So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[Ravenshire]

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.

That answer is (for a legal guardian) an unequivocal yes. In fact, for an adult who is unable to answer for themselves, for whatever reason, the next of kin gets to decide, even if they are estranged and people close to the patient and who actually know what that person wants are ignored, unless there's a living will.

[Rampant.A.I.]

"Sincerity of belief" is coming up a bit more often. When used to devalue the Pastafarians, for instance, from the AF POV that's not so good. But when it is focused on, let's say, Hobby Lobby, if zealously pursued by competent and well paid legal staff it might be a good thing.

How sincere is Hobby Lobby? There really isn't scripture that addresses morning after chemical abortifacients . . .

well, I guess there is, and the Bible outlines the procedure for doing it.




Ooops!

Oh yeah, it's really sincerely held:




http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...objection/

[vorlon13]

"Sincerity of belief" is coming up a bit more often. When used to devalue the Pastafarians, for instance, from the AF POV that's not so good. But when it is focused on, let's say, Hobby Lobby, if zealously pursued by competent and well paid legal staff it might be a good thing.

How sincere is Hobby Lobby? There really isn't scripture that addresses morning after chemical abortifacients . . .

well, I guess there is, and the Bible outlines the procedure for doing it.




Ooops!

Oh yeah, it's really sincerely held:




http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...objection/

Well, let's all understand the implications of this. SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the God Mammon.

Not whatzizname, Jehovo, Jevahal, Jehosolo, hell, whoever.

[Mister Agenda]

Thinking about this further, it occurs to me that this will result in all sorts of consequences from the courts being put in the position of deciding theological issues, like the 'deeply heldness' of a religious belief, and why it's okay to exempt Hobby Lobby from provisions of the ACA, but not okay to exempt, for example, old-school Mormons from provisions of our marriage laws. In the case of Mormons, it was ruled that the need for consistency in civil law was suffiecient to override the religous convictions of the plaintiffs. I think this ruling opens that door again, as apparently there is no such principle anymore, and now the standard is whether or not someone might die (so JW's don't get to deny blood transfusions) but on what grounds do we require a Muslim polygamist to divorce all but one of his wives before allowing him to immigrate (current law).

---

Hm, and Alito indicated the government could fund the contraceptive services Hobby Lobby would deny...putting all American taxpayers in the position of funding these products/treatments. Including Catholics and Evangelicals and the owners of Hobby Lobby.

---

As long as I'm 'hm-ing', what about case law concerning religous use of peyote and 'ganja'?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Maybe there should be nine atheists on the Court instead of the current nine Catholics and Jews?

[The Grand Nudger]

We'd be off to a good start.

[Clueless Morgan]

Shame it would never happen.

[Mister Agenda]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/pol...v=top-news

That escalated quickly.

[Jaysyn]

Another possible silver lining to the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.

Bible-thumpers & neo-cons alike forget that corporate veil can be torn in both directions.

Small wonder, then, that despite congressional Republicans defending the Hobby Lobby decision as a victory for American business against the nanny state, the US Chamber of Commerce—the country's main big business lobby—was quiet on the issue. Even more telling: Despite a record tide of friends-of-the-court briefs, not one Fortune 500 weighed in on the case.

[The Grand Nudger]

They know which side of their bread gets buttered and by whom. I'd stay mum myself and hope it blew over.