Support NeoGAF

[789shadow]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ee-105010.html

Also the Dems just royally fucked themselves in Iowa, this may seriously hurt Braley.

Oh my god what an idiot.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...rassley-farmer-with-no-law-degree-105010.html

Also the Dems just royally fucked themselves in Iowa, this may seriously hurt Braley.

He's done. That's like a Michigan candidate talking shit about auto workers, it's an automatic death sentence.

GOP senate here we come.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I want to see a poll first before Diablosing on this one, but yeah that's a serious fuck up.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The problem wasn't the insult to farmers, it was the praise of trial lawyers.

“To put this in stark contrast, if you help me when this race you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone who’s been literally fighting tort reform for thirty years, in a visible or public way, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Or, you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because, if Democrats lose the majority, Chuck Grassley will be the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

This is horrible. But I'm still hesitant to say its the end. I just am not sure how much gaffes matter. Do voters really care? He's not running against grassley. It helps the GOP base get motivated. I don't see it moving voters. One of his opponents also is releasing ads about her castrating abilities

The 47 tape didn't kill Romney

 

[Aaron Strife]

The 47 tape didn't kill Romney

I agree. It was this man

 

[kehs]

I agree. It was this man

def

 

[Aaron Strife]

def

Touche.

b-b-but perfect campaign

 

[empty vessel]

The idea that an abstact legal construct of the State can be religious is totally absurd. I can't believe I live in a society that even pretends to take such nonsense seriously.

 

[ivysaur12]

I want to see a poll first before Diablosing on this one, but yeah that's a serious fuck up.

It's also March.

 

[Black Mamba]

Would you be ok with a ruling that says corporations apply as people in the case of RFRA, but Hobby Lobby does not prove substantial religious burden in this particular case?

It sounds like Kennedy and Beyer all focused more on the compelling government interest and substantial religious burden part of the RFRA, and not the personhood of corporations. They could have included your line of arguing in the substantial religious burden part, but I am more worried about the continued increase of corporate rights.

I don't know if I would be okay with it. What I'm arguing is "substantial religion burden" part isn't even applicable because the government isn't doing anything related to religion at all.

Even if I assume Hobby Lobby is a "person" as the RFRA states, I see nothing related to religion at all taking place. While I could argue a compelling government interest, I'd first argue that the gov't isn't infringing on religious rights of Hobby Lobby even if it's a person.

Hobby Lobby being mandated to have their insurance plans they purchase cover birth control does not affect Hobby Lobby's free exercise of religion and therefore no compelling interest matters.


A corporation or an actual person not wanting to provide birth control via insurance is not religious exercise. At all. I can't believe this hasn't be realized. It's an absurd notion. To accept it is to also accept that a religious Jew/Muslim paying taxes which lead to salaries for workers who buy pork is a violation of their free exercise of religion. Now, obviously they wouldn't be exempt from taxes because it would still pass the compelling interest and least restrictive tests, but the idea itself is ridiculous and yet, here we are, having seemingly accepted it as a religious violation.

My entire problem is the case should be thrown out on ground that there is no exercise of religion being affected to start with and thus the RFRA and 1st Amendment have no bearing on this case.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't know if I would be okay with it. What I'm arguing is "substantial religion burden" part isn't even applicable because the government isn't doing anything related to religion at all.

Even if I assume Hobby Lobby is a "person" as the RFRA states, I see nothing related to religion at all taking place. While I could argue a compelling government interest, I'd first argue that the gov't isn't infringing on religious rights of Hobby Lobby even if it's a person.

Hobby Lobby being mandated to have their insurance plans they purchase cover birth control does not affect Hobby Lobby's free exercise of religion and therefore no compelling interest matters.


A corporation or an actual person not wanting to provide birth control via insurance is not religious exercise. At all. I can't believe this hasn't be realized. It's an absurd notion. To accept it is to also accept that a religious Jew/Muslim paying taxes which lead to salaries for workers who buy pork is a violation of their free exercise of religion. Now, obviously they wouldn't be exempt from taxes because it would still pass the compelling interest and least restrictive tests, but the idea itself is ridiculous and yet, here we are, having seemingly accepted it as a religious violation.

My entire problem is the case should be thrown out on ground that there is no exercise of religion being affected to start with and thus the RFRA and 1st Amendment have no bearing on this case.

TBH I don't want the courts determining whether something is an exercise of religion or not if something is a sincere belief. We should take them at their word that paying for insurance that includes birth control is a violation of their faith. That doesn't take away the other arguments

 

[Metaphoreus]

A corporation or an actual person not wanting to provide birth control via insurance is not religious exercise.

What if the person (corporate or natural) believes it is a sin (i.e., a violation of God's commands) to provide the item he, she, or it is being required to provide? Because that's Hobby Lobby's argument.

The exercise of religion doesn't just mean going to church and praying at home. It means ordering one's life in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

 

[empty vessel]

What if the person (corporate or natural) believes it is a sin to provide the item he, she, or it is being required to provide? Because that's Hobby Lobby's argument.

The exercise of religion doesn't just mean going to church and praying at home. It means ordering one's life in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

How does Hobby Lobby--a legal construct created by the State of Oklahoma--exercise a religion? A corporation's "personhood" is a legal fiction--much like the entity itself--that allows it to be sued as an entity. These are social constructs, and I want to know how a social construct practices religion.

 

[Black Mamba]

What if the person (corporate or natural) believes it is a sin to provide the item he, she, or it is being required to provide? Because that's Hobby Lobby's argument.

Hobby Lobby is not being forced to provide birth control. Hobby Lobby is being told to provide health insurance or pay a tax.

Should Hobby Lobby also be allowed to deny coverage for pregnancies of unwed mothers. Should they be allowed to fire someone for getting divorced?

The exercise of religion doesn't just mean going to church and praying at home. It means ordering one's life in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

No, that is exactly what it means and only recently has the definition been warped.

Me believing abortion is a sin means that no one can force me into an abortion. It does not mean I can deny abortion or birth control or anything else to my employees. Me buying insurance has nothing to do with religion in any way, shape, or form. It is a bastardized understanding of the concept.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How does Hobby Lobby--a legal construct created by the State of Oklahoma--exercise a religion? A corporation's "personhood" is a legal fiction--much like the entity itself--that allows it to be sued as an entity. These are social constructs, and I want to know how a social construct practices religion.

I'm actually currently discussing this very thing with Dude Abides in the thread devoted to this topic.

In short, the same way it does anything.

 

[Black Mamba]

TBH I don't want the courts determining whether something is an exercise of religion or not if something is a sincere belief. We should take them at their word that paying for insurance that includes birth control is a violation of their faith. That doesn't take away the other arguments

Beliefs and exercise of religion are not the same thing; this is why there's a problem here.

Exercising religion = going to church, praying, eating what you want.

It is not imposing your belief on other people.

There is nothing to determine. it is a very specific thing. Only you can exercise religion for yourself and no one else. If you're a Muslim and the gov't tells you to drink wine, that's a violation. But your tax dollars going to pay for a gala that serves wine is not.

It's as clear as night and day.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Beliefs and exercise of religion are not the same thing; this is why there's a problem here.

Exercising religion = going to church, praying, eating what you want.

It is not imposing your belief on other people.

There is nothing to determine. it is a very specific thing. Only you can exercise religion for yourself and no one else. If you're a Muslim and the gov't tells you to drink wine, that's a violation. But your tax dollars going to pay for a gala that serves wine is not.

It's as clear as night and day.

This isn't true for religious folk. I don't think they should be allowed to do everything obviously but your drawing a distinction they don't share and which they have deemed an exercise. You seem to be telling them what their religion is and isn't,

I don't second question that. I just question if the government can A, transfer that to a for-profit business, B if it can does the government have a compelling interest?

 

[Black Mamba]

This isn't true for religious folk. I don't think they should be allowed to do everything obviously but your drawing a distinction they don't share and which they have deemed an exercise. You seem to be telling them what their religion is and isn't,

I don't second question that. I just question if the government can A, transfer that to a for-profit business, B if it can does the government have a compelling interest?

I don't give a fuck what religious folk think. I care about what the Free Exercise of Religion clause says/means and it does not mean what they want it to think.

They don't get to decide it.

We do know what the free exercise of religion is and isn't. It's just like that stupid homosexual wedding cake thing where the selling of a cake becomes religion. There is nothing religious about selling a cake ever.

In fact, I think the argument that allowing a company to impose their beliefs on others is closer to a gov't establishment of religion than this is of a dent to free exercise.

Let me re-quote Scalia quoting someone else because it is applicable

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,

This is essentially the same thing you're arguing by saying people get to decide what exercise means to them!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't give a fuck what religious folk think. I care about what the Free Exercise of Religion clause says/means and it does not mean what they want it to think.

They don't get to decide it.

We do know what the free exercise of religion is and isn't. It's just like that stupid homosexual wedding cake thing where the selling of a cake becomes religion. There is nothing religious about selling a cake ever.

In fact, I think the argument that allowing a company to impose their beliefs on others is closer to a gov't establishment of religion than this is of a dent to free exercise.

They don't get to decide what is and isn't commanded by their religion?

There is nothing religious about selling a cake ever.

Many Jew's would disagree.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, that is exactly what it means and only recently has the definition been warped.

Nothing in the phrase "exercise of religion" suggests such a cramped reading. It'd be like reading the term "speech" in the First Amendment to refer exclusively to pre-drafted orations before a live audience.

 

[theprodigy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...rassley-farmer-with-no-law-degree-105010.html

Also the Dems just royally fucked themselves in Iowa, this may seriously hurt Braley.

I wanna see the receipts before Diablosing

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Let me re-quote Scalia quoting someone else because it is applicable



This is essentially the same thing you're arguing by saying people get to decide what exercise means to them!

I'm not disputing that. And my argument has nothing to do with the decision in smith. I'm not saying they have the right to supersede laws. I'm saying we CAN restrict the free exercise of religion in certain cases but we should realize we are restricting it instead of pretending it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Black Mamba]

Nothing in the phrase "exercise of religion" suggests such a cramped reading. It'd be like reading the term "speech" in the First Amendment to refer exclusively to pre-drafted orations before a live audience.

No, that would be stupid because "speech" has always meant "political speech."

It would be like reading "speech" as including non-political speech, which can be dealt with (ie threatening someone or screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.).

Not all speech is protected just like not all things remotely involved in religion is protected.

One of the first cases dealing with exercise of religion defined the exercise of religion as the protection of beliefs but not the protection of religious practice that counter criminal laws.

This established that beliefs and practice are in different areas. The former is clearly a free exercise issue, the latter may not be.


I'm sorry, but no one can plausibly argue my exercise of religion is affected by me buying insurance for my employees which covers birth control. This is a bastardized notion of exercising religion. To argue this is to argue every belief one holds may be protected under such a guile.


My religion says that all medical treatment is wrong (cuz god wants what he wants), therefore the ACA should be overturned.

I'm saying we CAN restrict the free exercise of religion in certain cases but we should realize we are restricting it instead of pretending it has nothing to do with religion.

Of course we can restrict it (see: animal sacrifices, polygamy, human sacrifice) but those are actual exercises of religion. What I'm saying is this Hobby Lobby case has nothing to do with religion, at all.

This is only becoming possible because we have so many theocrats in gov't.

 

[Black Mamba]

How is Hobby Lobby's (or their shareholders') practice of religion affected by the birth control mandate?

Were they denied the ability to pray? Go to church? What?

 

[Black Mamba]

No, it hasn't. See, for instance (since this is GAF), the debate around video game violence, which is generally permitted under "freedom of speech" even though it has no political message.

Well, "political" has a different meaning too, it doesn't mean just towards politics as we know it today.

Rather, it's the protection of "ideas" and "beliefs," moreso than anything. VGs fall under that.

Most people's practice of religion doesn't just involve acts of commission (like praying or going to church) but also acts of omission -- not doing things you believe are immoral or unethical. Every religion (as well as many secular belief systems) proscribes certain actions, and living in accordance with that is part of most people's sincere religious practice.

yes, like omitting to get an abortion, yourself. Not preventing someone else from getting on, though.

Would you support a law that mandated Muslims to drink alcohol? A law that mandated Hindus to eat beef? Quakers to join the military?

Well, with the Quakers yes under certain circumstances, but the others of course not.

But I thought I already answered the other two.

If you're a Muslim and the gov't tells you to drink wine, that's a violation. But your tax dollars going to pay for a gala that serves wine is not.

A muslim being forced to drink wine is affecting his exercise of religion. His religion says he cannot drink wine and he is being forced to do it. No religion, however, says someone else drinking wine gives you sin.

 

[Black Mamba]

I do think its' telling that in the 8 or whatever hours I've asked the question, no one has even attempting to answer my question asking what specific exercise of religion is Hobby Lobby having affected, fwiw.

Because it doesn't exist.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I do think its' telling that in the 8 or whatever hours I've asked the question, no one has even attempting to answer my question asking what specific exercise of religion is Hobby Lobby having affected, fwiw.

Because it doesn't exist.

Supporting, with money, contraception by being forced to buy coverage which includes contraception coverage. They're religion mandates they exercise their rights by not doing something.

 

[Black Mamba]

Supporting, with money, contraception by being forced to buy coverage which includes contraception coverage. They're religion mandates they exercise their rights by not doing something.

So their money that they pay wages to their employees never go to buying contraception?


Well, at least someone finally made an attempt. But you're just repeating what I've asked. "How does Hobby Lobby being asked to pay for insurance that covers violates their exercise of religion," and you answer "By asking them to pay for it."

What actual exercise is being affected? They clearly do not believe their money may never go to cover contraceptives by the very fact that they exist to buy items and give wages out to people who will most certainly buy contraceptives because if it did and it affected their religion, they'd have closed up shop well before the ACA existed.

Does Hobby Lobby shareholders buy from Walgreens? They sell contraceptives!

You cannot selectively choose when using money is an exercise and when it is not. It's either always or never. And clearly, Hobby Lobby believes never.

 

[Hitokage]

If Hobby Lobby hires a satanist, are they endorsing satanism through wages?

 

[thepotatoman]

Beliefs and exercise of religion are not the same thing; this is why there's a problem here.

Exercising religion = going to church, praying, eating what you want.

It is not imposing your belief on other people.

There is nothing to determine. it is a very specific thing.

I think separation of church and state is a very important part of freedom of religion. Making the government strictly define religion does not adhere to that separation. There are already plenty of other legal tests that do keep freedom of religion from running wild over government while keeping the separation of church and state intact and not needing such definitions as religion being only about church and prayer. But if you know of any precedence for making judgement on a person's religion on the merits of that religion itself, I'd like to hear it.

We already say you still have to pay taxes if a portion goes to war despite your peaceful religious beliefs, so why bother with figuring out if that person is truly peaceful or just wants to get out of paying taxes? In this case it seems pretty clear that Hobby Lobby is going to lose this case solely based off the tests provided in RFRA so there's no real need to challenge the legitimacy of their religious beliefs.

Only you can exercise religion for yourself and no one else. If you're a Muslim and the gov't tells you to drink wine, that's a violation. But your tax dollars going to pay for a gala that serves wine is not.

It's as clear as night and day.

That sounds like a type of arguement that was touched on a lot. Kennedy even touched on it a bit, seeming to agree with it (page 33).

How would you suggest that we think about the position and the rights of the employees? And you can have hypotheticals about the employer wants to make them wear burkas and so forth. That's not in this case.

But in a way, the employees are in a position where the government, through its healthcare plans is, under your view, is allowing the employer to put the employee in a disadvantageous position. The employee may not agree with these religious beliefs of the employer. Does the religious beliefs just trump? Is that the way it works?

Justice Breyer actually brings up the tax example himself on page 68, though it's a bit tough for me to understand what he's trying to say.

 

[The Technomancer]

The one thing I'm disappointed in with the Hobby lobby case is that is seems no one is really arguing that it's not an exercise of religion.

Let's assume that Hobby Lobby does have the right to free exercise of religion. Explain to me how denying birth control via insurance is an exercise of religion? FEoR has always meant the right to pray, go to church, eat/smoke/drink whatever your beliefs are, it has never ever ever ever ever ever meant you can impose your personal held views on other people or affect other people in any way, shape, or form.

No one's religion is being violated. Because my employer's insurance provides me via gov't mandate with birth control doesn't demonstrate a violation of the free exercise of religion. It's not the gov't preventing them from praying.

No one seems to be arguing this and it annoys me.

Well that's the whole rub, isn't it? None of those other exercises of religion that you mention are things that a corporation can actually do because a corporation is not an individual. All that corporate expression could mean is either freedom of religious speech (which they already have) or freedom to impose behavior on their employees because the employees are "part of the corperation", which is the problem

 

[ISOM]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/federal-appeals-obamacare_n_5030583.html

Do you guys think there are any chances that the subsidies will be ruled illegal?

 

[The Technomancer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/federal-appeals-obamacare_n_5030583.html

Do you guys think there are any chances that the subsidies will be ruled illegal?

Oh fucking christ. Hey, you know what would make this problem go away? If all of the states had set up goddamn exchanges!

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Did anyone else notice how the media pretty much made up a story by saying that the Democrats have "turned on" Nate Silver?

Why's that? Because they aren't thrilled with his predictions in the midterms?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So their money that they pay wages to their employees never go to buying contraception?


Well, at least someone finally made an attempt. But you're just repeating what I've asked. "How does Hobby Lobby being asked to pay for insurance that covers violates their exercise of religion," and you answer "By asking them to pay for it."

What actual exercise is being affected? They clearly do not believe their money may never go to cover contraceptives by the very fact that they exist to buy items and give wages out to people who will most certainly buy contraceptives because if it did and it affected their religion, they'd have closed up shop well before the ACA existed.

Does Hobby Lobby shareholders buy from Walgreens? They sell contraceptives!

You cannot selectively choose when using money is an exercise and when it is not. It's either always or never. And clearly, Hobby Lobby believes never.

You don't think their is a distinction besides literally paying for something that expressly includes something and paying a wage which is only a transfer of money in which they have no control over how its spent? You might not make that distinction but some people might.

I'm not presenting this is agree with them, just that I don't think we should be dictating to religious people that distinction.

I'm not saying that's a good reason to deny them the coverage. I don't think Hobby Lobby should win this case, I'm just opposed to your idea that the supreme court should decide which is a religious claim and which is not. They should take the sincerity of believe at face value and then judge whether the state has the right to ignore that believe because it has a compelling interest and isn't targeting religious practice unfairly, no matter how silly it is. Lee delt with a religious person not liking social security because of their belief on 'self-reliance.' That sounds silly to me, but its not reason to through the case out. The government needed to show why they can tell that person their believes didn't entitle them to ignore the law.

 

[Aaron Strife]

NRCC: Bruce Braley (D-IA) is the new Todd Akin

Holy shit. What world are they living in where Todd Akin WASN'T their candidate?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

NRCC: Bruce Braley (D-IA) is the new Todd Akin

Holy shit. What world are they living in where Todd Akin WASN'T their candidate?

Yeah, lets remind people are our candidates ideas about 'legitimate rape'.

I'm just reminded of Gaffes like Blumenthals comments about Vietnam, Reids comments about people losing their job being good, Brown's nazi comments that were declared proof positive they were done. They all won

 

[ISOM]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/federal-appeals-obamacare_n_5030583.html

Do you guys think there are any chances that the subsidies will be ruled illegal?

So I'm guessing this is not serious?

 

[theprodigy]

NRCC: Bruce Braley (D-IA) is the new Todd Akin

Holy shit. What world are they living in where Todd Akin WASN'T their candidate?

ah yes, please proceed Republicans

 

[Wilsongt]

NRCC: Bruce Braley (D-IA) is the new Todd Akin

Holy shit. What world are they living in where Todd Akin WASN'T their candidate?

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Really? Are they really going to try that?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[PhoenixDark]

Meh, I wouldn't waste a second defending Braley. The stupidity is mind numbing and just might cost democrats the senate, if the GOP plays their cards right.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Meh, I wouldn't waste a second defending Braley. The stupidity is mind numbing and just might cost democrats the senate, if the GOP plays their cards right.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Did anyone else notice how the media pretty much made up a story by saying that the Democrats have "turned on" Nate Silver?

They're being hypocritical. On one hand democrats are sending out emails claiming Silver shows doom for democrats in the midterm (note: this was before Silver released his chart), now they're spinning saying early polls don't prove anything. They can't have it both ways.

538's website is trash but they did have an article showing that early polls are about as accurate as late polls.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...d_the_bruce_braley_farmer_gaffe_come_out.html

By general agreement, from Iowa political reporting legend David Yepsen to the lowliest content aggregator, Rep. Bruce Braley gaffed horribly when he insulted Chuck Grassley. Braley, who's been attacked for his "trial lawyer" backing and background ever since his first 2006 race (voters say they hate trial lawyers, despite electing tons of them), told an audience of lawyer-donors in Corpus Christi, Texas, that if Republicans won the Senate the next Judiciary chairman would be "a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law." Braley has apologized, and while Jaime Fuller points out that only 5 percent of Iowans are farmers, Braley was obviously wounded.

His fault, but I'm struck by the time lag between the recording of the video and its release. The fundraiser happened on Jan. 23. The clip was released by America Rising on March 25. Nothing strange about that—the Mitt Romney "47 percent" video was recorded in May 2012 and leaked to David Corn in August. Still, the timing of the video was oddly perfect for Jodi Ernst, a state senator backed by Mitt Romney and working with Romney adviser David Kochel. Less than a day earlier, Ernst has released an instantly viral ad introducing herself to voters as a hog-castrating, pork-hating farmer-politician. Craig Robinson reports that the ad buy was tiny.

The timing was a dream—Ernst, who was already getting free media (from this site, among other places), was in the right place to start denouncing Braley's now-revealed anti-farmer agenda. While she was getting lightly mocked by The Tonight Show and blogs, she was standing strong with the embattled Iowan farmer.

America Rising is by no means working for Ernst. "We don't do primaries," the PAC's executive director Tim Miller reminded me in an email. I'd still suggest that the lesson of this incident isn't that Braley sunk himself. He didn't help himself, sure. The lesson is that the Ernst campaign, heretofore ignored by Washington, knows exactly what it's doing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...d_the_bruce_braley_farmer_gaffe_come_out.html

No coordination there!

 

[adamsappel]

I'm a little unclear as to what religion Hobby Lobby is practicing that prohibits birth control. Are they specifically referring to Plan B, or all contraceptives? Are they Catholic? And who is "they," really? Does this only apply to single-owner businesses and that person's religious beliefs? If a religion says women must be subservient to men, is it okay not to have female managers and supervisors?

The way to stop this in its tracks is to point out that it would apply equally to Muslims. Sharia law, people!

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...lum-is-obamacare-repeal-fatigue-setting-in-2/

– Views of the ACA remain unfavorable, but the gap is narrowing. The new poll finds that in March, 38 percent viewed the law favorably, versus 46 percent who saw it unfavorably. That’s a substantial narrowing from the 34-50 spread during the dark days of January, and a return almost to where opinion was in September (39-43), before the rollout disaster began.

– Support for repeal continues to shrink. Only 18 percent want to repeal the law and not replace it, while all of 11 percent want to repeal and replace it with a GOP alternative — a grand total of 29 percent. Meanwhile, 49 percent want to keep the law and improve it, and another 10 percent want to keep it as is — a total of 59 percent.

Among indys, that keep/improve versus repeal/replace spread is 52-31. Republicans are all alone here, with their spread at 31-58.

That overall keep-versus-repeal spread has improved for the law since February (when it was 56-31), and even more so since December and October, suggesting a clear trend.

– Crucially, a majority, 53 percent, say they are tired about hearing about the law and want to move on to other issues. Only 42 percent think the Obamacare debate should continue. A majority of independents has had enough (51-45). Even 47 percent of Republicans are done with it.

– Most of the ACA’s individual provisions are wildly popular. Virtually every one of them — the Medicaid expansion; the preexisting conditions piece; subsidies for low income people’s coverage – has overwhelming majority support, and all of those are even backed by a majority of Republicans. The big exception: The individual mandate. (Caveat: This is only one poll. But the numbers on repeal and the individual provisions are similar to other poll findings.)

But yeah guys let's run a campaign based on taking away health insurance from 20 million people

 

[Hobbestetrician]

But yeah guys let's run a campaign based on taking away health insurance from 20 million people

When was the last time 20 million people decided an election, though?

 

[explodet]

Well, there has to be some sort of standard for what constitutes a sincerely held belief, yes? Otherwise the door is wide open to just cherrypick whatever religion seems best for you at the moment in terms of which laws it gets you around.

Corporate Memo: In Q4 we're switching from Mahayana Buddhism to LaVeyan Satanism. We found its law exceptions gave us a 2.2% boost in revenue.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I do think its' telling that in the 8 or whatever hours I've asked the question, no one has even attempting to answer my question asking what specific exercise of religion is Hobby Lobby having affected, fwiw.

Because it doesn't exist.

Did you just forget this, and that you responded to it?

I mean, sure, if you define "exercise of religion" as exclusively "praying and going to church," then the contraceptive rule doesn't burden any exercise of religion (except insofar as it might make praying or going to church awkward, since the person praying or going to church believes he or she is engaging in sinful behavior). There's a very good reason no person familiar with the law has raised the argument you're trying to make: it has no legal, factual, or policy basis.

So their money that they pay wages to their employees never go to buying contraception?

APK responded to this, but there's a difference between requiring an employer to compensate its employees in a specified manner on the one hand, and the employer not interfering with how its employees spend their compensation, on the other. If the government commands me to purchase X and provide it to you, that results in a very different analysis for me than if I simply paid you and you purchased X. I don't care what you do with your money; I just care what I do with mine.

You cannot selectively choose when using money is an exercise and when it is not. It's either always or never. And clearly, Hobby Lobby believes never.

Why on earth couldn't you? Must buying milk and eggs be an exercise of religion in order for tithing to be an exercise of religion? Or, must buying milk and eggs be an exercise of religion in order for declining to buy alcohol (because one believes consuming alcohol is a sin) to be an exercise of religion? Obviously not.

When a person does, or refrains from doing, something that the person believes he or she is bound by God's commands to do, or refrain from doing, that person is exercising religion. When a person does, or refrains from doing, something which the person believes is permitted but not required by God's commands, that person is not exercising religion. "Spending money" could fall in either of those categories, and so may be an exercise of religion, or not, depending on the facts of the particular situation.