Not even creationists want to be associated with creationism »« Mary’s Monday Metazoan: Evil Rising

Hobby Lobby won

Of course they did: in a court packed with Catholics and their twisted views on reproduction, it would have been a surprise if they decided otherwise. So now, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a right to dictate how you manage your health care, and the corporation’s religious convictions (they can have them, apparently) trump yours.

You’re all boycotting Hobby Lobby, right? And if you work there, try to get out.


We now have the underlying truth about the decision.

thesame

Comments

  1. says

    I once went in there, but all they had was crap.
    I really wish I had some desire to do business with the swine, so I could refuse to do it.

  2. subbie says

    One silver lining: the decision is based on the disingenuously named Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the First Amendment. In theory, this extension of personal rights to a corporation can be undone by amending the RFRA.

  3. Alverant says

    Could the case be made that the catholic justices should have been removed for biases?

  4. raven says

    <b.Appalling!!!

    What about the religious and personal freedoms of HL’s 16,000 employees. Apparently they don’t count as much as Boss Green’s.

    Bad ruling by the gang of 5 Catholics who control the court.

    HL could have just taken the action of not having a health insurance plan and tossing the employees onto the ACA exchanges.

  5. raven says

    Boycott Hobby Lobby!!!

    I have no intention of ever setting foot in a Hobby Lobby or Chikfila. It’s not much but it is all I can do.

    It is all trivial in my case though. I’ve never been in one and have no real reason to go into one. No loss. By all accounts, it is just another Chinamart, most of the merchandise being made in China.

  6. Gorogh, Lounging Peacromancer says

    Bah I am not reading this any further than

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion…”

    and the conclusion that this applies to Hobby Lobby-the-person. Well, it turns out, we were not dealing with “a compelling government interest” here anyway.

  7. Eric Snyder says

    I’ve been boycotting HL and CFA for quite a while now. I wish I could boycott them harder.

    Remember everyone, the only way to stop this sort of bullshit is to get out and vote, and to get everyone else out to vote as well.

  8. says

    Words fail me. I feel sick. Time to scrounge up a bit more to donate to Planned Parenthood, I guess.

    However, I will say that as a crafter, I wouldn’t shop at HL if they were the last damn art supplies store on the planet. I’d improvise, learn to make my own stuff, or do without.

    Perhaps it’s time for a more enlightened employer to claim that birth control is a sacrament in their religion?

  9. raven says

    This ruling by the gang of 5 Catholics mostly effects women.

    Hobby Lobby’s employees are mostly women and so are their customers.

    There was a hypothesis the Steve Green was in danger of alienating women in general and his workforce and customers in particular.

    I suppose we will see if that happens and a boycott has some effect. I don’t have enough data to make any sort of prediction. Except that I’m not going in a HL, ever.

  10. carlie says

    Oh, fuck them. Fuck them straight to hell. Not just Hobby Lobby, but also SCOTUS.

  11. raven says

    Time to scrounge up a bit more to donate to Planned Parenthood, I guess.

    Good idea.

    Whenever the forced birthers/female slavers do something particularly horrible, I donate to the local Planned Parenthood. It’s time again. So do a lot of people, last time PP was attacked, the local one had their donations double.

    PS By all acounts Steve Green is your typical evil, ugly minded xian Dominionist. He has made $5 billion. He has money. Now he wants power.

    Trying to prohibit contraception to women is just a first step. He has more plans like this.

  12. Pyra says

    I used to shop there, regularly, as it tended to be the place to go for art and craft supplies. I once walked to the door, saw the rather smug placard indicating they closed on Sunday for religious reasons, and decided not to go in again (Chikfila had something similar and I did the same to them before the fiasco.) That was several years ago. Now, to find out which companies are taking this decision and running with it. They won’t be in the spotlight, like HL, so it’s going to be harder to see who is doing so, unless they also start placing signs on their doors.

  13. says

    BREAKING! SCOTUS makes it legal for religious business owners to throw acid in faces of underperforming female employees.

    BREAKING! SCOTUS makes it legal for religious business owners to truck-bomb locations of secular competitors.

  14. dorght says

    Wow, really poor reporting. So that’s what CNN is most trusted to do. In their rush to post they didn’t even change the future tense on the speculation about how the SCOTUS the rule on the cut and paste below the first two paragraphs. But nobody reads past the first two paragraphs anyhow, right?

  15. Alverant says

    The comments in the story are frightening. More of the “they shouldn’t have to pay if they don’t want to” and “they should find another job” and (of course) whines of christian persecution. Also CNN is busy deleting posts that point out the consequences of this ruling.

  16. labguy says

    Pandora’s box is open. What’s next blood components? Pork products including bovine insulin and heart valves? There are a lot of religions out there opposed to a lot of things. This is sickening

  17. ebotebo says

    To paraphrase a term I heard in Oregon years ago: They need to be kicked in the ass(scotus), fucked in the butt and thrown in the creek!

  18. OldEd says

    I think we can do more than boycott… We can PICKET the bastards. And, in addition, by extending the spirit of the Massachusetts clinic protection zone case, we can “have quiet conversations” with anybody foolish enough to want to patronize HL. You know, talk to them, just as the anti-abortion pickets do, only our message is that HL won’t take care of their employees health.

    And just how well does HL pay it’s employees, anyway? If they are like any of the other religious nutcases I”ve run across, it is strictly minimum wage, just like Walmart, etc.

  19. gmacs says

    Fortunately, every Hobby Lobby I’ve ever been near has a Michael’s or a JoAnne’s Fabrics right next to it. Since I really only go to hobby shops for knitting supplies, that’s an easy one for me.

    Although you still have to find an actual knitting store if you want anything other than goddamned 100% acrylic.

  20. busterggi says

    The extreme right-wingers are finally right about something – the Vatican does control the SCOTUS>

  21. twas brillig (stevem) says

    Remember everyone, the only way to stop this sort of bullshit is to get out and vote, and to get everyone else out to vote as well.

    yes, but, but, but, isn’t the SCOTUS the final word, that their decisions are irrevocable, and voting to reverse them don’t work??? What can we do about stupid SCOTUS decisions? I often like it when the SCOTUS invalidates a law that the Conkgress enabled but this is the reverse; they’ve bolstered that (f)law. We can’t even avenge that decision by voting them out of office; it’s lifetime (to keep them impartial). I, too, agree, that the 5 should have recused themselves as “not impartial”; but what can be done ex poste facto? We’re doomed. With the SCOTUS reneging on the 1st, we’re lost.
    :-(

  22. raven says

    Female Contraception
    www. clevelandclinicmeded. com/…/diseasemanagement/womens…/femal…

    by S Kothari – ‎Related articles
    Feb 13, 2013 – Female Contraception Online Medical Reference – covering … and emergency contraception approved for use in the United States. …

    More than 99% of sexually active women have used at least 1 contraceptive method at some time.

    FWIW, according to the US CDC, birth control use among women is 99%, 98% for Catholic women. Responsible adults plan their lives and families.

    This is true of the fundie xian leaders as well. They almost all have small families. Dobson has one biological kid, Steve Green of Hobby Lobby has 3, Bush two, and so on. They don’t want to breed like rabbits. They have better things to do with their time and money. They want their clueless followers to do it instead.

    Oh well, hypocrisy is a fundie xian sacrament.

  23. Etiene says

    That CNN story has a video at the top the placeholder for which features a whole load of young women who appear to be joyous in support of this travesty.

    They’ve just been told their beliefs and bodily autonomy are less important than a corporations “beliefs” and they’re happy about it… WTF?

  24. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Fuuuuuuuuuuuck.
    I literally *just* woke up and I was really really hoping I’d hear good news. Not this shitty news.

  25. raven says

    We’re doomed. With the SCOTUS reneging on the 1st, we’re lost.

    1. Not quite!!!

    The Supreme court can and does reverses previous rulings by the Supreme court. These decisions aren’t carved in stone.

    2. The betting is that the Roberts court will be the most reversed court in history.

    3. However, this can take many decades. It’s a slow process. The ones on the court now have to die of old age or resign first.

    It can happen. It may well happen. It will be decades down the road. By the time it happens, as a Boomer age, I’ll be dead and it won’t matter to me. But it will matter to the kids living today.

  26. Mobius says

    This has been all over the blog-sphere.

    This is, IMHO, just one more terrible decision by the Roberts court.

  27. Pierce R. Butler says

    Per early reporting from Talking Points Memo, the decision applies to “closely held” corporations, not those most of whose ownership consists of shares regularly traded by the general market of investors: a small but significant silver lining.

    And why do people here continue to talk about the “five Catholics” on the Supreme Court, when Sotomayor made it six, years ago? The division in this case breaks down more precisely as the five “Justices” appointed by Republicans and the four picked by Democrats.

  28. Doc Bill says

    It doesn’t stop here. The Hobby Lobby Green family has built a “Museum of the Bible” and through it has created a Bible study course for public schools. The course has been adopted by the Mustang School District in Oklahoma and classes for this elective are scheduled for the Fall semester. The course has been reviewed to see how closely it adheres to its “Bible in history, art and literature” theme and was found to be pure proselytizing, not surprisingly. Schools here in Texas are watching this closely to see how it shakes out.

    Some years ago the Permian School District in Odessa, Texas, ran a Bible study elective course, but it ran aground for a couple of reasons: difficulty in finding a person to teach it, course materials that were blatantly proselytizing, and lack of interest from the students. The last one really cracked me up! All this kerfluffle is being made by fanatical adults and the kids don’t give a rat’s ass. Better things to do, dude.

  29. raven says

    That CNN story has a video at the top the placeholder for which features a whole load of young women who appear to be joyous in support of this travesty.

    It’s bullcrap, propaganda.

    Awaiting Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, public favors …
    www. religionnews. com/…/awaiting-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-ruling-…

    Jun 23, 2014 – And the polls consistently find

    most Americans support the mandate, … by a nearly 2-to-1 margin (61 percent support, 32 percent oppose). ….

    Americans support the BC mandate by a 2 to 1 margin, 61% to 32%. Oddly enough, most of those who support the BC mandate are…xians.

    Steve Green, Hobby Lobby, and the Supreme Court don’t even represent most American xians.

  30. marcus says

    @26 “We’re doomed. With the SCOTUS reneging on the 1st, we’re lost.”
    No we will fight. We will take a lesson from the anti-choice playbook as suggested above and we will teach these assholes the meaning of Pyrrhic victory. It’s time to win the culture war, this was a sad battle to lose but it’s not the war. We should do everything we can to make sure from now on that every dumb-ass anti-woman politician is headed for unemployment.
    Today I am writing a check to Wendy Davis’ campaign, then i am going to see who Elizabeth Warren is stumping for and I am going to contribute to them also.

  31. says

    Boycott Hobby Lobby!!!

    Yeah, this ruling really pisses me off. In my town there is K-Mart, Walmart and Hobby Loony. There *was* another hobby place in town, but they where in a bad location, and closed. So.. If I want, say, material, for a costume, or pretty much anything else that is in the category of things that are sold by such places, its got to come from… Oh, no wait, material isn’t sold by Kame-Apart or Walmart any more, and neither of them had much of a selection of the sort of crap connected to “hobbies” in the first place… This is another tragedy of this sort of BS decision, you can’t just, “Not shop there.”, like a certain group of political idiots would suggest. It might be the only damn place you can go, where you can buy the shit you need (or find it easy, at least). Sigh…

  32. leftwingfox says

    Oh, it gets worse!
    From the decision:

    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

    In other words, they have decided that contraception is a sincere moral belief that needs to be obeyed, while the others are not. I AM FURY.

    Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

    So discriminating against women via the selective withholding certain prescriptions is apparently LEGAL discrimination. I feel _so_ much better now.

    United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which up- held the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s reli- gious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate. Pp. 45–49.

    And more special pleading, because apparently not including prescription drugs in the healthcare plan you pay into monthly because it gives God religious employers a sad boner, is somehow not an undue hardship compared to, say, prescription allergy meds, antacids, psychiatric meds, or any number of prescription drugs used to treat conditions that may not kill us immediately.

    So good news, this doesn’t open the floodgate to all the other religious loons. Bad news, the axe was very deliberately aimed at women. This wasn’t incompetence, this was directed malice.

  33. Etiene says

    It’s bullcrap, propaganda.

    I figured (can’t watch it at work), and I presume there was a similar crowd with the opposite reaction. My point was just that I can’t get my head around celebrating a decision that directly takes away their rights in favour of a corporation…

  34. OldEd says

    Labguy: Insulin has be made by “recombinant means” for a loooooooong time now. Gone are the bad old days of insulin derived from deceased livestock. Now it is all human insulin, grown in E coli or some such.

    Of course, that means we’re fucking with Mother Nature…

  35. carlie says

    Can’t someone sue that the patchwork ridiculousness of our healthcare system is unequal treatment under the law? That worked in New York for unequal school funding (to a point; the state supreme court agreed, but no movement to equalize budgets has been made).

  36. says

    Oh no. No, no, no. I try like hell to avoid HL, but they are the only game in town here in my part of ND. I order most of my art supplies, but there are times I need something right now (like a size 0 sable brush), and there’s no other option. The people who work there (almost all women) really need those jobs, too. Fuck. Fuckety fuck fuck.

  37. Chris J says

    Random angry uninformed reactions on the ruling:

    And HHS’s concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a “person” under RFRA effectively dispatches any argument that the term does not reach for-profit corporations; no conceivable definition of “person” includes natural persons and non-profit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.

    That’s because “person” is a legal fiction, useful only in certain circumstances. We generally feel that non-profit companies can be included because we cut them a lot of slack; they don’t make any money after all. There are many, many cases where distinctions are made between non-profit and for-profit, why claim you can’t make one here?

    HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot“exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion. The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputably protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit-making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the Court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants.

    Individuals can be argued to have a religion, hence why individual merchants could be included under RFRA. Corporations are not equal to the people that make them up according to the “personhood” thing, they are their own entity (as far as I know). And again, we tend to cut non-profit organizations some slack because of the lack of profit.

    I guess I could see the argument if they wanted to say that “closely-held corporations” are basically just one step removed from individual merchants… but that’s not what’s going on here. This particular section seems to be opening the door for any corporation to “exercise religion” because of a claimed inability to draw a line.

    The silver lining, (the very small silver lining) is that when they talk about how the government as failed to argue that the mandate was the least burdensome method of providing coverage, they mention that the government could just provide free birth control rather than including it in health care plans. Which would be nice. But then they follow up with this stinker:

    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

    Oh really? And what makes this case different than other religious beliefs, exactly? Because abortion is much more icky to you than blood transfusions? That’s honestly the only thing I could come up with, because without making a value judgement on the thing in question, what other line is there?

    *sigh* Welp, time to push for government-provided birth control. If that fails, you can go back to SCOTUS and point out that there is, in fact, no less burdensome option for a recognized state interest.

  38. says

    Now, since Hobby Lobby is so dead set against contraception, I guess they mustt offer great maternity benefits, right?
    They also have company sponsored daycare and if you need to take the day off because the kiddo is sick it’s totally paid time, right?
    Right?
    People, I’m getting short on oxygen here….

  39. busterggi says

    Um, folks who are ‘forced’ to shop at Hobby Lobby Chapels – there’s this thing called the internet and…

  40. carlie says

    Inaji, if there’s ever something you can’t find online but can wait for, I’d be happy to shop around here for you and mail stuff to you.

  41. carlie says

    Um, folks who are ‘forced’ to shop at Hobby Lobby Chapels – there’s this thing called the internet and…

    And when your kid has an art project for a history class due on Monday (don’t even get me started) and it’s Saturday afternoon and you’ve run out of paint because it got messed up at the last minute and you have to start over and HL is the only store in a 50 mile radius, how is your “internet” going to help with that?

  42. says

    The conservative justices make an excellent case for universal, government-funded health care. Probably not their intention. /sarcasm

  43. says

    busterggi:

    Um, folks who are ‘forced’ to shop at Hobby Lobby Chapels – there’s this thing called the internet and…

    You can fuck right off with that. Going the compleat asshole route doesn’t help. It sure as shit doesn’t help me when I’m in the middle of an art piece, need something, and don’t have time to wait on an order (as well as resent having to pay premium shipping for said needed item), as I’m on a bloody deadline.

    Are you an artist? Do you live someplace where there are no other art supply stores? Do you know what it’s like to have a brush go south on you in the middle of a fucking painting? Are you someone who is magically psychic and knows exactly what you’ll need at any given moment? Do you have enough money to order a fucktonne of supplies on the off chance you just might need them someday?

    See my previous @ 44. Then fuck the hell off.

  44. says

    Carlie:

    Inaji, if there’s ever something you can’t find online but can wait for, I’d be happy to shop around here for you and mail stuff to you.

    Thank you, Carlie. I may well take you up on that.

  45. says

    “Today’s decision jeopardizes women’s access to essential health care. Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors. This ruling ignores the scientific evidence showing that the health security of millions of American women is strengthened by access to these crucial services,” Reid [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)] said in a statement. “If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will. We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/reid-hobby-lobby-statement

  46. says

    In other words, they have decided that contraception is a sincere moral belief that needs to be obeyed, while the others are not. I AM FURY.

    Yeah, while it’s a good thing that the ruling is narrowly tailored just to contraceptives, it also demonstrates the complete cravenness of the Roberts court. They realized that if a corporation doesn’t have to follow generally applicable law because it’s a person with religious beliefs, however arbitrary those beliefs may be, then you’ve suddenly tossed out virtually all employment or anti-discrimination law, and given employers virtual dictatorial powers over workers. But we don’t want that. So, um, contraception is just like, totally different from blood transfusions and stuff.

  47. raven says

    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

    This doesn’t make sense.

    1. Why doesn’t this ruling cover anti-transfusion, anti-Vaxxer, and anti-medicine pro faith healing corporations?

    Those are religious beliefs and every bit as equivalent as anything Steve Green can make up.

    2. Seems like the Supreme court is contradicting themselves in the same ruling. Some religious beliefs are covered by the Orwellian named Religous Freedom Restoration Act and some are not.

    The court appears to be picking and choosing which religious beliefs are real and legitimate and which aren’t. Bad law making basis.

  48. Alverant says

    The defenders of the decision have said this is a narrow ruling so it can’t be applied to “denial of blood transfusions” and the like. But if that were true then the decision is invalid because it gives one religion special rights which is a violation of the non-establishment clause.

  49. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    busterggi:

    Um, folks who are ‘forced’ to shop at Hobby Lobby Chapels – there’s this thing called the internet and…

    I’m sure you mean well, but what makes you think they don’t already know this?

  50. carlie says

    Inaji – you can always email at carliesinternet at yahoo. I don’t check it every day, but several times a week, and if I’m clued in here to go check it I might see it sooner.

  51. loreo says

    We need single payer! Why in the FUCK are our employers involved with our health care?

  52. says

    I haven’t read any of the articles reporting on the Hobby Lobby decision. Just the headlines were enough to dangerously raise my blood pressure. Nevertheless, I’m going to go out on a limb — one about the size of a normal tree — and guess that the majority comprises Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Breyers (or was it Kennedy?). So, it was either four Catholics and one Jew, or a clean sweep of five Catholics.

    But, you know, all the justices put aside their personal opinions and beliefs when ruling on cases.

    Yeah, right.

  53. busterggi says

    Inagi; “Are you an artist? Do you live someplace where there are no other art supply stores? Do you know what it’s like to have a brush go south on you in the middle of a fucking painting?”

    Yes, I worked on miniatures for decades. Yes, none of the art supply or hobby stores in my area carry what I need and haven’t since the early ’00’s. Yes, pain in the ass isn’t it.

    But know what? I manage to survive.

  54. Denverly says

    Fuck. Just, well, fuck. I am well and truly gobsmacked. I have no idea what else to even say.

  55. says

    busterggi:

    But know what? I manage to survive.

    Yeah, so do I, asshole. Convenient of you not to answer, so I guess you are magically psychic and overly gifted with money. You should contact Randi, I’m sure you could use a million to keep your supplies in order.

  56. morgan ?! epitheting a metaphor says

    Way the hell back when John Kennedy was running for President there was a lot of pearl clutching going on over his Catholicism. Folks were worried that the country would be run by the Vatican. Oh for the good old days. Of course that was when women, with all their “female troubles” were still pretty invisible.

    This ruling isn’t about fucking religion, it is about fucking women. As always.

  57. says

    i wonder what will happen if all those atheist scientists will refuse to sell their products such as medicine,cars,electronic devices to people of a certain religious belief. I also wonder what will happen if all the trained academia and atheist scientists will refuse to work with christian business owners.the boycot has to be full

  58. says

    The problem will be this decision is now precedent and can be enlarged. Right after Citizens United one of the rich dudes trying to buy elections sued Montana over a law they created decades earlier when copper companies ran the state. Of course it was easy for SCOTUS to overturn Montana law (what about state’s rights, fellow, or is that selective to, 9th amendment only applies to your favorite issues). Now all that is required is some clever lawyer to take the language of this decision and go a step further and soon anything can be banned. Of course, the Warren Court did a lot of this too (Roe is based on a dubious, but good (for us) precedent). Of course the conservatives denounced that and demanded strict constructionism – yeah, for the other side. This is legislating from the bench which the right routinely does but denounces when the other side does it. And Scalia is an “originalist” – I don’t see much in the Constitution (or the Founder’s intent) about either corporations or birth control. In short, the court is now just politics and the right controls it and after Obama they’ll get the fifth reliable vote (instead of Kennedy as a swing vote) when Ginsburg has to retire. Once they have that fifth vote how much more legislating from the bench will we see, how many more rights denied, how much more religion enforced by government.

    It’s a dark day, but no surprise given the decade long plan of the Federalist Society to take over the court.

  59. Chris J says

    In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.” And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government, i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab.

    Well boom. The dissent hits the nail on the head with the first paragraph. Also the bolded part, which didn’t enter into the ruling at all.

  60. says

    So…
    Because of the ruling against Planned Parenthood buffer zones, does this mean we are free to block the doors of Hobby Lobby stores in order to exercise our “free speech” to “counsel” people not to shop there?

  61. unclefrogy says

    my hope and my expectation is this decision will be judged as another Dred Scott type decision. It re-enforces the idea that a corporation is a person and as an employer is superior to simple employees and can more control of those who agree to work for them in maters that are not part of the work they are employed to do.

    it seems that some are more equal than others some do not have to contribute their fair share toward the expenses required to be a modern 21century country, and have more say in how the government works they have a larger voice. Now it has been affirmed some have more power over other people’s personal lives.

    uncle frogy

  62. mbrysonb says

    So utterly incoherent I can’t begin to interpret it. Corporations are fake legal persons, invented to protect owners from liability. How can the owner’s religious beliefs somehow infect this legal fiction? And how can religious freedom be ‘protected’ by empowering owners to impose their beliefs on employees? And how can one religious tenet (about birth control) be privileged (even to the extent of not being subject to an evidential standard) while others (eating meat on Friday or not having blood transfusions) are somehow ruled out? Wow. Wow and unholy fuck.

  63. llelldorin says

    Inaji, how big is the artistic community in your area, and how trustworthy? Any chance of getting a coop together, so you could collectively maintain a small storage unit with common supplies?

    Granted, you’d still be stuck if you needed something uncommon, but it might at least deal with “oh, crap, there goes my brush and I need to mail this off in two days” situations.

    If your art “community” consists of three people and you wouldn’t trust either of the other two with a $5 bill, never mind.

  64. busterggi says

    Inaji: “Yeah, so do I, asshole. Convenient of you not to answer”

    So if I didn’t answer what are you responding to?

    BTW, I managed not to call you any names earlier fuckwit.

  65. What a Maroon, oblivious says

    Alverant @56,

    The defenders of the decision have said this is a narrow ruling so it can’t be applied to “denial of blood transfusions” and the like. But if that were true then the decision is invalid because it gives one religion special rights which is a violation of the non-establishment clause.

    Per leftwingfox @37, it’s the SC itself that says this doesn’t apply to blood transfusions etc. Sort of like how Bush v. Gore doesn’t set a precedent.

    More generally, this is why we need a single-payer system.

  66. dannysichel says

    Hypothetically, could Hobby Lobby be sued on the grounds that the copper IUD doesn’t work the way that they think it does and it should therefore be exempt from their exemption?

    that is, since its mechanism of action is essentially spermicidal in nature, thereby preventing the fertilization of eggs rather than their implantation in the uterine wall, the copper IUD doesn’t actually clash with their Sincerely-Held Religious Beliefs.

    It’d be interesting to see a lawsuit based on the idea that religious beliefs don’t trump actual facts.

  67. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    busterggi:

    So if I didn’t answer what are you responding to?

    BTW, I managed not to call you any names earlier fuckwit.

    You’re being condescending and presumptuous.
    She’s an artist. She’s aware of the ways in which she can acquire the tools she needs, which includes the Internet. She doesn’t need to explain to you why ordering off the net doesn’t work for her needs.
    Also, “I manage to survive” describes your situation, which isn’t hers.

    Why are you being a douchebag about this?

  68. says

    llelldorin:

    Inaji, how big is the artistic community in your area, and how trustworthy?

    Fairly large, but highly insular, and very spread out. The spread out is a problem.

    Any chance of getting a coop together, so you could collectively maintain a small storage unit with common supplies?

    Oh, I wish. Long days ago, there was a *great* art supply store in Bismarck, but the owner decided to retire, and no one has stepped up since.

  69. says

    Busterggi:

    BTW, I managed not to call you any names earlier fuckwit.

    If you’re going to be a condescending asshole, you shouldn’t be surprised when you’re called one.

    So, Mr. I paint miniatures…miniature what?* Miniature paintings, dollhouse miniatures, game miniatures? Is that how you make your living?
     
    I paint Warhammer and Reaper miniatures, for fun. That’s not how I make my living.

  70. says

    busterggi, I’m privileged. I can drive to Michael’s, Aaron Bros, Joann’s, a family-owned bead shop, and a decent art supply store if I need supplies on short notice, all within twenty minutes of my home, max. Other people aren’t as lucky as I am. To quote Sam Vimes, go stick your head up a duck’s bottom.

    There are times when the real world just gets in the way of your principles, and there’s no way around it.

    Inaji, let me know if there’s anything I could track down for you, any time, if you can wait for the mail from Southern California.

  71. says

    So much for the Establishment Clause. The US government is now endorsing religion, allowing the religious to dictate government-run health care based on religious grounds.

  72. says

    Anne D:

    Aaron Bros

    Oh gods, I miss them. Back when I was in So Cal, they were close to my second home. The Jo-Ann’s in Bismarck has started carrying a very small amount of art supplies, I dearly wish they’d carry more (and yes, I’ve made noise to the manager about that.)

    Thanks so much for the offer.

  73. busterggi says

    To all of Inaji and her supporters: I’m sorry but a professional artist ought to have some idea what supplies are needed for their liveyhood better than a poor amateur like me. Shit does happen in life and throwing a hissy fit won’t clean it up.

    Maybe if she hadn’t started calling me names I could be more sympathetic but as you have joined her in the namecalling kindly go fuck yourselves – and use a roller when you do.

  74. says

    Inaji, I know what you mean. Sometimes I find an excuse to drop into Aaron Bros, or the Utrecht Art store near Cal State Fullerton, and just browse. There’s something about art supply stores that soothes me.

  75. says

    Anne D:

    There’s something about art supply stores that soothes me.

    Same here. There was one in Irvine that was my favourite. Any excuse at all…

  76. fredericksparks says

    These were the 5 Catholic MEN. I think that’s important to note

    As for the “narrownesss” of the ruling:

    “according to studies from Columbia University and New York University, closely held corporations employed 52 percent of the American workforce and accounted for slightly more than half — 51 percent — of economic output from the private sector”

    I’ve heard that people begged Thurgood Marshall to try to hang on a little longer…if he had been able to then Clinton would have had that pick….

  77. Pteryxx says

    Analysis of the case has so far called this a limited ruling because it only applies to closely-held corporations and “only” impacts contraceptive coverage. But this framing completely ignores the fact that more than 90 percent of corporations in the United States are closely-held, and that the court just effectively ruled that it’s fine for employers to discriminate against half of the labor force. There’s nothing limited about it.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/06/30/there_was_nothing_limited_about_scotus_hobby_lobby_ruling_why_it_matters_for_everyone/

  78. Hekuni Cat, MQG says

    Etiene @28:

    That CNN story has a video at the top the placeholder for which features a whole load of young women who appear to be joyous in support of this travesty.

    I was at the pro-choice Supreme Court demonstration this morning. There were twice as many pro-choice women there.* Even with a bullhorn, they couldn’t shout us down.

    *And many pro-choice men as well.

  79. Pteryxx says

    from the same Salon article in my #88:

    It also shows once again that medically inaccurate ideas about healthcare can dictate the terms of a debate and ultimately win the day. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that contesting Hobby Lobby’s claim that contraception is the same thing as abortion — an idea that has been refuted time and again by medical providers and associations — “in effect tells the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed.”

  80. zenlike says

    So after corporations have gotten the same rights as natural persons, the SCOTUS has now rules they have more rights then natural persons.

    I try to avoid the word ‘evil’, but there is no other word I can really use to describe this ruling.

    Not only is this ruling going into the direction of more theocracy and less freedom, it is also furthering the path towards a society in which corporations more or less ‘own’ the people working for them. If that doesn’t scare the shit out of everyone, I don’t know what will.

    37 leftwingfox

    Oh, it gets worse!
    From the decision:

    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

    In other words, they have decided that contraception is a sincere moral belief that needs to be obeyed, while the others are not. I AM FURY.

    Oh, it’s very simple, those other things can also harm men, while the contraceptive mandate mainly harms women.

    But there is no war on women going on.
    I repeat: there is no war on woman.

    Go to bed America, your corporate masters will keep you save.

  81. says

    Pteryxx:

    Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that contesting Hobby Lobby’s claim that contraception is the same thing as abortion — an idea that has been refuted time and again by medical providers and associations — “in effect tells the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed.

    Oh FFS. I’m speechless.

  82. sammy96604 says

    What is Hobby Lobby going to do now? Are they going to find a provider or plan that excludes the specific birth control they think is evil?

  83. magistramarla says

    Gee, I miss Beverly’s – the local craft store on the Monterey Peninsula. At first I thought that it was just local, but later found that it’s a California chain. I loved it more than Michael’s for my crocheting supplies. There were no Hobby Lobbies, Chikfilas, Wal Marts or Sam’s on the peninsula.
    The communities there tended to support local and west coast based companies.
    I now live in Texas, where the bigot companies reign supreme. Luckily, we do have a Michael’s, and that is where I spend my money.
    Question – Can the employees of HL and others like them bypass the employer-based insurance and go directly to the exchanges? If not, can a loophole be found to allow this?

  84. lopsided says

    Does anyone still believe the Roberts court won’t overturn Roe v Wade if they have the chance? Keep dreaming. Lawyers and activists need to be really careful about the cases they send before this pack of fascists.

  85. says

    Just think of what a Christian Scientist business owner can do: “My religion teaches that science-based medical care is sinful, so we don’t have to cover ANY kind of medical care.” And if this works for medical care, what will this do when people start demanding a religious right not to hire people of the “wrong” religion or “wrong” gender or “wrong” ethnicity or “wrong” race? Bigots have been using religion to justify hate for millennia, after all.

  86. says

    From Pteryxx’s link in comment #88:

    […]

    more than 90 percent of corporations in the United States are closely-held and that the court just effectively ruled that it’s fine for employers to discriminate against half of the labor force. There’s nothing limited about it. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her powerful dissent, far from being narrow in its ruling, the high court just “ventured into a minefield.” […]

  87. says

    Republicans are very happy with this SCOTUS decision, but they are far from done when it comes to limiting the rights of women to control their own reproductive systems.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Saturday to focus more attention on limiting abortions if Republicans take control of the Senate in November.

    Speaking to the National Right to Life Convention in his home state of Kentucky, the Senate’s top Republican suggested Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has blocked the upper-chamber from voting on bills that would limit women’s rights to abortion, according to conservative website Townhall.com.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/210903-mcconnell-id-fight-to-limit-abortions-in-gop-senate

  88. says

    Giliell:

    Does anybody actually believe that either Hobby Lobby or SCOTUS really think that contraception is abortion and that therefore it is OK to exclude it?

    Eh, some devout Catholics and a lot of fundamentalists do believe that. However, I think, given what Alito wrote, that it was unthinkable to tell the plaintiffs their beliefs were flawed, the answer in this case is a big ol’ NO.

  89. says

    Of course, the contraception rule, the New York Times points out, “relied on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers that concluded that birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary ‘to ensure women’s health and well-being.’”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hobby-lobby-religious-rights-secular-profit-corporations-just-one-time

    SCOTUS just said, in effect, “To hell with those doctors and researchers. To hell with science.”

  90. says

    Anti-gay activists are rejoicing at the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby today, in part because they are hopeful that the decision will pave the way for one of their own policy goals: to use the religious liberty argument to push for broad exemptions for corporations from nondiscrimination laws.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-gay-activists-hopeful-hobby-lobby-will-lead-license-discriminate

    See the collection of tweets from rightwing whackadoodles at the link.

  91. Akira MacKenzie says

    Subbie @ 2

    In theory, this extension of personal rights to a corporation can be undone by amending the RFRA.

    In practice, that isn’t going to happen. Not with the House packed with Tea-Baggers and a Democrats in both the Senate and the White House more concerned with winning elections by playing to the slightly-less right rather than appeal to the actual Left. (And don’t get me started on the joke the Left in America is; you can’t bring down capitalism and religion by waving signs at Wall Street, organizing drum circles, and other hippie-dippy bulslhit. You only end up pepper sprayed, curb stomped, and laughed at by that large portion of the “99 percent” who side with the pigs.)

    raven @ 6

    Boycott Hobby Lobby!!!

    Riiiiight, because the Chick-Fil-A boycott worked soooo well especially after fundie-gelicals started to organize “show your support for homophobic fast food places” days.

    Right, because a boycott worked so well against Chick-Fil-A, especially after the Bible-humpers organized to support them.

    Face it folks, here in the United $tate$ of AmeriKKKa, there are more of them than there are of us.

    loreo @ 59

    We need single payer!

    loreo @ 59

    Why in the FUCK are our employers involved with our health care?

    Because thanks to the conservatives and libertarians, they own this country.

    They own us.

  92. raven says

    Does anybody actually believe that either Hobby Lobby or SCOTUS really think that contraception is abortion and that therefore it is OK to exclude it?

    NO!!!

    1. BC use among American women in relevant cohorts runs 99% as I posted above with documentation. It’s 98% for Catholic women.

    2. ” This is true of the fundie xian leaders as well. They almost all have small families. Dobson has one biological kid, Steve Green of Hobby Lobby has 3, Bush two, and so on.
    They don’t want to breed like rabbits. They have better things to do with their time and money. They want their clueless followers to do it instead.

    Oh well, hypocrisy is a fundie xian sacrament.”

    3. This is more about power and who gets oppressed by who than anything else.

    Steve Green, Chief Oogedy Boogedy xian of Hobby Lobby only has three children. With modern medicine, he and his ambulatory baby maker could have had 12 or 20. It’s highly likely he has used BC in the past. This is true of virtually all the fundie leaders.

  93. says

    More responses from rightwing addlepated flea brains:

    The Franciscan University of Steubenville compared businesses that don’t want to provide their employees with contraception coverage to religious martyrs in ancient Rome.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-reacts-hobby-lobby-decision-victory-over-king-george-iii-and-subsidized-co-0

    If we play our cards right, and God grants us a favor, we can use this as a momentum changer. That’s mainly thanks to the Green family, who just became the Rosa Parks of the religious liberty fight. Just as her refusal to comply with an unjust edict on a bus one day blew the lid off the civil rights movement, perhaps the Greens’ refusal to comply with Obamacare’s unjust edict can accomplish the same for a similarly worthy cause.

    But that won’t happen if we “settle” for this win like we have all too many others. [quoted from Steve Deace]

    And here’s the American Family Association Poll:
    What’s your initial reaction to Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?
    – So proud of Hobby Lobby for standing firm
    – HUGE victory for religious freedom in America
    – Praise the Lord! Definitely an answer to prayers
    Vote
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/ap/legal/justices-cant-make-employers-cover-contraception

  94. sherlock says

    Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, but so is the insurance company that sells it employee health insurance. Now the insurance company knows that it is on the hook for increased expenses related to prenatal and neonatal care in excess of what it would have incurred if the policy covered contraception. As a result, the insurance company has a basis for seeking an increased premium for Hobby Lobby-like corporations as opposed to corporations that will provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance. I really wonder if Hobby Lobby will be so all-fired xian when management starts to pay substantially increased premiums for their mandated health care coverage.

  95. says

    In comment #105, I messed up my block quoting tags, but I’m sure you can figure out that’s not me calling the Green family the “Rosa Parks of the religious liberty fight.”

    Writers at Think Progress expressed the opinion that the ruling actually hurts people of faith.

  96. Al Dente says

    busterggi @82

    Maybe if she hadn’t started calling me names I could be more sympathetic but as you have joined her in the namecalling kindly go fuck yourselves – and use a roller when you do.

    Maybe you should stop tone trolling. It makes you look like a whiny asshole. Unless your objective is to look like a whiny asshole, then keep right on tone trolling.

  97. raven says

    Riiiiight, because the Chick-Fil-A boycott worked soooo well especially after fundie-gelicals started to organize “show your support for homophobic fast food places” days.

    You got a better idea? I’d like to hear it.

    It’s something that can be done and I for one, will never set foot in a Hobby Lobby. You won’t know if it will work until you try it.

    I’m also going to donate (again) to the local Planned Parenthood. I do that whenever the forced birthers/female slavers appall me. It’s something to do other than complaining on an internet board and does do some good.

    Face it folks, here in the United $tate$ of AmeriKKKa, there are more of them than there are of us.

    Probably not. Polls show even most xians supported the BC mandate of the ACA. The Oogedy Boogedies only make up 25-30% of the population and that is dropping at 1% a year.

  98. elly says

    richardelguru@1:

    I once went in there, but all they had was crap.

    I really wish I had some desire to do business with the swine, so I could refuse to do it.

    Me too. My daughter is quite the artist, plus she also creates props for cosplay, so we’re always on the lookout for good sources of art/craft supplies. Several years ago, when we were living in Kennewick, WA, we noticed a Hobby Lobby store had opened up in a local shopping center. We’d never heard of the chain before so, the next time we were out and about, we decided to look the place over.

    We spent approximately 15 minutes walking through the store and walked out again without spending a dime. This is something that NEVER happens when a) I have my daughter in tow; and b) we’re strolling through an art/craft store. But both of our opinions coincided with yours: the place was wall-to-wall crap. We never went back.

    Yeah, I’d boycott Hobby Lobby in a heartbeat… except I’ve been inadvertently doing that ever since I became aware of its existence.

  99. says

    I’m quite surprised of how inneficiently the usa is run. The entire country revolves around a 200 year old document that’s sort of impossible to change. Despite being quite advanced when it was written it is becoming outdated by new developments. Nevertheless people cite this document as literally a work of divinity. So the entire country stagnates because people do not dare to change that document and bring it into the 21st century. Americans are going through the same struggle in adapting the constituion to modern times as christians are with adapting the leviticus. sometimes people must forget about history and look at the evidence

  100. raven says

    Writers at Think Progress expressed the opinion that the ruling actually hurts people of faith.

    1. Maybe. I don’t see that anyone has any data on this opinion.

    Polls show Americans support the BC mandate 2 to 1. So even a lot of xians are going to be appalled by this.

    2. The data does show US xianity is dying. It’s losing 2-3 million members a year. To take one example, the SBC just reported an 0.9% drop, the seventh year in a row.

    3. I’d like to think the uglier the xians get, the less there are. It’s common sense. But it is going to take many years worth of data to make sure of that idea.

  101. says

    Given that birth control is part of a maintenance heath care for women. Wouldn’t this mean that women working at these companies would be at a higher risk of health problems therefore the insurance companies could just raise their rates and in effect completely nullify the benefits of this for such companies?

    Also couldn’t employees fight that companies that do restrict a maintenance health care option for their workers be accountable for the difference in cost?

    I am fairly certain that no employee of HL has filled out a waiver saying they will live by Catholic ideals and doctrine.

  102. raven says

    I am fairly certain that no employee of HL has filled out a waiver saying they will live by Catholic ideals and doctrine.

    And you won’t.

    Green is a fundie xian Protestant Oogedy Boogedy!!!

    I don’t know if he hates Catholics and the RCC but he might. A lot of fundies consider it the Church of satan. It says that right on the website of the Wisconsin Lutherans, Bachmann’s cult.

  103. Chris J says

    Since Hobby Lobby objected to the contraception because they thought it was the same as abortion, I wonder if they are allowed to deny actual abortive services due to pregnancy complications as well, or any other pregnancy-related big surgeries. It seems they could, despite the “narrow ruling.”

  104. carlie says

    Maybe what everyone should do is write a letter/email to Hobby Lobby every time they spend money in a different craft store explaining how much they spent and why they wouldn’t spend it at HL instead. That way even if you’ve never shopped there, they can get an earful.

  105. says

    from the same Salon article in my #88:

    It also shows once again that medically inaccurate ideas about healthcare can dictate the terms of a debate and ultimately win the day. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that contesting Hobby Lobby’s claim that contraception is the same thing as abortion — an idea that has been refuted time and again by medical providers and associations — “in effect tells the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed.”

    Well, he’s got a point about that. It shouldn’t be up to the courts or other parts of government to tell the religious what their beliefs are. Lots of things that they believe are objectively wrong, but they still have a right to those beliefs.

    But this just underscores the utter inanity of allowing them to foist those beliefs on others. If the courts are going to take a punt on whether certain beliefs are correct or not, they should erect clear barriers to prevent them from being enforced on others.

  106. What a Maroon, oblivious says

    Area Man @118,

    Clearly Alito was suffering from pronoun troubles. What he meant to say was, “in effect tells the plaintiffs that their my beliefs are flawed.”

  107. says

    For some weird reason I thought they were Catholic.

    An interesting outcome from a sometimes rational position.

    “This decision is a double-edged disaster,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in a press release.

    Interfaith Alliance president Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, decried the ruling as a “grave error.” He is bothered by all the unanswered questions.

    Rev. Harry Knox, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, issued a statement disputing the idea that a corporation can have religious rights: “No matter how closely-held, a corporation is still not a spiritual being – it does not pray or sit in the pews or bring casseroles to the congregational picnic like my family and I do. It is an insult to the uniquely sacred community cultivated by congregations to consider for-profit corporations legally synonymous with a religious institution.”

  108. says

    Inaji

    I order most of my art supplies, but there are times I need something right now (like a size 0 sable brush), and there’s no other option. The people who work there (almost all women) really need those jobs, too. Fuck. Fuckety fuck fuck.

    The obvious (to me) although impractical solution is a class action suit on behalf of the employees on grounds of discrimination, with the award being in the form of seized assets rather than cash. Then the building and stock could be given to the employees, who could then continue to run it and keep the money. Everyone benefits, which is why it’s impossible to implement in the U.S.

  109. says

    Area Man @

    So beliefs trump facts?

    When it comes to determining what is or isn’t a “sincerely held religious belief”, then yes. It doesn’t matter if what the person believes is stupid or easily disprovable.

    By the way, Ginsburg agrees with this in her dissent. I can’t cut and paste unfortunately, but see pages 21-22. She disputes that the contraceptive mandate is a “substantial burden” on the exercise of their religious beliefs, and that the plaintiffs and court majority did not bother demonstrating a burden beyond their mere say-so, much less a substantial one. But she does not dispute that it’s a “sincerely held belief” of the plaintiffs that contraception destroys embryos, which the court must accept.

    So Alito’s statement wasn’t even a point of contention as far as the court was concerned. I guess he felt the need to say it because it was one of the few things that wasn’t bullshit.

  110. Chris J says

    @Area Man:

    I’ve found that cutting and pasting gets broken if you include one of the end-of-line hyphens in the selection. If you select everything up to the hyphen, it should work. I just cut and pasted in pieces.

  111. Akira MacKenzie says

    When it comes to determining what is or isn’t a “sincerely held religious belief”, then yes.

    Next question: Do you really think, I give a rat ass about anyone’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” and their supposed “right’ to have them?

    If government can’t force–yes, FORCE–people to accept established, demonstrable, undeniable, A-is-A reality, then government serves no purpose.

  112. says

    Unfortunately, Hobby Lobby is the only place I have that’s even semi-convenient to do anything remotely arts related. There’s a Michaels about an hour drive away, but if I need art supplies, Hobby Lobby is really my only choice. I avoid them whenever I can, but haven’t found a better substitute. Any good places online that has the decent selection without just gouging you with bundles or shipping?

  113. Denverly says

    @Dalillama, Schmott Guy

    I don’t think a discrimination suit would work. I’d love it if it would, but discrimination is a very narrowly-defined legal claim that generally results in adverse employment consequences based on a protected characteristic. My guess would be that there are no adverse employment consequences for refusing to provide birth control under the company insurance plan.

    I just don’t understand how the rights of the owner to impose their religion trumps the employee’s right to adequate medical care. Boggles my mind.

  114. Chris J says

    @Akira:

    Government is not in the business of declaring facts. It is in the business of acting on them, but otherwise its job is not to dictate what people should believe. That’s why the content of beliefs aren’t touched in the courts, only their consequences.

    Now, not providing insurance that covers contraception is just bad in its own right. It harms people who need them but aren’t rich enough to pay for them, and the court didn’t address that harm (something the dissent rightly noted). You can argue this without bothering with whether the belief “contraception=abortion” is true.

  115. says

    Thanks Chris. I also found that the crazy idea of downloading the pdf helped a lot too. Here is the relevant part of Ginsburg’s dissent as applies to establishing a sincerely held belief (most citations omitted):

    The Court barely pauses to inquire whether any burden imposed by the contraceptive coverage requirement is substantial. Instead, it rests on the Greens’ and Hahns’ “belie[f] that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulations is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage.” I agree with the Court that the Green and Hahn families’ religious convictions regarding contraception are sincerely held. See Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715 (courts are not to question where an individual “dr[aws] the line” in defining which practices run afoul of her religious beliefs). But those beliefs, however deeply held, do not suffice to sustain a RFRA claim. RFRA, properly understood, distinguishes between “factual allegations that [plaintiffs’] beliefs are sincere and of a religious nature,” which a court must accept as true, and the “legal conclusion . . . that [plaintiffs’] religious exercise is substantially burdened,” an inquiry the court must undertake.

    She goes on to point out that the court didn’t bother trying to meet the substantial burden test, and that it doesn’t make sense anyway for the rather obvious reason that the decision as to whether or not to take a contraceptive is between a woman and her doctor, not something that forces Hobby Lobby to alter their beliefs. But the problem here, legally speaking anyway, isn’t that their belief about what contraceptives do to embryos is medically wrong. The courts don’t adjudicate that, and with good reason.

  116. Tethys says

    I am having a hard time believing that in 2014, my country decided that one rich MALE religious asshole with a fairly crappy store has the right to make reproductive health choices for all of his female employees.

    I can only hope this fuels the most furious backlash ever seen against the religious right wing, and the concept of corporations as people.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written a 35 page dissent that is characterized as scathing.

    I don’t find the dry legal language near scathing enough. It needs far more fucks and references to religious male bigots with medieval attitudes towards women.

  117. opus says

    Don’t EVER forget the rule by which fundamentalist christians live:

    “The State’s responsibility for a child begins at conception and ends at birth.”
    No day care, no education, no laws against child labor, no work-place protection: all that is un-christian.

    [sarcasm off]

    I’m tempted to go to HL, see if I can squeeze $1,000 worth of goods into a shopping cart, let them ring it all up and then walk out after expressing my displeasure. Let the owners pay for re-shelving the items.

  118. says

    Hillary Clinton was also asked about the fact that her husband Bill signed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which provided the basis for the Court’s decision, while he was president. She contended that extending religious rights to private corporations was an outcome that no one expected.

    At that point, there were legitimate cases of discrimination against religions,” she said. “This is certainly a use that no one foresaw.”

    Bullshit highlighted.

  119. hexidecima says

    Hobby Lobby is indeed closed on Sundays. But, being the pious frauds they are, they depend entirely on people working on Sundays to get their products made and delivered to them. So, they encourage people to sin *and* they deny their god by not murdering anyone they find working on the “Sabbath”.

    The usual TrueChristians, making up their religion as they want.

  120. says

    Next question: Do you really think, I give a rat ass about anyone’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” and their supposed “right’ to have them?

    I should really hope so. That’s the essence of that whole 1st Amendment thing (which by the way, was not what this ruling was based upon).

  121. hexidecima says

    @dwhisper, sometimes taking a stand requires sacrifice. If you buy from Hobby Lobby, you are supporting them.

    If I have a sincerely held belief in sharia law, that means that the SCOTUS approves that. Funny how the usual teabagger was so worried about Obama allowing sharia law, and it is their kith and kin who have done their best to allow it.

  122. Jackie the wacky says

    Fuck SCOTUS.

    Fuck Citizen’s United.

    Fuck ruling that women can be harassed and threatened. (Yes, someone with ties to terrorists in my face screaming I’m a murderer would be threatening to me) for seeking medical care she has every right to.

    Fuck ruling that a corporation can have a religion and that it trumps my right to the healthcare that is part of my earnings because I’m female bodied and my health and well being just does not matter.

    Fuck that this ruling makes LGBT people even more vulnerable to discrimination and that bigots are openly celebrating that fact.

  123. Akira MacKenzie says

    Government is not in the business of declaring facts. It is in the business of acting on them,

    And in your precious democracy, how can you be sure that your government is properly acting upon those facts, when the people, acting on their own constitutionally protected beliefs, keep voting in people who deny those facts?

    That’s the situation we’re in now. People are allowed to deny AGW, evolution, vaccines, capitalism, etc. and no amount of “education” is going to change their minds, thus we have a government acts oppose those beliefs rather than facts.

    “…but otherwise its job is not to dictate what people should believe.”

    And how’s that working for us?

    Let me answer: NOT VERY FUCKING WELL, AT ALL! (Yes, I’m shouting.)

  124. says

    dWhisper:

    Any good places online that has the decent selection without just gouging you with bundles or shipping?

    I usually go with Daniel Smith, been ordering from them for 20 years. There’s also Dick Blick and Jerry’s Artarama, and many other places online. You have to do a lot of comparison shopping.

  125. says

    Hexidecima:

    @dwhisper, sometimes taking a stand requires sacrifice.

    Y’know, there are those of us who are in a bad situation, and trying to make the best of it, along with taking a stand. This kind of shit comment is not helpful to those of us who don’t reside in a convenient location with tons of options, and who do art for a living.

    Perhaps, instead of being so self-righteously nasty, those of you who think that those of us in said bad situations should never, ever darken HL’s door, even in an emergency, you could do something helpful, like organize a letter campaign to Michaels, asking them to open stores in areas with no other option than HL. (And yes, I’ve already written letters.)

  126. gwangung says

    This kind of shit comment is not helpful to those of us who don’t reside in a convenient location with tons of options, and who do art for a living.

    And your method helps women….how?

  127. says

    eNasco has a massive catalog of craft supplies – and serious stuff too… from the mundane kindergarten kids stuff to metalworking and glassblowing supplies. Stuff for ceramic workers, stained glass window makers, enameling, etc.
    https://www.enasco.com/

    I recommend ordering their free (THICK!) catalog, as I think many of the good things are not pictured or described on the website and you order them via catalog number.

    Good prices on the kind of stuff I order, too… AND sizes, etc. that you can’t get in stores.

  128. Tethys says

    Crossposted from Greta Cristina’s Blog

    There is a serious movement happening to amend the Constitution and overturn corporate personhood. Please support Move to Amend and Wolf PAC: sign their petitions, support the organizations, and spread the word. And obviously: Boycott Hobby Lobby.

  129. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    I know unclefrogy has referred to this already, but I hope and predict that (hopefully sometime soon) this will be viewed as another Dred Scott decision, one of the worst mistakes made by this or any SCOTUS. I also predict that history will record this court as the most ideological, most biased, most theocratic, worst SCOTUS in US history. With any luck, this will also make idiot Dems and liberals who don’t vote understand how important it is to keep RWNJs, especially RWNJ presidential candidates, out of office.

    One unforseen effect of this ruling will be to make Dems come out and vote this fall… I hope.

  130. Storms says

    Given that Ruth Ginsberg in her Dissent states:
    “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

    How about starting “The Church Unabashed Libertine”. For the low monthly ‘donation’ of 500$ you can be a member in good standing. Probably we’ll add premium levels to that as time goes on, maybe with legal defense or lobbying (bribes) on your behalf.

    It’ll have scriptures Like:
    “If anyone offends you, you shall retaliate with not less than twice the force and shall use deadly force the whim take you.”
    (Freedom from assault and murder charges)
    “You shall produce without regard to the earth, for competition for resources is natural and losers should starve or be eaten, likewise creatures not robust enough to survive the strength of your effluence are not worthy of consideration.”
    (Freedom from pollution controls, endangered species laws, over-harvesting, etc.)
    “Do not spare children, minorities or those you despise in your zeal to obtain mastery over the world, for they are week and exist to be exploited or extinguished as you see fit.”
    (Freedom from Child protection statutes, equality and fairness laws.)
    “Do and say what you will taking no mind for the truth, other’s reputations or tomorrow, but only for your own benefit”
    (Freedom from negligence laws, liable, etc.)
    etc.

    I’m sure there are enough sociopathic business leaders who already hold these as sincere beliefs, they just need that patina of religion to make it legal.

  131. says

    Tethys:

    There is a serious movement happening to amend the Constitution and overturn corporate personhood. Please support Move to Amend and Wolf PAC: sign their petitions, support the organizations, and spread the word.

    Thanks, Tethys. Will do.

  132. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    142 Inaji

    Hexidecima:

    @dwhisper, sometimes taking a stand requires sacrifice.

    Y’know, there are those of us who are in a bad situation, and trying to make the best of it, along with taking a stand. This kind of shit comment is not helpful to those of us who don’t reside in a convenient location with tons of options, and who do art for a living.

    Perhaps, instead of being so self-righteously nasty, those of you who think that those of us in said bad situations should never, ever darken HL’s door, even in an emergency, you could do something helpful, like organize a letter campaign to Michaels, asking them to open stores in areas with no other option than HL. (And yes, I’ve already written letters.)

    Seriously. I’m poor on food stamps trying to survive and Walmart is my only store option. Do I want to buy from those assholes? No, but I don’t have a choice. I wonder if dwhisper and the like will give me shit about that fact.

    I’m betting not because it’s food but if you’re an artist, why that’s just frivolous extra curricular activity. Who cares if you make a living doing it? Just become poorer while working more for no good reason while there isn’t good alternatives.

    Might as well tell Walmart and Hobby Lobby employees to quit and lose everything because fuck reality, right?

    This isn’t some fast food junk we’re talking about cutting out of your life, FFS.

  133. screechymonkey says

    lopsided@95:

    Does anyone still believe the Roberts court won’t overturn Roe v Wade if they have the chance?

    I think they won’t technically overturn it (or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which clarified it). I mean, Scalia and Thomas would gleefully do so, and possibly Alito as well, but Roberts cares too much about the Court’s reputation to make such a dramatic decision, and Kennedy probably isn’t interested in going there anyway, so right now they’re probably two votes shy.

    What they will do, though, is just gradually chip away at, by upholding all of these ridiculous TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers — seriously, that’s what the people in favor of them call them!) laws. That’s right up Anthony Kennedy’s alley: sure, little lady, you have a right to an abortion, but you can’t be trusted to make that decision all by yourself, so the state will just make sure that you can only get one from a clinic that has hallways at least 6 feet wide but no wider than 6′ 1″, with ten “machines that go BING!” for every patient, beds made out of gold, and doctors who have admitting privileges at every Catholic hospital in a hundred-mile radius. Oh, and you’ll need to sit through ten hours of “pro-life” propaganda at two-week intervals, just to make sure you’re fully “informed” and don’t end up regretting your decision.

  134. mykroft says

    The court’s decision for Wahhabi Lobby was just their attempt to follow the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

  135. screechymonkey says

    Storms @147,

    The majority opinion of course denies that this decision has those consequences, but logically Ginsburg is right that it does. And since the law doesn’t inquire into the truth of sincerely held religious beliefs, and those beliefs aren’t limited to particular formal religions, there’s nothing I can see that stops every corporation from declaring itself a worshipper of the Cult of Objectivism and having a conscientious objection to all economic regulation. Boom. Now every piece of economic regulation has to pass strict scrutiny and have no less restrictive alternative.

    Not that I think this will really happen. I think the majority really does intend to carve out women’s reproductive rights as some “special” case where “corporate religious beliefs” get a veto power. But that’s pretty much the definition of special pleading.

  136. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    gwangung:

    And your method helps women….how?

    You have no idea what she is or isn’t doing, so why are you calling her out? Why does she have to answer to you?
    Moreover, the point being made is that some people (like Inaji) are often stuck between a rock and a hard place. For the things they need, Hobby Lobby may be the only place around that provides the supplies they need. Are you suggesting people sacrifice hobbies that are highly enjoyable for them bc of this ruling? Especially when there’s no other reasonable option?

  137. otrame says

    For those who are wondering where to get craft materials in places where there is only Hobby Lobby, two things;
    1. There are probably tons of little stores, but you do have to go looking.
    2. Better yet is the internet, where you can get anything you want, with MUCH better selection and generally at least 25% cheaper even when you add in shipping charges.

  138. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    154
    otrame

    For those who are wondering where to get craft materials in places where there is only Hobby Lobby, two things;
    1. There are probably tons of little stores, but you do have to go looking.
    2. Better yet is the internet, where you can get anything you want, with MUCH better selection and generally at least 25% cheaper even when you add in shipping charges.

    Looks like you didn’t fucking read. Tons of little stores in small towns? The fuck are you on. And internet doesn’t do immediate delivery in an emergency. You’d know this, if you fucking read the thread.

  139. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    JAL:

    No, but I don’t have a choice. I wonder if dwhisper and the like will give me shit about that fact.

    Slight correction. Hexidecima was the one giving criticizing (and doing a bangup job of being an ass in the process) dwhisper.

    ****
    another correction, to my last post.
    Inaji mentioned something she’s doing:

    Perhaps, instead of being so self-righteously nasty, those of you who think that those of us in said bad situations should never, ever darken HL’s door, even in an emergency, you could do something helpful, like organize a letter campaign to Michaels, asking them to open stores in areas with no other option than HL. (And yes, I’ve already written letters.)

    (bolding mine)

  140. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Oh, and for those crafters – American Science and Surplus is an online source of lots of fun and economical stuff, some of which is for crafts.

  141. says

    Tony:

    Are you suggesting people sacrifice hobbies that are highly enjoyable for them bc of this ruling?

    When it comes to hobbies, I’m all for ordering off the ‘net, if possible. HL is not cheap, at least not when it comes to art supplies. As I said upthread, I enjoy painting game miniatures for fun. My living doesn’t depend on that, so I order off the ‘net whenever I have the money.

    When it comes to those of us who make our living via art, when you need something right fucking now, it’s just that. Right now. I’ll have x amount of time to prepare for a show, for example. I don’t always have the luxury of waiting on an online order. Now, I haven’t been inside HL for almost a year, and that was a case of right fucking now.

    There’s also the situation Carlie brought up, about finding yourself stuck in regard to a child’s project, and dWhisper’s problem of being an hour away from a non-HL store. All the people hollering at us wouldn’t like the fact that we’d have to drive so far and consume so much gas, etc., either. I’m an hour from Bismarck, and I’m a hell of a lot further away than that when it comes to art supply.

    Otrame:

    1. There are probably tons of little stores, but you do have to go looking.

    Oy. I’m with JAL on this one. No, there aren’t tons of little stores, because Hobby Lobby, Super-sized Walmart, and Super-sized Target have killed them all off.

  142. says

    Gvlgeologist, FCD:

    American Science and Surplus is an online source of lots of fun and economical stuff, some of which is for crafts.

    Oh man, that catalog is like crack.

  143. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Songwriter turns Justice Ginsberg’s dissent in the Hobby Lobby case into a song.

    This song might have been a lot better if the songwriter, Jonathan Mann, had taken a few months to reflect on the issue. Or perhaps not, Mann has been writing a song a day for almost 2000 days.
    But even though it’s pretty goofy, the song taps into an energy around the decision that won’t be around six days from now, much less six months. We’ve traded some thoughtfulness for immediacy but it’s unclear if we are worse off. Now, it’s available immediately, including to 13-year-olds who are unlikely to read the New York Times legal analysis. Mann is able to infuse his own spin — “slut shaming geezers” isn’t in Ginsberg’s opinion — to broaden the appeal.

  144. says

    Now that the SCOTARSE has removed the harassment-free zone around abortion clinics maybe it is time for concerned citizens to “counsel” customers heading into Hobby Lobby.

  145. Scr... Archivist says

    I have a question for those of you suggesting other craft supply companies.

    Have you written to them to find out what their religious affiliations are? Which ones are secular?

  146. says

    Scr…Archivist:

    I have a question for those of you suggesting other craft supply companies.

    I have a question too. What if the other major chain art/craft supply stores decide to take advantage of the ruling and screw over their employees?

  147. tacotaco says

    Clearly people’s life-or-death need for Inaji’s art supersedes any other moral obligation.

  148. HolyPinkUnicorn says

    You’re all boycotting Hobby Lobby, right?

    I’d never even heard of this chain until this case, and I worry that is also the case for a lot of fundamentalists who would want nothing more than to support (another) private company to stick it to all those wanton sl@t employees and their desire for birth control coverage.

    Apparently, Hobby Lobby is okay with Viagra (more babies!), but also vasectomies. I’m not much for Bible passages, but can anyone tell me where exactly it explains such discrepancies?

  149. unclefrogy says

    look taco
    I do not think it is a question of peoples life or death need for anyone’s art as it is the need of the artist for supplies in order to supply the art which is the artist’s life.

    uncle frogy

  150. says

    tacotaco:

    Clearly people’s life-or-death need for Inaji’s art supersedes any other moral obligation.

    Clearly you have a problem with reading comprehension. I have a need to put food on my table.

  151. carlie says

    What if the other major chain art/craft supply stores decide to take advantage of the ruling and screw over their employees?

    You’re not thinking big enough – how long before those stores that do take advantage of it sue the ones who still offer full healthcare as engaging in unfair business practices through “stealing” their employees by offering a better health deal that the denialist companies “can’t” offer because of their beliefs?

  152. Tethys says

    Oh fuck-off tacotaco. If you can’t see the broader implications of Inaji’s point beyond personal convenience, perhaps this article at Mother Jones will enlighten you.

    The decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the most closely-watched case of the year, says that certain companies—those with more than half of their stock owned by fewer than five people—do not have to adhere to the Obamacare mandate that employee insurance plans cover birth control, if the owners have a religious objection. This 5-4 ruling applies to about 90 percent of all American businesses, and 52 percent of America’s workforce.

    The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that if Hobby Lobby’s owners believe that the contraceptives at issue cause abortions, the mandate is a burden on their religious beliefs:[…]

    SCOTUS just gave businesses the legal right to not only discriminate against half of the population, but to do so based on false claims about birth control.

    As an American of the female persuasion, I am enraged by this complete travesty.

  153. carlie says

    Clearly people’s life-or-death need for Inaji’s art supersedes any other moral obligation.

    Fuck.

    You.

  154. Akira MacKenzie says

    OK, I think I’m done venting my spleen, and several other major organs, today. Please forgive my shrieking and yelling as well as everything stupid that I wrote. (Except that part about the ineffectiveness of a boycott of HL.)

    That said…

    Most of my art/crafts/hobby supplies take the form of wargaming/RPG miniatures, model kits, stock plastic card, acrylic paints, brushes, spray primer, and clear gloss and matte paints (mainly Testors). I usually buy from Michael’s, a local mom-and-pop hobby shop, and from two Friendly Local Game Stores.

    Hobby Lobby has some Wisconsin locations, but have only recently begun to infect the Milwaukee-area with a new store in Waukesha and another older store near Racine. Knowing the owner’s political/religious convictions I wouldn’t shop them before their contraceptive nonsense started.

    tacotaco @ 165

    Clearly people’s life-or-death need for Inaji’s art supersedes any other moral obligation.

    I’d understand if Inaji’s livelihood required to them to occasionally purchase from HL if they were the only craft store in the area. You can’t eat (or pay the rent with) principles.

    However, if we are talking recreational arts/crafts rather than a job, then I agree that it would be best if they searched for a mail-order alternative and put up with the inconvenience.

  155. carlie says

    tacotaco is proud to participate in a boycott that does not affect him (or I guess maybe her) in any way, because I’m sure that tacotaco never buys those kinds of supplies anyway, and can’t imagine anyone needing them for their livelihood. It also seems that tacotaco is the kind of person who doesn’t have anything personally to fear about this ruling, and won’t ever have to worry about needing contraception or being stuck in a rural area without any access to it even if they could afford to pay for it. In short, tacotaco is talking out of their ass and can be safely ignored.

  156. says

    Akira,

    I’d understand if Inaji’s livelihood required to them to occasionally purchase from HL if they were the only craft store in the area. You can’t eat (or pay the rent with) principles.

    If you read what Inaji actually wrote, that’s what she’s been saying all along.

  157. Akira MacKenzie says

    Addendum @ 172

    Seeing that Inaji’s career is art-based, I’m more than willing to cut them some slack and you’d be wise to do so as well, tacotaco.

  158. Akira MacKenzie says

    Anne D @ 174

    I just picked up on that, sorry. My mind doesn’t like working linearly, so I tend to read blog comment sections by skipping around from post to post rather than reading each one at a time.

    It’s something I’m working on.

  159. anteprepro says

    The point of this case, and why it is horrible, is that is not JUST Hobby Lobby that will be reaping the benefits of this ruling. All this bleating about “just go boycott Hobby Lobby” is myopic at best. There will be tons of corporations that fit the “limited” scope of this ruling, stripping away employee rights in the name of Religion. And they will now have state support until either the Supreme Court is forced to specify where its arbitrary lines in the sand are, or until we get a new Supreme Court that aren’t the scum of the fucking Earth.

    Also: go fuck yourself, tacotaco.

  160. loopyj says

    It’s important to say clearly whose health care and what kind of health care these companies are allowed to exempt themselves from paying for as directed by the ACA law: Women* and their reproductive health. So the precedent that SCOTUS has set is that a company can discriminate against females for having female bodies, and female reproductive health is somehow special and distinct from other forms of health care BECAUSE GOD.

    I’m not especially patriotic, but this July 4 I will be celebrating the fact that I was born and live in Canada.

    *And that includes the female spouses and children who are covered under the health care plans of male employees.

  161. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    tacotaco:

    Clearly people’s life-or-death need for Inaji’s art supersedes any other moral obligation.

    That not clear in the slightest. What is clear is that she desires to continue doing her art and there is no other way for her to acquire what she needs in a reasonable amount of time, so she begrudgingly finds that she has to shop there. Sometimes that’s the case.
    JAL made a salient point about shopping at Wal-Mart that echoes Inaji’s problem.
    I currently don’t have a care and Wal-Mart is one of the closest places to shop for groceries by my house. Given that I have to take a cab, which costs money, I have to minimize the distance I travel. That means I find myself forced to shop at that shitty establishment. I don’t like it, but this is the hand I’m dealt and I’m making the most of it.

    Also, FUCK YOU.

  162. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Akira:

    However, if we are talking recreational arts/crafts rather than a job, then I agree that it would be best if they searched for a mail-order alternative and put up with the inconvenience.

    What if that’s more expensive and you’re on a fixed budget each month? Does that mean one less meal?

  163. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Let’s try that again.

    Akira:

    However, if we are talking recreational arts/crafts rather than a job, then I agree that it would be best if they searched for a mail-order alternative and put up with the inconvenience.

    What if that’s more expensive and you’re on a fixed budget each month? Does that mean one less meal?

  164. tacotaco says

    What if that’s more expensive and you’re on a fixed budget each month?

    Ah yes, the old “can’t afford to act ethically” story… a favorite of evil corporations everywhere.

  165. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    182
    tacotaco

    What if that’s more expensive and you’re on a fixed budget each month?

    Ah yes, the old “can’t afford to act ethically” story… a favorite of evil corporations everywhere.

    Except corporations have, you know, money and power while we peons are trying to survive the consequences of their selfish actions.

    Believe me, one less meal a month means a fucking lot. Especially since my daughter is out of school now, there’s no summer food program near me and my food stamps didn’t increase. I’m guessing you’re a privileged twit who’s never has such problems like homelessness, unemployment, and struggling to survive paycheck to paycheck.

    Even if you’ve been able to do it or done it, doesn’t mean other people can. Your situation is not mine and I know mine far better than you do.
    Go fuck yourself.

  166. chigau (違う) says

    Ináji and JAL
    If you really, really need your special paintbrush or food, couldn’t you just get your chauffeur or your housekeeper to pick some up on their way to your place?
    You could reimburse them, if you remember.
    [/heavy-handed, obvious sarcasm]

  167. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    tacotaco:

    Ah yes, the old “can’t afford to act ethically” story… a favorite of evil corporations everywhere.

    Act ethically? We’re talking about the difference between having a meal and not eating!
    Can you not read for shit you callous asshole?

    [Inaji @168]
    Clearly you have a problem with reading comprehension. I have a need to put food on my table.

    [Inaji @158]
    When it comes to those of us who make our living via art, when you need something right fucking now, it’s just that. Right now. I’ll have x amount of time to prepare for a show, for example. I don’t always have the luxury of waiting on an online order. Now, I haven’t been inside HL for almost a year, and that was a case of right fucking now.

    This is how she makes her living. You think she should sacrifice the money she needs to buy food so that she can eat all bc you think boycotting Hobby Lobby is more important?
    Do fuck off cupcake. Your callousness disgusts me.

  168. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Ah yes, chigau I think you’re right. Troll it is.
    Time to light the PZ signal?

  169. gmacs says

    You’re not thinking big enough – how long before those stores that do take advantage of it sue the ones who still offer full healthcare as engaging in unfair business practices through “stealing” their employees by offering a better health deal that the denialist companies “can’t” offer because of their beliefs?

    My local Jo-Ann Fabric store already has a “Now Hiring” sign. They are just a few doors down from a Hobby Lobby.

  170. says

    Shit, I still shop at Wal-Mart sometimes. I simply haven’t ever made enough money to allow that to not be an option.

    Holding those of us with the least amount of power the most responsible for rectifying systemic problems whose effects we bear the brunt of is FUCKED UP.

  171. tacotaco says

    The least amount of power? Do you mean the people producing the shit you buy at Walmart?

  172. Tethys says

    I highly doubt the taco troll will make any intelligent or relevant contributions.

  173. Akira MacKenzie says

    Tony! @ 181

    Good point. I’d go nuts (well, I’d be nuttier) if I couldn’t paint my minis, and money has been rather tight for myself lately. Still, I’d fiercely resent having to give those assholes a dime, even if I had to.

  174. yazikus says

    Tony, can I just say, I’ve really appreciated a lot of your recent comments. This one- short and funny- and many others; long, substantive and truly thought worthy. I feel lucky to be able to read what you write. The one on Islam over on Ophelia’s (I think) was great, and put into perspective many things I have wanted to say myself, but didn’t have the self-awareness or skill to put into words.

  175. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Akira:

    Still, I’d fiercely resent having to give those assholes a dime, even if I had to.

    That’s exactly how I feel every time I shop at Wal-Mart (which thankfully isn’t often).

  176. says

    Akira:

    Seeing that Inaji’s career is art-based, I’m more than willing to cut them some slack

    Thank you, I appreciate that. The whole business of HL and the lack of art supplies locally is one of the reasons I’ve been moving more into textiles and photography. I do buy the bulk of my supplies online, but whenever I have brought up situations where an item is needed immediately (when discussing HL, in more than a few threads here), people jump all over me and act as if I’m a criminal.

    Earlier, I brought up something like needing a brush replacement, stat. A Windsor & Newton size 0 sable brush sells for $17.80 (with minor differences from store to store). It’s not only the wait time involved with an online order, it’s being stuck with a high amount of shipping for an item that is already very expensive. So, if I have a brush go south in the middle of something, yes, I’ll get one locally.

    I have already said that it’s around a year since the last emergency trip to HL. It’s not as if I’m a regular consumer there, I’m not.

  177. says

    It so happens that my aunt and a few of my cousins dropped by for a visit today on their way from a wedding.* I haven’t seen them in so long I’m pretty much counting in decades. This particular aunt is very Catholic. Fundamentalist Catholic, I’d say. She has so many kids I don’t know how many there are (I just counted from a list I have…seven). The groom and the bride at this wedding met at a pro-life group (I think there were 20 people in the bridal party, most of them siblings of the spouses). One of my cousins who came with her is planning to become a priest, walked on a pro-life march across the country, is wearing a pro-life bracelet on his wrist, currently works at a call-centre for right wing conservatives. It was a difficult time keeping my mouth shut over dinner (and luckily they didn’t bring up the decision—maybe they haven’t heard of it yet, I don’t know). I mean I didn’t want to stir things up, and of course unloading wouldn’t have done me or them any good. But I’m just…how can these people think this way? And try to foist it on other people? I hope at least one** of them escapes.

    *My sister and I had been planning to attend but when it turned out that my other aunts and uncles weren’t going, she decided to just host my aunt and cousins on their trip back.
    **It turns out my uncle did. After long, long years of denial and doubly intense Catholic guilt, turns out he was gay. Other than that they are now divorced, I don’t know any of the other details. But anyway, I mean one of the kids.

  178. Akira MacKenzie says

    Ibis3 @ 205

    …how can people think this way?

    In my case, it was because I was raised in a right-wing Christian family and was told quite often that abortion was “killing babies” and how “we can kill babies, but not pray in school” and shown gross pictures of allegedly aborted “babies.” Growing up, usage of the word “fetus” was verboten; “IT’S A BABY! NOT A ‘FETUS’ OR A ‘TISSUE MASS!!!’ IT’S A BABY!!!” My sister, after she had her first child, asked me while playing with her “how can any abort this cutie?” No one, up until that moment, even mentioned abortion!

  179. Akira MacKenzie says

    EDIT: Ibis3 actually wrote @ 205:

    …how can these people think this way?

    Sorry!

  180. says

    Ibis3:

    It was a difficult time keeping my mouth shut over dinner (and luckily they didn’t bring up the decision—maybe they haven’t heard of it yet, I don’t know).

    Ye gods I can’t imagine that would have been a pleasant conversation. Were you pretty much the only non conservative there?

  181. Nes says

    magistramarla @ 94:

    Question – Can the employees of HL and others like them bypass the employer-based insurance and go directly to the exchanges? If not, can a loophole be found to allow this?

    As I understand it – and this is how it was explained by the big box retailer I work for when they told us they were dropping health care coverage, so take it with a grain of salt – yes, the workers can go to the exchanges instead of taking the company’s plan. However, since their employer does offer a plan, they do not qualify for any tax credits. (And since less than 5% of the part-timers at my employer took the coverage, this is why they dropped it: so we could get the credits. I’m sure they also saved money, and that had absolutely no bearing at all on their decision.)

  182. says

    I do buy the bulk of my supplies online, but whenever I have brought up situations where an item is needed immediately (when discussing HL, in more than a few threads here), people jump all over me and act as if I’m a criminal.

    There’s more than one issue with online shopping:
    -Working conditions. The big online retailers are just as bad. Look Amazon
    -Delivery time
    -Being fucking able to front up money to order bulk so you can actually take advantage of lower prices because of shipping. I order most supplies online. Sewing and embroidery supplies from a larger retailer, small stuff often from small businesses over platforms similar to Etsy. I have to plan my work for quite some time in advance. Because it’s no use that 1000m of thread cost the same online as 200m cost in town when I would have to pay 5 bucks shipping and wait 3 days when I unexpectedly run out of something in the middle of a project.

    +++
    I’m wondering how tacotaco made sure the computer they’re typing their condescending bullshit on was produced ethically, without rare earths mined by children in Africa. How they make sure of those things with every single decision in their lives. With every grocery shopping.
    I’m all for using alternatives to extremely unethical providers, but this relies on two premises:
    -there ARE alternatives
    -you’re in the privileged position of being able to use them.

  183. longship says

    Shit! Damnable autocorrect. That should be “damnable religionists corporation”

  184. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    What… the… actual… fuck?

    Seriously. On what planet can the phrase The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion…[bolding mine] possibly be applied to a corporation? And on what planet can other people not following your pseudo-religious beliefs (show me where the Bible prohibits abortion and birth control, go ahead) reasonably be said to constitute a substantial burden on your religious beliefs? This whole decision is fucked.

  185. says

    There is an end-around for employees seeking birth control working for HL. Apparently they can get the same free birth control that workers of religious non-profits are eligible for. So now the court has determined that since there is an end-around it is OK to allow HL to discriminate in this way. So now all the cases for religious non-profit organizations to stop giving their employees free birth control may have been undermined or worse could turn this into blatant discrimination by taking away the end-around.

    I hope that Health Insurance companies take the loss of proper health maintenance and raise the rates these companies pay. And maybe if there is a rational argument to be made the employees can demand that the employer pay the increased insurance cost because it is by their decision that they cannot have a better comprehensive health care. (But as I write it, it sounds more like wishful thinking.)

  186. says

    Ah yes, the old “can’t afford to act ethically” story… a favorite of evil corporations everywhere.

    So, you’ll cover any expenses or loss of income out of your own pocket?

    I mean, surely you’re not asking other people to make sacrifices while being unwilling to make any yourself, right? No, of course, a good upstanding person like yourself would never do something that hypocritical, would you?

  187. says

    @Tony # 208

    It was a difficult time keeping my mouth shut over dinner (and luckily they didn’t bring up the decision—maybe they haven’t heard of it yet, I don’t know).

    Ye gods I can’t imagine that would have been a pleasant conversation. Were you pretty much the only non conservative there?

    No, thank ye same gods. My sister (liberal) and niece (liberal as far as I know) were there too. And my mum, who didn’t go to the restaurant with us but was there for conversation before and after is as much a vocal feminist liberal as most of the Pharyngula commentariat (though sometimes a bit more second-wavish in her tendency to gender essentialism). We managed to keep the conversation away from politics and religion for the most part (and from their pro-women-as-breeding-stock position), but it occasionally strayed into lectures against GMO food (including by traditional means of breeding and cultivation), and hints at pro alt-med woo and anti-Quebec sentiment.

  188. Derek Vandivere says

    Hey Inaji, is there a Planned Parenthood in the area, and other crafters? For the times you’re forced to shop there, I love the idea of just checking if any of the store employees need some free condoms, since I know your boss isn’t providing a full set of healthcare services. Especially if you can get a regular group doing that…

    Events like this are sure making me more comfortable with the idea of renouncing my US citizenship…

  189. Pteryxx says

    re Wes Aaron #215:

    There is an end-around for employees seeking birth control working for HL. Apparently they can get the same free birth control that workers of religious non-profits are eligible for. So now the court has determined that since there is an end-around it is OK to allow HL to discriminate in this way.

    About that accommodation: (h/t TCC at Brayton’s)

    The tricky part is the proposed work-around for the government to continue providing contraceptive coverage, as suggested in the decision: an existing accommodation for religious non-profits wishing to be exempt from the mandate could also apply to the relevant for-profit companies as a more religious freedom-friendly alternative to current practice. That accommodation is itself the subject of a handful of legal challenges from religious freedom groups who believe that it violates their religious beliefs by, essentially, asking them to fill out a form.

    The next contraceptive mandate fight (The Wire)

    That’s the same argument Catholic health care providers have used to gag doctors from even mentioning abortion as a medical option, mentioning they’re not allowed to mention abortion, or give patients referrals to doctors who *will* discuss abortion as part of the standard of care.

  190. says

    Some religious right-wingers have already been affected by the blowback from the SCOTUS decision. They have taken to performing rhetorical gymnastics in an effort to get themselves out of trouble.

    The court made the right decision today to protect religious liberty and the First Amendment. The Food and Drug Administration now needs to move quickly to make oral contraceptives available to adults without a prescription. — Rep. Cory Gardner, currently running in the U.S. Senate primary election in Colorado.

  191. Crimson Clupeidae says

    Even though the ruling acknowledges that only 4 of the 20 covered forms of BC are potentially abortifacients (and I think even that is flawed), the court decided it was easier (or something) to go ahead and just let them have a blanket ban on BC. A very catholic stance.

    The court also said that this ruling only applies to BC, and not other religious beliefs like transfusions, also a very catholic centric stance. Note that no reasons were given, legal, ethical, or otherwise for this supposedly narrow ruling.

    Also, the first amendment was not mentioned in the ruling, except inasmuch to describe the history of the case and the RFRA. The ruling relied pretty much on the RFRA, a very flawed piece of legislature.

    Add those up, and you pretty much have a ruling based on strict catholic doctrine, and little else.

    Ginsburg’s dissent, though, is a thing of beauty to read. Please, skip the ruling itself if you have high blood pressure, but read the dissent. :)

  192. says

    Meanwhile, Alabama’s trap laws that restrict abortion go into effect today.

    Alabama will have half the abortion clinics it did two years ago, with three still planning to operate when a new law state kicks in Tuesday that sets stricter building standards for clinics.

    In 2012, Alabama had six clinics licensed by the state Department of Public Health. […]

    Huntsville’s one abortion clinic closed Friday because it is going to have to move to a new location to meet the new building requirements, which include wider halls and doorways to accommodate gurneys and improved fire safety measures. Hale said that will require the clinic to get a new state license, and there is no timetable of how long that will take. He said the operator has submitted building plans for the new facility, but its architect has not yet responded to questions the health department had about the plans. […]

    http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/30/6523734/3-of-5-ala-abortion-clinics-open.html

  193. says

    The idea that there is an easy work-around, namely using something similar to the exemption for employees of religious institution, is a myth. Not only are there already court battles lined up, as Pteryxx noted up-thread, there’s also the need for congressional action to get the ball rolling for contraception coverage for women working for religiously infected for-profit employers. Do you think Congress will act? Hell no. What about the Hyde amendment? What about taxpayers picking up the tab for everything that corporations don’t want to pay?

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/scotus-claim-of-narrow-ruling-defies-reason-293677123872

    Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor for Slate magazine, talks with Rachel Maddow about the contradictions and impracticalities built into the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling and outlined in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent.

  194. says

    More details on the options President Obama has, or doesn’t really have, to offer contraception insurance coverage to the female employees of the Hobby Lobby-like companies in the USA:

    “The Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers’ religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate,” Alito wrote for the Court. “That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS’s stated interests.”

    The first option would require an act of Congress, far from likely in the current political climate. But an extension of the accommodation could be done by executive action. The problem for the Obama administration is that even the nonprofit accommodation is being challenged in court by Little Sisters of the Poor, which says it violates their religious beliefs to fill out a form opting out of the birth control coverage. But the five Republican-appointed justices who ruled against the White House suggested that accommodation wasn’t a serious burden on religious practices. […]

    “At this point, not only does a female employee not get birth control with no copay, Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to cover birth control at all,” said Samantha Gordon, a spokeswoman for the pro-choice group NARAL.

    Within hours of the ruling, the White House called on Congress to fix the problem and said it was also weighing executive options to level the inequities created for female employees whose religious bosses opt out of providing birth control in their insurance plans.[…]

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-obama-can-fix-birth-control-gap-created-by-scotus

  195. says

    Hobby Lobby let loose an Orchestrated Litany of LIES about the science and won

    And here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision

    In his opinion, Alito contends that these four contraception methods “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.” He does not cite any science to back this up. Instead, in a footnote, Alito concedes that Hobby Lobby’s religious-based assertions are contradicted by science-based federal regulations: “The owners of the companies involved in these cases and others who believe that life begins at conception regard these four methods as causing abortions, but federal regulations, which define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, do not so classify them.” […]

    The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby’s owners consider this abortion. But the pills don’t work that way. When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn’t entirely clear. That’s why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills “theoretically” prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don’t work once ovulation has occurred. […]

    The Supreme Court plainly chose religion over science.

  196. fernando says

    One question: the employees of Hobby Lobby and other similar companies can ask, in a legal way, that the money the company uses for the health insurance of the employees, can be given instead to the employees, so they can sign in another health insurance plan?

  197. busterggi says

    Anyone want to bet that the insurance the owners of Hobby Lobby have covers the dreaded contrceptives & abortions they claim to oppose?

  198. says

    Moments of Mormon Madness related to the Hobby Lobby decision:

    […] LDS Church spokeswoman Jessica Moody praised Monday’s ruling as “a milestone event in upholding religious freedom.”

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had signed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in the case, arguing that for-profit businesses have a religious right not to provide “drugs and devices believed to sometimes cause abortions.”

    The Utah-based LDS Church does not oppose birth control, leaving such decisions up to the couples involved. Even so, its own insurer, Deseret Mutual, which covers all church employees, does not cover any devices or medications for the purpose of family planning.

    “Health insurance plans for church employees cover contraception,” an LDS Church spokesman has said, “only when it is medically necessary for addressing health conditions.” […]

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58134601-78/church-catholic-religious-lds.html.csp

    This strikes me as illustrating the mormon trait of saying one thing and doing another, of trying to be right on both sides of an issue and failing.

    Not all mormons are falling for this:

    The idea that the government has a ready-made means to supply contraceptives to Hobby Lobby employees “is a pipe dream,” Gedicks [Frederick Gedicks, a law professor at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University] said. “Notwithstanding the decision’s assuring language, at least in the short run, that coverage is only going to exist in the imagination of the male justices who comprised the majority.”

    From the comments below the Salt Lake Tribune article:

    “religious freedom” means you can’t use a drug to control your menstrual cycle, but you can to control your erection.
    ———–
    It was a legally correct ruling, for a change, and by a squeaker because there are 4 hardened leftists dragging the court down with their illegal good intentions dogma.
    ————–
    now I hear that Mormon Senator Mike Lee has agreed with a satellite radio commentator that women largely use contraceptive for “recreational purposes”.

  199. says

    The Time A Corporation Cited Religious Freedom As A Way To Avoid Desegregation
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/time-corporation-cited-religious-freedom-way-avoid-desegregation

    […] In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law.

    The Supreme Court threw out Piggie Park’s “patently frivolous” claims when determining that Piggie Park must pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees […]

    Video from the Rachel Maddow show, featuring the Piggie Park decision, is also available at the link.

  200. says

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

    http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160–politics.html

    Tuesday’s orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

    They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.

    The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday’s 5-4 decision.

    Worse and worse.

  201. theignored says

    If I hadn’t gotten kicked out of there, I’d have pointed out the the rapture fuckheads:

    1) their own god has babies killed and they have no problem with it:
    http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-2/#comment-7376

    Lisle says, quoting me at first:
    Remember Joseph saying that it would be immoral to NOT kill a baby if god commanded it?

    [Dr. Lisle: Joseph is right. What God commands is necessarily right. Any other definition of morality is ultimately arbitrary and therefore logically unjustified.]

    2) Hobby Lobby gets a lot of it’s stuff from China where abortion is mandatory does it not?

  202. says

    Fox New host Jessie Waters: “Hillary Clinton needs the single ladies vote. I call them ‘The Beyoncé Voters’—the single ladies. Obama won single ladies by 76% last time, and made up about a quarter of the electorate. They depend on government because they’re not depending on their husbands. They need contraception, health care, and they love to talk about equal pay.”

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/fox-news-hosts-insane-definition-of-beyonce-voters

  203. sirrus dundle says

    I”m going to take up some hobby just so I can *not* buy supplies for it from Hobby Lobby.

  204. Pteryxx says

    Analysis from a guest poster at Libby Anne’s:

    The Hobby Lobby Decision: A Summary & Explanation

    Next question, the majority says that the birth control mandate does place a “substantial burden” on Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs. And this sentence is crucial: “The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”

    Note how carefully Alito worded that sentence, “according to their religious beliefs” these items are abortifacients. He had to word it this carefully because the four contraceptives at issue (Mirena, Paragard, Plan B, and Ella) are NOT, in fact, abortifacients according to the FDA. This is really crucial. The majority allowed Hobby Lobby to define for itself what in fact causes an abortion.

    […]

    Additionally, the majority claims that this ruling doesn’t affect coverage for other forms of medical care, like blood transfusions or vaccines. This part of the opinion is especially vacuous, in my opinion. First, Alito says HHS provided no evidence that anyone has ever or would ever file a challenge against anything but contraception. In a country where children are dying because their parents refuse, on religious grounds, to provide them with any medical care whatsoever, Justice Alito’s statement is ignorant at best.

  205. ck says

    @Pteryxx,

    And of course, if you watch the video over at Amanda Marcotte’s place, there are already groups who are going to attempt to use this justification for discriminating against LGBTI folks. Alito and friends just created a potentially long lasting nightmare for a lot of people, and I suspect he intended it this way, despite his attempts to claim that it’s only applying to contraception.

  206. Markita Lynda—threadrupt says

    The bible mentions, for instance, blood (and thus is perhaps relevant to blood transfusions), but it doesn’t mention birth control devices nor abortion (except to note in the Old Testament that it’s not murder), I fail to see how a belief that certain modern birth control devices cause abortion can possibly be a tenet of Christian or Jewish religion, especially when that belief is objectively false.

    Talk about your activist judges! Someone has gone way out on a legal limb to hamper women’s access to reproductive health.