Hobby Lobby

[Daldolma]

This wasn't even a hard case.

RFRA re-established strict scrutiny for any legislation substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, whether or not the law is facially neutral. Forcing a company to provide contraception that is directly opposed to their sincerely held religious beliefs substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. Per RFRA, it is thus subject to strict scrutiny. That's really the end of the game since strict scrutiny is lights out when properly applied, but we can walk through the rhetoric.

The law only survives strict scrutiny if it is narrowly tailored (read: the least restrictive means) to meet a compelling interest. Providing this type of contraception almost definitely doesn't amount to a compelling state interest, but it doesn't even matter. The Court never had to touch that issue because there are a wide variety of less restrictive means available, including those already in use with non-profits.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This wasn't even a hard case.

RFRA re-established strict scrutiny for any legislation substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, whether or not the law is facially neutral. Forcing a company to provide contraception that is directly opposed to their sincerely held religious beliefs substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. Per RFRA, it is thus subject to strict scrutiny. That's really the end of the game since strict scrutiny is lights out when properly applied, but we can walk through the rhetoric.

The law only survives strict scrutiny if it is narrowly tailored (read: the least restrictive means) to meet a compelling interest. Providing this type of contraception almost definitely doesn't amount to a compelling state interest, but it doesn't even matter. The Court never had to touch that issue because there are a wide variety of less restrictive means available, including those already in use with non-profits.

hobby lobby isn't opposed to vasectomies nor certain types of contraceptives. they didn't want to have to pay for plan-b, IUD's, and another one. though their policy is rather gender biased, and, on a personal level, it's a privacy thing as well. but that's not what was being argued before the court.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hobby lobby isn't opposed to vasectomies nor certain types of contraceptives. they didn't want to have to pay for plan-b, IUD's, and another one. though their policy is rather gender biased, and, on a personal level, it's a privacy thing as well. but that's not what was being argued before the court.

The type of contraception wasn't really the issue. The issue, as stated, was whether forcing Hobby Lobby to provide it substantially burdened the free exercise of religion. Also: whether RFRA applied.

The answers are yes and yes.

RFRA is kind of a dumb law, but it's the law. And, not that it matters, but it was passed nearly unanimously.

[arsenalpow]

Gawker has a nice breakdown of SCJ Ginsburg's dissenting opinion. Since her dissent was 35 pages long it's pretty helpful.

http://gawker.com/a-treasury-of-just...bby-1598003837

[Ahldagor]

no, they stopped arguing because you're bullshit spiraled so far out of control that you came off clearly as retarded with enough capacity to use a computer for internet purposes. you're interlocking of ad-hominem argumentation is what i was getting at with,

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

. i don't really understand why people harp on ad-hominem coupled with sincerity arguments (much like the Nazis did) to ignore the requirements of a job.

that notion also goes to people's argument methods. you're unable to see the forest from the trees or the projects from the stoops (to alter the cliche to a suitable environment for you). have you even read aquinas?

[Daldolma]

Ginsburg's dissent may be ideologically appealing depending on your stance, but it is legally inferior. She basically argues that Congress' non-action on the conscience amendment amounts to a disavowal of RFRA, which it obviously doesn't. Ginsburg's interpretation of RFRA swallows its own tail. If the failure of Congress to pass explicit supplemental legislation equated to Congress's intent to supersede RFRA, then RFRA would be meaningless. Congress would be required to pass supplemental legislation for every bill. Ginsburg isn't interpreting -- she's legislating from the bench.

She also brings women's rights into the argument, but that's more of a political appeal than a legal one. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right under SCOTUS doctrine; covered access to contraceptive devices would almost certainly fail that test.

It's funny: people want to blame either the Supreme Court or political conservatives for what they view to be a bad decision, but under the Supreme Court's doctrinal test, Hobby Lobby would have lost (see: Employment Division v. Smith, majority opinion written by the extremely conservative Justice Antonin Scalia). Congress reacted to the SCOTUS doctrine discussed in Smith by passing RFRA, nearly unanimously, with Clinton signing it into law. This wasn't a constitutional case. It was decided under RFRA.

If Congress didn't like RFRA, they could have just repealed it. They still can. Then this case would have to have been brought as a violation of Hobby Lobby's constitutional rights. As a facially neutral law of general applicability, absent invidious discrimination, it would have been subject to rational basis review and upheld. Hobby Lobby would have lost.

[Daywolf]

If you like your God, you can keep your God...
Nothing new to see here, just the more to be taken away as you are willing to have it taken away.
...unless you actually sell your cloak and fight for it.
They did this in Europe for years, watch your actual rights dissipate faster than you can blink.

[a_gnoll_pup]

lobby for hobby

confirmed RMT'er