Hobby Lobby attorney: We’d be thrilled to stay out of employees’ birth-control choices

posted at 12:01 pm on June 30, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

With progressives having a meltdown over the relatively narrow result of Hobby Lobby this morning, the attorney for the winning side provided a little reality check outside the court. Lori Windham represented Hobby Lobby’s owners in the court case, and CNN caught up with her outside shortly after the ruling was announced. Windham proclaimed this “a great day for religious freedom,” but when the CNN reporter offered the argument that the ruling allowed employers to get between a woman and her doctor on birth control, Windham bristled:

CNN: We heard the demonstrators today saying, “Look, the employers should stay out of our business,” that this decision will now essentially bring the employer into what should be a very private decision-making process between a woman and her doctor, now that the justices ruled that Hobby Lobby no longer has to cover four types of contraception. What do you have to say to the other side?

WINDHAM: Hobby Lobby would love to stay out of this, and leave this decision to a woman and her doctor. It’s the federal government that told them that they had to be involved and cover these things, even though they violated the Green family’s faith.

No kidding. Windham expertly skewers the “keep your rosaries off of my ovaries” argument in connection with the HHS mandate, which argues simultaneously that birth control is a private choice but that employers should directly foot the bill for it. A truly private choice would be between a woman and her doctor with the woman paying for whatever choice she makes. And that is still the case now, even post-Hobby Lobby, since this case has nothing to do with access to contraception — merely who pays the bill.

The Supreme Court ruling has some interesting language in it, mainly regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan Senate vote (97-3) and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. HHS had argued that it didn’t apply to corporations, especially for-profit corporations, but the court rejected that argument.

hl-1

 

They also found that the mandate provides a “substantial burden”:

hl-2

 

In an interesting turn, though, the Court “assumes” that the mandate serves a compelling state interest — but does not find that free access to contraception is a compelling state interest. That may be left for other cases; in this instance, though, even with that assumption the government did not show that they employed the least burdensome method of serving it:

hl-3

 

hl-4

 

At least at first blush, this seems to be a powerful finding for later cases where the burden might be even more substantial – Little Sisters of the Poor, for instance. It essentially argues that the accommodation shows that the government did have less burdensome ways to satisfy the state interest when dealing with for-profit corporations, assuming it was compelling in the first place, and also assuming that the so-called accommodation relieves the substantial burden. This decision doesn’t actually find either conclusion.  Alito and his majority are basically making the point that HHS didn’t even bother to look for alternate ways to satisfy their interests, and so the court doesn’t even need to address these other issues.

That makes this a great day for limiting governmental power. How the Supreme Court rules on the other open issues later will determine whether this is indeed a great day for the freedom of religious expression. It’s certainly a great day for the RFRA though.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

With progressives having a meltdown over…..”

I am smiling….

Electrongod on June 30, 2014 at 12:03 PM

It’s a great day.

gophergirl on June 30, 2014 at 12:04 PM

you go girl

wolfie’s head must be exploding

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:05 PM

bam!

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:05 PM

the HHS mandate, which argues simultaneously that birth control is a private choice but that employers should directly foot the bill for it

Lets change the subject a bit and see how it reads:

“the DOT mandate, which argues simultaneously that driving is a private choice but that employers should directly foot the bill for it”

Where do I send my Exxon bill to?

BobMbx on June 30, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Remember what B.O. sez: Killmobabeez!

Galtian on June 30, 2014 at 12:07 PM

No gain without liberal pain.

This is literally true. Literally.

Akzed on June 30, 2014 at 12:09 PM

What an excellent, articulate attorney. Utterly destroyed the left’s talking points in 2 minutes. Bravo.

crrr6 on June 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM

The dummy, who’s chief, is upset, poor baby.

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Liberals should be directing their anger at Chuck Schumer for introducing the RFRA legislation and at Bill Clinton for signing it into law…

JoeHanson on June 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM

I Feel Sick’: Liberal Pundits React to SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Ruling

Nice to watch the D-rats and DIABLOs of HA, in the big thread. All the same, always…

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM

With progressives having a meltdown over…..”

I am smiling….

Electrongod on June 30, 2014 at 12:03 PM

“I love the smell of napalm progressives having a meltdown in the morning! :)

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Broke-A-Hontas • an hour ago
Hobby Lobby decided 5-4: controversial!!!
Obamacare decided 5-4: LAW OF THE LAND

via politico….

+1

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:16 PM

And now they’re saying the only way to rectify this horrible, horrible decision by the SC is single payer.

Riiiiiight.

PetecminMd on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Great day for Christian run businesses, great day for us!

Been reading comments on liberal sites, yep, they are melting down!!

Scrumpy on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Now.. If only certain high profile so called conservative bloggers were smart enough to employ the lefts tactics, declare the science on Hobby Lobby settled, declare that the SCOTUS has reached consensus, the issue is finish, and that the left needs to get over it and move on. Perhaps then we could get back to demanding a special prosecutor on the IRS Scandal

oscarwilde on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

What an excellent, articulate attorney. Utterly destroyed the left’s talking points in 2 minutes. Bravo.

crrr6 on June 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Agreed, very impressive, no drama, just facts…The statement “The Green’s would love to stay out of…” is just plain fact.

Keep them, us, out of the woman’s decision…liberals have plenty of money to give to their own for contraceptives.

Government should stay out of the “bedroom” has always been the argument…so it should be, stay out of our personal lives.

Build roads, dams, bridges, protect our borders, etc…let us take care of the rest.

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Is Preezy expected to make a statement ?
‘The SCOTUS acted stupidly’ should cover it.

pambi on June 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Lets enjoy the lefty meltdown.

They’ll get payback when SCOTUS makes the states recognize gay marriages in a year or two.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM

It is terrifying that we are literally one heartbeat away from the Constitution being redefined by statist tyranny, and that heartbeat is Anthony Kennedy’s.

BKennedy on June 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM

And now they’re saying the only way to rectify this horrible, horrible decision by the SC is single payer.

Riiiiiight.

PetecminMd on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

We finally got the door pushed open and they are scared.

gophergirl on June 30, 2014 at 12:20 PM

poor DWS
‘now women have to decide whether to pay for groceries or pay for birth control’

what an idiot

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Broke-A-Hontas • an hour ago
Hobby Lobby decided 5-4: controversial!!!
Obamacare decided 5-4: LAW OF THE LAND

via politico….

+1

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:16 PM

It merely depends on which way one’s political ideology slants. Of course to the left it would be this way. For them the more government control and more government dependency the better.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM

pambi on June 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM

soon
he’ll be criticizing scotus

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 12:21 PM

yup

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:22 PM

The Lefties can’t tell the truth because, if they do, they have no case.

formwiz on June 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I know this is not original but it warrants repeating: what type of bizarre world do we live in where not providing free contraception – free – is somehow imposing your beliefs on someone? And denying that person contraception?

But requiring they provide free contraception isn’t?

If I don’t give you my car, does that mean I’m denying you the ability to get a car?

Crazy, just crazy.

SteveMG on June 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM

It is terrifying that we are literally one heartbeat away from the Constitution being redefined by statist tyranny, and that heartbeat is Anthony Kennedy’s.

BKennedy on June 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM

+1

We’re celebrating because 5 out of 9 people in black robes decided we have narrowly tailored rights.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Is Preezy expected to make a statement ?
‘The SCOTUS acted stupidly’ should cover it.

pambi on June 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM

I’d expect a statement, but not one to be quite so concise and blunt. I’m sure Obumble’ll be saying more than four words on the subject.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Singing praises to the Almighty. The darkness held back for one more round.

LawfulGood on June 30, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Interestingly, there was also no federal mandate forcing anyone to work for Hobby Lobby.

Tanya on June 30, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Hobby Lobby would love to stay out of this, and leave this decision to a woman and her doctor. It’s the federal government that told them that they had to be involved and cover these things, even though they violated the Green family’s faith.

How hard is that for the Regressives to understand? Yet if you read the raging, spittle-soaked tweets in reply to the Hobby Lobby decision, you’ll see brain dead libs crying misogyny and/or religious overreach.

Stupid fluking Regressives.

Mark Boabaca on June 30, 2014 at 12:25 PM

OMG, Religious Freedom applies to all, from Sea-to-Shining-Sea, we are doomed.

Another Drew on June 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM

The next 4-8 years of a presidency will decide again who has the majority on the court…imagine, just one justice, just one, what a difference it makes.

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM

How hard is that for the Regressives to understand? Yet if you read the raging, spittle-soaked tweets in reply to the Hobby Lobby decision, you’ll see brain dead libs crying misogyny and/or religious overreach.

Stupid fluking Regressives.

Mark Boabaca on June 30, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Actually very difficult, evidently.

hawkeye54 on June 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Interestingly, there was also no federal mandate forcing anyone to work for Hobby Lobby.

Tanya on June 30, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Yeah, I have a friend that works at Hobby Lobby, she says they are the nicest company…pays well, Sunday’s off, she wouldn’t work anywhere else.

And she say’s it would be hard pressed to find anyone working for them that doesn’t feel the same…even the most liberal of employees respect what Hobby Lobby does.

As she said “Why can’t the government leave us alone, every company should be run like this”.

BTW, same for Chic-fil-A…what common thread is their between those two?

right2bright on June 30, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Been reading comments on liberal sites, yep, they are melting down!!

Scrumpy on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

That’s something I couldn’t do. You have a strong constitution….so to speak.

cthemfly on June 30, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Ed–I think you’re wrong about your conclusion on Little Sisters of the Poor. The majority cited the “opt out” mechanism for religious non-profits as being an acceptable less burdensome way for employees of Hobby Lobby to receive contraceptive coverage. It would be difficult for the Supreme Court to explain away those comments when they get to the non-profit lawsuit on this issue.

However:

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion. Notwithstanding all the limiting language in the majority opinion and the silly comments by the Greens’ lawyer, the next thing the Greens (or similar religious for-profit employers) will probably try is to force employees to comply with certain religious tenets (no abortions, attend certain churches, etc.) as a condition of employment and then claim that any laws restricting that infringe on Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights to practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Can I claim to be a lawyer for HL and get interviewed by the blond?

Yeah, I’m focused on her right now, so what.

Bishop on June 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM

When will some Heritage lawyer argue against the entire doctrine of compelling government interest? In the past it was called compelling state interest on the theory that the state and the Constitution are contemporaneous. Therefore accommodations could be made in the Bill of Rights for the vital interest of the state’s safety or survival, that is the country, the republic. Government interest is far more nebulous. Government interest changes with each new administration. How then can fundamental liberties the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrine as predating any govt, how can those eternal liberties be truncated and limited for transient policies of the party in power? This doctrine has to be challenged.

xkaydet65 on June 30, 2014 at 12:34 PM

This ruling has nothing to do with women’s rights or women’s health care. It has to do with Big, Intrusive, Out-of-control government.

This decision frees Hobby Lobby from being fined 1.3 million dollars per day by the government – and hopefully they won’t have to pay fines they’ve already accrued. It’s the very definition of tyranny to make them pay.

TarheelBen on June 30, 2014 at 12:35 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion. Notwithstanding all the limiting language in the majority opinion and the silly comments by the Greens’ lawyer, the next thing the Greens (or similar religious for-profit employers) will probably try is to force employees to comply with certain religious tenets (no abortions, attend certain churches, etc.) as a condition of employment and then claim that any laws restricting that infringe on Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights to practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Federal and most state laws prohibit the conduct about which you seem so alarmed.

cthemfly on June 30, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Employers must be forced by the state to give stuff to their employees!

And someone caring for their mother in their own home must also be forced to join a union!

/everdiso

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM

At least Obama doesn’t have to worry about birth control, even with the a$$ banging the SCOTUS has been giving him lately. I’m sure a man married to The Thing knows something about that already.

Tard on June 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Annnd here’s your one-way ticket to Retardsville, sir. Train leaves in 5 minutes.

the next thing the Greens (or similar religious for-profit employers) will probably try is to force employees to comply with certain religious tenets (no abortions, attend certain churches, etc.)

Only in your demented fantasies.

We won the right to not hand out free abortifactants by ONE JUDGE, you sniveling louse, if you think any company is going to go on the OFFENSIVE with such a statement you are even dumber than I thought.

LawfulGood on June 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM

If I don’t give you my car, does that mean I’m denying you the ability to get a car?

Crazy, just crazy.

SteveMG on June 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Yep. In prog world, “My employer refuses to buy me dinner at the restaurant of my choosing” = “My employer is starving me and denying me my right to basic sustenance!”

Never mind that my employer pays me a salary which I can use to buy whatever dinner I choose, wherever and whenever I choose. Unless the government is forcing my employer to pick up the bill, it’s somehow “denying” me my choice.

AZCoyote on June 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM

We’ll respect the ruling
-wy statement

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:39 PM

poor DWS
‘now women have to decide whether to pay for groceries or pay for birth control’

what an idiot

cmsinaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:20 PM

What I don’t understand is where they get the idea that free birth control is a right. Of course, this isn’t so bad as claiming it prevents access to contraception in the first place…just bizarre.

changer1701 on June 30, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Not having a meltdown…sorry.

Sidebar question:
Why is Hobby Lobby a ‘Christian’ business?
Why would conservatives ever support such a distinction being made?
Why would a Christian support such a distinction?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

They have all along, nitwit.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM

cthemfly on June 30, 2014 at 12:37 PM

They do, and we haven’t heard any reports of how muslims treat their employees. I imagine they are amazingly tolerant.

dogsoldier on June 30, 2014 at 12:42 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion. Notwithstanding all the limiting language in the majority opinion and the silly comments by the Greens’ lawyer, the next thing the Greens (or similar religious for-profit employers) will probably try is to force employees to comply with certain religious tenets (no abortions, attend certain churches, etc.) as a condition of employment and then claim that any laws restricting that infringe on Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights to practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Quite possibly the most idiotic post this year, and we are
on June 30th…soooooooo, this ruling means (you state “Can now
practice”) that these companies will now engage in practicing
their religious beliefs?

last I checked, Hobby Lobby is NOT a Government run entity.

Have you ever interviewed at a prospective employer, and not
come away with an overall view of whether you want to work
there or not??

ToddPA on June 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion. Notwithstanding all the limiting language in the majority opinion and the silly comments by the Greens’ lawyer, the next thing the Greens (or similar religious for-profit employers) will probably try is to force employees to comply with certain religious tenets (no abortions, attend certain churches, etc.) as a condition of employment and then claim that any laws restricting that infringe on Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights to practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

The ruling only supports the right of an employer to control their own property. It in no way says anything about an employers power to dictate what an employee does with the employers property – their wages or to in any way dictate what an employee does outside of the work place.

I don’t have a problem with employers making whatever rules they want for employment – I don’t have the deranged fear of my fellow man you and the other lefties here seem to harbor – but this ruling does not in any way remove the many restrictions and “protections” the states and the federal government have placed on hiring and firing practices.

But you running around with your dress over your head is amusing.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

So troubling that this was the case prior to Obamacare’s passage in 2010.

Ever hear of the “Deprivation of Religious Liberty Act”?

sentinelrules on June 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

The reasoning of the dissent seems to be, “because your company makes a profit, you have no religious protection”.

jdpaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

CNN reporter: What do you have to say to the other our side?

truth to power

hillsoftx on June 30, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Can I claim to be a lawyer for HL and get interviewed by the blond?

Yeah, I’m focused on her right now, so what.

Bishop on June 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I wasn’t!

(O.K., I was)

ToddPA on June 30, 2014 at 12:45 PM

It would be great if someone had standing to challenge the mandate for ALL employers to provide coverage for the 4 abortifacients. The AC requires coverage for PREVENTIVE care. HHS decided that ALL FDA-approved “contraceptives” are preventive medicines. That is specious enpugh, becayse it assumes that pregnancy is a disease that needs to be prevented. But abortion does not even “prevent” a pregnancy, it “terminates” one.

rockmom on June 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM

It’s very troubling for me that closely held for-profit companies can now practice religion. Notwithstanding all the limiting language in the majority opinion and the silly comments by the Greens’ lawyer, the next thing the Greens (or similar religious for-profit employers) will probably try is to force employees to comply with certain religious tenets (no abortions, attend certain churches, etc.) as a condition of employment and then claim that any laws restricting that infringe on Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights to practice religion.

jim56 on June 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Let’s say that all of those were to come to pass, so?

Employers already limit speech as a condition of employment in dress code policy. No one is forcing you to work somewhere you don’t wish to work.

jhffmn on June 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Not having a meltdown…sorry.

Sidebar question:
Why is Hobby Lobby a ‘Christian’ business?
Why would conservatives ever support such a distinction being made?
Why would a Christian support such a distinction?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Because it’s run by Christians and they want to run a business according to their religious principles.

We don’t think someone should have to give up their religious convictions as a condition of being in the public square or operating a business.

What is so hard to understand about liberty?

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM

jdpaz on June 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Companies to them are nameless faceless entities with no rights at all, but must submit to looting at the whim of the aristocrats.

It’s how they see the world, through a very distorted lens.

dogsoldier on June 30, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Why would a Christian support such a distinction?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Because it’s run by Christians and they want to run a business according to their religious principles.

We don’t think someone should have to give up their religious convictions as a condition of being in the public square or operating a business.

What is so hard to understand about liberty?

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM

The part where it’s not a privilege passed down by special dispensation from the federal government.

The Schaef on June 30, 2014 at 12:48 PM

What is so hard to understand about liberty?

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM

The part where verbaluce wants everything his way and paid for by others.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM

What is so hard to understand about liberty?

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM

The part where verbaluce wants everything his way and paid for by others.

Chuck Schick on June 30, 2014 at 12:49 PM

But that was a given.

will77jeff on June 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM

ToddPA on June 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Do you view the Hobby Lobby company as a ‘person’?
You see, I don’t.
And that’s the larger issue with this ruling.
Ginsburg’s bit*h slap dissent is worth a read.

Also read Kennedy’s concurrence. He seems tentative at best with the majority…defensive. So cons should be mindful how far they want to push this. But it’s only a matter of time before some biz owned by someone of a different faith looks to this to demand relief from some other regulation.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM

jim56

It’s no surprise you would have such a fear, because taking advantage of a ruling like this by overreaching as much as possible is exactly what YOU and YOUR side of nutjobs would do.

xblade on June 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Do you view the Hobby Lobby company as a ‘person’?
You see, I don’t.
And that’s the larger issue with this ruling.
Ginsburg’s bit*h slap dissent is worth a read.

Also read Kennedy’s concurrence. He seems tentative at best with the majority…defensive. So cons should be mindful how far they want to push this. But it’s only a matter of time before some biz owned by someone of a different faith looks to this to demand relief from some other regulation.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Relief from regulation? The horror!

And of course corporations share most of the same rights as individuals – corporations are comprised of individuals.

Is this where you need to be reminded that corporations have freedom of speech? You know, like the NY Times.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:09 PM

We don’t think someone should have to give up their religious convictions as a condition of being in the public square or operating a business.

What is so hard to understand about liberty?

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I do not share your view that corporations can cherry pick what regulations they are subject to based on their own personal feelings. The owners have always been free to live their lives as they wished.
‘Liberty’ is not about the imposition of faith or any other personal choice.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Maybe you need a case with an Islamic fundamentalist biz owner imposing various aspects of Sharia law to understand.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I do not share your view that corporations can cherry pick what regulations they are subject to based on their own personal feelings. The owners have always been free to live their lives as they wished.
‘Liberty’ is not about the imposition of faith or any other personal choice.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Maybe you need a case with an Islamic fundamentalist biz owner imposing various aspects of Sharia law to understand.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM

What you’re not recognizing is that the state imposing something is entirely different than a private citizen imposing how their own property is to be used. The latter has liberty infringed on by the former.

And regulation can violate people’s rights. Being a regulation doesn’t imbue it with some sort of sanctity.

If a business owner wants to impose Sharia on those who CHOOSE to work for him then that’s fine. Both parties are CHOOSING to enter into this arrangement. No on is imposing anything on anyone. Unlike regulations – the state is forcing it’s will on private citizens.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Ed –

Curious if you’ve read this piece by your colleague at The Week?
Pretty interesting angle.

A reasonable case made HL acts hypocritically.
Maybe that’s not too relevant to the issue that was put before the court, but still…

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM

FOX needs to hire that CNN reporter…I thought no one else had hot blondes?…I’m so shallow!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 30, 2014 at 1:19 PM

And regulation can violate people’s rights. Being a regulation doesn’t imbue it with some sort of sanctity.

If a business owner wants to impose Sharia on those who CHOOSE to work for him then that’s fine. Both parties are CHOOSING to enter into this arrangement. No on is imposing anything on anyone. Unlike regulations – the state is forcing it’s will on private citizens.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:17 PM

And you would include, say, child labor regulations here?
Wages and hours?
OSHA safety regs?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Ed –

Curious if you’ve read this piece by your colleague at The Week?
Pretty interesting angle.

A reasonable case made HL acts hypocritically.
Maybe that’s not too relevant to the issue that was put before the court, but still…

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Ha ha ha. Seriously? Hobby Lobby make for lousy Christians because they do business with China?

Ok, then why don’t you take the moral high ground and refuse to buy anything made in China.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:24 PM

And regulation can violate people’s rights. Being a regulation doesn’t imbue it with some sort of sanctity.

If a business owner wants to impose Sharia on those who CHOOSE to work for him then that’s fine. Both parties are CHOOSING to enter into this arrangement. No on is imposing anything on anyone. Unlike regulations – the state is forcing it’s will on private citizens.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:17 PM

And you would include, say, child labor regulations here?
Wages and hours?
OSHA safety regs?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Just like I said to everdiso.

You lefties slide very easily from a very few limited category of things that could reasonably be argued constitute a public good that require state regulation to forcing private institutions to being defacto arms of implementing state public and social policy.

Child labor regulations are superfluous.
Wage and hour regulations harm the economic opportunity.

Ok, fine if you want to argue that we need safety regulations so buildings and work conditions are improved that’s arguably reasonable.

But then you slide right into providing birth control, anti-discrimination laws and a whole plethora of others things as a condition of operating a simple business that have absolutely zero relation to that business or “public safety”.

You go from “the state should enforce rules about sanitation in a hospital” to “you can’t sell 16oz soft drinks”. You go from “your building must meet fire codes” to “you have to provide a ‘living wage’ and birth control to your employees”. In other words, the state turns a private enterprise into an actor in implementing state social policy and part of the state’s redistribution system.

You lefties magically turn EVERYTHING you want government to do into a “public good”.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

What seems to be lost here is that once again we see the “judgement” break along ideological lines.

In other words, legislating from the bench is rampant on our Supreme Court.

And that’s a terrifying reality.

KMC1 on June 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Ha ha ha. Seriously? Hobby Lobby make for lousy Christians because they do business with China?

Ok, then why don’t you take the moral high ground and refuse to buy anything made in China.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I think you’re missing the writer’s point.
He’s pointing out the HL is claiming it’s their devout religious faith as Christians that require them to act accordingly in how they run their business.
Or does it?
(Article written by a devout Christian, fyi)

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM

You lefties magically turn EVERYTHING you want government to do into a “public good”.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

That is a different debate.
But it seems you (somewhat reluctantly) get my point.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:40 PM

You lefties magically turn EVERYTHING you want government to do into a “public good”.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

That is a different debate.
But it seems you (somewhat reluctantly) get my point.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:40 PM

No it’s not another debate.

You asked me about the proper role of the state in regulating private citizens. Lefties like you see no practical limits on what the state can force individuals and private institutions to do as a condition of being in the public square. This is at odds with any real notion of liberty.

You equate all regulations as part of legitimate state authority. The purpose of the state – to you – is to ENSURE that private institutions are arms of the state.

And if by “get my point” you mean I know what you’re up to, then yes. If you believe in no real limits to the power of the state then stop pretending you value liberty.

Of course if a GOP president created a “guns and ammo mandate” to further “public safety” demanding employers provide their employees with guns and ammo you’d flip out.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I think you’re missing the writer’s point.
He’s pointing out the HL is claiming it’s their devout religious faith as Christians that require them to act accordingly in how they run their business.
Or does it?
(Article written by a devout Christian, fyi)

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I didn’t miss the point.
I think you did.

gwelf on June 30, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Ed –

Curious if you’ve read this piece by your colleague at The Week?
Pretty interesting angle.

A reasonable case made HL acts hypocritically.
Maybe that’s not too relevant to the issue that was put before the court, but still…

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Right, and your not having a meltdown.

Not having a meltdown…sorry.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Your are agreeing with an article that says Hobby Lobby forfeits all of it’s owners Christian Beliefs because they buy from China? Seriously, you are reaching way far in your not having a meltdown moment. Pathetic.

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2014 at 1:56 PM

It’s certainly a great day for the RFRA though.

Any day that leaves liberals wailing and gnashing their teeth is a great day for the country!

GarandFan on June 30, 2014 at 1:57 PM

And now they’re saying the only way to rectify this horrible, horrible decision by the SC is single payer.

PetecminMd on June 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I agree wholeheartedly! Every single person ought to pay for their own damn health care!

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

He’s pointing out the HL is claiming it’s their devout religious faith as Christians that require them to act accordingly in how they run their business.
Or does it?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM

And it’s not the business of the government to determine how sincere someone is in their practice, nor to determine if their practice is genuine by adherence to any particular set of beliefs. That’s well-established by SCOTUS precedent.

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 2:11 PM

“there are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here, and indeed, to all FDA approved contraceptives

I completely agree. But, remember that it was the right flank of the Democratic party, represented by Obama, most of the Senate and the DLC coalition who conspired to ensure that federal health subsidies were delivered through employers. Republicans, consistently complained (despite not helping at all) that the program would destroy the employer based health system, which is how most Americans get care. The very idea for the right, was that the ACA would cripple that system.

And here, Alito offers up a rationale for the state to do just that. To protect employer speech, the state must offer reproductive care to women who need it. Maybe it’s not so bad.

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

The Court assumed that the HHS regulations met the compelling government interest which is an example of “rational basis” scrutiny, at least to me.

The Court may have applied Strict Scrutiny or Intermediate Scrutiny, much higher and tougher consideration on what is or is not Constitutional, but by assuming that the regulations met the higher requirement of a compelling government interest, they basically said that the regulation was okay without explaining why it was okay. If the Court had concluded otherwise, the whole regulation would have been struck down which would likely have possibly more sweeping results than the Court would want to live with at this time.

Russ808 on June 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM

CNN: We heard the demonstrators today saying, “Look, the employers should stay out of our business,” that this decision will now essentially bring the employer into what should be a very private decision-making process between a woman and her doctor, now that the justices ruled that Hobby Lobby no longer has to cover four types of contraception. What do you have to say to the other side?

How about “Stop watching CNN. Nothing like that has transpired here.”

LancerDL on June 30, 2014 at 2:38 PM

…yet the same court ruled that the healthcare mandate itself was not unconstitutional. The inconsistency is staggering.

Bee on June 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Do you view the Hobby Lobby company as a ‘person’?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM

I see it as a legal entity comprised of people who are trying to conduct business in a manner best suited to them and which harms no one.

‘Liberty’ is not about the imposition of faith or any other personal choice.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Because you have yet to illustrate anything that is being “imposed” by the company as a result of this decision.

OSHA safety regs?

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:23 PM

So your argument is, that unless the company provides the employee with any contraceptive they want at no cost out of pocket, they will suffer an injury on the job?

Alito offers up a rationale for the state to do just that. To protect employer speech, the state must offer reproductive care to women who need it. Maybe it’s not so bad.

libfreeordie on June 30, 2014 at 2:24 PM

That isn’t what Alito is saying. He said that, contrary to the standard benchmark of being the smallest conceivable imposition on the rights of the other in implementing the law, the ACA did not even bother exploring ANY alternative which might have achieved the same result.

He is not saying “it is good for the government to provide X”. He is saying “if the government intends to provide X, it must demonstrate that, out of Y conceivable possibilities, this is either the only or the least-restrictive workable solution. And they didn’t even TRY.

The Schaef on June 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

For kicks

What the bigger corporations will do – the board of directors/CEO of a ‘regular’ corporation, to the other owners/shareholders “You are all adopted! Welcome to the family”

Schadenfreude on June 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

I do not share your view that corporations can cherry pick what regulations they are subject to based on their own personal feelings. The owners have always been free to live their lives as they wished.

Does Obama get to cherry-pick what regulations are Constitutional?

‘Liberty’ is not about the imposition of faith or any other personal choice.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It is pure sophistry to call this an example of an imposition of the beliefs of a company’s owners on its employees. It is exactly the reverse; an imposition of the government on the property of private individuals, for a program which the government wants to enact but hasn’t got the guts to pay for themselves.

Maybe you need a case with an Islamic fundamentalist biz owner imposing various aspects of Sharia law to understand.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:13 PM

We have that example from Mozilla. Liberals were big fans of that one.

LancerDL on June 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM

You see, I don’t.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM

And that’s where you disagree with the common law, Natural Law, and a couple of centuries of legal precedent. But, go on, you were blathering…..

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 3:08 PM

All progressives should have access and be mandated to take the four drugs. In a generation, we may have solved the problem.

Connecticut on June 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

So your argument is, that unless the company provides the employee with any contraceptive they want at no cost out of pocket, they will suffer an injury on the job?

The Schaef on June 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Oh, the images that brought to mind! LOL!

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Your are agreeing with an article that says Hobby Lobby forfeits all of it’s owners Christian Beliefs because they buy from China? Seriously, you are reaching way far in your not having a meltdown moment. Pathetic.

Johnnyreb on June 30, 2014 at 1:56 PM

That’s not what the article says –
and I’m just pointing it out as an interesting take.
The article doesn’t ‘say forfeits all of it’s owners Christian Beliefs’. It simply suggests that it’s reasoning in the case before SCOTUS is not consistent with how they operate and run their business in many other areas.
It’s a valid point.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM

It is exactly the reverse; an imposition of the government on the property of private individuals…

LancerDL on June 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM

That’s an odd argument – but helpful.
HL employees are not the property for HL’s owners.
Those employees shouldn’t have to forfeit rights or protections as a condition of employment.

verbaluce on June 30, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2