![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayneAbsolutely [REDACTED] ridiculous. I'm sorry, HL is a publicly-traded corporation, they are not a religious organization. I don't care that they're "closely held", they're still a nation-wide corporation. If they were a private corporation, I would respect the decision more, but they aren't. Some other examples of closely-held corporations include: Koch Industries, Dell Computers, and Heinz. Give me a break. HL employs 16,000 at 500 stores through the country.
The Court said that the decision only applied to contraception, and (as described by a Planned Parenthood) ..."that it would not cover religious objections to vaccines and blood transfusions, or religious objections to complying with civil rights laws." A lot of legal researchers don't think it's as narrow a decision as it appears, and it also establishes precedent.
There's a couple of problems there. First, there are religions that will not allow blood transfusions, it's a deeply-held belief. Second, what about women who need contraceptives for health problems? My sister went on the pill when she was an early teen even though she wasn't (I hope!) sexually active, she had serious anemia problems whenever her period came around.
The Reverend Dr. Weldon Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance said the following after the decision was released Monday morning: "The Supreme Court made a grave error today. The balance between religious freedom and other compelling interests has always been tenuous, but we may very well remember today's decision as the moment that balance was radically recalibrated. The First Amendment is at its best when it is used to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the powerful. Today's decision, which gives the powerful the right to force their religious beliefs on those around them, is a far cry from the best traditions of religious freedom."
Amen, brother. I like a Heinlein quote: Freedom of religion is inversely proportional to the strength of the dominant religion.
It was a 5-4 decision, you get three guesses to figure out who voted on which side and the first two don't count.
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327064710/high-court-allows-some-companies-to-opt-out-contraceptives-mandate
Hobby Lobby is the only crafts store within 100 miles of our house, and they will never get another dime from us. There are two Michaels stores which carry similar merchandise in El Paso, so if we need to we'll drive the extra distance. I would LOVE to see Michaels advertise 'We offer contraception to our employees!' and start poaching people from HL. If I were running Michaels and had the money, I'd do the Lowes Home Improvement attack on Home Depot: open a Michaels store as close as possible to every Hobby Lobby that I could.
In other SCOTUS news, last Thursday they struck down a Massachusetts law that created a 35' buffer zone around businesses that offer abortion services. Curiously, it was a unanimous decision, but the reasoning was far from unanimous. It's likely that the Massachusetts legislature could pass a new law that's smaller, but the decision could potentially be used as leverage to attack other state's laws, we'll see how soon other law suits start getting filed.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says
Aside from being nigh unto technologically illiterate, the Supreme Court is also an amazing example of the Compassionate Conservative.
The Court said that the decision only applied to contraception, and (as described by a Planned Parenthood) ..."that it would not cover religious objections to vaccines and blood transfusions, or religious objections to complying with civil rights laws." A lot of legal researchers don't think it's as narrow a decision as it appears, and it also establishes precedent.
There's a couple of problems there. First, there are religions that will not allow blood transfusions, it's a deeply-held belief. Second, what about women who need contraceptives for health problems? My sister went on the pill when she was an early teen even though she wasn't (I hope!) sexually active, she had serious anemia problems whenever her period came around.
The Reverend Dr. Weldon Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance said the following after the decision was released Monday morning: "The Supreme Court made a grave error today. The balance between religious freedom and other compelling interests has always been tenuous, but we may very well remember today's decision as the moment that balance was radically recalibrated. The First Amendment is at its best when it is used to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the powerful. Today's decision, which gives the powerful the right to force their religious beliefs on those around them, is a far cry from the best traditions of religious freedom."
Amen, brother. I like a Heinlein quote: Freedom of religion is inversely proportional to the strength of the dominant religion.
It was a 5-4 decision, you get three guesses to figure out who voted on which side and the first two don't count.
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327064710/high-court-allows-some-companies-to-opt-out-contraceptives-mandate
Hobby Lobby is the only crafts store within 100 miles of our house, and they will never get another dime from us. There are two Michaels stores which carry similar merchandise in El Paso, so if we need to we'll drive the extra distance. I would LOVE to see Michaels advertise 'We offer contraception to our employees!' and start poaching people from HL. If I were running Michaels and had the money, I'd do the Lowes Home Improvement attack on Home Depot: open a Michaels store as close as possible to every Hobby Lobby that I could.
In other SCOTUS news, last Thursday they struck down a Massachusetts law that created a 35' buffer zone around businesses that offer abortion services. Curiously, it was a unanimous decision, but the reasoning was far from unanimous. It's likely that the Massachusetts legislature could pass a new law that's smaller, but the decision could potentially be used as leverage to attack other state's laws, we'll see how soon other law suits start getting filed.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says
Aside from being nigh unto technologically illiterate, the Supreme Court is also an amazing example of the Compassionate Conservative.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-02 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-02 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-02 02:14 am (UTC)