Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Ruling

[Wells]

The Court's ruling should come out tomorrow on whether corporations can deny coverage for birth control for religious reasons. Obviously this would be a pretty big deal if it was allowed.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...by-stores-inc/

So until tomorrow let's make our predictions. For my part I think the court will rule against Hobby Lobby 5v4 with the majority particularly concerned about the potential ramifications of granting religious freedom to corporations when it could mean things like refusing to cover blood transfusions, as well as confusion on exactly who's religious freedom is being applied.

[Niroshi]

I've become way too cynical regarding the Supreme Court to ever hope for a ruling against Hobby Lobby. Having said that I will be delightfully surprised if they go that direction.

[Stormdash]

Unless Roberts goes somewhere over the rainbow and decides money spent on contraception is actually a tax, it is more likely to be 5-4 the other way. Kennedy is usually a strong vote on individual liberty over government authority -- the same instinct that makes him a reliable vote for the abortion cause is the one that would have him refrain from compelling a business owner to ignore their own religious convictions, let alone on such flimsy facts (like that Hobby Lobby is willing to pay for 14 out of 20 available forms of birth control, amongst others).

This case pretty much goes to the question of whether the free exercise clause even has operant force of law, because if the Court wod take the stance that your freedom of religion doesn't let you actually conform your behavior to your beliefs, it has effectively been merged into the speech clause, or rendered null altogether. Your religious rights, in other words, can't just be a right to what you think or say, or there would be no reason for it to have its own language in the First Amendment.

A historical footnote here is that this mandate is exactly what the administration and Democrat leaders in Congress promised would never be implemented in order to get about 40 votes from a "blue dog" coalition of Democrats led by Bart Stupak to get the ACA passed... and was one of the first major regulations to be issued under it. So, constitutional law aside, there might be some just desserts in a rule getting thrown out whose very existence puts a lie to the support the actual bill get in the House.

[Sunseeker]

Setting the precedent that a company can just pick whatever religion allows them to provide the least coverage would be, IMO, one of the most idiotic rulings ever.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

I thought religion was supposed to be a thing you practice in privacy without fear of persecution, not make exceptions to a law that's supposed to encompass everyone.

It just gets annoying that we even consider opening up special privileges for them because they have belief in something that can be a bit dubious.

Setting the precedent that a company can just pick whatever religion allows them to provide the least coverage would be, IMO, one of the most idiotic rulings ever.

As a business, under the Cthulhu pthargan healthcare plan I found that it's the most cost effective because my squid god doesn't believe in healthcare for the masses.

I can actually imagine people in suits in business meetings with spreadsheets out trying to decide which religion will give them the least cost because of religious reasons. It sounds crazy, but isn't that kind of what can happen? Couldn't they also technically make up a religion that just ignores healthcare coverage outright if they went through enough legal hoops?

[Incredibale]

Dearly hope Hobby Lobby crushes the opposition. Another anti-religious-liberty precedent if they don't.

[Wells]

A lot of arguments here are assuming a) that the corporations have religious liberty which hasn't been decided and B) that the mandate runs afoul of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

[Captain N]

Dearly hope Hobby Lobby crushes the opposition. Another anti-religious-liberty precedent if they don't.

Because the First Amendment clearly doesn't say anything about creating laws based on religion.

[Kujako]

Dearly hope Hobby Lobby crushes the opposition. Another anti-religious-liberty precedent if they don't.

Because it's just not liberty, unless you can suppress the liberties of others!

[Incredibale]

Because the First Amendment clearly doesn't say anything about creating laws based on religion.

Instead of sarcasm could you please reword that. Hard to parse.

I don't know if you think forcing companies to purchase birth control for their employees is somehow a boon for the first amendment.

Because it's just not liberty, unless you can suppress the liberties of others!

Deciding against purchasing birth control either directly or through a certain health plan is not suppressing the liberty of someone else.

[Kujako]

Instead of sarcasm could you please reword that. Hard to parse.

I don't know if you think forcing companies to purchase birth control for their employees is somehow a boon for the first amendment.

Your right to religious freedom should not extend to dictating what others do. Sorry.

[Wells]

From the National Journal -

"Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are closely held companies, controlled entirely or almost entirely by their owners. The libertarian Cato Institute suggested in a supporting brief that because these two companies are controlled by their owners, the Court could rule in their favor without setting a broader precedent that corporations in general can practice religion.

A decision limited to closely held corporations could be a way to skirt the outcome liberals fear most—a broad and explicit expansion of corporate personhood. But it would still allow a significant number of employers to exclude birth control from their health plans, affecting an untold number of female workers and their dependents."

And the Cato Institute's argument makes little sense here. Closely held doesn't mean the corporation is not a separate entity. Also don't address point B

[Incredibale]

Your right to religious freedom should not extend to dictating what others do. Sorry.

Which is not what Hobby Lobby is doing. Sorry.

[Kujako]

Which is not what Hobby Lobby is doing. Sorry.

Yes. It is. Health coverage is part of employee compensation. They are trying to say what employees can do with their compensation. They are trying to do this because they claim their corporation, has religion (despite never going to church, having no soul, etc). I know you like to mask everything by claiming religious persecution, but this is a very dangerous precedent they are trying to set. They could just as easily claim that their corporation is a christian scientist and deny all health coverage.

[Captain N]

Which is not what Hobby Lobby is doing. Sorry.

Actually they are. They're attempting to keep women from obtaining birth control because it infringes on their religious beliefs.

[Grummgug]

The Court should rule in favor of Hobby Lobby because Hobby Lobby isn't banning birth control pills. Their employees are free to pay for them out of their own pocket or quit and find a job with another company that covers the cost.

[Brazen]

So if Hobby Lobby is successful, is it possible that corporations will perhaps claim that all medicine outside of faith healing is against their religion? I realize this is an extreme example but you know some business somewhere would love to get out of supplying their workers any health benefits. And the world has never been short of pricks looking to exploit a newly created loophole. [Not big on law, that's why I am asking.]

[The One Percent]

Old God worship strictly dictates spreading suffering, this is why I can not provide health care for my employees, follow minimum wage laws or safety codes.

[taliey]

Yes. It is. Health coverage is part of employee compensation. They are trying to say what employees can do with their compensation. They are trying to do this because they claim their corporation, has religion (despite never going to church, having no soul, etc). I know you like to mask everything by claiming religious persecution, but this is a very dangerous precedent they are trying to set. They could just as easily claim that their corporation is a christian scientist and deny all health coverage.

Hobby Lobby doesn't believe in birth control, therefore it should not be responsible/asked to cover employee health plans that have birth control.

I remember during the arguments to the Supreme Court, Justice Kagan basically asked about blood transfusions.

You know what the lawyer arguing for the plaintiff (Hobby Lobby) said? It is an entirely different question.

And here I was thinking that religious objections to certain procedures were all the same - somehow, objecting to birth control on religious grounds, and blood transfusions on religious grounds, is different.

[Captain N]

The Court should rule in favor of Hobby Lobby because Hobby Lobby isn't banning birth control pills. Their employees are free to pay for them out of their own pocket or quit and find a job with another company that covers the cost.

Remember this when you have an accident and your place of business can suddenly claim that use of pain killing drugs violates their Religious Policy and you have to pay for your medications out of pocket.