And of course just as everyone predicted, Hobby Lobby is only the beginning. The camel is halfway into the tent already, and there’s a whole long line of camels streaming toward the tent even now.
In a short, unsigned opinion, the court said that Wheaton College in Illinois, at least temporarily, does not have to comply even with compromise provisions in the law that the college says still violate its religious beliefs.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the action cast doubt on the very accommodation the court’s majority seemed to endorse Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which concerned businesses that objected to providing birth control that offends the owners’ beliefs.
“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” wrote Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. “Not so today.”
She said Thursday’s order “evinces disregard for even the newest of this court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution.”
Well, look at it this way. Maybe women will just get so disgusted with all this that procreation will grind to a halt entirely in this country, and then Canada will move in, and things will improve. It may take a few decades, but it’s something to look forward to.
[T]he Wheaton College case is one of dozens that object to a compromise the Obama administration has offered to religious organizations, hospitals and colleges.
Under this arrangement, the groups are required to fill out a form, EBSA Form 700, to register their religious objections. This enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The organizations do not have to pay for the coverage, and the cost is borne by the government or in other ways.
But some of the colleges and organizations say that signing the form authorizes the third parties to provide the contraceptive coverage, making them complicit in actions that offend their religious beliefs.
Nibble nibble nibble nibble nibble. They’re going to conquer by nibbling.
John Morales says
Selective exemption from the law by virtue of religious objection clearly privileges the religious.
(I also think the justification for exemption in that last quoted paragraph is spurious)
How, without contraception? That’s the whole point. Many right-wingers fear that procreation is grinding to a halt. Consciously, or sub-consciously, I’m sure it underscores their opposition to contraception, at least for the poor. Quite apart from the fact that quite a few of them are right behind the idea of competitive breeding, overpopulation tends to create a vulnerable and exploitable group of people.
It also creates a large generation of cannon fodder to throw at your dreams of empire.
Marcus Ranum says
I have a religious objection to my tax money being spent on weapons.
Oh, fucking forget it.
Ophelia Benson says
Pen, well I know that. I was suggesting a Lysistrata type of thing.
Eamon Knight says
Bloody hell, there’s a level at which you’re “complicit” in a Bad Thing just by living in the same world in which other people are willingly doing the Bad Thing, and all they’re asking these dweebs to do is say No, we’re not going to participate in this Bad Thing.
Doesn’t this constitute clear interference with their employees’ rights under the law? I mean, even more so than Hobby Lobby? It’s like an employer refusing to provide a laid-off employee with a Record of Employment so they can claim unemployment benefits.
Where are the screamers of “creeping sharia” when we could use them?
As long as one woman remains outside the kitchen (and bedroom), as long as one woman asserts her independence from the rule of men, as long as one woman continues to consider herself to belong to no one but herself, they will continue the fight. Ophelia, you may be that one woman (but no. I’ll be right beside you, and I know you have others standing there, too)
“a compromise the Obama administration has offered to religious organizations, hospitals and colleges”
which he had no business doing as someone sworn to uphold the law of the land. The land that was founded on separation of church and state.
Admittedly, Obama being a handmaiden for bishops is not an excuse for the Five Guys. They’re supposed to have some clue about the law of the land, too.
So in other words: if we employ you, we own you.
And another thing: aren’t they aware that if they furnish their employees with a paycheck, they can use that paycheck to buy goods and services to which the company might object? What’s next? Laws requiring employees to abide by their employers’ convictions at all times?
Jackie the wacky says
Yes, of course.