So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[Clueless Morgan]

Bleh, at least their decision was very narrowly defined, i.e. specifically only for the morning after pill (I believe), so Jehovah's Witnesses can't refuse blood transfusions, Catholics can't refuse condoms, etc.

Yes, that's good...but it's unclear what reasoning allows them to allow Hobby Lobby to evade covering certain types of birth control, that doesn't apply to a Jehovah's Witness business owner not being able to do the same. At first glance, the reasoning seems to be based on none of the justices being a JW.

Exactly.

It's only a matter of time before the hypocrisy in allowing religious exemptions for certain types of BC and disallowing religious exemptions for blood transfusions is made clear. The justices are cherry-picking what they agree with.

It's a crying shame SCJ hold their position for life.

[Dystopia]

Yes, that's good...but it's unclear what reasoning allows them to allow Hobby Lobby to evade covering certain types of birth control, that doesn't apply to a Jehovah's Witness business owner not being able to do the same. At first glance, the reasoning seems to be based on none of the justices being a JW.

Exactly.

It's only a matter of time before the hypocrisy in allowing religious exemptions for certain types of BC and disallowing religious exemptions for blood transfusions is made clear. The justices are cherry-picking what they agree with.

It's a crying shame SCJ hold their position for life.

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

[Clueless Morgan]

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

I'm not sure but if they are the legal guardian (say, the parent of an adopted child, or the grandparent granted legal custody) then my guess would be yes.

[Dystopia]

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

I'm not sure but if they are the legal guardian (say, the parent of an adopted child, or the grandparent granted legal custody) then my guess would be yes.

Guardian as if it was a tutor or a parent, it doesn't matter, can someone with child custody refuse according to the law and let the kid die? Where I live you can't, unless there is another medical procedure with the same result without needing a blood transfusion

[Brian37]

Exactly.

It's only a matter of time before the hypocrisy in allowing religious exemptions for certain types of BC and disallowing religious exemptions for blood transfusions is made clear. The justices are cherry-picking what they agree with.

It's a crying shame SCJ hold their position for life.

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

I think that is a case by case thing. If the kid is in their mid to late teens but not 18, the kid can be asked by the doctor and be considered old enough. But personally I think that is bullshit because they most likely have been indoctrinated since they were toddlers.

But most definitely you CANNOT deny medical treatment to kids not old enough to make their own decisions. Parents have been arrested and convicted of child endangerment and neglect and in some cases manslaughter or murder. The younger a kid is the less religion can be used as an excuse to deny treatment.

[Esquilax]

I wonder when we'll start hearing the right wing pundits bitching about how this is the work of activist judges, legislating from the bench? I mean, because that is a consistent position that they hold, against judicial activism, and not at all just a product of not getting what they want while wanting to seem unbiased, right?

[Brian37]

I wonder when we'll start hearing the right wing pundits bitching about how this is the work of activist judges, legislating from the bench? I mean, because that is a consistent position that they hold, against judicial activism, and not at all just a product of not getting what they want while wanting to seem unbiased, right?

The right wing of this current court is not hiding it's bias very well. It is very obvious it is political and religious.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know this is a little out of context, but can a religious guardian refuse his/her son/daughter a blood transfusion for religious reasons it it's a matter of life or death (in the USA)? Considering a child cannot consent.

They certainly can, have done, and are likely to do so again. That doesn't mean that the tree always falls the way the guardian wants it to. I'll try to get you a link, but several judges recently have essentially said "blow jesus out your ass"- Min;style.... when a defendant has been brought before the court with regards to the otherwise preventable death of a child. Couple of high profile cases involved a defendant who'd been brought before the courts on the same charges more than once (which is probably what led the judge in those cases to call bullshit) over a long span of time. A clear pattern of endangering minors in their charge. IIRC, they ended up being charged with murder - not manslaughter, or neglect, and their religious defense was noted but not legitimized. About time we got to this, in 2014.

[Dystopia]

I wonder when we'll start hearing the right wing pundits bitching about how this is the work of activist judges, legislating from the bench? I mean, because that is a consistent position that they hold, against judicial activism, and not at all just a product of not getting what they want while wanting to seem unbiased, right?

The right wing of this current court is not hiding it's bias very well. It is very obvious it is political and religious.

Right wing in the US is not the same as right wing in the rest of the world. Where I live democrats are considered conservatives

[Jenny A]

Actually, that part I get. They mean a corporation owned by a very small like-minded group of people can have a religious orientation. Hobby Lobby is entirely family owned.

But one thing is the orientation of the people another thing is the collective entity. The entity is formed by the people but both are separate. Objection of conscience can happen if a particular employer is against something, but the whole corporation can't be religious biased. Associations and foundations can, but corporations and enterprises can't, usually they search for profit only.

That's the point. The court found that because Hobby Lobby is owned by only a very few shareholders who share the same religious views,
it has 1st Amendment religious rights because the owners do. It doesn't mean that GM or Apple has religious rights because they are publicly traded and so the shareholders change all the time and do not have a united religious point of view.

I don't mind the idea that the owners of closely held corporations have 1st Amendment rights. I do mind the idea that for profit companies or business owners can get away without paying for legally mandated employee benefits just because they object to them on religious grounds.