damn_registrars's Journal: Conservative court makes conservative rulings

The two rulings are not a big surprise considering who is on the bench. The downstream repercussions of the Hobby Lobby ruling will be interesting to see played out, however.

In particular, if no insurance company wants to offer a plan that excludes every imaginable type of "contraception", then what would happen? Will Hobby Lobby take them to court to force them to offer a plan that meets their particular belief system?

You're not thinking big enough.

[Captain Splendid]

Step 1: Incorporate yourself.
Step 2: Find (or create) a religion that fits your lifestyle and use that pretext to do pretty much whatever you want.
Step 3: Profit!

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Step 2: Find (or create) a religion that fits your lifestyle and use that pretext to do pretty much whatever you want.

I think that might be the best possible way to overcome all the nonsense that the religiously-motivated conservatives have been using for some time in their efforts. They seem to be afraid to do it themselves because they wouldn't want to be accused of being a false prophet. Since I'm agnostic I wouldn't take nearly as much offense at such a label being applied to me :)

Being as one conservative leader in particular is likely our country's most successful cult leader in decades, I think we see how afrai

Do it!

[smittyoneeach]

Starting a business should not mean having to sacrifice your beliefs.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

But being a mere individual does [oyez.org]

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

So you're saying Conscientious Objectors for military service do not exist?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You tell me, please. Why shouldn't conscientious objectors to every law in the books be treated with the same respect then? You seem to have a red line where it doesn't apply.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I'm saying that if the law goes where it should not ( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/the-extent-of-americas-overcriminalization-problem [heritage.org]) these kinds of blowback are to be expected. It's more of a problem of degree than kind. There is always going to be That Guy, of the "They's some men you just cain't reach" ilk: I get that. You'll never eliminate that smidgen. However, the other 98% of us rational, consenting adults should substantially agree on a minimal set of governing principles, and o

Re:

[fustakrakich]

However, the other 98% of us...

Ah, so much for the individual...

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Starting a business should not mean having to sacrifice your beliefs.

And if the purpose of the business is propagation of my beliefs, then it is double-plus good, right?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

If you're privately held, and you're having a good time, and not hurting others, why not?
If you're publicly held, you'd better have a solid revenue stream; the public worships Almighty Frogskin.