Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:25 PM Jun 2014

This is what I find most disturbing about the Hobby Lobby case...

I have not been posting much recently but I needed to say something about the Hobby Lobby case because I think there is a huge elephant in the room that the media coverage of the case seems to be avoiding.

All five of the "justices" who voted in Hobby Lobby's favor are members of the Roman Catholic Church which is a church that is well known for opposing insurance coverage for contraceptives. All five of them voted for their church's position, but they explicitly excluded the religious beliefs of faiths other than their own from having the same "religious freedom" they claim Hobby Lobby should be able to impose on their employees.

The Supreme Court explicitly said that this ruling is limited to the issue of contraceptives and does not apply to other medical treatments that some other religions oppose such as blood transfusions and vaccines. Now don't get me wrong I absolutely do not think employers should get exemptions from covering blood transfusions or vaccines, like birth control those are basic forms of health care that everyone should have access to. What I do have a problem with is that the Supreme Court decided it can pick and choose which religious beliefs can get their followers exemptions from providing health care to their employees and which ones can not, and it just so happens that they chose their own religious belief as one whose followers do not have to follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow.

This is something that I think needs to be called out, when a major Supreme Court ruling on religion is decided entirely by members of one religion that is a problem. When their ruling provides protections for their own religious belief while explicitly excluding the same protection for beliefs that they do not hold that is an even bigger problem yet. It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have five unelected men who have the power to make decisions that can alter the course of history, these are men who have the power to make a decision that benefits their personal religion over other beliefs be they religious or secular and there is little we can do to hold them accountable for making such a blatantly biased decision.

Let's face it, the Supreme Court is an undemocratic institution and by using the courts to carve out a special exemption for people who share their religious views in opposition to contraception they have shown their contempt for equal protection under the law. I really think people need to start talking about removing these guys from the bench, there is no reason these people should be free from calls for accountability when they use the court to allow them to impose their own religious views on to others.

70 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This is what I find most disturbing about the Hobby Lobby case... (Original Post) Bjorn Against Jun 2014 OP
I thought of another angle on this line of thinking earlier today.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #1
Whoa! ewagner Jul 2014 #33
Excellent point! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #63
Exactly what I was thinking marked50 Jun 2014 #2
Welcome to DU, marked50! calimary Jul 2014 #21
Scalia did warn us. atreides1 Jul 2014 #51
Welcome. Heartily agree. Skidmore Jul 2014 #28
K&R. And to think people worried about JFK. bullwinkle428 Jun 2014 #3
that's what I was thinking KT2000 Jul 2014 #4
Just to be clear... theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #12
Yes - I know that KT2000 Jul 2014 #23
Thanks for the additional background info. theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #27
So Hobby Lobby was the Catholic Church's proxy. IggleDoer Jul 2014 #52
I don't know KT2000 Jul 2014 #55
Evangelicals initially supported birth control RainDog Jul 2014 #24
Oh, I agree theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #29
very true G_j Jul 2014 #5
A lawer for Hobby Lobby proudly stated that HeiressofBickworth Jul 2014 #6
All five are very conservative hardliners LibDemAlways Jul 2014 #7
It definitely describes a politically activist decision, it reminds me so much of Bush v. Gore BootinUp Jul 2014 #8
New name: The Papal States of America. ErikJ Jul 2014 #9
Yeah, that would sum it all up, except for those moments when the truedelphi Jul 2014 #46
This deserves a Kick and Recommendation. But I believe some will want kid gloves on for the elephant Anansi1171 Jul 2014 #10
The Pope will be proud of his flock today. progressoid Jul 2014 #11
And he'd excommunicate them if they had voted differently dickthegrouch Jul 2014 #40
I don't see him excommunicating Sotomayor caraher Jul 2014 #67
Yeah, well this is what happened when I broached this subject months ago theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #13
Your well written OP did not get ONE SINGLE truedelphi Jul 2014 #47
True but also I'll bet their image of contraceptives is only to encourage recreational sex. Kablooie Jul 2014 #14
The thing that gets me about Hobby Lobby Stonepounder Jul 2014 #15
conservative hypocrisy Skittles Jul 2014 #17
I don't think they are even ohheckyeah Jul 2014 #42
Exactly BlueinOhio Jul 2014 #20
I think that is a great idea classykaren Jul 2014 #53
k&r... spanone Jul 2014 #16
Yes! stage left Jul 2014 #18
We have to call them what they are; dangerous. mountain grammy Jul 2014 #19
K&R Little_Wing Jul 2014 #21
TRUTH!!!! BrotherIvan Jul 2014 #25
Courageously spoken, BrotherIvan! Small Accumulates Jul 2014 #57
Welcome back.. good post. Cha Jul 2014 #26
I'm Catholic and I agree with you. K+R nt IronLionZion Jul 2014 #30
Well thought out. Trillo Jul 2014 #31
You know they probably spent way more money taking this to the Supremes than they mnhtnbb Jul 2014 #37
That is a very good point! n/t truedelphi Jul 2014 #48
Thank you for writing this up. And it is galling Ilsa Jul 2014 #32
It's not about religious freedom at all. yellerpup Jul 2014 #34
They can be removed by impeachment - TBF Jul 2014 #35
I love that House of Idiots. May I use it? underthematrix Jul 2014 #38
I'm surprised everyone doesn't TBF Jul 2014 #43
Impeach the Felonious Five! lark Jul 2014 #36
Privatizing theocracy alfredo Jul 2014 #39
Others are finally taking notice and are speaking up theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #41
What I find most confusing about this case is, how do Mennonites distribute product across country? ieoeja Jul 2014 #44
Mennonites v. Amish Freddie Jul 2014 #54
Unlike the Amish, Ineeda Jul 2014 #61
Yeah, those five are not about legal reasoning but about rationalizing their prejudices tclambert Jul 2014 #45
Agree. This is about theocracy with a helping of laissez faire. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #49
I disagree with the idea of removing Supreme Court justices from the bench Distant Quasar Jul 2014 #50
EXCELLENT post.nt m-lekktor Jul 2014 #56
I wonder if Clarence Thomas is still watching porn albino65 Jul 2014 #58
Beautifully argued, Bjorn Against Small Accumulates Jul 2014 #59
what I think is interesting demigoddess Jul 2014 #60
Right Wingers use the abortion issue for only ONE reason... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2014 #62
Would be sad if the sand fleas of a thousand camels had a field day rummaging in the tender indepat Jul 2014 #64
They are Substituting the Religious Doctrines of Opus Dei for Scientific Fact and the Constitution AndyTiedye Jul 2014 #65
Yep, and it's about everyone faced that facts about what is going on theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #69
When I expressed reservations about such a Catholic-packed SC catrose Jul 2014 #66
Thank you for making this point. I had this uneasy, queasy feeling after liberalla Jul 2014 #68
The power of the SCOTUS has far exceeded what our founders had in mind. rhett o rick Jul 2014 #70
 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
1. I thought of another angle on this line of thinking earlier today....
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 10:33 PM
Jun 2014

the government can step in when a family is denying life-saving treatment to severely ill children based on their religious beliefs.....BUT they must not stand in the way of a corporation enforcing its beliefs on its employees....the government cannot interfere with THAT according to the Supreme Court.

This decision is all about putting women "back in their place" .....this was the men on the Supreme Court giving the women of this country a message ....a reminder that we have to be "given" our freedom and our rights....even though WE are the majority.....how is that for hubris? I hope we all remember that come the Midterms.

ewagner

(18,964 posts)
33. Whoa!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jul 2014

I forgot about that....the court has already ruled on interference to save the life of severely ill children....negating the religious beliefs of
"those" religions...

They have gone waaaay past the "slippery slope" stage.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
63. Excellent point!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:11 PM
Jul 2014

It's not about "religious freedom", it's only about freedom for the dominant religions in this country - or more specifically, the dominant religion of the members of this society that are in power.

marked50

(1,388 posts)
2. Exactly what I was thinking
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:17 PM
Jun 2014

and you outlined the issue well. This shows how dangerous the Supreme Court has become to our Democracy.

calimary

(82,010 posts)
21. Welcome to DU, marked50!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 AM
Jul 2014

Glad you're here! They don't even realize what they've done. scalia himself wrote a warning about this years ago - the whole "what this opens up..." argument, and yet, he went there anyway with this case.

KT2000

(20,646 posts)
4. that's what I was thinking
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:04 AM
Jul 2014

today. They didn't have to recuse themselves from a suit brought by the Catholic Church and they were able to rule for the church anyway. Very clever how this worked out.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
12. Just to be clear...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:39 AM
Jul 2014

The Hobby Lobby case was not brought by the RCC but by the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) who are Evangelical Christians. The Greens recently had a private audience with the Pope and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus brief in support of the Hobby Lobby case, but the suit itself was not brought by the RCC.

The USCCB released a statement today praising the decision of the SC in this case. No doubt they are feeling hopeful for the score of other cases filed citing their "religious freedom".

For a list of these lawsuits and who has filed them, see http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/

KT2000

(20,646 posts)
23. Yes - I know that
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:12 AM
Jul 2014

If you recall, there was testimony before Congress about the birth control issue and Georgetown Univ. by Sandra Fluke. Then, it seemed likely that the Catholic Church would challenge the ACA on birth control. As it turned out they did not have to - thanks to HL. Had the church done the challenge there may have been questions about the Catholic justices recusing themselves. "As luck would have it - HL did the challenge, thereby keeping the Catholic Church out of it but reaping the benefits of the decisions voted on by justices whose religion forbids birth control.
No one has to recuse themselves over an amicus brief.

IggleDoer

(1,186 posts)
52. So Hobby Lobby was the Catholic Church's proxy.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:28 PM
Jul 2014

To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, although it was clearly present.

KT2000

(20,646 posts)
55. I don't know
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:36 PM
Jul 2014

but HL was approached by the Beckett Group (for religious freedom or whatever) to file this suit. It is likely Beckett Group considered the fact that HL would have a better chance and if the Catholic Church was the plaintiff it would be mired in controversy.
Certainly, Beckett Group considered many possibilities.
The fact is though that the five justices are Catholic and in my opinion are tainted in their view of birth control.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
24. Evangelicals initially supported birth control
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:26 AM
Jul 2014

It wasn't until evangelical leaders started sucking the dick of the Republican Party that they changed their stance - and, even so, they have no qualms about married women using birth control.

They just want to punish women who don't behave they way they want them to.

In this, they share a sentiment of the RCC, and have all along.

I REALLY feel sorry for any female child whose parents make them attend a RCC or Fundie church, or any other religious cults whose beliefs are grounded in misogyny.

HeiressofBickworth

(2,682 posts)
6. A lawer for Hobby Lobby proudly stated that
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:16 AM
Jul 2014

Hobby Lobby pays minimum wages to their workers as required by the various states in which they have stores. To my mind, the decision today amounts to a cut in pay for their female workers who now will have to pay full price for birth control. Way to go HL ---- NOT!

LibDemAlways

(15,139 posts)
7. All five are very conservative hardliners
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:19 AM
Jul 2014

who do not even represent the views of the majority of Catholics. They are members of the rightwing fringe in politics and religion. A very dangerous combination when it comes to power over public policy.

BootinUp

(47,387 posts)
8. It definitely describes a politically activist decision, it reminds me so much of Bush v. Gore
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:19 AM
Jul 2014

in that way. They want to make a decision without setting precedents. Folks we can't logically justify this load of crap using the constitution but we know whats best for you. Terrible, terrible. They are literally destroying our institutions.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
46. Yeah, that would sum it all up, except for those moments when the
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:39 PM
Jul 2014

Real pope asks for tolerance of the LBGT community. I am sure our Five Devoutly Religious Jesuit Justices don't want any of that tolerance spread about. I mean, what would their Jesus say!

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
10. This deserves a Kick and Recommendation. But I believe some will want kid gloves on for the elephant
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:21 AM
Jul 2014

Too close to home for many Catholics to admit to the gravity of this and the possible repercussions of their ovverrepresentation on the court.

dickthegrouch

(3,230 posts)
40. And he'd excommunicate them if they had voted differently
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jul 2014

The most vile violent assault on a person possible, if you believe in that kind of thing.

I am fairly disappointed that Obama would meet with the pope, but I'd be far more concerned if SCOTUS justices met with him.

caraher

(6,284 posts)
67. I don't see him excommunicating Sotomayor
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:03 PM
Jul 2014

I actually doubt the Pope cares all that much about this decision either way. He's not from the US and while this will affect a lot of families, on the scale of the global Roman Catholic Church it's small potatoes.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
47. Your well written OP did not get ONE SINGLE
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:43 PM
Jul 2014

Rec.

Talk about timing being everything here.

(I had an Op or lengthy comment about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton being broke after leaving the WH. This was several years back. And not only did I not get any rec's, I was told I was making it up and lying and also. That they had never been broke. If only I had waited until mid-June 2014 to mention it.)

Kablooie

(18,673 posts)
14. True but also I'll bet their image of contraceptives is only to encourage recreational sex.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:46 AM
Jul 2014

This could seem to just be a frivolous and offensive perk to them.

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
15. The thing that gets me about Hobby Lobby
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:52 AM
Jul 2014

Is they pious stance against birth control, while, at the same time, they buy most of their stuff from China - land of forced abortions and sterilizations. But, somehow, that's OK. They wouldn't dream of telling the Chinese, 'stop the murder of innocent unborn babies', because that would impact their bottom line.

Oh wait, telling their workers 'we're not going to cover your birth control' impacts their bottom line as well. Hmmm...WWJD.

Ya think?

BlueinOhio

(238 posts)
20. Exactly
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:12 AM
Jul 2014

The Supreme Court ruled on another abortion issue that got rid of the buffer zones around clinics. Now Hobby Lobby merchandise is mainly from China. The country that has forced abortions, infanticide and involuntary sterilizations. Should maybe the same free speech be applied in the same matter about Hobby Lobby's support for forced abortions, infanticide and involuntary sterilizations to all their customers before they go in shop.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
25. TRUTH!!!!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:55 AM
Jul 2014

I will go further to say that I wish our religious members would make a stand. One can only deny the facts so long. If you tithe to your church, and your church does harm, you are a part of that harm and cannot claim ignorance. Tithing is not mandatory: it is a choice. If you withhold your tithe, you have sway over the policies of the church. If you allow your church to discriminate against some, you are complicit.

And no more Pope PR threads.

Small Accumulates

(149 posts)
57. Courageously spoken, BrotherIvan!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:46 PM
Jul 2014

There are apologists who will insist: but the hierarchy isn't the church, the people are the church! And yet, it is the people's money that empowers the church, and pays the bills for the lobbyists the church hires to do its dirty legislative work. Each and every person who provides money to that church carries responsibility for the outcome. Thank you for saying so.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
31. Well thought out.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:44 AM
Jul 2014

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I was just reading the first amendment at Wikipedia. It specifically says "congress" shall not.... I was thinking it was a major flaw to have designed the structure so that if another branch, the judicial branch in this case, does change a law regarding an establishment of religion, or curiously carves an exception for the religious not granted to any other group, that there isn't an automatic cancellation of the law in question as a fundamental threat to the concept of equality or equal protection under the laws. Yes, at an extreme logical endpoint, it would kill Obama's beloved healthcare, but single payer would be better anyway.

The idea of 'separation of church and state' was fundamentally a red herring. The first amendment does not say that, it only limited congress.

Under our current system, we are watching in real time how inequal protection under the laws is intentionally created by those entities with enough funds to take their case to the courts and all the way to the top court. In this particular case, the inequality is for any employee of Hobby Lobby or any other corporation who wants to not cover contraception.

mnhtnbb

(31,519 posts)
37. You know they probably spent way more money taking this to the Supremes than they
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:12 PM
Jul 2014

ever would have spent on birth control for employees.

It's not about the money with these people, it's about controlling women.

Ilsa

(61,734 posts)
32. Thank you for writing this up. And it is galling
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jul 2014

they believe they should be able to discern whose religious beliefs are "sincerely held." That isn't for them to determine, only a higher power.

yellerpup

(12,254 posts)
34. It's not about religious freedom at all.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:10 PM
Jul 2014

It's more designed to make a crack in the ACA, IMO. They're not through trying to kill it.

lark

(23,362 posts)
36. Impeach the Felonious Five!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:10 PM
Jul 2014

Yeah, that's my current wet dream. I know it won't happen, but everyone deserves their dreams.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
44. What I find most confusing about this case is, how do Mennonites distribute product across country?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:09 PM
Jul 2014

They have a religious objection against using automated vehicles. Are they transporting everything cross country by mule train?

The Mennonites I know have no problem with this because they hire non-Mennonites to do it for them. So they're not sinning, but their employees are. But that would be the exact same thing in this case. Clearly the Hobby Lobby owners object to other people sinning on their dime.

How do they accomplish this incredible feat?


Freddie

(9,328 posts)
54. Mennonites v. Amish
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:31 PM
Jul 2014

Mennonites are the more "worldly" sect but otherwise related to Amish; they have no problem with cars, electricity, etc.
I live in an area with lots of Mennonites and while they traditionally tended to have big families (most were farmers) they were never particularly opposed to birth control until recently when some of them joined up with the Fundies. In the past they mostly kept to themselves and the only political issue they had was to be conscientious objectors in wartime.

Ineeda

(3,626 posts)
61. Unlike the Amish,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:04 PM
Jul 2014

Mennonites, I believe, are allowed to use modern technology, including motor vehicles.

tclambert

(11,089 posts)
45. Yeah, those five are not about legal reasoning but about rationalizing their prejudices
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:28 PM
Jul 2014

and decorating it with a little legalistic jargon.

Worst. Supreme. Court. Ever.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
49. Agree. This is about theocracy with a helping of laissez faire.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:52 PM
Jul 2014

Hypothetically, if the ACA had guaranteed free vasectomies (like it does for tubal ligations) the justices would have created the exemption on the same basis; religious employers shouldn't have to offer them.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/ud-to-re-evaluate-contraception-plan/nMypM/

It's not just a war on women, the ...Christian soldiers, marching as to war... are equal opportunity deniers of choice.

Distant Quasar

(142 posts)
50. I disagree with the idea of removing Supreme Court justices from the bench
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:16 PM
Jul 2014

simply because we don't like their rulings. That's a recipe for constitutional disaster.

That said, it's clear that this Court's idea of religious freedom is all about protecting right-wing Christian values, and no one else's. All those decades of scheming by the religious right have really paid off.

Small Accumulates

(149 posts)
59. Beautifully argued, Bjorn Against
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:49 PM
Jul 2014

I am very eager to join with others in calling and working for impeachment of these tainted justices. I'm puzzled about where to begin.

demigoddess

(6,651 posts)
60. what I think is interesting
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:51 PM
Jul 2014

is that the SCOTUS which is supposed to address big issues are giving decisions that they say are for this case only, do not cite this as a precedent. It seems that is what they are doing for this case and they also did for Bush v Gore, which decided the 2000 election. And there was one other that I can't seem to bring to mind.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
62. Right Wingers use the abortion issue for only ONE reason...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:08 PM
Jul 2014

To point at Liberals and call us baby killing murderers.

It's not about religion.

It's about getting working class people to vote for the same asshole their boss votes for.

This issue will continue as long as there are megachurches in the South.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
64. Would be sad if the sand fleas of a thousand camels had a field day rummaging in the tender
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:57 PM
Jul 2014

places of the felonious five.

AndyTiedye

(23,500 posts)
65. They are Substituting the Religious Doctrines of Opus Dei for Scientific Fact and the Constitution
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:02 PM
Jul 2014

Unfortunately, Opus Dei has a majority on the Supreme Court, so they get to do that.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
69. Yep, and it's about everyone faced that facts about what is going on
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:27 AM
Jul 2014

Just closing one's eyes doesn't make the elephant in the room disappear.

catrose

(5,112 posts)
66. When I expressed reservations about such a Catholic-packed SC
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:06 PM
Jul 2014

because it did not represent the face of the US, I got my only ever hide and was called a bigot. Thank you, BjornAgainst, for explaining what I meant.

liberalla

(9,367 posts)
68. Thank you for making this point. I had this uneasy, queasy feeling after
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:00 AM
Jul 2014

the ruling came out, and this really helped bring it more into focus for me.
All are Catholic.
All are men.

Something really needs to change.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
70. The power of the SCOTUS has far exceeded what our founders had in mind.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:56 AM
Jul 2014

But like all tyrannies, it will take a big fight to reign them back in.

Also, the separation between church and state, no longer exists. It's time to tax mega-churches.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This is what I find most ...