Skip to main content

Im observing this cackfest court case, as are many of my fellow tea sipping pith helmet wearing countrymen, with rotating combinations of slack jawed amazement and snorty nose sniggers. I saw yesterday, with some slight relief, a positive shift when one of the judges played a little with hypothetical possibilities as a result of the case swinging in the favor of Hobby Lobby and its claimed right to disregard sections of law based on "sincerely held faith", thus extending the narrow definitions of right and wrong based on superstitions and faith held by the company owners all the way down from the boardroom to the bloke who holds the doors open and packs bags at the checkout.

Their argument seems to be "I own the company, so this whole company, its assets, resources and employees are all to be considered (Insert My Faith Here)".

Strikes me as some twisted version of Mormons doing the hijack baptisms and making dead people Mormon. In this case its the owners making a whole company a member of their church.

So....ever one to play the game for the games sake, like a true Bit gent, lets play hypothetical what ifs.....

Sandman Corp is a private company owned by me.... Dave The Sandman. I am Sandman Corp, Sandman Corp is me....and lets say a national franchise of stores employing a few thousand shmucks I throw the scraps down to.

Dave the Sandman is a Jehovah's Witness, so now I declare that Sandman Corp is a Jehovah's Witness as well.

Im going to make the door greeters hand out copies of Watchtower and simper sincerely at people coming in. Im not going to allow any member of staff to have any form of interaction with Atheists. None at all....

Does that now also mean I can refuse to allow any medical insurance money to go towards ANY medical procedure that involves blood transfusions?

Sorry Billy the Butcher...I know you sliced your hand off in the ham slicer but I cant be paying for your medical treatment as my faiths says blood transfusions are eeeeeeevil.


Dave The Sandman takes a tumble one day and having reduced his IQ to critically low levels through brain damage suddenly thinks all that Jehovah stuff is nonsense and Xenu is where it is at. So I get me off to a Scientology will power crushing centre, and buy the whole hog. Im stinking rich so fly through the levels and shed me some Thetans. Now Im a committed follower of Cap'n Ron and his Church of Scientology so is Sandman Corp. Hail Ron! We are Scientologists!

So now, when any employee suffers from mental problems like, say, stress induced depression and needs counseling or treatment, does Sandman Corp have to pay for that on the medical insurance, or can I now have Sandman Corp exclude all forms of insurance coverage for mental illness cover?

As we all know.... Scientology says psychologists, psychiatry and psychotherapy are eeeeeeeeevil.  


Having been bilked of a few mil by Tom Cruise and John Travolta's buddies, I finally come to my senses and see the light..... the sweet sweet light of Jeebus! I gets me some revelation across the nation, and join the Church of Christ, Scientist. Hallelujah praaaayse Jeebus!

I, and thus Sandman Corp, are now committed fully fledged Christian Scientists! Can I get me an Amen?

Well, as a committed Christian Scientist I dont believe in any form of medicine. You dont need medicine when you have the healing power of prayer.

Now....about this company medical insurance. Yeah, forget about that all together brothers and sisters. Here is a Bible, there is the floor. Now kneel with me and lets pray that sickness away.

Hospital you say? Uh huh! Sorry....Sandman Corp is a Christian Scientist. No hospital or doctors for you! Medicine is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!


And that my pedigree chums is just the start of this water slide along the lawns of the Garden of Eden (which as Mittens Mc R Money will tell you basks beneath the shining glory of planet Kobol somewhere down in Missouri, USA).

If that shitesack in a gown Scalia and his chums get their way, and open that door Hobby Lobby are kicking in right now.... the above are only three of many many heads of the Hydra you will be living with from then on.

Have fun chums....and here is why I'm so glad this song sums it all up for me:

Professor Elemental: Im British

Originally posted to Dave The Sandman on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:03 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It Means You Can Disallow Your Employee's Kid (26+ / 0-)

    from spending his tooth fairy money on candy made by Jewish confectioners.

    After all the money is employee compensation, same as the health insurance, and since you provide the compensation you control everything they can and cannot spend it on.



    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:10:14 AM PDT

    •  Yes, exactly. (20+ / 0-)

      When Sandman Corp. turns to Islam, he can make the women wear burkas at work, but also demand that that is the only clothing they are allowed to purchase, wear or have in their closets, anywhere, ever.

      Oh for crying out loud!

      by 4mygirls on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:21:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not quite... (0+ / 0-)

        Companies can already control (to an extent) what people wear ON THE JOB (corporate dress codes), but not what they wear in their personal lives.

        The distinction in the past was whether or not the behavior/action impacted the business in some way.  Corporations can (and do) prohibit employees from badmouthing them in such a way as could be construed a deliberate attempt to sabotage the business.  They have been allowed to force employees to quit smoking, and to have their weight monitored medically (and if needed put on diets).

        Many corporate contracts also have a "ill repute" clause (formerly known as a "morals clause") that allows the corporation to fire someone for doing something wrong that the corporation does not want to have it's image tarnished by continuing to associate with the malefactor.  Michael Vick is a good example of a firing under the "ill repute" clause.

    •  Return to the days of script and company stores (16+ / 0-)

      Employees paid in script redeemable only at the company store.  That way $$ Inc can make sure its heathen employees can only buy stuff approved by the religion of $$ Inc.  

      Heck, why not go all the way and repeal the ungodly 13th amendment, bring back slavery, so the corporate slave masters can be sure to save their slaves from hell and damnation.

      "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 05:53:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ding Ding Ding Ding--We are well on our way (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gmnotyet, artmartin

        Thanks to Big, and Little and Corporate Brother.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:01:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Incorrect (4+ / 0-)
      It Means You Can Disallow Your Employee's Kid
      from spending his tooth fairy money on candy made by Jewish confectioners.
      In the US you can fire someone for any reason at all except a few that are prohibited under labor or civil rights laws.  So, for example, you can certainly fire your employee if his kids buy or eat candy.

      However, under civil rights laws you may not single out patronizing Jewish (or black, or in some states homosexual) confectioners.  Under the RFRA law the key test here would be if the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination.  The courts have pretty consistently ruled that it does.

      After all the money is employee compensation, same as the health insurance, and since you provide the compensation you control everything they can and cannot spend it on.
      Not exactly.  For example, you can't sue an ex-employee for using money you paid him in salary for things you do not approve of unless he previously signed a contract agreeing to this.  However, you can certainly fire him for doing so - for example, in most and perhaps all states it would be totally legal to have a policy of firing any employee who purchased a gun.
      •  But how do you reconcile all of that with (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4mygirls, GreenMother, OldDragon

        a company influencing an employee's health care OUTSIDE of the work place?

        Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

        by Floyd Blue on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:32:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, first off, I think the government is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          1949girl, hmi

          unlikely to prevail on forcing the company to pay for procedures it has religious objections to.  Treatments for life threatening or debilitating conditions may or may not be exceptions - that would depend on whether or not the employers can convince the courts that having the employers pay for these treatments is not a compelling government interest.  

          Right now, since that requirement does not apply to smaller employers, I suspect that the courts would not consider it a compelling government interest.  After all, how can it be a compelling government interest to make a 51 person company pay for employee medical care if the government does not even require a 49 person company to pay for that medical care?  How does adding two new staff somehow create a compelling interest?

          If you switch to medical care that the employees pay for themselves the key question will be whether the employer is trying to force the employee to follow the employer's religion.  That's going to be a very detailed fact based investigation into exactly what the employer is demanding.  

          For example, if I say "Homeopathy is hogwash.  I won't employ anyone stupid enough to use it." I'm probably OK.  On the other hand, if I prohibit abortions, Sunday drinking, and taking the Lord's name in vain I am probably not.

          •  Women's healthcare and healthy families should (5+ / 0-)

            totally trump an employer's religious preferences.

            Pathetic that this is still considered even debatable.

          •  these companyies do not pay for the procedure, (5+ / 0-)

            these companies provide compensation to the employee to purchase health insurance at an insurance company that the company has contracted with. the insurance company pays (partially pays) for the procedure.
            for example, i work at a company, let's call it FooBar inc., that has negotiated with blue shield/blue cross (BSBC) to provide a couple different health insurance policies. if i choose to purchase a negotiated policy with BSBC, FooBar then pays some amount of money to BSBC as compensation to me. if i choose not to purchase any of the negotiated health insurance policies (let's say my spouse has health insurance through their work), then FooBar pays me additional compensation that would have gone to the health insurance company.
            so  i have always seen company sponsored health insurance as compensation to the employee. just as a company cannot tell me how to spend the compensation paid to me in money, i don't see how they can tell me what medical procedures i can get with the health insurance compensation that they have negotiated with a third party.

            i also disagree with you statement that not hiring someone because they believe in homeopathy is legal. if there were two equally competent people applying for a job and you specifically told one of them that you didn't employ them because they believe in homeopathy, i think that person would win in the court of law. just my opinion, although a bit biased because i live in massachusetts.


            •  I agree that companies shouldn't be able to (0+ / 0-)

              have input into specific health care details any more than they should what one does with one's compensation.

              Thank you, schleprock.

              Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

              "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13

              by BeninSC on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:26:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Homeopathy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You think so?
              How about, equally competent, but denies existence of AGW?
              Equally competent but thinks theory of evolution is a crock?

              •  I'd debate whether "equally competent" is accurate (0+ / 0-)

                ...if one applicant is ignorant enough to believe in bullsh!t like creationism (i.e.: literal "God created the Earth only a couple thousand years ago, within seven literal, 24-hour days, and things like fossils were put there by God to test our Faith" Creationism, not "In a theological sense, I believe there's a God who created life... but He/She/It works through scientifically-discoverable means like evolution, and I don't want to see religious teaching in my kid's science textbooks!"). I'd see that irrationality as evidence of a severe deficit in critical thinking and reasoning skills, and for any job requiring reasoning and scientific/technical know-how, that applicant would certainly be less qualified.

                OTOH, maybe if the job required NO critical thinking whatsoever, the bullsh!t-believer would be a better choice, as there'd be less likelihood they'd be bored by the work, or that they'd start thinking they needed to be paid more...

    •  One Bright Notw (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, GrandPoobah, Bartskid1

      If the corporation is found to be the same entity as its owners, then there is no problem piercing the corporate veil.  This is the supposed protection that officers of corporations have against civil and criminal law suits for evil or dangerous acts committed by or in the name of the corporation.  That protection would disappear if legal reasoning holds that the corporation and the officers are one and the same.  After all corporate personhood was a legal fiction created in England around the time of the East India Company's high point to allow corporations to enter contracts etc.  Since corporate rights and protections exist only by virtue of law and custom, there is no guarantee that they will always remain the same.  If a corporation can espouse a religion because that is what its' officers and owners believe then these same people can also be guilty of the crimes and torts committed by that corporation.  Not much of an up side but it would enable citizens to sue the bank president personally for the illegal foreclosure.  Ain't logic a bitch?

      •  Exactly! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Velvetus, Damaged262

        A favorable ruling for Hobby Lobby would open the door to a legal claim that a corporation is actually NOT an independent entity, since no one could claim that the corporation has a religion unless if came from somewhere else...i.e. the owners.  So...with that whole idea of decoupling an owner from personal responsibility for the actions of a corporation, the door is wide open.

        If the corporation goes broke, the creditors could easily claim the personal assets of the owners and officers, if the company was sued for a defective product, the suit could easily include the owners, officers, and board of directors as personal defendants.  After all, if the corporation has freedom of speech (Citizens United) but it will speak with the voice of the owners...and freedom of religion, but it will speak with the religious views of the owners, then there really is no firewall any more, is there?  

        Justice Roberts raised the idea that this exemption could apply only to S Corporations, which usually exist only to protect the owner from the financial aspects of the business.  Nope!  No more!  Sue Hobby Lobby and Mr. Green personally and he has to defend himself.  Should they lose, he and his personal corporation can argue about who pays what.  It's not a pretty picture for him.

      •  Corporations want it both ways.. (0+ / 0-)

        they want tax write offs, exemptions from personal financial liability, not to be held liable for what their employees do, ( like pollute, murder poison..)
        And, now they're demanding they can change their minds to suddenly, after the fact, use their religion to discriminate using whatever arbitrary religion they choose to follow in the moment.
        Can the employer change religions to another one later? Are employees informed ahead of time if their employers religion changes? of course not, "They" have privacy we don't.
         Corporations already have more rights than most human people. Can we check their companies credit worthiness for insuring our future employment, nose into their personal health decisions, the owners personal habits, arrest records and file suit if the employer lied?
        Should we just accept an employer demands that we dump our protections of "freedom of religion"..Or "from" religion, as I see it, for theirs as a condition of employment  Will this be disclosed if this case wins.
        The 1993 decision with congress had to do with religious organizations, not a corporation, but I see your point.

  •  Lets say I believe sincerely that curative prayer (16+ / 0-)

    and snake handling are the only cures for any disease or accident.  Does this mean I don't have to carry health insurance for my employees because I keep a roster of herpetologists and televangelists who are immediately available to care for any of my employees needing medical care.

    For that matter, I also believe that employees are responsible for their own retirement. Does this allow me to opt out of the FICA system?

    finally, let's say I take St. Paul's admonition against marriage very seriously and require all my employees to take vows of chastity.  Can I enforce this?

    •  Don't stop there (7+ / 0-)

      Not when you've got the entire playground of Leviticus to romp in:

      -If one of your employees commits adultery, you get to kill them (chapter20, verse 10)

      -Employees are forbidden to eat bacon, sausages, or shrimp (locusts and beetles are okay, though) (chapter 11)

      -No dermatologists allowed; priests take care of skin lesions (chapter 13)

      Oh, and company executives caught breaking the law just have to kill a goat as a burnt offering.(4:22-24) Jail time is for heathens!

      On the other hand, some of Leviticus is problematic. Women can't come to work during their period (15:19). And the real fly in the ointment, chapter 25: Jubilees? Debt forgiveness? Very un-American.

    •  Under current US law and precedent the (3+ / 0-)

      key questions will be the extent to which the government has a compelling interest and the extent to which you are not just setting unreasonably and arbitrary conditions of employment but actually forcing your employees to follow your religion.

      As an example, let's say that I do not have a religious issue with sex.  I just have OCD.  I think it is disgusting and I don't want to be close to anyone who has recently had sex unless I absolutely have to.

      In that case, I can probably require chastity as a condition of employment and periodically ask my employees to swear or affirm that they are chaste on pain of firing.

      The FICA issue has already been litigated on these grounds  and the IRS won.  However, due to political pressure the 1965 Medicate bill including a clause exempting Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950.  The limitations on this clause are probably unconstitutional, but as far as I know that issue has not been litigated.  I also do not know if the RFRA would have an impact - after all, if the government can afford to exempt Old Order Amish then how does it have a compelling interest to force members of other religions to pay the tax?

    •  How would you enforce these holier-than-us rules? (0+ / 0-)

      Do the chastity rules apply to men, too?

      (Female teachers really can be fired for unwed or in vitro pregnancies.  This seems to only apply to "non-profit" religious schools funded by our taxpayer supplied vouchers.)

      I am afraid to ask how this would be enforced.

  •  I'm beginning to understand the requirement for (7+ / 0-)

    law school, and why a defendant who represents himself has a fool for a client.

  •  Single payer would solve a lot of problems. n/t (12+ / 0-)

    If I comply with non-compliance am I complying? Sarcasm is the ability to insult stupid people without them realizing it.

    by thestructureguy on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 08:58:49 AM PDT

    •  Always looking for the easy way out (3+ / 0-)

      aren't you thestructreguy. Sure it would be cheaper to have single payer. Sure it would cut down on confusion in the market place, and yes it could be a mechanism to reduce medical costs system wide to the benefit of everyone in America. We all know it would save American business a lot of money, which could be passed down in higher wages.

      But... what you fail to consider is... is...

      Hmmm, I seem to have forgotten what I was going to say.

      “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

      by se portland on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 08:29:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, I have a "sincere religious belief" (0+ / 0-)

      that precludes single payer.

      Problem unsolved.


      I can't help it. I love the state of Texas. It's a harmless perversion. - Molly Ivins

      by rsmpdx on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:06:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, Velvetus, Damaged262

      it would. We are probably the only nation without a Single Payer Health Care System. But you did forget one important thing..............greed. We have Greed by the car load and the insurance companies, who own congress, would be having fits.

  •  Sharia Law is on the horizon? (7+ / 0-)

    Why not?  If Hobby Lobby can do it, why can't everyone put their own laws into the act?

    •  In fact the question was answered in 1878 (12+ / 0-)

      with Reynolds v US:

      To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
      Even Justice Scalia recognized this when he wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v Smith in 1990:
      Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 310 U. S. 594-595 (1940):

      "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

      We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, "are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

      Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

      So I'll be interested to see if Scalia believes in his own precedents.
  •  A wonderful reductio ad absurdum (12+ / 0-)

    This is the way a society dies.

    I can just imagine the harm that unfettered religious prejudice would have on the cohesiveness of an already fragmented polity.

    Let's face it, America is in decline and the skids are being greased by the republicans.  I see an Atwater-like future for ourselves.

    •  Lets take a ride down the Slippery Luge Track... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laurnj, P E Outlier, RiveroftheWest, SuWho

      OK, I'm a CEO of a pizza chain, and as an atheist, my sincerely held belief is that the only legitimate speed limit is 186282 miles per second - the speed of light. Therefore, me and my employees can drive at any speed they like so long as it's slower than light and have a 30 minute delivery guarantee.

      Unlike the famous Domino's lawsuit where the plaintiff won a Powerball prize of a settlement, this hypothetical chain would win that lawsuit due to religious belief being used to flout the man-made speed limit law. In this case, sincerely held religious belief creates a clear and present danger to the public.

      Now, imagine some deranged fundamentalist down south with the "sincerely held belief" that anyone whatsoever with the money should be able to buy any old gun they want. Wait. We already have that experiment in progress...

      •  Don't forget the Pastafarian religion. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arlene, Upie

        Given that global warming is proportional to the lack of pirates in the Caribbean, we would do well to resort to plundering cruise ships while fighting the global warming that religious science denialists say isn't happening.

      •  Me Too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA, Damaged262

        I was just thinking "I am the owner of a company and my sincerely held religious belief is that cancer is the will of God, therefore I cannot in conscience provide medical insurance that pays for cancer treatment".

      •  cool storyy... (5+ / 0-)

        but but ...but Hobby Lobby covered the Plan B before so how can they make the claim they are making?

        David Green, Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO, said in a press release when the case was filed. "We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."

        On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.

        link. from mother jones

        Hobby Lobby is making a wear and rediculous claim.  SCOTUS should tell them to take a hike.  Big Farce.  It is political.  

        •  What hypocrites.They still carry stuff from China (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Damaged262, dewolf99, Bartskid1

          too, you know the place that forces abortion on their own people? I guess their "conscience" doesn't extend that far. Only if it does not affect their profits.

          If billionaires can afford to spend millions of dollars so that they can avoid paying taxes and fair wages, then they *can afford* to pay taxes and fair wages!

          by Pixie5 on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 03:35:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Lee Atwater repented before his death (4+ / 0-)

      Apologizing to Kitty Dukakis for the slime he threw at her husband.  This current crop of extremist lack even this minimum decency.

      "Corporations exist not for themselves, but for the people." Ida Tarbell 1908.

      by Navy Vet Terp on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 05:56:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A rotten mind . . . (0+ / 0-)

        . . . that deserved the brain rot that felled him.  No amount of apology except seppuku on the steps of the White House could have redeemed him.

      •  Death Bed Apologies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are a load of crap. The dyee does not really care that he wronged the person he/she wants to apologize to.  What he/she cares about is meeting the Maker with all that crap on his/her record.  And so we have the BS death bed apology, not real, only motivated by fear.
        My MIL, who had done her best to wreck our marriage wanted me to visit her in hospice.  I refused because I KNEW all she wanted to do was make one insincere apology for over 40 years of abusing our whole family----she was even rotten to our kids.  I wouldn't have believed her apology for a second, and I couldn't possibly accept it.  She settled for one last big bowl of my potato salad. THAT I did do for her.  Do I regret not seeing her?  NOPE!

  •  Wow! As an atheist I have to say that I am (0+ / 0-)

    stunned that this is on the community spotlight list. It seems to me to be a diary mocking a bunch of religions. None of which have anything to do with Hobby Lobby.

    I have had some great conversations with Jehovah's Witness's. To say that they "simper" does not seem kind or fair or true.

    Christian Scientists do believe in doctors and hospitals they just eschew certain forms of medicine. For instance they will get stitches from a doctor in a hospital but not get numbed with drugs first.

    I'd like to give this diary something just below an HR, a CW maybe "cringe worthy".

    I'd also like to see some links and sources that would show me where the diarist gets this particular slant.

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature. If I had Bill Gates money, I'd buy Detroit.

    by ZenTrainer on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 04:35:23 PM PDT

  •  Bingo! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm glad people are finally waking up to this after I've been preaching it for months.

  •  Isn't The Right Wings Solution That You "Don't (3+ / 0-)

    have to be employed by the business if you don't like the "rules", it's your free choice"?

    Their additional solution is that if an employee doesn't like that something is not covered by the insurance offered, then the employee buy their own "side insurance policies" that covers whatever the employer doesn't cover on any given day.  Good luck in finding these policies and having to get different policies depending on the whims of the employer.

    Most recently was having to buy a "side abortion policy" by the employee if desired.  Of course this is just one thing a given employer may decide not to cover.  Think of all the other items that the employer could come up with that won't be covered at his whim.  I suppose insurance companies could come of the heathen satan loving policy that would include all the biblical evils that a given employer could conjure up.  This could be called the "Satan Policy".  Includes everything a wing nut is against.  Of course the policy would only as good as the next whim  of the nutcase wing nut.

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:07:37 PM PDT

  •  It's like Republican thinking on "double taxation" (11+ / 0-)

    They don't seem to grasp that the principle that says when money passes from person A to person B it is no longer person A's money applies to the case where person A is a corporation.

    When A pays a health insurance premium for B, and B decides to ask his or her provider for contraception, it is B who is making the purchasing decision.   The money is out of A's hand.

    Now A might have a case if adding contraceptive coverage raised his costs, but in fact it does not.  Pregnancy is so expensive to cover (not to mention the coverage for new dependents), that it doesn't save money to eliminate contraceptive coverage.   It should actually save A money.  So the only reason for A to object is that it doesn't want its employees using contraception, which is none of A's business.

    I've lost my faith in nihilism

    by grumpynerd on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:31:13 PM PDT

  •  Just say no to special rights for religion (4+ / 0-)

    Right-wing Christians vote Republican. Republicans appoint justices. Justices know on which side Republican bread is buttered, especially in an upcoming election, and they know why they were put on the court. This seemingly harmless little piece of crap attempt to give a company the right to determine what their employees do from a religious standpoint is, how shall I say it, galling, and so is most religion. People have religious freedom. That is all they need. Enough with the theocracy movement. This is not what the Fing Fathers had in mind.

  •  Great tune. Funny too. I liked the beat. (3+ / 0-)

    Liked the diary too very much. Cheers! If Hobby Lobby wins this one, does that mean we can stop respecting the judicial branch and their silly black robes snd pretensions of you know JUSTICE? That is true farce. SCOTUS should have to put "Inc." after SCOTUS.

    garden variety democratic socialist: accepting life's complexity|striving for global stewardship of our soil and other resources to meet everyone's basic needs|being a friend to the weak

    by Galtisalie on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:12:31 PM PDT

  •  Mitt and the LDS are anxiously awaiting decision (4+ / 0-)

    I imagine that the Mormon church will have a field day if the Supremes give Hobby Lobby their desire.

    Voters should select people to represent them in their government. People in government should not select people who may vote!

    by NM Ray on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:29:32 PM PDT

  •  There is no "Employer Mandate" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Check this blog article:

    Hobby Lobby Part III—There is no “Employer Mandate” [UPDATED 12/18]

    Pretty good. I saw it referenced in a New York Times article.

  •  don't forget orthodox jews or muslims (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    no female employee can be touched by a male doctor
    and vice versa.

  •  There's no slippery slope... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4mygirls, Penny GC, SuWho, allie4fairness their minds, because only Evangelical beliefs (the One True Religion) would be permitted to overrule the law of the land. That's what the counsel for Hobby Lobby meant when he said that these other examples would need to be considered on a case by case basis.

  •  Your post was such a righteous rant, that I (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, akmk

    thought you were a chick for a minute there!


    Excellent Post. If I could give it infinite recs I would.

    Thank you Sandman. You truly are a dream.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:00:27 AM PDT

  •  I for one will form "Church of the Green Soylent" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In reaction. And it will involve human sacrifice, because ... Soylent Green is people. ;)

    That's just how absurd this shit is.

    Now how are they going to deal with the Rastafarian's going forward, we finally going to get full legalized MaryJuWanna? That would at least be a plus.

    How about the Church of the Holy Chip? We play internet poker as part of our sacraments, so can we get back to being able to play online from the U.S.? It is my religious right, yes/no?

    Or, we ( * ) could drag the Hobby Lobby people out onto the Scotus steps and beat their skulls in with baseball bats ...

    ( * ) that would be "The Church of the Holy Shut the Fuck Up Asshole", Joe Pesci is a founding member. ;)

    •  Could we make big stadiums our churches? (0+ / 0-)

      That would be a great place to watch those (self) sacrifices, just like the good old days when the emperor was god and lions ate those christians. Maybe we could get Hobby Lobby as sponsors (and perhaps they would like to stand in the spotlights, as the gates are opened).

      It's wat 'Soylent Green' demands of its followers ;-)

      'We're all flying backwards into the Future'

      by Upie on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:25:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Srsly, some business owners seem to have (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, Oregon Expat, myrmecia gulosa, prfb

    a feudal overlord mentality. They extend their private property claims to the "human resources" they employ. Or, perhaps, it's "king-serf" thinking: "monarch" owners believing they're rungs above their "peon" employees. In Hobby Lobby's case, think of England's Henry VIII deciding on a whim, "Now we're all Church of England!"

    Please note I said "some business owners": not all are like that. But those who are reveal themselves as such when they create "reasons" to deprive their workers of fair pay, full benefits, decent pensions, safe working conditions, etc., etc., etc.

    "Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum." — President Abraham Lincoln

    by vahana on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:16:37 AM PDT

  •  Many slumlords are also incorporated. (0+ / 0-)

    Now that so many of us have lost our own homes perhaps this could be a precedent for slumlords to reform tenants living on the other side of the tracks from superior gated landlord communities.  Wouldn't this logic allow morally righteous incorporated landlords to require that tenants follow the rules of the landlord's church?

  •  My religion doesn't believe in Viagra. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Some corporations really do follow a Religion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They belong to the Church of Mammon.

  •  Opened new store here (0+ / 0-)

    Adds all over radio will be interesting seeing how well they do in the not so religious NW where bible thumping doesn't get you extra points.  

    A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

    by YellerDog on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 10:31:16 PM PDT

  •  Dangerous times ahead if Hobby Lobby prevails (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meinoregon, kbrown2225, 1949girl, Silina
  •  You took all my snarky points (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silina, Damaged262

    and put them together in a most amusing article. I have been hammering on the concept of "other religions" like Scientology, or Christian Science, imposing THEIR medical beliefs on employees.

    No mental healthcare for you! Wait, what are you doing with that gun?

    THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. -- L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

    by xenubarb on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:26:52 AM PDT

  •  Religious Extremism (5+ / 0-)

    is dangerous for any nation. Modern day American Christians are no different than the Taliban or Muslim religious police in any of the Muslim governed countries.

    •  Please don't tar us all with the same brush (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Damaged262, dewolf99

      I am Christian, and liberal because I believe that is what Jesus would have been.  I do not believe all Muslims are terrorists, and I suspect you would not either, so please do not think that every Christian is a right wingnut.  Allow us our beliefs, please do not ridicule them ad hominem, and I will respect your right to disbelieve, and I will "render unto Caesar".  But I might privately pray for you (smile).

      •  Christians who are not RWNJs (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        astrogeology girl, Damaged262

        Must speak out against those who would act as if they are the Taliban. Those of us who are liberal Christians, must speak out for women having autonomy over their bodies, health care for all, peace not war, unless we are actually attacked by a nation, not a small group within that nation, equality and not the inequality that is plaguing our nation, the end of corporate rule, where employees are disrespected and gender equality. We cannot let those few, who are loud and well funded, abscond with our faith.

  •  Hobby Lobby (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SherrieLudwig, Silina, JerryNA, Damaged262

    An affirmation of "Corporate Faith" by the SCOTUS could pierce the veil of corporate personal liability. In other words, officers and directors could be sued directly for their PERSONAL ASSETS as Corporations would then be extensions of the officers and directors.

    Open season on the officers for all manner of errors and omissions will be a slippery slope indeed.

  •  real reason for ACA opposition (5+ / 0-)

    All this hypothetical posturing doesn't do anything to address the true reason for all Republican opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act. The Koch think tanks come up with all these weird-ass rationales for killing ACA because a seldom-discussed provision of the act requires a modest tax on investment income for medical care in lieu of the FICA we all pay on wages, salaries and tips, or "regular income". You didn't pay FICA on investment income in previous years. Romney had $21 million in income in a recent year, and paid no FICA whatsoever because it was all investment income. I heard that the new law would have cost him at least $200,000, so that's why he and all the other fatcats are dead set against ACA.

    It's money. It has nothing to do with religious freedom, socialism, choice of medical care providers, medical costs, "death panels" or any other such fake issue. They're trying to get stupid people to restrict their own access to medical care because the tax changes associated with ACA will cost them money. Don't waste your time thinking or talking about anything else with respect to the ACA.

  •  Too complicated -- Slippery slope easier than (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet, Damaged262

    described.  Since my company is Christian, I feel it is a violation of its religious principles to be forced to serve gay and lesbians.  If I can tell me employees what they have in their insurance plan, surely I can dictate who my business serves.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 01:02:09 PM PDT

    •  If you do discriminate against (0+ / 0-)

      those whom you feel are sinful, even though they are not harming you, and paying for what they buy, I sincerely hope that everyone with a brain, boycotts your business. How in the world do you "know" that someone wanting to buy what you sell is "gay," or "lesbian?" Do you ask. What if two women come into your store or restaurant, do you assume that two women eating together are gay? They may be coworkers or friends. Please, show respect for your fellow humans, be they gay, straight, lesbian, or transgender. We are all human beings.

      •  I think you misconstrued me. I don't own a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        business.  I was suggesting what a Hobby Lobby kind of company might say.  My bad for not being clear that it was a hypothetical.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

        by ecostar on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 10:08:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is no joke (6+ / 0-)

    My husband has worked for, and received insurance through, the same privately-held corporation for over twenty years.  A few years ago, this person's family converted to Jehovah's Witness.  Last year, my husband was diagnosed with multiple myeloma.  A stem cell transplant and dozens of blood transfusions later, he is in remission (Thank you, Lord!)  Fortunately, this employer has the human decency to not pull the insurance $*)@ that Hobby Lobby is trying to do.  This is the absolute truth, there are some decent companies with respect and regard for their employees. (And truly Christian charity, too.)

  •  Why Hobby Lobby will lose (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silina, JerryNA, Damaged262

    The real problem with this case from the corporatist world is that if Hobby Lobby wins, suddenly corporations become people with religious beliefs.  Follow along:

    1.  Hobby Lobby is a corporation, and as such is a person legally.
    2. Corporations, while persons, are not generally recognized to have religious beliefs as natural persons are.  If corporations are recognized as having religious beliefs, whohas/controls their religious beliefs?  Their owners.
    3. Now their owners, not insulated management, is responsible for policy and direction and belief.
    4. Voila!  The corporate veil is pierced, and the people behind the corporation, the owners, are liable for policy, direction and actions of the corporation.

    This is exactly what the device of the corporation is designed to prevent.

    Evidence for this point of view is that, unlike in the Citizens United case, there have been very few if any amicus briefs by other corporations in support of the Hobby Lobby position.  I think the wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America known as the Supreme Court majority will get the message and rule against Hobby Lobby.

  •  It will be a dark and fateful day in our beloved (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kbrown2225, Silina, JerryNA, Damaged262

    country if Hobby Lobby wins this case. Many of us are working hard and fast on overturning Citizens United. Now we will have to overturn Hobby Lobby, et al. Let us hope that some of the SCOTUS justices, a majority of them, rule by their personal integrity, which translates into interpreting the laws of the land with honesty and objectivity. That rules out Thomas, Scalia, and Alito for certain. I do not understand how they fail to see the logic in the above-posted article.  

  •  RE: companies and women's healthcare (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silina, Damaged262

    Taking this all to an extreme:  assuming Hobby Lobby and others like it win the court case, then there would be a great job creation opportunity to hire the "body police" to
    police all the female gynecological situations.  After all, there would be "body police" investigations into all miscarriages, possible day- after pill taking, abortions to save lives, etc. etc. Or if no "body police" were to be hired (after all we don't want big government now, do we?), then the "body police" would have to be hired within the medical practices to fill out the paperwork involved, and conduct investigations of the women. That would lead to even higher medical costs, doctors being interrogated about private patient/doctor decisions. It seems there are certain types of people who are all too eager to meddle in a woman's reproductive health decisions, and yet cut welfare, cut food stamps, cut wages, cut benefits, and don't help in any way once the child is born.  Also, many women take birth control to help with other issues than just control  of conception.  Would the "body police" need to investigate these times of taking birth control?

  •  Their goods are made in China. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, Damaged262

    Hypocrisy at its finest.  China, the home of government controlled birth and scoffers of human rights.  These Hobby-Lobby owners have no problem with that part of their business.  as long as there's a profit.  Ridiculous.

  •  A replacement advertiser for Rush? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1949girl, Damaged262

    Hmmm...  Seems to me like the Hobby Lobby is the ideal replacement for advertisers who have rationally decided to flush Rush.

  •  You know what amuses me? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Hobby Lobby wins this case, suddenly corporations and their owners are interchangeable. That means owners can be sued directly over the actions and/or products of their company because the person is the company. All of the corporate protections against lawsuits fall by the wayside as the lawsuits become a case against a person, instead of a company.

    So I say bring it on! Let's see how company owners like the threat of class action suits landing right in their own laps! And because it's a personal suit, they can't use company money to defend themselves — it has to come out of their personal funds!

  •  Makes Me REAL Super-Glad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That I own my own company!!

    And as a member of Transsexualz R Us Church - I decree every employee of mine must have a sex change!

    Recommended by:

    Scalia has already proven that he has no clue as to what birth control methods are available or what birth control actually does.  And these folks are voting on behalf of all of us?  Really?

  •  The question I have is (0+ / 0-)

    Based on this fight not being over the 'religious companies' participating in the sinful action - it is about them financially supporting it.  So, does a company owned by a Quaker(who are conscientious objectors) have to pay the full income tax including the part that supports the DoD?

    BTW: Isn't it ironic that corporations have more right to faith than parents do?  Haven't judges stepped in an ordered medical treatment for children over-riding parent's faith based decisions?

    -- illegitimi non carborundum

    by BadBoyScientist on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:20:17 AM PDT

  •  No oil changes on Tuesdays, in my religion.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..unless I change my mind.
    When a corporation decides to protect their money by being incorporating they know full well what they're doing, and the federal laws this includes.

    Robert's taking this case swings the doors wide open in a case that shouldn't be seen as anything more than a corporation, not only changing their minds, (hypocrites) but demanding to discriminate against women specifically on the grounds of a religion (theirs) that states nothing about birth control. They knew ahead of time this was forbidden when they incorporated.
     The Hobby hypocrisy alone should have thrown this out of any court, but then this assumes we have a Justice who is qualified or cares about existing laws or the constitution.
    With Roberts and Alito being listed as the Most Pro corporate Justices in the last half one doubts how they'll vote.
    I listen on CSPAN today as Hobby lawyers tried to tie in religious organizations rights by congress in 1993, to this corporations take back and found it ridiculous.  Hobby's argument made no more sense than Robert's predictable knockout of  all previous precedent or reason in stopping this case from allowing every nut using religion, regardless of reality or reason to discriminate.  
     No human has all of the rights this corporation demands. By the way does Mrs Hobby use HRT?
    Perhaps the American people should invent a religion that demands political appointees be remotely qualified?

  •  Ah but the Sandman Corporation does evil to me (0+ / 0-)

    and since your corporation and you are one and the same, I now have the right to sue not only Sandman Corp but you as well, you see you are one and the same so no protective shield for you, declare your Corporation bankrupt, I don't care anymore now your fortune is soon to me mind.  Yes, a can of worm it surely could open.

  •  I can see it now (0+ / 0-)

    Sandman Corp becomes Jewish and forces all the men to be inspected by a moyel who then summarily cuts or recuts all the men who still have remnants or any foreskin left. Oh the joy, ah the endless Bris. Oy the pain.

    I'm sure the SCOTUS would love this argument.

  •  I don't know if this has been mentioned here yet.. (0+ / 0-)

    but in other diaries it has been noted that, tactically speaking, it might be good if Hobby Lobby WON its case.

    If a corporation's views are legally those of the CEO/owners, then the corporation effectively is the same as said owners.

    That blows a HUGE hole in the "corporate veil" of limited liability and would allow CEOS and boards of directors (and possibly even stockholders) to be individually sued when a corporation does harm to others (such as in the Freedom Industries chemical spill case).

    Basically, it would be the end of "limited liability".

  •  This crooked US Supreme Court (0+ / 0-)

    It does not mater if this is a law or not with this U.S. Supreme Court. 5 of them are purchased by Corporate America, just like the Republican Party and they will vote to protect a corporation even though it goes against the law of the land. Remember Citizen United, voting rights and Bush VS Gore. This US Supreme Court burned the Constitution to elect their president. No one can trust this US Supreme Court to uphold the law as long as they have the 5 Republican Justices who are beholding to Corporate America and the Republican Party. This US Supreme Court is the most corrupt court since the Dread Scott Decision.

Click here for the mobile view of the site