Jul 032014
 

Injustice Alito, aka Scalito, promised that Hobby Lobby is a very narrow ruling that applies only to that one situation.  I think he is lying and in comments I made yesterday, here and elsewhere, I questioned the Republican Reich’s Reaction when a closely held company, owned by Muslims, refuses benefits to Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christian employees, because of the owners had a sincere belief in Sharia.  Great minds fall in the same ditch, because I’m not the only one, who thought of it.

0703hobby…The Roberts and Scalia court is operating under an assumption that Christianity is the United States’ semi-official religion and that it should be legislated and protected in a way that other faiths are not. This is, of course, a misreading of the Constitution–despite what the deranged members of the Fox News Christian Evangelical Dominionist American public would like to believe.

Unintended consequences may lay bare the hypocrisy of the Right-wing and its agents on the Supreme Court.

How would conservatives and their agents respond if a company with Islamic beliefs (however defined) decided to impose its religious values on white, Christian, American employees?

Sharia hysteria would spread in such a way as to make the present day-to-day Islamophobia of the Right-wing echo chamber appear benign and muted by comparison.

What if a Black cultural nationalist organization such as the Nation of Islam or the Black Israelites claimed that they possessed a "religious freedom" to actively discriminate against white people in the workplace or elsewhere?

The White Right would explode with claims of "reverse discrimination" and "black racism".

The end game of the Supreme Courts’ surrender to the theocrats and religious plutocrats could be the complete dismantlement of the liberal consensus politics of the post World War 2 era.

Consider the following questions.

Is there a "religious freedom" to practice housing discrimination if you are a member of a white supremacist "Christian" organization that leases or sells property? Does "religious freedom" for corporate entities trump anti-discrimination laws governing gender, sexuality, disability status, or race?… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

Photo credit: dosomething.org

This is a small segment taken from the middle of a an extensive article.  I urge you to click through for a most interesting read.

Rachel Maddow illustrated this point well in two segments. In the first, she and Dahlia Lithwick explain why this makes no sense as a narrow ruling.

In the second she explores some of the "sincere beliefs" that have made their way to the Supreme Court and been rejected, until now. Then she discussed why this is not a narrow ruling with Rev. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance.

I predict that America’s courts will be flooded with a variety of cases Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians hoping to used their beliefs as an excuse for discriminating against the people they hate or want to control.  I predict that Fascist Five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) will take another bite from this apple.

And to answer my original question, there would be poop on the ceiling.

Share

  23 Responses to “Hobby Lobby and Sharia”

  1. The Roberts Court has repeatedly insisted on framing laws to support their opinions, instead of framing opinions to support the law.

    This has resulted in rulings that declare …

    Corporations are people …
    Women are not
    Money is Speech
    Workers don't matter
    And some religions are more equal than others.
     

  2. "Hobby Lobby is a narrow decision that applies only to this situation."

    This is the Supreme Court we are talking about. All its decisions apply accross the land. And its decisions are used and applied to other legal situations.

    The Supreme Court picks and chooses the cases they will hear. It's no mistake that we now have corporate free for all, because of the Courts rulings.  Scalia is a typical conservative pompus ass. I'm sure he lectures Roberts daily like some 18th century school teacher.

    These are conservatives from the Reagan era. They believe corporations can do no wrong and government is evil. I can just see Roberts and Alito as two young Reagan conservatives holding their signs at a Reagan rally.

  3. I doubt if the insurers have any policies up their sleeves that do not cover birth control, or specific kinds of birth control, or what have you.  Therefore, they will have to custom design them for the companies that insist they want them.  Custom designing group policies is not free.  These policies should therefore carry fees for additional underwriting; in other words, be MORE expensive than policies which cover birth control.  I doubt whether the insurers can design them in such a way as to make sure these costs are not passed on to employees, but I'll bet the administration can.

    Those of us not in that particular food chain should boycott these companies.  There was a link a couple of days ago which led to the list indirectly, but here is the direct link:

    http://now.org/resource/birth-control-mandate-lawsuits/

    I very much hope other faiths will get into the act here.  Without vision the people perish, and Rethuglcans are blind..

  4. This is only the beginning. This Scrotus won't be satisfied until every woman in this country is reduced to slavery, and every corporation has total control over its employees.

    • Both wives and employees barefoor and pregnant.

    • Apparently Sharia law is only a bad thing when Muslims do it, whoever, the Christian vesion of Sharia law is what God intended!  Seems to me that Christian Fundamentalist hate Sharia law because it takes more rights away from people (specially women) then they dare dream of.

  5. Personally, I think that SCROTUS has opened Pandora's box, the contents in which it will be buried alive.  I would love to see a closely held company owned by Muslims try a similar tactic with benefits.  If it rendered the decision the same way, there would be great nashing of teeth by pseudo Christians.  I agree with the author, Chauncey de Vega, when he says:

    "Sharia hysteria would spread in such a way as to make the present day-to-day Islamophobia of the Right-wing echo chamber appear benign and muted by comparison."

    "The White Right would explode with claims of "reverse discrimination" and "black racism"."

    We have already experienced this with laws that sought to even things out . . . affirmative action.

    I have heard SCOTUS referred to as "this auspicious court" but I find nothing auspicious in its recent decisions.  Its decisions have been nothing but biased, without regard to consequences and the constitution.  Time for some retirements from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts . . . or find them being impeached which can only happen with a Democratic majority in Congress.

  6. I looked at another Daily Kos article by Vyan  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/03/1311419/-George-Takei-s-blistering-response-to-HobbyLobby-Could-a-Muslim-Corp-impose-Sharia-Law?detail=facebook

    Below the squiggle, there is a comment from Limbaugh:

    "Yet they wouldn't have the problem if they didn't do a certain thing. It's that simple."

    I really wonder if he thought that through.  "…they didn't do a certain thing."  Of course if all women followed his admonition, then men would be really testy because they "didn't get any", and many marriages would be in tatters.  Let's face it, the old goat, Pat Robertson, said that women are responsible if their husbands are not satisfied and looking elsewhere.  I think the Amazons had something!

    • Lynn, they may call themselves auspicious, but I suspect that is a supposed to be suspicious.  I make that typing mistake often myself.

      Limbaugh just doesn't learn, does he?  If women with endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or at high risk of ovarian cancer, and other hormonal conditions "didn't do a certain thing" they would still be ill and might die without the birth control method used to treat the condition.

    • The word is Republipitious.

      CatSpeak DictionaryRepublipitious: full of shit!

  7. Another SCOTUS error. :mrgreen: