SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[garbon]

To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.

The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.

Wouldn't a more fitting example be if I gave you some money (let's say $50) and then you later (with my foreknowledge that you would) spend $5000 to have someone beat up your wife?

[garbon]

To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.

The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.

But if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.

[garbon]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

The latter. I hate bicyclists.

[merithyn]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

The latter. I hate bicyclists.

And hey, that's just as okay as my buying it from the kid who wants a bike! You're helping support (or fight against) a cause that you believe in buy spending $0.25 on a glass of lemonade, even if it's a tiny bit.

It's really not that hard to understand. You may not want to do it. You may not agree with the choices that I make. But it's not hard to grasp the concept unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Agelastus]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

In order of what would affect my choice -

(a) If I'd bought before the tastier.
(b) If it was the neighbourhood, the one my family knew better.
(c) The cheaper.
(d) If all else fails the one that looks nicer.

Your concern wouldn't even cross my mind - the only person who has any right to interfere with what the kid wants to buy with the money he/she's earned is his/her's parents.

[OttoVonBismarck]

But if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.

And it's a good thing I already said this:

Are you committing a crime by doing business with the front? Is it immoral to do lawful and morally appropriate business with someone who otherwise commits crimes?

In the example of a front, I'd argue you are contributing to their ability to maintain a front for their crimes by giving it legitimate business. So in that scenario there is a moral impingement to doing business with them. But if you have a neighbor that you know sells drugs, is it immoral to pay him to shovel snow out of your drive way? I'd argue it is not, since it is in no way connected to his drug dealing. Whether you choose to try and get him arrested or busted for his drug dealing is a separate moral decision unconnected to paying him to shovel snow.

And this:

The slave comment was hyperbole. Yes, if a business had slaves working in the back you'd have a moral responsibility to tell the authorities, the question of whether to do business with them not even being the pressing concern at that point.

If we know someone is imminently preparing to commit a crime we have a societal obligation to act to stop it. I'd be pretty ashamed of myself if my only response to knowing someone was saving money up to hire a hitman or buy a bat to beat his wife with was to boycott their business.

[garbon]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

The latter. I hate bicyclists.

And hey, that's just as okay as my buying it from the kid who wants a bike! You're helping support (or fight against) a cause that you believe in buy spending $0.25 on a glass of lemonade, even if it's a tiny bit.

It's really not that hard to understand. You may not want to do it. You may not agree with the choices that I make. But it's not hard to grasp the concept unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

I wasn't disagreeing with the concept though.

[garbon]

the only person who has any right to interfere with what the kid wants to buy with the money he/she's earned is his/her's parents.

That strikes me as a terrible stance. Parents don't always know better and society has a dog in the fight as we have to deal with the consequences of shitty parenting.

[Agelastus]

the only person who has any right to interfere with what the kid wants to buy with the money he/she's earned is his/her's parents.

That strikes me as a terrible stance. Parents don't always know better and society has a dog in the fight as we have to deal with the consequences of shitty parenting.

Jumping to the universal from such a limited example is a tad extreme, isn't it?

[crazy canuck]

To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.

The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.

Of course you are not respsonible for the odious act.  But if you continue to support an organization knowing they have committed odious acts then you can no longer argue the act of supporting that oranization with money through the purchase of their goods or services is not morally linked.

[Syt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/for-the-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-is-only-the-beginning.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=OP_HLI_20140702&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=1

Hobby Lobby Is Only the Beginning

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — THE United States Constitution speaks of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over "cases" and "controversies." But when social controversies do come before the court, its powers are limited. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which concerned the dispute over the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, the court may have decided the case. The larger controversy, however, won't be settled so easily.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the court on Monday held that the mandate, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception, could not be applied to closely held for-profit corporations with religious objections to some forms of contraception. Religious groups described the mandate as part of a war on religious freedom. Supporters of the mandate countered that a victory for the plaintiffs would allow large corporations, under the cover of religious freedom, not just to impede women's exercise of their reproductive rights but also to defy civil rights statutes with impunity.

Amid this heated talk, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that this was a statutory case, not a case decided under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion. The statute in question, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states that the government "shall not substantially burden" the exercise of religion without satisfying a demanding legal test.

It is worth noting that the act was championed by President Bill Clinton and passed in 1993, with near unanimity, by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The act was drafted in response to a controversial 1990 Supreme Court decision that made it easier — far too easy, according to critics of all political stripes — for the government to burden the exercise of religion.

The decision in Hobby Lobby was no shock to anyone familiar with the heavy weight that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act places on religious accommodation. The fate of the case was sealed 21 years ago — not by a slim majority of the court, but by virtually every member of Congress. In a dissenting opinion on Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the court's ruling in Hobby Lobby was one of "startling breadth," but the statute itself is deliberately broad.

So why all the shouting? If the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is clearly written, and the product of a democratic process, what explains the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding this case? In truth, the sources of the controversy lie outside the issue of the contraceptive mandate itself. And that should be great cause for concern — to both sides of the debate.

The first source of controversy is the collapse of a national consensus on a key element of religious liberty: accommodation. Throughout American history, there has been widespread agreement that in our religiously diverse and widely devout country, it is good for the government to accommodate religious exercise. We have disagreed about particular accommodations (may a Muslim police officer wear a beard, despite police department policy?), and especially about whether religious accommodations should be ordered by judges or crafted by legislators. But we have generally agreed that our nation benefits when we help rather than burden those with religious obligations. That consensus seems, quite suddenly, to have evaporated.

A second source of controversy is that many people view the Hobby Lobby case as concerning not just reproductive rights but also, indirectly, rights for gays and lesbians. Advocates for same-sex marriage have long insisted that their own marriages need not threaten anyone else's, but citizens with religious objections to same-sex marriage wonder whether that is entirely true: Will a small-business owner be sued, for instance, for declining to provide services to a same-sex couple? Conversely, and understandably, gay and lesbian couples wonder why they do not deserve the same protections from discrimination granted to racial and other minorities. For both sides, Hobby Lobby was merely a prelude to this dawning conflict.

The third source of controversy is a change in our views of the marketplace itself. The marketplace was once seen as place to put aside our culture wars and engage in the great American tradition of buying and selling. The shopping mall has even been called the "American agora." But today the market itself has become a site of cultural conflict. Hobby Lobby is one of many companies that seek to express faith commitments at work as well as at home and that don't see the workplace as a thing apart from religion. Many companies preach and practice values, religious and otherwise, that are unrelated to market considerations. CVS, for example, recently announced that it would stop selling tobacco products, regardless of how that decision might affect its bottom line.

A country that cannot even agree on the idea of religious accommodation, let alone on what terms, is unlikely to agree on what to do next. A country in which many states cannot manage to pass basic anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation is one whose culture wars may be beyond the point of compromise. And a nation whose marketplace itself is viewed, for better or worse, as a place to fight both those battles rather than to escape from them is still less likely to find surcease from struggle.

Expect many more Hobby Lobbies.

[garbon]

Shrill.

[crazy canuck]

Shrill.

Yes but the members of the US Supreme Court are hard to replace.

[merithyn]

Your concern wouldn't even cross my mind - the only person who has any right to interfere with what the kid wants to buy with the money he/she's earned is his/her's parents.

I disagree. So you feel free to spend your money where you'd like, and I'll do the same.

[merithyn]

But if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.

And it's a good thing I already said this:

Are you committing a crime by doing business with the front? Is it immoral to do lawful and morally appropriate business with someone who otherwise commits crimes?

In the example of a front, I'd argue you are contributing to their ability to maintain a front for their crimes by giving it legitimate business. So in that scenario there is a moral impingement to doing business with them. But if you have a neighbor that you know sells drugs, is it immoral to pay him to shovel snow out of your drive way? I'd argue it is not, since it is in no way connected to his drug dealing. Whether you choose to try and get him arrested or busted for his drug dealing is a separate moral decision unconnected to paying him to shovel snow.

And this:

The slave comment was hyperbole. Yes, if a business had slaves working in the back you'd have a moral responsibility to tell the authorities, the question of whether to do business with them not even being the pressing concern at that point.

If we know someone is imminently preparing to commit a crime we have a societal obligation to act to stop it. I'd be pretty ashamed of myself if my only response to knowing someone was saving money up to hire a hitman or buy a bat to beat his wife with was to boycott their business.

Then I'm not sure why you offered the example that you did.