Hobby Lobby Case

WFFaithful said:
Now Republicans make faith an extension of their politics.
Click to expand...

In some cases yes. In some cases it is legit.

You could say the same thing about almost every facet of society. Al gore has made millions doing the same thing with science. Joe Biden preaches care for the poor but barely ever cracks his own checkbook. People use all sorts of things to gain power.
 
Last edited:
bmoneydeac said:
Hasn't it been established that certain types of corporations (typically associated with a church) are exempted from providing birth control in their insurance plan? Isn't the difference that Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation and not necessarily rooted in a church? I see the argument that the HL folks are making, essentially that their corporation was founded with certain religious principals (not unlike an incorporated church). I wouldn't side with them because I just don't see that religion is inextricably tied to their business. But that's how I understand their argument. I've learned everything about this case from this thread and reading a few articles so my apologies if this is off base.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how I see it. I have truly only looked deep into this in the past week but it doesn't seem like HL has a winning case.
 
Wrangor said:
You are fooling yourself. Go back and read anything about MLK. You just happen to agree with his pursuit, which is the difference to you (if he was pursuing the rights of the unborn, his name would not be held in the same regard). His entire premise for civil rights was based on his faith in Jesus Christ, and he made no bones about it. That was his justification. Civil Rights was merely an extension of his faith.
Click to expand...

Of course that is the difference. The pursuit is the crux of the argument, it is exactly what is important. There is a glaring difference between civil rights and reproduction rights - civil rights do not take rights away from anyone, they simply shored up the unfairness written into the law. No one lost any rights in that pursuit. In reproductive rights, the woman loses control over her own body by ceding her rights to those of the fetus. It is a very complex issue and altogether apples and oranges compared to civil rights.
 
WakeandBake said:
Of course that is the difference. The pursuit is the crux of the argument, it is exactly what is important. There is a glaring difference between civil rights and reproduction rights - civil rights do not take rights away from anyone, they simply shored up the unfairness written into the law. No one lost any rights in that pursuit. In reproductive rights, the woman loses control over her own body by ceding her rights to those of the fetus. It is a very complex issue and altogether apples and oranges compared to civil rights.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's just not true. The civil rights laws plainly took away the right of private citizens to exclude from their places of businesses and accommodation people whom they found distasteful, and made clear that the right of association did not include the right to exclude people solely because of their race. Society made a judgment that those rights had to take a back seat to the overwhelming societal need to address Jim Crow hatefulness and oppression, and of course in my view it was absolutely the right judgment. But it is not correct to say that no rights were impacted.
 
Deacon923 said:
Sorry, but that's just not true. The civil rights laws plainly took away the right of private citizens to exclude from their places of businesses and accommodation people whom they found distasteful, and made clear that the right of association did not include the right to exclude people solely because of their race. Society made a judgment that those rights had to take a back seat to the overwhelming societal need to address Jim Crow hatefulness and oppression, and of course in my view it was absolutely the right judgment. But it is not correct to say that no rights were impacted.
Click to expand...

One group taking away another group's rights was a right that was taken away? Really? I don't agree, I don't see a clear comparison at all. Whites lost the right to legally discriminate? That was a right?
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
One group taking away another group's rights was a right that was taken away? Really? I don't agree, I don't see a clear comparison at all. Whites lost the right to legally discriminate? That was a right?
Click to expand...

Yes?

You had a right to exclude people based on their race, you no longer have that right. Pretty clear cut isn't it?

ETA: I believe 923 is talking "right" in the legal sense.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yes?

You had a right to exclude people based on their race, you no longer have that right. Pretty clear cut isn't it?

ETA: I believe 923 is talking "right" in the legal sense.
Click to expand...

ok. I stand corrected. It fell under "pursuit of happiness" or "speech?"

Im trying not to conflate "right" and "legal means/ability" because I don't think they are the same.
 
I'm curious where the "...the right of private citizens to exclude from their places of businesses and accommodation people whom they found distasteful..." is legally grounded. What statute or even penumbra created that "right?"
 
it's a basic and fundamental part of the concept of private ownership of property. If I don't have the right to exclude anyone from my property, then it's not really "mine". You are still free to exclude anyone who is not within a protected class from your private business, because they're an asshole, because you don't like their politics, or because their dad screwed you in a business deal 30 years ago. Because of the civil rights acts and other follow-on legislation, you just can't exclude someone on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability status. The court system is currently working through the problem of whether to add sexual orientation to that list.
 
But you're engaged in commerce- selling what you're calling "private property." It's a great paradox. Can you engage in free market business with the protection of the government- to sell to whomever you wish- or can your customers patronize your free market business with the protection of the government?

Regardless, and with due respect to Adam Smith et al, I'm still not clear on where this "right" is codified in law or regulation.
 
:confused: Im not sure we are arguing the same thing. I still have the "right" as you are defining it to exclude Southern Baptists from my house and property if I so choose, based on the fact that I don't like Southern Baptists. Not my store, but my house. Still don't know how I lost a "right" in that deal. But I do understand how black Americans gained rights.
 
Last edited:
94Deac said:
But you're engaged in commerce- selling what you're calling "private property." It's a great paradox. Can you engage in free market business with the protection of the government- to sell to whomever you wish- or can your customers patronize your free market business with the protection of the government?

Regardless, and with due respect to Adam Smith et al, I'm still not clear on where this "right" is codified in law or regulation.
Click to expand...

Last question first - I don't think it is codified in law or regulation, and it doesn't have to be. It's a fundamental part of the concept of private property underlying all the laws and regulations about private property. It is implicit in Constitutional rights such as the 3rd and 4th Amendments. It is also implicit in the generalized statement of rights to "liberty", as the Founders would have understood "liberty" to include the right to own your own property and to not have to share it with other people if you don't want to. Compare this to the Communist idea of property, which in the extreme is a concept that all property belongs to the state and individuals are just using it for a while, and that use must be conducted for the good of the state/collective.

As to the first question, that is exactly what the civil rights laws addressed. They said, if you are going to engage in interstate commerce (very, very broadly defined) then you must serve all comers (or at least, you can't refuse to serve them because they are black, Muslim, Baptist, old, or female, etc.). Before the civil rights act, business owners were free to put up "No Irish Need Apply" signs. After the civil rights acts, they could not. But you can still refuse to serve someone if the reason to refuse service is not primarily driven by a desire to discriminate against that person for a prohibited reason.
 
WakeandBake said:
:confused: Im not sure we are arguing the same thing. I still have the "right" as you are defining it to exclude Southern Baptists from my house and property if I so choose, based on the fact that I don't like Southern Baptists. Not my store, but my house. Still don't know how I lost a "right" in that deal. But I do understand how black Americans gained rights.
Click to expand...

Correct. The civil rights act did not impact your right to exclude anyone you want from your residence or other non-business property. They impacted your right to exclude people from your business based on race, religion, etc., if your business operates in interstate commerce, which the civil rights acts and subsequent court cases defined very, very broadly to mean pretty much any business.
 
Deacon923 said:
Correct. The civil rights act did not impact your right to exclude anyone you want from your residence or other non-business property. They impacted your right to exclude people from your business based on race, religion, etc., if your business operates in interstate commerce, which the civil rights acts and subsequent court cases defined very, very broadly to mean pretty much any business.
Click to expand...

ok. So you are arguing that under the "right" of liberty a white person could discriminate against a black one, and that the Civil Rights Act did not grant the "right" of liberty to blacks, it merely took away the "right" of liberty from whites?
 
Stupid question here but you seem well read on the subject. Can you discriminate on age/sex/race etc. at a lemonade stand?
 
I thought the Constitution acknowledged the existence of inalienable rights (among other things).
 
WakeandBake said:
ok. So you are arguing that under the "right" of liberty a white person could discriminate against a black one, and that the Civil Rights Act did not grant the "right" of liberty to blacks, it merely took away the "right" of liberty from whites?
Click to expand...

Well, it's not quite that simple. Some parts of the civil rights acts were aimed at getting rid of governmental discrimination (literacy tests, poll taxes). Those laws could be described as guarantying rights for blacks that rightfully belonged to blacks but were being withheld from them by their own governments. I would say that the parts of the civil rights laws that act on private businesses both limit the rights of the private business to exclude people, and also increase the ability of black people (and other minorities) to meaningfully exercise their rights as Americans to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The writers of those acts understood that virulent racism in the South was so extreme that just keeping the Southern governments from perpetrating de jure racism wasn't enough; they had to force private actors to stop engaging in de facto racism to break the grip of Jim Crow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top