has probably been waiting to see what happened to Hobby Lobby.

  193. 193
    The Other Chuck says:

    @D58826:

    do ordain and establish this Constitution™ for the United States of America®

    FTFY

  194. 194
    SuperHrefna says:

    @Culture of Truth: Exactly, this is specifically about denying women bodily autonomy.

  195. 195
    catclub says:

    One snippet from Ginsburg’s dissent:

    The Court’s determination that RFRA extends to for-
    profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects.
    Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to
    closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations
    of any size, public or private.

    Well, there you go, guys.

    and the footnote:9 The
    Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about
    ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are
    sold to the public. No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for “it
    seems unlikely” that large corporations “will often assert RFRA
    claims.”

  196. 196
    Suzanne says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: Ugh. Everything you said is so true. Especially because SCOTUS implied that this ruling wouldn’t cover employers who didn’t want to pay for blood transfusions or vaccines. Because blood transfusions and vaccines are Real Medicines that help Real People (doods) whereas contraceptives are only for the broodmares, who do not really count.

    Hypocritical fuckers.

  197. 197
    MomSense says:

    @D58826:

    We will work our way into talking about Harris. The problem is that many of us have been dealing with this our whole lives. We are at fault if we are raped, we are sluts if we have sex, if we are pregnant because of rape or incest we are supposed to just accept this as a gift from god and parent, we are supposed to put our kids first by being stay at home moms but only if we are wealthy, we are supposed to teach our children a good work ethic by working and not being welfare queens except if we are teachers and then we are lazy moochers who teach because we can’t do anything else (like work in sciences because we are just not as good as men at that because we like to spend time with our babies) and we expect our summers off and we have to send our children to school with brown paper bag packed lunches as that is the only way to show we care even if we don’t have enough money to buy them food because accepting free lunches for our kids might fill their bellies but bankrupt their souls, we are supposed to marry or stay married regardless of how decent or not the man is because that is always better for our children. We are supposed to navigate all of this while leaning in just enough so we get paid more but never ever too far to be perceived as pushy and we are always lady like and attractive and if we are fat then we deserve whatever happens to us, and always responsible for everything that goes wrong even if we had nothing to do with it and so we must stand at the podium to share in the shame when hubby does something crappy but we are not allowed to make basic health decisions for our own bodies. We have been dealing with this shit for generations and we are just really fucking sick of it hence we feel like talking about Hobby Lobby first.

  198. 198
    Cervantes says:

    @PurpleGirl: Private-equity firms pretty much own both Jo-Ann and Michaels — the latter being half-owned by Bain Capital.

  199. 199
    catclub says:

    another:

    Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits
    under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Cones-
    toga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in
    consultation with their health care providers. Should an
    employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious
    beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no
    compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. But
    “[n]o individual decision by an employee and her physi-
    cian—be it to use contraception, treat an infection, or have
    a hip replaced—is in any meaningful sense [her employ-
    er’s] decision or action.”

  200. 200
    MomSense says:

    I had a rant. There is probably a word that WP doesn’t like or perhaps WP doesn’t like run on sentence/stream of consciousness rants. I’m stuck in moderation.

  201. 201
    catclub says:

    Link to the decision, includes dissent.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/op.....4_olp1.pdf

  202. 202
    D58826 says:

    @catclub:

    Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about
    ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are
    sold to the public. No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for “it
    seems unlikely” that large corporations “will often assert RFRA
    claims.”

    This is the same court that said we don’t need the voting rights act because no one would think to disenfranchise voters or campaign finance laws because only big brown bags of 100 dollar bills are corrupting.

    The sad thing is these scoundrels can’t even make up a story that passes the smacked-a…. test.

    We really need a better class of scoundrels (yes snark)

  203. 203
    Cervantes says:

    @Betty Cracker: I don’t know, either, obviously.

    Sorry to hear about your father-in-law. On the other hand he has escaped and we’re still stuck here staring into the abyss.

  204. 204
    catclub says:

    @D58826: I think her dissent is pretty complete in saying that they do not live in the real world, and have no idea of unintended consequences.

  205. 205
    Sloane Ranger says:

    So what’s to stop any company from claiming a religious exemption providing it meets the criteria for being a closely held corporation?

    What evidence will they need to produce? Or will the onus be on the other party to try to show that that they are not religious?

    This is going to be a goldmine for lawyers and probably keep courts busy for years.

    The Supreme Court has opened up a rats nest with this decision.

  206. 206
    Judy in SD says:

    @MomSense: Preach it!!!

  207. 207
    Steeplejack says:

    @MomSense:

    Righteous rant.

  208. 208
    Cervantes says:

    @MomSense:

    I had a rant.

    You don’t say.

    Anyhow, it was superb. Thanks.

  209. 209
    Betty Cracker says:

    @D58826: New post up top devoted to this very topic.

  210. 210
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @catclub: Seriously. It’s not like the law made Hobby Lobby conduct abortions on site. It’s just fucking asinine that the employer paying a partial premium to an insurance company that in turn pays partially to a health care provider for doing a service for an employee-patient has any ethical responsibility for that service. Even if corporations had consciences, which THEY OBVIOUSLY DON’T, their consciences couldn’t possibly be violated by their involvement in that chain of events. Bunch of fucking imbeciles. I hope they get treated at a hospital run by Kali worshipers who believe in the cleansing power of excruciating pain.

  211. 211
    bemused says:

    @catclub:

    The SC conservatives aren’t interested in unintended consequences to women but there could be some consequences to their ruling they did not intend at all. As @Betsy: pointed out and was discussed on Thom Hartmann today, push for single payer women’s health issues coverage is a possibility.

  212. 212
    shortstop says:

    I think the argument over Hobby Lobby customer demographics is missing the point — at least insofar as it’s focusing on the reproductive ability of your average female crafter. Tribalism, not the current status of a customer’s ovulation, trumps all here. This has been successfully sold to evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics as an assault on religious freedom committed by the blackity black tyrant-in-chief and his family-hating henchmen.

    Those of a rightish bent will vote with their political and religious camp, not with their own reproductive/health interests nor with the expectation that employees should receive equal treatment. They will not be angered by this opinion; this is not a “wake-up call” for them.

  213. 213
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @bemused: Good luck with that. Down that path lies Hyde Amendment for All — not single payer reproductive health, but pure out-of-pocket reproductive health.

  214. 214
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Neither have I. I assume that Hobby Lobby is not found in Maryland (or D.C. or Virginia) as I’ve never seen one here. Should one ever open close to me, I’ll boycott the hell out of it.

  215. 215
  216. 216
    Origuy says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    I assume that Hobby Lobby is not found in Maryland

    They’re in 47 states. There are two in Maryland. I looked up the locations in California. Most are in what you might call exurbs — suburbs a fair distance from major metropolitan areas.

  217. 217
    Betsy says:

    @MomSense: WORD.

    and if we were raped we somehow managed to consent, so it isn’t really rape, and if we have an abortion we can’t really consent to that, without having a wand shoved into our rape-hole.

  218. 218
    Cacti says:

    @Randy Khan:

    I won’t say you’re wrong about Kennedy, as I don’t particularly trust him, but his concurrence does fence him in a bit. Unlike certain other Justices, he does seem to have some concern about being obviously inconsistent from one case to another.

    Kennedy voted to throw the 2000 election to Bush, and that Florida continuing to count votes caused irreparable harm to George W.’s constitutional rights.

    When push comes to shove, he’s on team wingnut.

  219. 219
    Steeplejack says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    For your shopping/picketing convenience: Laurel, Columbia and Hagerstown, MD; Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Winchester, VA.

  220. 220
    Betsy says:

    @FlipYrWhig: and as the Supremes (some of them) have helpfully pointed out, that will only affect little minor stuff like reproductive care — not important, REAL health care like blood transfusions or whether pills are covered in gelatin or not.

  221. 221
    D58826 says:

    @shortstop: OT but illustrates the point. A CNN reporter interviewed McDainel(?) supports last week in Mississippi. Some of them were receiving various federal benefits for disabilities, etc. They still voted tea party to get government off their back. He didn’t ask them about losing their benefits if the tea party won. Tribalism vs economic interest.

    And we think we can bring peace to Iraq.

  222. 222
    artem1s says:

    @Belafon:

    Michaels crafts stores politics are pretty awful too, as I recall. Not sure about JoAnn’s.

    http://reviews.faithdrivencons.....38;ove=3.5

  223. 223
    cckids says:

    @MomSense: A-f*cking-Men. All of it. You can’t see me, but I’m applauding & cheering; scaring my cats.

    My spouse & daughter don’t entirely get how incandescently ANGRY this decision and the MA “protester” decision are making me. I’ve always voted, but didn’t get motivated into more active electioneering. That has changed, as of now.

    Thanks, Supremes! You just may be mobilizing an army of menopausal women.

  224. 224
    Cervantes says:

    @Origuy:

    Koch may be large stockholders, but as of Friday Michaels is a publicly owned company.(MIK-NASDAQ)

    Thanks but, as I said, Bain Capital still owns about 40% of the company, and Blackstone another 40% of it. You’re right, these numbers may change over time.

  225. 225
    artem1s says:

    @Elizabelle:

    and Sundays, day of rest after all.

  226. 226
    Thymezone says:

    Well well. The Supreme Court has clarified the ambiguous language of the Founders, finally. All men are created equal, but women are not members of the club.

    This simplifies things, and establishes case law supporting second class citizenship for females.

    Kudos to the five male deciders in this landmark case.

  227. 227
    Josie says:

    @MomSense: This is so true. The sad part is I really thought we had moved beyond all this and the SOB’s are pulling us back in. I hope the young women who could not be bothered to vote in the past will finally wake up and get with the program.

  228. 228
    Elizabelle says:

    @MomSense:

    Well said!

  229. 229
    YellowJounalism says:

    @MomSense: I want to get this framed, but not at Hobby Lobby.

  230. 230
    YellowJournalism says:

    @MomSense: I want to get this framed but not at Hobby Lobby.

  231. 231
    SFAW says:

    @Elizabelle:
    SiubhanDuinne had it right, as did Missouri Buckeye.

    Of course, Siubhan being a young lady of high class and exceptional breeding (in the Victorian sense, not the Gilead sense, naturally), did not use the same words as I did re: “MF.”

    I believe I had also wondered whether Scalia – perhaps the most evil motherfucker ever to don SCOTUS robes – would be going quail hunting wioth Dick Cheney anytime soon. And, yes, I meant evil. Because there’s no other word to describe a Supreme Court Justice who tailors his arguments to fit the result he desires, rather than decide based on the fucking law that exists. Well, actually, there are other words, but this blog IS rated “G,” after all.

    And the next time I hear a Rethug whining about activist non-wingnut judges, I’m gonna lose it.

  232. 232
    stinger says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: SuperHrefna was not the only one who thought your question was phrased a bit judgmentally. Who has time, besides old ladies?

    People who aren’t busy with travel, photography, cheezburgers, or commenting extensively on other people’s blogs, for example, but choose other hobbies instead.

    I enjoy both your website and your (other) commentary here, btw.

  233. 233
    Cervantes says:

    @stinger: But your paraphrase:

    Who has time, besides old ladies?

    is not the same as

    Hobby Lobby’s customer demographic must skew older

    which is what she actually said.

  234. 234
    SFAW says:

    @catclub:

    Also three quarters of the total number of female USSC judges in the history of the United States.

    Well, until Huckleberry Graham gets the nod, that is.

    (Sorry, I should have resisted writing that, but it’s the booze talking. Or would be, if I were drinking.)

  235. 235
    SFAW says:

    @Thymezone:

    All men are created equal, but women are not members of the club.

    Not even three-fifths members, I’m guessing.

  236. 236
    rikyrah says:

    eta @metaquest
    Follow
    RFRA is Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prevents substantial burden of person’s free exercise of religion, signed into law by Clinton
    10:28 AM – 30 Jun 2014

  237. 237
    SFAW says:

    @MomSense:

    Outstanding.

    I’m debating whether to show it to my daughter. On the one hand, it’s something she would (justifiably) love. On the other hand, I don’t want her blood pressure to spike so high that she needs a shot of nitro.

  238. 238
    Josie says:

    @Cervantes:

    who has the time to knit, sew, crochet and mess around with a glue gun?

    That is the rest of what she said. The fact is that, when I was young, had three kids and worked full time, I sewed and crocheted (no knitting or glue guns). Being young and busy does not preclude hobbies of one sort or another.

  239. 239
    Elizabelle says:

    Andy Borowitz calls it right:

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — By a 5–4 vote on Monday, the United States Supreme Court settled a dispute that Justice Samuel Alito said was “at its core about the rights of women versus the rights of people.”

  240. 240
    Senyordave says:

    People have to realize that Hobby Lobby is owned by a religious fanatic who is smart enough to come off seeming to be a reasonable person. He is largely responsible for the Bible being offered as an elective in Oklahoma schools in the near future. He thinks it should be mandatory. This is not the Bible in a historical context.

    http://www.news9.com/story/255.....s-elective

    This is a guy who would have sharia law ina heartbook if it aligned with his faith.

  241. 241
    Berial says:

    Question; Does this decision keep Hobby Lobby employees from being able to get contraceptive drugs at all via employer insurance? What is the actual effect for their employees?

  242. 242
    Cervantes says:

    @Josie: When someone says a certain demographic group “must skew older,” they do not mean that everyone in that group is “old.” (I suppose people who are totally unfamiliar with statistics may not be familiar with this usage.)

    As for the rest of your comment, please see my first response to her.

    Thanks.

  243. 243
    Radok says:

    @MomSense: De-lurking to applaud this until my hands bleed.

  244. 244
    Radok says:

    @MomSense: De-lurking to stand on a chair and applaud this.

  245. 245
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Josie:

    There’s a reason why t-shirts and tote bags like this one are popular among knitters and crocheters.

  246. 246
    cckids says:

    @Senyordave:

    People have to realize that Hobby Lobby is owned by a religious fanatic who is smart enough to come off seeming to be a reasonable person. He is largely responsible for the Bible being offered as an elective in Oklahoma schools in the near future. He thinks it should be mandatory. This is not the Bible in a historical context.

    This. And, yes, in case you were wondering, his stores ARE closed on Sundays because Jesus.

  247. 247
    D58826 says:

    @Berial: From what I’ve read, the Court is saying that since the government can provide a subsidy to these women than the burden on Hobby Lobby is excessive. Since when did conservatives approve of public subsidies. Why does the PUBLIC have to pay for this? These are the same people who won’t extend unemployment insurance or food stamps because the safety net has become a hammock for the undeserving.

  248. 248
    Emma says:

    @Berial: As I understand it, yes, it does, unless the government decides to order insurance companies to offer contraceptive insurance that a person can buy as an adjunct to their policy.

  249. 249
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    It’s time for guerilla warfare against Hobby Lobby. Groups of activists should descend on individual store locations and load shopping carts to the max and then head for the registers… and then, one at a time, walk out instead of paying. “Oops, I forgot my birth control… I mean my wallet.”

    Fuck these assholes where they live. Do this every day for a month at every Hobby Lobby location and they’ll come crawling on their hands and knees with IUDs between their teeth begging to implant them themselves.

  250. 250
    Cervantes says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus: I like your style.

  251. 251
    Suzanne says:

    @MomSense: Fuck yes. Word. This. Truth.

    On a side note, I wonder how many people will now try to convince me that sexism is a thing of the past, and that it will certainly play no role in this 2016 election.

  252. 252
    Josie says:

    @Mnemosyne: Too funny. Also, I crocheted up a storm when I was quitting smoking.

  253. 253
    Josie says:

    @Cervantes: Wow, arrogant much? Who is misquoting whom now? I know exactly what “skews” means, and I also knew exactly what the implication of her question was. I’m sure you will have some witty answer, since I have noticed you are loathe to let anyone have the last word, so I won’t bother to post anything more.

  254. 254
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    That’s some activist judgifying there.

    The basically privileges theocorporate misogyny: that by incorporating, you can impose religious doctrine on women’s sexual activity.

    What happens if a “closely-held” corporation suddenly decides to get religion? Does it have to have its articles of incorporation baptized?

  255. 255
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    Fuck these assholes where they live.

    So, hurt the staff of Pope HobbyLobbius I, who have already been fucked over, and will probably have to do extra work on their own time?

    You don’t hit them in the wallet by taking it out on the workforce.

  256. 256

    First of, I never said everyone who crochets, knits and sews is an old woman, nor was that my implication, nor was it meant as an insult.
    I can do all those things, I had to learn that stuff when I was in grade school, those things were part of curriculum at the girls school I attended till grade 10.

    I also knew exactly what the implication of her question was

    So, what was my implication, according to you?

  257. 257
    SFAW says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    have to do extra work on their own time?

    or during their normal work hours. Or do closely-held Sharia-ites get to have their workers go unpaid as well? (Yes, I know that the Sharia/Fascist/Corporatist side of the Court is working to loose the restraints on those saviors of America, i.e. the Jaaahhb Creators, but I didn’t think we were there yet.)

  258. 258
    SFAW says:

    @Josie:

    loathe

    loath.

  259. 259
    Culture of Truth says:

    So what’s to stop any company from claiming a religious exemption providing it meets the criteria for being a closely held corporation?

    Closely held is not actually a limitation. Yay!

  260. 260
    Josie says:

    @SFAW: You’re right. Thanks.

  261. 261
    Cervantes says:

    @Josie: Now you’re being ridiculous.

  262. 262
    Josie says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: It sounded to me as if you were implying that, since many younger people would not have time for those hobbies, the demographic would necessarily consist mainly of older people. My experience has been that there are many younger women who shop at the Hobby Lobby in my town, especially those who have various sewing and craft hobbies and who like to decorate their homes. I am certainly not ever walking back into one, and I hope other women, young and old, feel the same way.

  263. 263

    @Josie: Hobby Lobby’s decision to pursue this anti-contraception activism right up to the Supreme Court only makes business sense if the demographic that shops there skews older and/or more religious than the general population.

  264. 264
    Keith G says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    You don’t hit them in the wallet by taking it out on the workforce.

    Exactly.

    At times it seems that the level of discourse here has fallen several notches below sophomoric. Let’s see what will happen to a shopping card full of merch? Some junior in high school or some single mom (not mutually exclusive) making $7.80 per hour will be told at 8:50 that they need to restock that crap before close.

    Not a real brainiac of a protest suggestion.

    A real response to this will take great effort and a long term commitment, organization and dedication. How do you think that the wingnuts can be such a minority of the population but still get their way so many times? They work very hard at getting their way.

    It sure ain’t by sacrificing the time commitment needed to abandon a shopping cart in a big box store.

    I hate this SCOTUS decision, but the slim bright side is that it does show the folly of employer associated health care.

    Let’s work like hell for subsidized birth control services that is part of the public health process. Or a change to the ACA wherein a woman who cannot get open access to all reproductive services from her employer is able to use the Health Care Market Place and take with her a subsidy form her employer as she purchases her own coverage.

  265. 265
    SFAW says:

    @Josie:

    I’m insufferable like that sometimes. Figuratively. (Was going to write “literally,” but figured it might be a little too meta or some such.)

  266. 266
    flukebucket says:

    “Life begins at incorporation.”
    – SCOTUS
    Via @Clarknt67 on twitter

  267. 267
    Ruckus says:

    @MomSense:
    Now that is a righteous rant.

    Actually though I consider it more than a rant. It’s too real to be a just a rant.

  268. 268
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    Two things occur to me with respect to this decision. The first is that it is a statutory interpretation case. With a good congress, RFRA could be quickly and simply amended to make this decision moot. Second, the folks on the right really are interested in going after Griswold v. CT and the right to privacy.

  269. 269
    Kerry Reid says:

    @MomSense: And when we bring up these things that affect us as women deeply and profoundly ALL OF OUR FUCKING LIVES, too many “allies” on the left will scream about “gonadal politics” (choke on a shit sandwich and die, Ralph Nader), or suggest that it’s just a “distraction” or a “wedge issue” from the CENTRAL ISSUE (which is of course whatever might affect men directly). “BUT BUT BUT it’s really about class! Can’t you litttle feminist ladies UNDERSTAND that?” I mean, yes, sure, class is part of it, since rich women have more means of accessing reproductive healthcare. But it is STILL first and foremost about gender, since no one is picketing mens’ health clinics or denying coverage for their boner pills or vasectomies.

  270. 270
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    With a good congress, RFRA could be quickly and simply amended to make this decision moot.

    Right — although a “good Congress” wrote it to begin with, albeit poorly.

  271. 271
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Cervantes: The number of statutes that are poorly, confusingly, or vaguely drafted vastly outnumber those that are not.

  272. 272
    David Koch says:

    Hey Burnsy: you want to tell me again that you can’t read into oral arguments?

  273. 273
    Cervantes says:

    @Keith G:

    At times it seems that the level of discourse here has fallen several notches below sophomoric.

    Not when you’re around, however, so how would you know?

    Let’s see what will happen to a shopping card full of merch? Some junior in high school or some single mom (not mutually exclusive) making $7.80 per hour will be told at 8:50 that they need to restock that crap before close. Not a real brainiac of a protest suggestion.

    But what if there were two hundred such shopping carts? Every day, for weeks on end?

    I hate this SCOTUS decision, but the slim bright side is that it does show the folly of employer associated health care.

    Agree.

  274. 274
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @David Koch: Not Burnsie, but you can’t always tell. Justices may be telegraphing their point of view, they may be using their questions as a way of arguing a point with another justice, they may be interested in actually hearing the answer, or they might just be tormenting counsel.

    ETA: Predicting cases based on what happens at oral argument is too much like Kremlinology. Sometimes the guy wasn’t present on the podium because he was out of favor. Sometimes, the guy had the flu.

  275. 275
    Cervantes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Yes. And also: do you recall, or have you looked into, RFRA’s legislative history?

  276. 276
    David Koch says:

    burnspbesq says:
    March 26, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Cole:

    I’m forced to assume that you didn’t read the transcript of the oral argument, and therefore are unable to put Justice Kennedy’s question in anything resembling context. Concerns about the slippery-slope nature of the relief plaintiffs are seeking actually undercut their position. Which you would know if you weren’t in your default mode of proud, defiant ignorance.

    What was that about “proud, defiant ignorance”?

  277. 277
  278. 278
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Cervantes: Only in the vaguest of terms. The fact that was passed in repsonse to the Scalia-penned decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the fact that it was aimed at protecting Native American and non-traditional Judeo-Christian religious practices, the fact that it had strong support from both the left and right, that it passed my overwhelming margins. Details like who proposed which language and and why, I don’t know.

  279. 279
    David Koch says:

    I also want to thank all those financially insulated upper class whites who told me in 2000 that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. People like Matt Stoller who actually told me (insisted) Ginsberg was a corporatist.

  280. 280
    Violet says:

    @Keith G:

    Let’s see what will happen to a shopping card full of merch? Some junior in high school or some single mom (not mutually exclusive) making $7.80 per hour will be told at 8:50 that they need to restock that crap before close.

    Anyone working minimum wage at retail is accustomed to dealing with jobs being shoved their way right before close that keep them there for another half hour or longer. That’s how shit jobs work.

  281. 281
    chopper says:

    @David Koch:

    not a quarter’s* worth of difference!

    *inflation

  282. 282
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    So, hurt the staff of Pope HobbyLobbius I, who have already been fucked over, and will probably have to do extra work on their own time?

    You don’t hit them in the wallet by taking it out on the workforce.

    Fuck that weak shit. You could make the same lame argument about all sorts of protests. And if the company tries to blackmail free labor out of their employees, well, that’s what lawsuits are for.

    You can clasp your hands and mutter quiet words of encouragement, though. I’m sure that will work.

  283. 283
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    So, hurt the staff of Pope HobbyLobbius I, who have already been fucked over, and will probably have to do extra work on their own time?

    You don’t hit them in the wallet by taking it out on the workforce.

    Fuck that weak shit. You could make the same lame argument about all sorts of protests. And if the company tries to blackmail free labor out of their employees, well, that’s what lawsuits are for.

    You can clasp your hands and mutter quiet words of encouragement, though. I’m sure that will work.

  284. 284
    notoriousJRT says:

    @Someguy</a@Someguy:

    In what respect, Charlie?

    Your post is just what “some guy” would say.

  285. 285
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @Keith G:

    At times it seems that the level of discourse here has fallen several notches below sophomoric. Let’s see what will happen to a shopping card full of merch? Some junior in high school or some single mom (not mutually exclusive) making $7.80 per hour will be told at 8:50 that they need to restock that crap before close.

    Not a real brainiac of a protest suggestion.

    That’s because you lack a spine and an imagination.

    Picture 50 shopping carts filled to overflowing. Picture it happening all over the country.

    Or do nothing, which is what you know the Outraged Polite Liberal response is going to be. And the motherfucker who owns Hobby Lobby will thank you for your hanky-wringing and laugh at you, just like the Chick-Fil-A assholes did.

    You lose, chuckles. But at least you get to feel righteous for a little while.

  286. 286
    Heliopause says:

    @Keith G:

    I can easily see the people doing this charged with crimes in many jurisdictions. Aggressive prosecutors will seek out ringleaders to charge with fraud or conspiracy or some such. Yes, the people you’re arguing with forget what country we’re living in.

  287. 287
    Cervantes says:

    @Heliopause:

    I can easily see the people doing this charged with crimes in many jurisdictions. Aggressive prosecutors will seek out ringleaders to charge with fraud or conspiracy or some such.

    What crimes? What fraud? Conspiracy to do what? (Thanks.)

    Yes, the people you’re arguing with forget what country we’re living in.

    That must be it, you’re right.

  288. 288
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    And if the company tries to blackmail free labor out of their employees, well, that’s what lawsuits are for.

    Yeah, because employees can be sure the courts will defend their rights. Oh.

    If you have the courage of your convictions, you could always break into the collection of ancient manuscripts that Pope Hobbius Lobbius bought with the proceeds of selling scrapbook kits and shit on the codices.

  289. 289
    Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac says:

    @nellcote: Not if you read the decision. Any “Deeply held religious belief”, even if wrong (as they state in the footnote about the contraception methods), can be objected to with a closely held corporation’s religious belief.

    The court goes into depth about how it’s not their job to rule whether or not this belief is valid or accurate at all, the belief just has be truly held by the corporation.

    Any belief at all.

  290. 290
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @Heliopause:

    I can easily see the people doing this charged with crimes in many jurisdictions. Aggressive prosecutors will seek out ringleaders to charge with fraud or conspiracy or some such. Yes, the people you’re arguing with forget what country we’re living in.

    Don’t worry your pretty little genteel liberal head. It’s not like they’ll be siccing dogs on you or beating your head in on the road to Selma.

    Egads, Martha! They might charge us with conspiracy to shop! Let’s just watch “The Chew” instead!

  291. 291
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    “You can’t possibly boycott a bus company, Dr. King. That will hurt the drivers!”

    “Lunch counter sit-ins? Goodness Gracious, no! Those poor waitresses will lose out on tips!”

  292. 292
    Heliopause says:

    @Cervantes: @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    Pick a store in your home town and do exactly what you suggest, Keyboard Kommandos.

  293. 293
    Heliopause says:

    C’mon, kids, you’re not just internet poseurs, are you? Put your money where your mouth is.

  294. 294
    Cervantes says:

    @Heliopause:

    Pick a store in your home town and do exactly what you suggest, Keyboard Kommandos.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about here.

    And I notice you answered my questions by the simple expedient of not addressing them at all.

    Thanks.

  295. 295
    Heliopause says:

    Thought experiment, kiddies. Suppose you own a grocery store. Suppose you proudly support LGBT equality, women’s health, and declare your store gun-free. Suppose the local evangelical megachurch hears about you and sends 200 parishioners to do what you suggest one day, plus theyre all legally open-carrying. Then they do it thirty more days in a row. What would you do in response?

  296. 296
    Heliopause says:

    @Cervantes:

    Hilarious, child.

    Don’t talk, do. Show us how it’s done. Clown.

    Obviously, little child, if it’s no biggee you won’t face any consequences. So just show us how it’s done.

  297. 297
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Heliopause: Do you really believe we live in a police state?

  298. 298
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @Heliopause:

    There is no store in my home town, chuckles.

    And in case you weren’t paying attention, it only works as a mass movement. NOW and Planned Parenthood could make it work.

    I’m sure you’d be willing to get off your duff and help out, right? Oh, snap, , no, you think it sounds unseemly.

  299. 299
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    @Heliopause:

    Suppose you own a grocery store. Suppose you proudly support LGBT equality, women’s health, and declare your store gun-free. Suppose the local evangelical megachurch hears about you and sends 200 parishioners to do what you suggest one day, plus theyre all legally open-carrying. Then they do it thirty more days in a row. What would you do in response?

    I’d call the cops. It’s against the law to carry guns in a private establishment that has banned them.

    Your opposition to creative civil disobedience is duly noted, as is your lack of a sense of humor. You seem like the kind of “progressive” who thinks cops were justified in giving out all of those beatings to Occupy Wall Street kids.

    What’s youir slogan? “Mild Disapproval Rocks!”?

  300. 300
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @MoeLarryAndJesus: Nah, you have Heliopause backwards.* Heliopause believes that that US is vicious police state and people really will be prosecuted on trumped up charges for protesting in any way.

    *Heliopause should feel free to chime in if I am mischaracterizing.

  301. 301
    MoeLarryAndJesus says:

    911 caller: Officer, I’m the manager at the Hobby Lobby on Jehovah’s Sphincter Road. You need to send some cars here, pronto!

    Dispatcher Spineopause: What’s the situation?

    911 caller: There are a bunch of people here shopping. Only I don’t think they’re really shopping. I think they’re here to support birth control!

    Dispatcher Spineopause: What makes you think they’re not just shoppers?

    911 caller: They don’t look like our usual customers. Their eyes aren’t close enough together and none of them are wearing Disney clothes. Plus there are a bunch of cars outside with Obama stickers on them.

    Dispatcher Spineopause: That sounds rude. I’ll send the riot squad out now to administer CONSEQUENCES!

    911 caller: Our gawd is an awesome god! Bring lots of pepper spray!

  302. 302
    nancydarling says:

    @MomSense: I probably should have asked permission, but I shared your righteous rant with another blog.

  303. 303
    Kerry Reid says:

    @nancydarling: Me too.

Comments are closed.