General Discussion

SunSeeker

(58,250 posts)

32. There are many differences between the pacifist denied unemployment benefits and Hobby Lobby.

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:58 PM

Mar 2014

The pacifist would have to personally work on building bombs to keep his job, thus much more infringing on his religion. Hobby Lobby is not being asked to use birth control (it can't, it is not human!), just pay their workers and provide medical coverage that all employers provide. Even if they don't provide the medical coverage, they still would unquestionably have to pay their workers, and THAT money would go to birth control. As an employer, there is no way around the consequence that your money will be used by your employees to do things you don't believe in. What Hobby Lobby wants to do is burden THEIR EMPLOYEES' RELIGIOUS BELIEFS or lack thereof, by making it more expensive for them to buy birth control. The pacifist is not trying to make his employer stop making bombs or making it more expensive for them to do so. Hobby Lobby's argument is pure sophistry. Plus Hobby Lobby is a soulless corporation. The "burden" on them is negligible, if it exists at all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Kagan Throws Scalia's Own Religious Liberty Arguments Back In His Face - TPMDC [View all] WillyT Mar 2014 OP

Brava, Justice Kagan! markpkessinger Mar 2014 #1

Hope she has better luck with scalia and his fellow vermin than she did with Citizens United. calimary Mar 2014 #3

Are you kidding? PhilosopherKing Mar 2014 #27

In fairness ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #73

Thank you for using "Brava" correctly. New Orleans Strong Mar 2014 #7

I was an opera major in college ;) n/t markpkessinger Mar 2014 #8

Of course! New Orleans Strong Mar 2014 #10

The Marschallin, Octavian and Sophie. pangaia Mar 2014 #25

It does NOT! eom catrose Mar 2014 #34

Bernstein in Vienna..... pangaia Mar 2014 #38

I wunner if dis here Scalia likes operas an' what-not Kurovski Mar 2014 #48

He claims to. pangaia Mar 2014 #50

It reminds me of the scene in The Untouchables Kurovski Mar 2014 #52

I don't know that one, but I'll look into it catrose Mar 2014 #51

Renee Fleming iS really very very special. pangaia Mar 2014 #54

Here's a fun little 6 degrees... 3catwoman3 Mar 2014 #59

Check you messages.. pangaia Mar 2014 #70

I've known Renee defacto7 Mar 2014 #62

Small world. pangaia Mar 2014 #71

Oh, there are bad operas Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #87

Oh, I agree catrose Mar 2014 #88

Of course she is right LondonReign2 Mar 2014 #75

This is a very worrisome case. longship Mar 2014 #2

The other ACA case worries me a lot more -- the one that would take away subsidies pnwmom Mar 2014 #5

Yes, I have a subsidy (I'm in Ohio) and having to make Boomerproud Mar 2014 #15

It would be a disaster. That SCOTUS ruling will be critical. pnwmom Mar 2014 #58

No time to panic yet on a long-shot case Rstrstx Mar 2014 #64

Good question. Who had standing? n/t pnwmom Mar 2014 #65

I had not heard of that one... It would hurt millions of people. n/t freshwest Mar 2014 #55

without having heard anythinv of the oral arguments or read the transcript, Volaris Mar 2014 #85

Here is Scalia in Employment Division v Smith, the 1990 case cited: happyslug Mar 2014 #4

That distinction begs the question. SunSeeker Mar 2014 #19

After you made your comment I added comments regarding the other cases that are factors happyslug Mar 2014 #22

There are many differences between the pacifist denied unemployment benefits and Hobby Lobby. SunSeeker Mar 2014 #32

I just pointed out the more important prior decisions happyslug Mar 2014 #61

Yup. And I'm just pointing out why they're wrong. SunSeeker Mar 2014 #63

Pacifism means risking loss of job Steviehh Mar 2014 #82

Yes indeed. SunSeeker Mar 2014 #83

I like your thinking. n/t DebJ Mar 2014 #84

Oh, that was delicious. AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #6

OUCH!!!!!!! DeSwiss Mar 2014 #9

Nope LondonReign2 Mar 2014 #76

So, what religion is against paying taxes, 'cause I want to join that one justiceischeap Mar 2014 #11

Post removed Post removed Mar 2014 #12

I boldly predict that Scalia will ignore his own logic and vote to restrict women's healthcare. Bucky Mar 2014 #13

Yep. Hypocrisy is his middle name. progressoid Mar 2014 #14

Yup. Does anyone believe anymore that these cases are decided by legal reasoning? nt Jerry442 Mar 2014 #16

Lots of judges use reasoning and legal theory to decide issues. Bucky Mar 2014 #17

Legal theories are but a smorgasbord of fig leaves to cover the result the SCOTUS wants to reach. SunSeeker Mar 2014 #20

Scalito are hacks and worthless to our society as a whole. They are corporate shills mdbl Mar 2014 #26

Help me out here please.. (don't mean to be so dense) 2banon Mar 2014 #18

I have a religious objection to the use of Viagra. raging moderate Mar 2014 #21

Looks to me like it will come down to.... idendoit Mar 2014 #23

Never mind, Tony will just invoke the "this time only, no precedents are to be set by this" yellowcanine Mar 2014 #24

What about my freedom from religion? afertal Mar 2014 #28

Exactly. This case is all back asswards. SunSeeker Mar 2014 #33

Hear Hear, Sir: These People Want To Impose Their Religious Views On Their Employees The Magistrate Mar 2014 #53

It all goes back to this personhood nonsense Trust Buster Mar 2014 #29

Huge K&R. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #30

LMAO! Scalia got PWNED by his own opinion! Rex Mar 2014 #31

Given his inconsistency there are no doubt plenty of opportunities...nt truebluegreen Mar 2014 #36

I dunno, I've been told he is a mad genius. Rex Mar 2014 #37

Absolutely mad... truebluegreen Mar 2014 #39

Very shocking, also he doesn't believe in 'conflict of interest' nor does Thomas. Rex Mar 2014 #40

Very true. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #46

The compelling interest test for a constitutional exemption being thrown out the window Fred Sanders Mar 2014 #35

P.S.: since any employer is free to not provide medical insurance at all, leaving employees Fred Sanders Mar 2014 #41

You would think, but alas, these religious zealots Iliyah Mar 2014 #45

K & R Iliyah Mar 2014 #42

Kagan did a great job here Gothmog Mar 2014 #43

kick Liberal_in_LA Mar 2014 #44

I'm taking applications for my new religion now. obxhead Mar 2014 #47

I'm praying for you! Kurovski Mar 2014 #49

Kick (nt) pinto Mar 2014 #56

Clement's response: "If you look at that parade of horribles..." Roland99 Mar 2014 #57

and reading between the lines HockeyMom Mar 2014 #78

I get the feeling that Scalia has decided to destroy the USA before he goes. Kablooie Mar 2014 #60

I wonder if that pompous, arrogant prick Fat Tony realizes he just got smashed and bested Nanjing to Seoul Mar 2014 #66

Obama's SC appointments are ultimately going to prove quite exceptional Hekate Mar 2014 #67

The CONservatives (not so) secretly want to replace Civil law with far rightwing "Biblical law." blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #68

The Enlightenment has sure taken a hit... KansDem Mar 2014 #69

I haven't read the comments yet; but ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2014 #72

Don't count on a favorable ruiling. This is the court the endowed corps with personhood. olegramps Mar 2014 #74

Anarchy!! Sheepshank Mar 2014 #77

Awesome!! hueymahl Mar 2014 #79

sweet! BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #80

Good for her! Still, Scalia is shameless so it may roll right off. polichick Mar 2014 #81

OMG, this is worse than I thought. grahamhgreen Mar 2014 #86

Mind like a steel trap! Very well done! nt MADem Mar 2014 #89

And if Scalia had any sense of shame, that might work Prophet 451 Mar 2014 #90

Kinda missed the point of the argument AngryAmish Mar 2014 #91

Bush v Gore should have settled once and for all that right wingers on the bench yurbud Mar 2014 #92

This "theory" should have been laughed out of court long ago. DirkGently Mar 2014 #93